The Erotica of Ayn Rand

[CNA]

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

Adam,

Yes, most definitely the eyes for some people, including that of myself. There was a gentleman attorney that I had met, no longer in contact with him, about 4 years ago maybe. I remember it as clear as day and won't forget it. I was sitting in a conference room in a law office waiting for the proceedings to begin. I heard footsteps coming down the hall in such a way that spoke volumes as to who the person was as he was approaching. Purposeful, deliberate, the surety in every step he took, a force to be reckoned with if you will, a confidence portrayed just by the sounds of his walking down the hall, how forcefully each step fell -- there wasn't a meekness, passiveness to it at all. It raised my curiousity very much so. I watched the door as I wanted to know who it was...not sure if this person was to come in or just even to walk by but I wanted to see him. The second he stopped and stood at the threshold of the door, standing fully erect with absolutely no slouching at all through the shoulders, head held high, his self confidence and self esteem was blaringly obvious. He looked at me and said, "You must be my court reporter for the day? My name is John Volz" Holy FUCK, OMG *phew* Instant attraction towards him, aside from his overall stature that I'm attracted to the most, this first impression, how he carried himself and his actions spoke volumes well before he even spoke to me!!!!! There was nothing about this man that wreaked of poor self-esteem, fear, doubt. He knew who he was, what he wanted, and took pride in it and this was my first impression of him the day we met. Anyway, just by this first observation of him, it told me tremendously about who he was, what he valued, where he placed himself above others, how he viewed himself -- well earned no doubt. As I got to know him better in the coming months and talking with him, it just verified what I had already known about him. In my experience, these types of men are higher up on the intellectual rung if you will.

I can see the sexual chemistry between Roark and Dominique and the superficiality to it if you will but I think there's a lot more to it and what was being portrayed and what they were conveying about themselves by their actions and behaviors, their values although unspoken, so forth, before the encounter and this is what I want to see or read and IF it is present which I think it will be but then again it may very well not be. I honestly believe from my own experiences and identifying why that there is much more to sexual attractions than just the aesthetic and more visceral aspects of it but I will soon see as Rand portrays it.

Angie

[Dennis Hardin]

I can see the sexual chemistry between Roark and Dominique and the superficiality to it if you will but I think there's a lot more to it and what was being portrayed and what they were conveying about themselves by their actions and behaviors, their values although unspoken, so forth, before the encounter and this is what I want to see or read and IF it is present which I think it will be but then again it may very well not be. I honestly believe from my own experiences and identifying why that there is much more to sexual attractions than just the aesthetic and more visceral aspects of it but I will soon see as Rand portrays it.

Angie

Hi Angie,

Here are some excerpts from The Fountainhead which might give you the flavor of how Rand described their relationship prior to the so-called ‘rape’ scene.

The first encounter between Roark and Dominique:

She came back many days later. She saw him, unexpectedly, on a flat stretch of stone before her, by the side of the path. She stopped short. She did not want to come to close. It was strange to see him before her, without the defense and excuse of distance.

He stood looking straight at her. Their understanding was too offensively intimate, because they had never said a word to each other. She destroyed it by speaking to him.

“Why do you always stare at me?” she asked sharply.

She thought with relief that words were the best means of estrangement. She had denied everything they both knew by naming it. For a moment, he stood silently, looking at her. She felt terror at the thought that he would not answer, that he would let his silence tell her too clearly why no answer was necessary. But he answered. He said:

“For the same reason you’ve been staring at me.”

“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

“If you didn’t, you’d be much more astonished and much less angry, Miss Francon.”

“So you know my name?”

“You’ve been advertising it loudly enough.”

“You’d better not be insolent. I can have you fired at a moment’s notice, you know.”

He turned his head, looking for someone among the men below. He asked: “Shall I call the superintendent?”

She smiled contemptuously.

“No, of course not. It would be too simple. But since you know who I am, it would be better if you stopped looking at me when I come here. It might be misunderstood.”

“I don’t think so.”

After she asks him to come to her home for some work:

She walked away, disappointed. She felt that their secret understanding was lost; he had spoken as if it were a simple job which she could have offered to any other workman. Then she felt the sinking gasp inside, that feeling of shame and pleasure which he always gave her: she realized that their understanding had been more intimate and flagrant than ever—in his natural acceptance of an unnatural offer; he had shown her how much he knew—by his lack of astonishment.

When Roark first comes to her home to replace the marble:

She watched him approaching, looking up at her. She held the pose long enough to let him suspect that it was a deliberate pose deliberately planned; she broke it at the exact moment before he could become certain of it. She said: “Good evening.” Her voice was austerely quiet.

He did not answer but inclined his head and walked on up the stairs toward her. He wore his work clothes and he carried a bag of tools. His movements had a swift, relaxed kind of energy that did not belong here, in her house, on the polished steps, between the delicate, rigid banisters. She had expected him to seem incongruous in her house; but it was the house that seemed incongruous around him.

She moved one hand, indicating the door of her bedroom. He followed obediently. He did not seem to notice the room when he entered. He entered it as if it were a workshop. He walked straight to the fireplace.

“There it is, “ she said, one finger pointing at the marble slab.

He said nothing. He knelt, took a thin metal wedge from his bag, held its point against the scratch on the slab, took a hammer and struck one blow. The marble split in a long, deep cut.

He glanced up at her. It was the look she dreaded, a look of laughter that could not be answered, because the laughter could not be seen, only felt. He said:

“Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.”

Dominique tells him to go ahead and remove the marble, then watches him work.

She approached him and stood silently over him. She had never stood so close to him before. She looked down at the smooth skin on the back of his neck; she could distinguish single threads of his hair. She glanced down at the tip of her sandal. It was there, on the floor, an inch away from his body; she needed but one movement, a very slight movement of her foot, to touch him. She made a step back.

He moved his head, but not to look up, only to pick another tool from the bag, and bent over his work again.

She laughed aloud. He stopped and glanced at her.

“Yes/” he asked.

Her face was grave, her voice gentle when she answered.

“Oh. I’m sorry. You might have thought that I was laughing at you. But I wasn’t, of course.”

[CNA]

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

Here are some excerpts from The Fountainhead which might give you the flavor of how Rand described their relationship prior to the so-called ‘rape’ scene.

The first encounter between Roark and Dominique:

She came back many days later. She saw him, unexpectedly, on a flat stretch of stone before her, by the side of the path. She stopped short. She did not want to come to close. It was strange to see him before her, without the defense and excuse of distance.

He stood looking straight at her. Their understanding was too offensively intimate, because they had never said a word to each other. She destroyed it by speaking to him.

“Why do you always stare at me?” she asked sharply.

She thought with relief that words were the best means of estrangement. She had denied everything they both knew by naming it. For a moment, he stood silently, looking at her. She felt terror at the thought that he would not answer, that he would let his silence tell her too clearly why no answer was necessary. But he answered. He said:

“For the same reason you’ve been staring at me.”

“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

“If you didn’t, you’d be much more astonished and much less angry, Miss Francon.”

“So you know my name?”

“You’ve been advertising it loudly enough.”

Thank you for posting these excerpts but they have raised more questions than anything else. I do want to see their actual interactions but also am looking for "observations" where there isn't any communication between them; say for instance from afar and his noticing her walking around the site, etc. He seems to have been watching her for some time. Although it is implied the reason they both have been watching each other, but it's not clearly stated. What has he observed in the past and what thoughts were going through his mind based on those observations of her? When you watch someone, you notice more than just their physical beauty. You notice how they may hold themselves. How well groomed they are. What types of clothing they are wearing, etc. If they're in action while working, you may notice how efficiently they work or how erratic it may be. I'm also interested to know how she's been advertising herself so loudly. What has he been told by others regarding her if there was any communication, to what degree has she flaunted her stuff around the site so to speak. I'm very interested to see all the events leading up to any thoughts, observations, etc., of each other with or without communication.

I'll give a good scenario or an experimentation that will or should make you look strictly extrospectively/objectively at reality as it is presented to you as well as subjectively at yourself and what you may be feeling and desiring as well as introspectively and what your thoughts are regarding such a person. I'll place a visual of a woman before you but presented to you in two forms before you and present a situation wherein you make judgments and draw conclusions regarding who they are, what values they must hold, etc., and tell me which one, without ever speaking to her, you would be the most attracted to and it will or should be based on your standards of ethics or some type of standard in general as to who you are most attracted to sexually. It will give you insight as to who this person is, what they may stand for, where they may put themselves in relation to others and these give indications without ever being spoken as to what they may potentially value. All based on your objective observations of her. I'm not sure as to what female to use wherein you have no clue who she is or have heard anything about her that you would or may find visually attractive in the way of beauty and someone you would want to sexually experience.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a lady you have no personal knowledge of. Perhaps will give the example of a woman well known such as someone as Angelina Jolie or choose a woman that you don't know personally but perhaps are somewhat familiar with such as another movie star. This one woman, Angelina, is standing before you but in two different forms:

One of her is she is not well groomed. Hair has not been brushed and is dull looking as if hasn't been washed in a while. Perhaps has dirt smudges on her face and underneath her fingernails. Has no makeup on. She doesn't stand erect but is slightly hunched over. Does not stand with head held high. She is wearing raggedy dirty clothing similar to that of a bum but you can see that she may have a nice figure. When she looks up at you, it's one of victimhood and passiveness and that of pity me; almost as if asking for the unearned such as a bum looks at you when they are approaching you for money. Although you notice she is a beautiful woman, how she has presented herself to you will speak volumes as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself and how she views herself and takes pride in who she is, her self-confidence. It would give you an idea of her values or lack thereof. Based on these observations alone of her and never speaking to her before, would you be interested in having sex with her? Probably not, this figure before you may very well repulse you and there may be absolutely no sexual attraction whatsoever as I would expect there wouldn't be.

Beside this unkempt Angelina, there is another Angelina standing next to her, quite the opposite. Her hair has been brushed and well kept, not dull. Her face is clean and fingernails groomed. She has some makeup on but not excessive, enough to highlight her natural beauty as you notice she is a beautiful woman. She stands before you erect with head held high. She has a business suit on or perhaps a white dress, very feminine. When she looks up at you, there is no look of being the victim and expecting the unearned; but that of a woman who has determination and a fierceness about her that is undeniable; she is not meek and passive; she knows she has to earn it and has by how she is presented to you objectively. How this particular Angelina has presented herself to you without ever speaking to you, based on your observations of her, you will have an idea as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself, her self-confidence and the pride she takes in who she is. It would give you an idea of her values, as you notice this particular Angelina does carry them to whatever extent and there isn't a lack thereof. Based on these observations alone and her never speaking to you, would be you more interested in this Angelina sexually than that of the unkempt Angelina? Probably so. These are judgments made very quickly based on your observations of her as I know you know this. They may be unspoken or unidentified by you in the seconds or minutes that have passed by as you observe her standing before you. In order to attain these potential values she has and how she has presented herself to you in this outwardly appearance, there must be a thinking woman there, a woman with some form of intellect. If there is a defined value system there and set of ethics that you have defined to whatever degree, you will choose and desire accordingly.

Although, I know this and what I've written is rather superficial in details, but I've done it to highlight a point in judgments that people make sometimes very quickly regarding others and who they may want to sleep with. Some truly do not care and there is nothing defined there and will sleep with just about anything that walks without thought to themselves. But for most, their standards have been defined to varying degrees of level and they aren't propelled entirely by their emotions and only on a visceral level. Would you sleep with a beautiful woman that you know to be a bum or that same beautiful woman who takes care of herself and by your observations can surmise her character and what potential values she has? Although Roark may not know her personally and has had very little communication with her up to the so-called rape scene, he has no doubt observed her and has been watching her. Based on these observations, he's been sizing her up if you will and has been making judgments regarding her character and potential values, although may not be entirely defined by her as of yet. Roark may not have defined it as much himself but you can't deny that it is still there to whatever degree. I experience it and others experience it as well, even if it is judgments made quickly regarding someone without ever knowing them personally or speaking with them.

I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system, these are judgments he has made to some degree regarding Dominique and his observations of her and who she may be, her character, her potential values, where she has placed herself, and so forth, without speaking with her. Although there is possibly only beauty that is attracting him and her defiance to him because of her attitude towards him, I truly believe there is much more to it that Rand may not have defined at this point and observations that are made of people and who they may find sexually attractive. To my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong but when writing the Fountainhead, the philosophical system and identification had yet to be fully defined or more complete I should say so there may very well be aspects in the Fountainhead that she had yet to discover herself but was to later be discovered. For me and picking the two men presented before me, the one of a possibly bum to the other man that is his opposite, I would not desire the possible bum in the least bit but would desire the man that is his opposite and desiring and wanting to experience him sexually.

It's already taken quite a bit of time to write this...longer than I expected. Have needed to stop writing in the middle to attend to other things. I've read this over again and have attempted to edit it as much as I can but I have to stop it here to get ready for work.

More later I am sure.

Angie

“You’d better not be insolent. I can have you fired at a moment’s notice, you know.”

He turned his head, looking for someone among the men below. He asked: “Shall I call the superintendent?”

She smiled contemptuously.

“No, of course not. It would be too simple. But since you know who I am, it would be better if you stopped looking at me when I come here. It might be misunderstood.”

“I don’t think so.”

After she asks him to come to her home for some work:

She walked away, disappointed. She felt that their secret understanding was lost; he had spoken as if it were a simple job which she could have offered to any other workman. Then she felt the sinking gasp inside, that feeling of shame and pleasure which he always gave her: she realized that their understanding had been more intimate and flagrant than ever—in his natural acceptance of an unnatural offer; he had shown her how much he knew—by his lack of astonishment.

When Roark first comes to her home to replace the marble:

She watched him approaching, looking up at her. She held the pose long enough to let him suspect that it was a deliberate pose deliberately planned; she broke it at the exact moment before he could become certain of it. She said: “Good evening.” Her voice was austerely quiet.

He did not answer but inclined his head and walked on up the stairs toward her. He wore his work clothes and he carried a bag of tools. His movements had a swift, relaxed kind of energy that did not belong here, in her house, on the polished steps, between the delicate, rigid banisters. She had expected him to seem incongruous in her house; but it was the house that seemed incongruous around him.

She moved one hand, indicating the door of her bedroom. He followed obediently. He did not seem to notice the room when he entered. He entered it as if it were a workshop. He walked straight to the fireplace.

“There it is, “ she said, one finger pointing at the marble slab.

He said nothing. He knelt, took a thin metal wedge from his bag, held its point against the scratch on the slab, took a hammer and struck one blow. The marble split in a long, deep cut.

He glanced up at her. It was the look she dreaded, a look of laughter that could not be answered, because the laughter could not be seen, only felt. He said:

“Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.”

Dominique tells him to go ahead and remove the marble, then watches him work.

She approached him and stood silently over him. She had never stood so close to him before. She looked down at the smooth skin on the back of his neck; she could distinguish single threads of his hair. She glanced down at the tip of her sandal. It was there, on the floor, an inch away from his body; she needed but one movement, a very slight movement of her foot, to touch him. She made a step back.

He moved his head, but not to look up, only to pick another tool from the bag, and bent over his work again.

She laughed aloud. He stopped and glanced at her.

“Yes/” he asked.

Her face was grave, her voice gentle when she answered.

“Oh. I’m sorry. You might have thought that I was laughing at you. But I wasn’t, of course.”

[Selene]

Angie:

"I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system..."

And there in lies the the difference in men and women who are fully alive and life force is projected, I would say that it actually screams out to those who wish to hear or see it.

It is the difference in being fully present and being present to the other persons or persons.

The former makes life so much more enjoyable.

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Thank you for posting these excerpts but they have raised more questions than anything else. I do want to see their actual interactions but also am looking for "observations" where there isn't any communication between them; say for instance from afar and his noticing her walking around the site, etc. He seems to have been watching her for some time. Although it is implied the reason they both have been watching each other, but it's not clearly stated. What has he observed in the past and what thoughts were going through his mind based on those observations of her? When you watch someone, you notice more than just their physical beauty. You notice how they may hold themselves. How well groomed they are. What types of clothing they are wearing, etc. If they're in action while working, you may notice how efficiently they work or how erratic it may be. I'm also interested to know how she's been advertising herself so loudly. What has he been told by others regarding her if there was any communication, to what degree has she flaunted her stuff around the site so to speak. I'm very interested to see all the events leading up to any thoughts, observations, etc., of each other with or without communication.

I'll give a good scenario or an experimentation that will or should make you look strictly extrospectively/objectively at reality as it is presented to you as well as subjectively at yourself and what you may be feeling and desiring as well as introspectively and what your thoughts are regarding such a person. I'll place a visual of a woman before you but presented to you in two forms before you and present a situation wherein you make judgments and draw conclusions regarding who they are, what values they must hold, etc., and tell me which one, without ever speaking to her, you would be the most attracted to and it will or should be based on your standards of ethics or some type of standard in general as to who you are most attracted to sexually. It will give you insight as to who this person is, what they may stand for, where they may put themselves in relation to others and these give indications without ever being spoken as to what they may potentially value. All based on your objective observations of her. I'm not sure as to what female to use wherein you have no clue who she is or have heard anything about her that you would or may find visually attractive in the way of beauty and someone you would want to sexually experience.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a lady you have no personal knowledge of. Perhaps will give the example of a woman well known such as someone as Angelina Jolie or choose a woman that you don't know personally but perhaps are somewhat familiar with such as another movie star. This one woman, Angelina, is standing before you but in two different forms:

One of her is she is not well groomed. Hair has not been brushed and is dull looking as if hasn't been washed in a while. Perhaps has dirt smudges on her face and underneath her fingernails. Has no makeup on. She doesn't stand erect but is slightly hunched over. Does not stand with head held high. She is wearing raggedy dirty clothing similar to that of a bum but you can see that she may have a nice figure. When she looks up at you, it's one of victimhood and passiveness and that of pity me; almost as if asking for the unearned such as a bum looks at you when they are approaching you for money. Although you notice she is a beautiful woman, how she has presented herself to you will speak volumes as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself and how she views herself and takes pride in who she is, her self-confidence. It would give you an idea of her values or lack thereof. Based on these observations alone of her and never speaking to her before, would you be interested in having sex with her? Probably not, this figure before you may very well repulse you and there may be absolutely no sexual attraction whatsoever as I would expect there wouldn't be.

Beside this unkempt Angelina, there is another Angelina standing next to her, quite the opposite. Her hair has been brushed and well kept, not dull. Her face is clean and fingernails groomed. She has some makeup on but not excessive, enough to highlight her natural beauty as you notice she is a beautiful woman. She stands before you erect with head held high. She has a business suit on or perhaps a white dress, very feminine. When she looks up at you, there is no look of being the victim and expecting the unearned; but that of a woman who has determination and a fierceness about her that is undeniable; she is not meek and passive; she knows she has to earn it and has by how she is presented to you objectively. How this particular Angelina has presented herself to you without ever speaking to you, based on your observations of her, you will have an idea as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself, her self-confidence and the pride she takes in who she is. It would give you an idea of her values, as you notice this particular Angelina does carry them to whatever extent and there isn't a lack thereof. Based on these observations alone and her never speaking to you, would be you more interested in this Angelina sexually than that of the unkempt Angelina? Probably so. These are judgments made very quickly based on your observations of her as I know you know this. They may be unspoken or unidentified by you in the seconds or minutes that have passed by as you observe her standing before you. In order to attain these potential values she has and how she has presented herself to you in this outwardly appearance, there must be a thinking woman there, a woman with some form of intellect. If there is a defined value system there and set of ethics that you have defined to whatever degree, you will choose and desire accordingly.

Although, I know this and what I've written is rather superficial in details, but I've done it to highlight a point in judgments that people make sometimes very quickly regarding others and who they may want to sleep with. Some truly do not care and there is nothing defined there and will sleep with just about anything that walks without thought to themselves. But for most, their standards have been defined to varying degrees of level and they aren't propelled entirely by their emotions and only on a visceral level. Would you sleep with a beautiful woman that you know to be a bum or that same beautiful woman who takes care of herself and by your observations can surmise her character and what potential values she has? Although Roark may not know her personally and has had very little communication with her up to the so-called rape scene, he has no doubt observed her and has been watching her. Based on these observations, he's been sizing her up if you will and has been making judgments regarding her character and potential values, although may not be entirely defined by her as of yet. Roark may not have defined it as much himself but you can't deny that it is still there to whatever degree. I experience it and others experience it as well, even if it is judgments made quickly regarding someone without ever knowing them personally or speaking with them.

I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system, these are judgments he has made to some degree regarding Dominique and his observations of her and who she may be, her character, her potential values, where she has placed herself, and so forth, without speaking with her. Although there is possibly only beauty that is attracting him and her defiance to him because of her attitude towards him, I truly believe there is much more to it that Rand may not have defined at this point and observations that are made of people and who they may find sexually attractive. To my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong but when writing the Fountainhead, the philosophical system and identification had yet to be fully defined or more complete I should say so there may very well be aspects in the Fountainhead that she had yet to discover herself but was to later be discovered. For me and picking the two men presented before me, the one of a possibly bum to the other man that is his opposite, I would not desire the possible bum in the least bit but would desire the man that is his opposite and desiring and wanting to experience him sexually.

It's already taken quite a bit of time to write this...longer than I expected. Have needed to stop writing in the middle to attend to other things. I've read this over again and have attempted to edit it as much as I can but I have to stop it here to get ready for work.

More later I am sure.

Angie

Angie,

I’m pretty sure you already know the answer to your questions, but sometimes it’s worthwhile to ask a question like that just to clarify the issues involved, which you did very well. We definitely do make judgments and draw conclusions about people based purely on instantaneous observation, often without any exchange of words. And all the factors you mentioned—posture, grooming, cleanliness, the expression in the person’s eyes—typically do speak volumes about their values, at least in a very general way. Of course, we have to keep in mind that some people are very good at putting on an act and do succeed in fooling others about the kind of person they are. But, in general, unless we are talking about someone who works hard at being deceptive—e.g., a professional con-man, or a highly paid call-girl who has spent years making herself into the epitome of what men find desirable—yes, you can definitely know a lot from their appearance, their manner, their physical conditioning or lack of it, the way they move and the way they talk, et al.

And no, I would not be sexually attracted to the unkempt, pathetic version of Angelina, regardless of her physical beauty. Even more important than physical beauty—for a woman—is femininity—i.e., the projected attitude of a woman enjoying her female sexuality, and that requires a certain level of self-esteem and self-confidence. If a woman does not put some effort into making herself attractive to men—if she just wakes up in the morning and walks out into the world and says—“this is it, guys, the unvarnished me, take it or leave it” (like a lot of feminists)—I would definitely leave it. I would have zero desire for such a woman.

The other Angelina, who holds herself with pride, who exhibits strength and confidence in her posture and movements, who dresses stylishly to make the most of her physical assets and projects pleasure and playfulness in her femininity---I can say without a doubt that I would be very strongly attracted to her sexually. I’m not sure how much of her character I would be able to surmise from these attributes—there could be a lot of women who meet this standard who lack integrity or who are not necessarily that rational. It is also possible that the person might be ‘going through the motions’ in order to be popular with men for whatever reason—e.g., to attract men with a lot of money (the classic gold-digger).

In general,though—all other things being equal—there is no question but that I would want to sleep with the Angelina whose persona suggested pride and effort and strength. I would have no interest in the Angelina whose only apparent goal in life was to drown her brains in her next drink or her next quick fix.

Did you notice that the scenes I transcribed were all written from the female perspective? Dominique was looking at Roark through Ayn’s eyes—so to speak. For much of the novel, we get frequent glimpses into Roark’s thinking and motivation. But in the scenes leading up to the sexual episode between Roark and Dominique, Roark is the object of observation—not the observer. We are watching Dominique’s reactions for the most part—i.e., what she observes, what she is feeling and how she is responding to him. It is almost all from the female point of view. But Ayn does tell us that both of them have clearly been watching the other, and I’m sure you are right that Ayn wants us to conclude that both are making numerous judgments about each other’s values based on those observations. It is definitely not just Dominique’s beauty that is attracting him. It is everything about her.

You seem to suggest that both are responding to objective evidence, but I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of communication going on between people every day on a subliminal level. You mention the importance of the expressions of pride, self-pity, etc. that you see in a person’s eyes. I believe we can read much, much more than that in a person’s eyes. In fact, if we open ourselves to it, you can read a person’s entire life story in their eyes. I once participated in a weekend self-awareness marathon where the leader (Nathaniel Branden, you may have heard of him) asked everyone to pair up with a stranger and spend several minutes just looking into the person’s eyes, without speaking. Then we were asked to tell the person what we saw in their eyes. Afterwards, Branden asked people to volunteer to talk about the experience. My partner for this experiment told the group that he was astonished that I somehow knew he had been separated from his family for several years as a youth, and that this was a very painful trauma for him. He could not believe I had “read his mind,” so to speak. He had said nothing to me about this beforehand. I read it all in his eyes.

I feel certain that Ayn wanted her readers to believe that there was some kind of extraordinary subliminal “communication” going on between Roark and Dominique, and that both of them knew—due to their observational skills and heightened sensitivity—much more about the other than most people could possibly know in such a brief period of time.

Incidentally, I think you’re right that Ayn had not fully defined her philosophy until she wrote Atlas Shrugged. She had defined much of it as of the time The Fountainhead was written, but she was not ready to write Galt’s Speech (fully defining Objectivism) until many years later.

More later.

Dennis

[CNA]

Dennis:

Angie,

I’m pretty sure you already know the answer to your questions, but sometimes it’s worthwhile to ask a question like that just to clarify the issues involved, which you did very well. We definitely do make judgments and draw conclusions about people based purely on instantaneous observation, often without any exchange of words. And all the factors you mentioned—posture, grooming, cleanliness, the expression in the person’s eyes—typically do speak volumes about their values, at least in a very general way. Of course, we have to keep in mind that some people are very good at putting on an act and do succeed in fooling others about the kind of person they are. But, in general, unless we are talking about someone who works hard at being deceptive—e.g., a professional con-man, or a highly paid call-girl who has spent years making herself into the epitome of what men find desirable—yes, you can definitely know a lot from their appearance, their manner, their physical conditioning or lack of it, the way they move and the way they talk, et al.

And no, I would not be sexually attracted to the unkempt, pathetic version of Angelina, regardless of her physical beauty. Even more important than physical beauty—for a woman—is femininity—i.e., the projected attitude of a woman enjoying her female sexuality, and that requires a certain level of self-esteem and self-confidence. If a woman does not put some effort into making herself attractive to men—if she just wakes up in the morning and walks out into the world and says—“this is it, guys, the unvarnished me, take it or leave it” (like a lot of feminists)—I would definitely leave it. I would have zero desire for such a woman.

The other Angelina, who holds herself with pride, who exhibits strength and confidence in her posture and movements, who dresses stylishly to make the most of her physical assets and projects pleasure and playfulness in her femininity---I can say without a doubt that I would be very strongly attracted to her sexually. I’m not sure how much of her character I would be able to surmise from these attributes—there could be a lot of women who meet this standard who lack integrity or who are not necessarily that rational. It is also possible that the person might be ‘going through the motions’ in order to be popular with men for whatever reason—e.g., to attract men with a lot of money (the classic gold-digger).

In general,though—all other things being equal—there is no question but that I would want to sleep with the Angelina whose persona suggested pride and effort and strength. I would have no interest in the Angelina whose only apparent goal in life was to drown her brains in her next drink or her next quick fix.

Did you notice that the scenes I transcribed were all written from the female perspective? Dominique was looking at Roark through Ayn’s eyes—so to speak. For much of the novel, we get frequent glimpses into Roark’s thinking and motivation. But in the scenes leading up to the sexual episode between Roark and Dominique, Roark is the object of observation—not the observer. We are watching Dominique’s reactions for the most part—i.e., what she observes, what she is feeling and how she is responding to him. It is almost all from the female point of view. But Ayn does tell us that both of them have clearly been watching the other, and I’m sure you are right that Ayn wants us to conclude that both are making numerous judgments about each other’s values based on those observations. It is definitely not just Dominique’s beauty that is attracting him. It is everything about her.

You seem to suggest that both are responding to objective evidence, but I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of communication going on between people every day on a subliminal level. You mention the importance of the expressions of pride, self-pity, etc. that you see in a person’s eyes. I believe we can read much, much more than that in a person’s eyes. In fact, if we open ourselves to it, you can read a person’s entire life story in their eyes. I once participated in a weekend self-awareness marathon where the leader (Nathaniel Branden, you may have heard of him) asked everyone to pair up with a stranger and spend several minutes just looking into the person’s eyes, without speaking. Then we were asked to tell the person what we saw in their eyes. Afterwards, Branden asked people to volunteer to talk about the experience. My partner for this experiment told the group that he was astonished that I somehow knew he had been separated from his family for several years as a youth, and that this was a very painful trauma for him. He could not believe I had “read his mind,” so to speak. He had said nothing to me about this beforehand. I read it all in his eyes.

I feel certain that Ayn wanted her readers to believe that there was some kind of extraordinary subliminal “communication” going on between Roark and Dominique, and that both of them knew—due to their observational skills and heightened sensitivity—much more about the other than most people could possibly know in such a brief period of time.

Incidentally, I think you’re right that Ayn had not fully defined her philosophy until she wrote Atlas Shrugged. She had defined much of it as of the time The Fountainhead was written, but she was not ready to write Galt’s Speech (fully defining Objectivism) until many years later.

More later.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Yes, I do know the answers already to my questions but I'm looking for the verification of it in the book or any passages posted. I'm going to have to make this very short unfortunately. I do agree that there is a tremendous amount of nonverbal communication going on as is highlighted in some of the passages of her book and an unspoken understanding between them that their body language has conveyed. We all, for the most part, have our own experiences to draw upon in this type of a situation when it comes to the opposite sex and attraction. I'm interested in not only Roark's observations but Dominique's as well but yes, it is coming from a woman's perspective. Instantaneous observations can reveal a lot but when done over a period of time, it will reveal even more such as what Roark and Dominique have done with each other and sizing each other up if you will as time went on up to the encounter.

Since I can't give a full post right now, I'm going to limit quickly an intriguing aspect of your post and that is in regards to being able to potentially read a person's life through their eyes. Facial features will also tell someone a lot about how they've lived their lives, how much strain and pain there is on their face and the distortion and gives indication that they've had a more painful life than another person may have had. I just looked for a picture from a photographer friend of mine that highlights this very well and the amount of strain and pain that is on this elderly woman's face but unfortunately his pictures have been set to private and only friends and family can view them. So even if I posted the link here, you wouldn't be able to see the picture unless a friend or family contact of his.

Anyway, although Branden may have headed such a group or study, I am a bit skeptical but not surprised that an individual can nail down exact events just by looking at someone's eyes as I'll explain a bit. As we both know, there's dysfunctionality in most homes to varying degrees; ie, strained relationship with either parent, verbal abuse, physical abuse, divorce rates being so high, parents separating and then getting back together and then separating again, dead beat dads or moms, one parent being excessively controlling or drinking excessively, etc., as this is pretty common in today's society. So the probability of nailing one or two events or many events would be much higher. But yes, you can no doubt detect fear, etc., in someone's eyes. But I would be most interested to see a reading of sorts on a girl that was introduced to me a very long time ago and no longer in contact with her but it would be no doubt interesting to see what Branden or another individual would be able to come up with by just looking into her eyes and to nail down some of these less traditional events and what she had been through. This girl who was a friend of my sister's had all the traditional (sad to say) abuses that is common in today's society and homes. But this girl and what she ultimately endured and experienced is no doubt one of the worst cases I have ever come across. As she spoke about them with me, it's not often that my jaw drops to the floor by what I'm hearing but mine sure in the hell did and unfortunately she had the evidence on her body to prove it. Some insane crap with her and shit that is not the standard if you will in what society accepts or is aware of as common problems in a person's childhood. This girl would ultimately need lifelong psychological counseling. Absolutely horrific stuff.

At any rate, I want to respond more but it may take me a bit of time to further go through your first post I wasn't able to finish and this post as well. It may be just a few days or worse yet a week or two but I won't know for sure until tomorrow. I have a job tomorrow that is going to push me to my absolute limits and skill level and what I'll be able to endure with work and already know I will be downright exhausted tomorrow and possibly for a few days to come. They want it videotaped, real-time, and to my understanding upwards of 12 attorneys present. Big OI I'm not looking forward to it at all and the amount of pressure and stress on me that will be involved. I've looked at the caption and looks rather innocuous but for all I know it can be an expert witness testifying as a neurosurgeon or worse a pediatric neurosurgeon which is even more pressure and stress. Even bigger OI But I'm going to go in with an open mind, thinking it won't be so bad but preparing for the potentials of it and psyching myself out of sorts and kicking my determination, concentration, and focus into high gear because I'm definitely going to need it but more the better because it will make tomorrow that much easier for me.

More hopefully sooner rather than later!!

Angie

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, doing AR sounds like a helluva deal. On the other hand, I could avail myself of discounts at Home Depot and purchase some kind of sturdy band saw.

Hmmm...lemme think extreme. You are at the bookstore: A: purchase Rand Novel and look for nebulous "good parts," or, say, B: buy the matched set of Anne Rice's "Beauty" books, which is sort of like purchasing an Atlas.

Either way you are kind of pathetic, unless you have someone working along with you. That is why the Internet is so pathetic.

Anything but that "A" option. Anything.

rde

You Only Hurt The One You Love

Edited September 9, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

I'm going to have to make this very short unfortunately

Words in Post: 893

Characters: 4834

(Text analysis courtesy of the amazing Oracle "Open Office" software.")

I'd hate to see what "long" looks like. Wait . . . I have.

I know one thing: outside of horny (or, in some cases, wishing-to-but-watching-those-commercials about "T" loss syndrome) philo-geeks, if you are ever going to make it as the "Heloise's Hints" of Randy Sexual Therapists, you better keep it down to about one-fitty. Two vertical columns is a damn miracle in good journalism, these days.

rde

That's Why God Invented Editors.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Dennis Hardin]

Hi Dennis,

Yes, I do know the answers already to my questions but I'm looking for the verification of it in the book or any passages posted. I'm going to have to make this very short unfortunately. I do agree that there is a tremendous amount of nonverbal communication going on as is highlighted in some of the passages of her book and an unspoken understanding between them that their body language has conveyed. We all, for the most part, have our own experiences to draw upon in this type of a situation when it comes to the opposite sex and attraction. I'm interested in not only Roark's observations but Dominique's as well but yes, it is coming from a woman's perspective. Instantaneous observations can reveal a lot but when done over a period of time, it will reveal even more such as what Roark and Dominique have done with each other and sizing each other up if you will as time went on up to the encounter.

Since I can't give a full post right now, I'm going to limit quickly an intriguing aspect of your post and that is in regards to being able to potentially read a person's life through their eyes. Facial features will also tell someone a lot about how they've lived their lives, how much strain and pain there is on their face and the distortion and gives indication that they've had a more painful life than another person may have had. I just looked for a picture from a photographer friend of mine that highlights this very well and the amount of strain and pain that is on this elderly woman's face but unfortunately his pictures have been set to private and only friends and family can view them. So even if I posted the link here, you wouldn't be able to see the picture unless a friend or family contact of his.

Anyway, although Branden may have headed such a group or study, I am a bit skeptical but not surprised that an individual can nail down exact events just by looking at someone's eyes as I'll explain a bit. As we both know, there's dysfunctionality in most homes to varying degrees; ie, strained relationship with either parent, verbal abuse, physical abuse, divorce rates being so high, parents separating and then getting back together and then separating again, dead beat dads or moms, one parent being excessively controlling or drinking excessively, etc., as this is pretty common in today's society. So the probability of nailing one or two events or many events would be much higher. But yes, you can no doubt detect fear, etc., in someone's eyes. But I would be most interested to see a reading of sorts on a girl that was introduced to me a very long time ago and no longer in contact with her but it would be no doubt interesting to see what Branden or another individual would be able to come up with by just looking into her eyes and to nail down some of these less traditional events and what she had been through. This girl who was a friend of my sister's had all the traditional (sad to say) abuses that is common in today's society and homes. But this girl and what she ultimately endured and experienced is no doubt one of the worst cases I have ever come across. As she spoke about them with me, it's not often that my jaw drops to the floor by what I'm hearing but mine sure in the hell did and unfortunately she had the evidence on her body to prove it. Some insane crap with her and shit that is not the standard if you will in what society accepts or is aware of as common problems in a person's childhood. This girl would ultimately need lifelong psychological counseling. Absolutely horrific stuff.

At any rate, I want to respond more but it may take me a bit of time to further go through your first post I wasn't able to finish and this post as well. It may be just a few days or worse yet a week or two but I won't know for sure until tomorrow. I have a job tomorrow that is going to push me to my absolute limits and skill level and what I'll be able to endure with work and already know I will be downright exhausted tomorrow and possibly for a few days to come. They want it videotaped, real-time, and to my understanding upwards of 12 attorneys present. Big OI I'm not looking forward to it at all and the amount of pressure and stress on me that will be involved. I've looked at the caption and looks rather innocuous but for all I know it can be an expert witness testifying as a neurosurgeon or worse a pediatric neurosurgeon which is even more pressure and stress. Even bigger OI But I'm going to go in with an open mind, thinking it won't be so bad but preparing for the potentials of it and psyching myself out of sorts and kicking my determination, concentration, and focus into high gear because I'm definitely going to need it but more the better because it will make tomorrow that much easier for me.

More hopefully sooner rather than later!!

Angie

Hi Angie,

I’m sure it’s true that you can read a lot about a person from their facial features. That’s one reason I tend to distrust people who have beards. It’s like they’re hiding behind camouflage. Did you know that many blind people have “facial vision”—i.e., the capacity to perceive the proximity of objects nearby via heightened sensitivity of facial nerves. I’m sure it works the other way as well—the facial nerves record and store data that reflect the experiences of our lives. I would guess that repression--the refusal to allow our emotions to integrate our experience—would result in the sort of facial distortions you describe. I doubt if pain would cause such distortions as long as it was processed, worked through and discharged.

Stories of abuse such as the one you describe involving your sister’s friend are tragic. I worked with a lot of kids who had experienced the worst kind of abusive trauma during my years as a therapist at a Youth Center. The worst of it is that usually the scars from such abuse are indelible—no amount of therapy is going to restore the childhood that was destroyed. And the premature loss of innocence often leaves the adult jaded about life. Given those handicaps, the challenge of achieving happiness is magnified enormously.

I don’t know that Branden or anyone else could look into her eyes and tell her any specific things that occurred. It’s possible, but I think it’s more likely that her eyes would tell of bewilderment, of shame and of hopelessness. The story of her abused childhood would be there in her eyes, but in more general terms. For instance, I might tell her: “Your father did horrible things to you when you were very young, things which made you feel like you were a bad person. You are carrying the pain, the bewilderment and the guilt to this day.”

Sorry to hear that you’re facing a major work challenge in the next few days. I hope that it turns out to be considerably less exhausting than you expect.

P.S. Love the last sentence of your new status update: “I’m way too damned selfish….” Me, too.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Text analysis courtesy of the amazing Oracle "Open Office" software.")

Rich,

I'm glad you like that. Here's something else cool. For the specific task of technical text analysis of things like word count, etc., Open Office doesn't hold a candle to this (online tool, but also free):

Textalyser

I have bazillions of things like that. But I ain't sharing if all you're going to use them for is grudge gender gonzo.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Thanks.

Nice "tool".

I use text analysis somewhat frequently.

Damn...you have to watch word choices in this thread!

Adam

[Rich Engle]

I have bazillions of things like that. But I ain't sharing if all you're going to use them for is grudge gender gonzo.

Oh, I don't do grudges, or gender. Gonzo, upon occasion. Mostly I just tour senior citizen homes and play "Amazing Grace" over and over until they fall asleep. Then, I run around and take the tips off of their crutches and canes, and even the tennis balls off of the back legs of their walkers. I have quite a collection at home right now, but that is just because I haven't gone to the recycling center to cash in lately.

rde

LOL OMG LMAO

(this text has been cut down from 360,925GB to just two paragraphs, courtesy of the open source code provided "Bitchalyzer" application<tm>)

[CNA]

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

I’m sure it’s true that you can read a lot about a person from their facial features. That’s one reason I tend to distrust people who have beards. It’s like they’re hiding behind camouflage. Did you know that many blind people have “facial vision”—i.e., the capacity to perceive the proximity of objects nearby via heightened sensitivity of facial nerves. I’m sure it works the other way as well—the facial nerves record and store data that reflect the experiences of our lives. I would guess that repression--the refusal to allow our emotions to integrate our experience—would result in the sort of facial distortions you describe. I doubt if pain would cause such distortions as long as it was processed, worked through and discharged.

Interesting and I did not know that regarding "facial vision." I do know that when one sense is lost others are heightened so it doesn't surprise me. Yes, I agree in the years of abuse they have put themselves through and that of aging quickly because of it as well. You can tell how much pain they are carrying at the present time and an indication of what and the severity of what they are going through.

Stories of abuse such as the one you describe involving your sister’s friend are tragic. I worked with a lot of kids who had experienced the worst kind of abusive trauma during my years as a therapist at a Youth Center. The worst of it is that usually the scars from such abuse are indelible—no amount of therapy is going to restore the childhood that was destroyed. And the premature loss of innocence often leaves the adult jaded about life. Given those handicaps, the challenge of achieving happiness is magnified enormously.

Yeah, no doubt and making it that much more difficult to achieve happiness for her and her mind set. At the time that I had met her, she was a few years if you will into her rescue from that environment. There was a happiness there and a decent outlook on life but I think it was more due to the fact that her happiness stemmed from no longer being in the situation she was in and being saved if you will and that of her freedom but psychologically struggling still and probably continues to this day. I won't give all the details that she told me but apparently it started when she was extremely young, 5 or 6 years old and continued into her teenage years. No schooling throughout her ordeal and held captive. Dad left and mother was a crack addict -- the epitome of evil and what she did -- her mom offered her up for sex and prostitution to grown men when she was 5 or 6 years old. Chained her to the tree in their backyard and the men that wanted this young girl would bring crack to the mother for payment. They would sometimes put cigarettes and cigars out on her arms, thighs, back, etc. Scars from being cut with knives. She pretty much was brutally tortured and held captive for most of her childhood and teenage years. She endured too much. These challenges and coming to grips with what happened to her will be lifelong, if she'll ever be able to and finding some type of normalcy. It's downright disgusting and the epitome of evil -- this woman and no doubt can't forget those who participated in it as well. Truly so sad.

I don’t know that Branden or anyone else could look into her eyes and tell her any specific things that occurred. It’s possible, but I think it’s more likely that her eyes would tell of bewilderment, of shame and of hopelessness. The story of her abused childhood would be there in her eyes, but in more general terms. For instance, I might tell her: “Your father did horrible things to you when you were very young, things which made you feel like you were a bad person. You are carrying the pain, the bewilderment and the guilt to this day.”

When you said what you did regarding Branden's group and my understanding of what I read that specific events could be nailed down threw me a bit. But yes, no doubt, can read much in a person's eyes, fear, pain, pity, shame.

P.S. Love the last sentence of your new status update: “I’m way too damned selfish….” Me, too.

Oh, most definitely too damned selfish and don't like to share, especially in very specific contexts. It just does not work and ultimately there is nothing there and not much satisfaction, not happy and fulfilled so obviously that's my cue to stay away from it which has been done.

I gotta start getting ready for today's job. Oi. I'm hoping it will be far less painful if you will and goes relatively smoothly with no infighting if you will. Yikes. Hoping later this evening will be able to respond more to your earlier posts as well as to one of Adam's posts unless he becomes a bit more involved in the discussion and will have more to respond to.

Angie

Edited September 9, 2010 by CNA

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Yeah, no doubt and making it that much more difficult to achieve happiness for her and her mind set. At the time that I had met her, she was a few years if you will into her rescue from that environment. There was a happiness there and a decent outlook on life but I think it was more due to the fact that her happiness stemmed from no longer being in the situation she was in and being saved if you will and that of her freedom but psychologically struggling still and probably continues to this day. I won't give all the details that she told me but apparently it started when she was extremely young, 5 or 6 years old and continued into her teenage years. No schooling throughout her ordeal and held captive. Dad left and mother was a crack addict -- the epitome of evil and what she did -- her mom offered her up for sex and prostitution to grown men when she was 5 or 6 years old. Chained her to the tree in their backyard and the men that wanted this young girl would bring crack to the mother for payment. They would sometimes put cigarettes and cigars out on her arms, thighs, back, etc. Scars from being cut with knives. She pretty much was brutally tortured and held captive for most of her childhood and teenage years. She endured too much. These challenges and coming to grips with what happened to her will be lifelong, if she'll ever be able to and finding some type of normalcy. It's downright disgusting and the epitome of evil -- this woman and no doubt can't forget those who participated in it as well. Truly so sad.

Hi Angie,

That truly is an extreme example of a nightmarish childhood. The only thing worse would be a child that was locked in a dark closet for years so that the person’s mind never gets a chance to develop at all. The adults that emerge from that childhood scenario tend to resemble animals because their brains get so little stimulation over an extended period of time. I hope the mother is in prison. Too bad it isn’t legal to chop such monsters up into little pieces and grind their flesh into dog food.

When you said what you did regarding Branden's group and my understanding of what I read that specific events could be nailed down threw me a bit. But yes, no doubt, can read much in a person's eyes, fear, pain, pity, shame.

Not just emotions—the person’s whole life story is there, but in highly condensed form. I should add that ‘reading minds’ in this way is not infallible. Obviously we may often think we see things and be completely wrong. The amazing thing is that, if we really make the effort to look at the person we are talking to, how often we will be right. So much human communication is nonverbal, and an enormous amount of it comes through the eyes. The example comes to mind of when I have been talking to a woman and my body suddenly begins to respond sexually even though she has not said or done anything to indicate such interest. (Again, however, miscues are always possible.) Reading body language is also important, of course. It’s all a part of the gestalt approach of striving to be as aware as possible not only of surface data but of internal signals as well as all the external information available to us at any given time, of overcoming the tendency to be fixated in your thinking and of opening yourself to your feelings, your body and your senses.

Oh, most definitely too damned selfish and don't like to share, especially in very specific contexts. It just does not work and ultimately there is nothing there and not much satisfaction, not happy and fulfilled so obviously that's my cue to stay away from it which has been done.

I gotta start getting ready for today's job. Oi. I'm hoping it will be far less painful if you will and goes relatively smoothly with no infighting if you will. Yikes. Hoping later this evening will be able to respond more to your earlier posts as well as to one of Adam's posts unless he becomes a bit more involved in the discussion and will have more to respond to.

Angie

I agree about not sharing. I don’t see how genuine selfish satisfaction can be derived from those situations. Hope your work day goes smoothly without all the ‘infighting.’

To be continued.

Dennis

[CNA]

Dennis:

Angie,

Of course, we have to keep in mind that some people are very good at putting on an act and do succeed in fooling others about the kind of person they are. But, in general, unless we are talking about someone who works hard at being deceptive—e.g., a professional con-man, or a highly paid call-girl who has spent years making herself into the epitome of what men find desirable—yes, you can definitely know a lot from their appearance, their manner, their physical conditioning or lack of it, the way they move and the way they talk, et al.

I have absolutely no doubt about that. That of the chameleon, one who adapts and changes who they are to fit every situation, denying their true selves, and fulfilling whatever purpose/goal they have at that time. The epitome of attaining the unearned. The further they become entrenched into it, I would imagine the harder it becomes to retain who they truly are and knowing themselves but that of only bits and pieces of each character they may play. Tormented life no doubt and losing yourself completely, absolutely no identity of self. At some point, I am sure the question comes up and may persist with frequency over time of "Who am I?" But many, if not all, do slip up though at some point or another and showing their true colors, most often can be observed, concrete evidence. What comes out of their mouths contradicts their actions, just depends if it is caught by another in time or how arrogant and confident they believe they are and that they can fool everyone no matter how flagrant the offenses over time become. God complex if you will. But reality will nip them in the bud at some point.

And no, I would not be sexually attracted to the unkempt, pathetic version of Angelina, regardless of her physical beauty. Even more important than physical beauty—for a woman—is femininity—i.e., the projected attitude of a woman enjoying her female sexuality, and that requires a certain level of self-esteem and self-confidence. If a woman does not put some effort into making herself attractive to men—if she just wakes up in the morning and walks out into the world and says—“this is it, guys, the unvarnished me, take it or leave it” (like a lot of feminists)—I would definitely leave it. I would have zero desire for such a woman.

Yes, and that of femininity and her fragility if you will as compared to that of a man and his masculinity, his strength, his stature and in this sense being superior to that of a woman. But this is not always the case as there are women out there that are extremely strong and stronger than some men, etc., but there will always be a man out there somewhere that is superior to her in strength, size, etc. I am the same with men, how masculine he is, his overall size to me, his strength, is very much an attractant for me and do very much enjoy the man-handling type aspects. His being able to pick me up if you will and for lack of a better word throwing me around; hence, the male dominance and female submission roles, gender roles. But I can't deny, although most attracted to men, larger than the average man, a lot of men that are my height or shorter are still that much stronger than I am. BUT I also can't deny that when in a relationship with such a man and his not being strong enough to pick me up if he wanted to, makes me miss if you will a man that could do it with ease.

The other Angelina, who holds herself with pride, who exhibits strength and confidence in her posture and movements, who dresses stylishly to make the most of her physical assets and projects pleasure and playfulness in her femininity---I can say without a doubt that I would be very strongly attracted to her sexually. I’m not sure how much of her character I would be able to surmise from these attributes—there could be a lot of women who meet this standard who lack integrity or who are not necessarily that rational. It is also possible that the person might be ‘going through the motions’ in order to be popular with men for whatever reason—e.g., to attract men with a lot of money (the classic gold-digger).

Yes, this is true; such as the chameleon reference up above but the more you observe them, eventually getting to know them personally, you can check the validity of the quick judgments you make on them when first seeing them. Also the more aware you are, the more observant you are, you are more likely to nail it the first time with better accuracy. You say pretty much the same thing here below:

I feel certain that Ayn wanted her readers to believe that there was some kind of extraordinary subliminal “communication” going on between Roark and Dominique, and that both of them knew—due to their observational skills and heightened sensitivity—much more about the other than most people could possibly know in such a brief period of time.

Angie

[CNA]

Angie:

"I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system..."

And there in lies the the difference in men and women who are fully alive and life force is projected, I would say that it actually screams out to those who wish to hear or see it.

It is the difference in being fully present and being present to the other persons or persons.

The former makes life so much more enjoyable.

Adam

Amen to that one!!!! Makes life that much more enjoyable and achieving happiness but even better when you have another that is as observant, hears, and sees you and are present in the eyes of your partner and adds that much more to your enjoyment and happiness.

But far more important, as you know, in Rand's view of sex and many aspects of BDSM -- self-awareness, knowing yourself very well, your limits, your values and where you place yourself as the supreme value, trust in your partner, knowing his values, etc., is absolutely crucial. It definitely is not a game and is a thinking man's pleasure if you will as there are huge differences between what is called vanilla sex and that of BDSM, as you know, and more thought, being that much more aware, and communication that needs to be utilized during it.

Angie

[Selene]

Angie explained, in response to Dennis relating the occurrence in Nathanial's group project:

"Anyway, although Branden may have headed such a group or study, I am a bit skeptical but not surprised that an individual can nail down exact events just by looking at someone's eyes as I'll explain a bit. As we both know, there's dysfunctionality in most homes to varying degrees; ie, strained relationship with either parent, verbal abuse, physical abuse, divorce rates being so high, parents separating and then getting back together and then separating again, dead beat dads or moms, one parent being excessively controlling or drinking excessively, etc., as this is pretty common in today's society. So the probability of nailing one or two events or many events would be much higher. But yes, you can no doubt detect fear, etc., in someone's eyes."

This sounds a lot like the EST training from Werner Erhard which morphed into the current "Forum" with their "transformational technology". Rich and I are familiar with these "techniques" and "tactics".

However, a lot of it is not new. One of my favorite movies was Nightmare Alley about a carny who parlays these stock read techniques with the use of a verbal code and a high profile, high society female psychoanalyst into one of the great scams ever.

Here is a clip about looking into the eyes or the crystal and making one of those stock reads:

Adam

Post Script:

Our posts crossed. I agree with your post completely. As we have discussed before it is certainly not for the faint at heart lol.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Selene

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

I have absolutely no doubt about that. That of the chameleon, one who adapts and changes who they are to fit every situation, denying their true selves, and fulfilling whatever purpose/goal they have at that time. The epitome of attaining the unearned. The further they become entrenched into it, I would imagine the harder it becomes to retain who they truly are and knowing themselves but that of only bits and pieces of each character they may play. Tormented life no doubt and losing yourself completely, absolutely no identity of self. At some point, I am sure the question comes up and may persist with frequency over time of "Who am I?" But many, if not all, do slip up though at some point or another and showing their true colors, most often can be observed, concrete evidence. What comes out of their mouths contradicts their actions, just depends if it is caught by another in time or how arrogant and confident they believe they are and that they can fool everyone no matter how flagrant the offenses over time become. God complex if you will. But reality will nip them in the bud at some point.

Hi Angie,

Yes, the pretenders do generally slip up at some point, but some of them develop remarkable skill at fooling people after they have been doing it for a while. And of course a lot of people fool themselves and just don’t want to see the obvious. Look at the number of rich, elderly people who fall in love with con-artists clearly only interested in their money. I’m sure you’re right that they are tormented souls, but I doubt if many of them ever get around to asking “Who am I?” They are far too sealed off from their emotions and their authentic selves to do that.

Yes, and that of femininity and her fragility if you will as compared to that of a man and his masculinity, his strength, his stature and in this sense being superior to that of a woman. But this is not always the case as there are women out there that are extremely strong and stronger than some men, etc., but there will always be a man out there somewhere that is superior to her in strength, size, etc. I am the same with men, how masculine he is, his overall size to me, his strength, is very much an attractant for me and do very much enjoy the man-handling type aspects. His being able to pick me up if you will and for lack of a better word throwing me around; hence, the male dominance and female submission roles, gender roles. But I can't deny, although most attracted to men, larger than the average man, a lot of men that are my height or shorter are still that much stronger than I am. BUT I also can't deny that when in a relationship with such a man and his not being strong enough to pick me up if he wanted to, makes me miss if you will a man that could do it with ease.

Angie

Interesting that you are attracted to men who are larger and bulkier, on the assumption that they will be stronger. Muscle size and muscle strength are not necessarily related. Bodybuilders, for instance, tear down their muscles so that they will increase in size when the muscles repair themselves. This actually tends to damage the muscle and muscle density. It’s the difference between Olympic gymnasts and professional wrestlers; gymnasts strive for genuine muscle strength, but wrestlers are primarily concerned with looking strong as opposed to being strong. Strength is really based on the brain’s ability to send neurological impulses to the muscle—the better the neurological wiring from the brain to the muscle, the stronger the electrical current, the higher percentage of fibers get activated when a muscle is contracted. That’s what makes a muscle rock hard—the 'mind to muscle' link; increasing the neural pathways is really the route to strength, not muscle size. That’s why there’s a whole different approach to exercise according to whether the person is looking to develop size as opposed to strength. When bodybuilders damage muscle to increase muscle size, they also damage the ability of the neural pathways to activate muscle fibers.

In other words, lean muscle is often stronger than bulk muscle. That’s why boxing matches are typically won by the boxer who has the better muscle tone, not the fighter who is bigger. Lean muscle also provides drastically improved performance as opposed to bulk muscle, which is particularly important when it comes to the bedroom. So don’t assume that a leaner man will not be just as able to “throw you around.”

But, hey, if a guy has to look like Arnold Schwarzenburger to get your home fires burning, far be it from me to criticize. If bulk excites you, terrific. But that’s just superficial appearance—not strength. You really shouldn’t equate the two.

Dennis

[CNA]

Dennis:

Interesting that you are attracted to men who are larger and bulkier, on the assumption that they will be stronger. Muscle size and muscle strength are not necessarily related. Bodybuilders, for instance, tear down their muscles so that they will increase in size when the muscles repair themselves. This actually tends to damage the muscle and muscle density. It’s the difference between Olympic gymnasts and professional wrestlers; gymnasts strive for genuine muscle strength, but wrestlers are primarily concerned with looking strong as opposed to being strong. Strength is really based on the brain’s ability to send neurological impulses to the muscle—the better the neurological wiring from the brain to the muscle, the stronger the electrical current, the higher percentage of fibers get activated when a muscle is contracted. That’s what makes a muscle rock hard—the 'mind to muscle' link; increasing the neural pathways is really the route to strength, not muscle size. That’s why there’s a whole different approach to exercise according to whether the person is looking to develop size as opposed to strength. When bodybuilders damage muscle to increase muscle size, they also damage the ability of the neural pathways to activate muscle fibers.

In other words, lean muscle is often stronger than bulk muscle. That’s why boxing matches are typically won by the boxer who has the better muscle tone, not the fighter who is bigger. Lean muscle also provides drastically improved performance as opposed to bulk muscle, which is particularly important when it comes to the bedroom. So don’t assume that a leaner man will not be just as able to “throw you around.”

But, hey, if a guy has to look like Arnold Schwarzenburger to get your home fires burning, far be it from me to criticize. If bulk excites you, terrific. But that’s just superficial appearance—not strength. You really shouldn’t equate the two.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I didn't make mention of muscle size and his being excessively muscular such as that of Arnold Schwartzneger and his strength (sp) as quite honestly this is a turn off. But I do find men that are larger than the average man to be more appealing to me, not in the way of being muscular and my saying bulkier as I believe your taking or assuming that by what I mean by bulk is that of muscular or ripped men such that you see in magazines or that of Arnold. I'm talking about men that overall have a larger stature, such as men that are 6 feet or taller and larger framed say in the weight of 225 or 250. Not fat, not muscular, just overall larger men. I do some work with the NFL and I do have to admit I do enjoy taking some of these players testimony because of how they are in size and my admiring their size...LOL. At any rate, but you are correct, a man that is my size or smaller than I am can still possess enough strength. But experience does tell me otherwise that these men, as most men are not conditioned like a gymnast would be, have more trouble if say he wanted to carry me for a distance or to pick me up and to keep me there for a while without potentially dropping me quickly versus men that are of larger frame and stature that can do it with relative ease. I'm comparing the two based on my personal experience of these types of men and the differences between the two. Please don't assume me of all people of superficiality without asking for a clarification of how I may be defining a certain term or in how I may be using it in the context that I may be using it.

I believe genetics also will play a factor. I'll take myself as an example. I have stocky legs, don't work out regularly anymore, and where most of my strength is, quite a bit of strength. For the most part, even when I was exercising very heavily after the birth of my son and continued to workout for long periods of time and primarily used my own bodyweight as the form of resistance but occasionally would do a lot of squats with upwards of over 100 pounds, I was extremely lean, very toned, and possessed more strength than I have now. But no matter how much I worked out my upper body, I still lacked tremendously upper body strength despite being muscular, lean and well conditioned or "ripped" if you will. There have been numerous studies that show these types of people who are leaner and/or use their own body weight as their primary form of resistance are stronger than that of someone who uses weights excessively. But I'm not talking about these types of people as a great majority of people do not work out excessively to gain that type of physique and conditioning themselves. At that time believe it or not and how much I enjoyed working out like that as I've posted here on OL about it many years ago with how to lose a lot of weight, diet, and to get into shape, I thought very seriously about competing geared towards such people. There are those that do exercise for staying in shape but it's not their goal to become lean and ripped if you will. What I'm speaking of is natural strength and without working out. I have more natural body/muscle strength throughout my legs. I'm very stocky. I am very much built similar to that of my mother whereas my sister is the other way around and is built or has similar body structure of my father. She has strong legs but her upper body strength is quite amazing. So I'm not basing my ideal man physically to be that of a man that has muscles on top of muscles and ripped to the tee and because of these muscles he must be strong. I am basing it on my experiences of the men whom for the most part do not work out excessively and are not gymnasts or body builders....that men of larger stature of 6 foot 5 and weighing perhaps 235 will possess more natural body strength and his ability to literally pick me up and my 5 foot 6, 7 frame, weighing about 135 or 140 without hesitation and ease than say a man who may be 5 foot 2 and weighs 130, 140, or 150 pounds. He will possess the strength to overtake me but he would struggle a bit more if I decided to put up a fight as I know how to defend myself well based on my past experiences throughout childhood.

My ex husband was a smaller stature man, a few inches taller than me and weighed perhaps 20 to 40 pounds more than I did and does still but still possessed enough natural strength to put me in my place if we were playfully wrestling but did have difficulty with me, could pick me up but not easy for him in the least. But the last man I was in a relationship with, not anymore, he was a larger stature man, 6 foot 2 or 3 maybe, 230/240 perhaps and when wrestling playfully with him, wow, quite amazing how he was able to pick me up without any hesitation and throwing me around with such ease. He knew that my natural strength was in my legs and that I used them to my advantage. Once he realized this and how strong I was from the waist down, all he had to do was take my legs out and I'm done and he knew this.

But regardless of this, his ability to pick me up as if I was a rag doll and didn't phase him in the least even impressed me and he was not a man that worked out. This was another example that confirmed that these such men possess more natural body strength than their smaller counterparts if you will, although there are exceptions depending on conditioning of the man and how regularly they work out to attain such strength and physique and to keep it. But reality is, a lot of men and women are not this way and more in their natural state if you will.

But do I discriminate and don't date men that may be of average size or a tiny bit taller than me as was my ex husband, no, I don't. But do I have my preferences for larger stature men, taller men, etc., most definitely I do for very specific reasons. I still feel feminine with both types of men but superiority over me is more so present with a larger stature man in comparison to my own size and highlights if you will my fragility and femininity and goes to the D/s relationship as well. Obviously this is coming from my perspective; that of a female. Whether yourself or other men carry such preferences for some types of women can be judged by you and whether it is right for you or wrong. I know some men that don't care and don't hold preferences for whatever their reasons but there are others that definitely do. I had a gentleman friend and have known him for well over 15 years maybe now that prefers to date Asian women because of their petite size but still dated other women who were not quite as petite but did admit he found himself less attracted to women that were larger than he was both in height, weight, etc., and enjoyed tremendously women that were more on the petite side similar to that of Asian women.

Angie

[CNA]

Adam, Dennis, et al,

I don't know when I'm going to be able to continue any more discussions. I've got a lot coming up BUT one huge one is the job from the other day with all the attorneys, I received an email a bit ago from work telling me they need the job asap. Always work 24/7 with the nature of my job and the beast never sleeps. LOL Hell, even holidays such as Christmas is fair game and have been asked numerous times to work on such days. Anyway, with it being such a large job, it's going to take me some time to get the work product out so I don't know when I'll be able to continue any further discussions. I have a few other things going on or coming up as well such as a move so that's also going to take more of my time. Always so busy as usual. It's been interesting and the conversations up to this point on some of the psychological aspects of it, some of the philosophical aspects as well but I don't know when I'll be able to pick it back up again at this point. I do apologize but a busy life I have no doubt.

At any rate, hope everyone has a great weekend!!!

Angie

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam, Dennis, et al,

I don't know when I'm going to be able to continue any more discussions. I've got a lot coming up BUT one huge one is the job from the other day with all the attorneys, I received an email a bit ago from work telling me they need the job asap. Always work 24/7 with the nature of my job and the beast never sleeps. LOL Hell, even holidays such as Christmas is fair game and have been asked numerous times to work on such days. Anyway, with it being such a large job, it's going to take me some time to get the work product out so I don't know when I'll be able to continue any further discussions. I have a few other things going on or coming up as well such as a move so that's also going to take more of my time. Always so busy as usual. It's been interesting and the conversations up to this point on some of the psychological aspects of it, some of the philosophical aspects as well but I don't know when I'll be able to pick it back up again at this point. I do apologize but a busy life I have no doubt.

At any rate, hope everyone has a great weekend!!!

Angie

Angie,et al,

I recently read several essays in a collection of them by Steven Jay Gould, the biologist, geologist, teacher of the history of science and evolutionist who advocated for the concept of punctuated equilibrium. I have always admired him as a popularizer of science along with Isaac Asimov who was most prolific. I once met Gould when he gave a talk in Worcester MA but didn't get the chance to engage him in a discussion of his concession of ethics to the religionists in one of his books entitled Rock of Ages or the like. He died some years ago.

Well one of his essays in a collection of his Nature magazine columns (Bully For Brontosaurus) was entitled something about the purpose of the male nipple which led to a discussion of the embryological development of the various parts of the human sexual anatomy. What becomes the penis in the male becomes the clitoris in the female and what becomes the scrotum in the male becomes the labia majora in the female. That led to his pointing out how Sigmund Freud got it quite egregiously wrong when he postulated that a mature female should reach an orgasm through sexual intercourse with stimulation of the vagina. It turns out that the work of Masters and Johnson and others confirm that there are precious few nerve endings in the vaginal walls.

Evidently many women were led to believe there was something wrong with them thanks to the psychoanalysts of the Freudian persuasion and many were labelled as frigid.

Gould points out that stimulation of the clitoris leads to the female orgasm and also to a kind of intimate bonding between the male and female who discover this. Males who skip this step and proceed to the act which leads only to the male orgasm cause their relationship to come up short, no pun intended.

Rand's love scenes are sufficiently vague and inexplicit so that one may assume that Dagny does find joy in it even if she has to remove splinters from the railroad ties afterwards.

I post this because I assume all of us except perhaps a newcomer already knows this and it is for the sake of romantic relationships everywhere.

gulch

Edited September 11, 2010 by gulch8

[CNA]

Adam, Dennis, et al,

I don't know when I'm going to be able to continue any more discussions. I've got a lot coming up BUT one huge one is the job from the other day with all the attorneys, I received an email a bit ago from work telling me they need the job asap. Always work 24/7 with the nature of my job and the beast never sleeps. LOL Hell, even holidays such as Christmas is fair game and have been asked numerous times to work on such days. Anyway, with it being such a large job, it's going to take me some time to get the work product out so I don't know when I'll be able to continue any further discussions. I have a few other things going on or coming up as well such as a move so that's also going to take more of my time. Always so busy as usual. It's been interesting and the conversations up to this point on some of the psychological aspects of it, some of the philosophical aspects as well but I don't know when I'll be able to pick it back up again at this point. I do apologize but a busy life I have no doubt.

At any rate, hope everyone has a great weekend!!!

Angie

Angie,et al,

I recently read several essays in a collection of them by Steven Jay Gould, the biologist, geologist, teacher of the history of science and evolutionist who advocated for the concept of punctuated equilibrium. I have always admired him as a popularizer of science along with Isaac Asimov who was most prolific. I once met Gould when he gave a talk in Worcester MA but didn't get the chance to engage him in a discussion of his concession of ethics to the religionists in one of his books entitled Rock of Ages or the like. He died some years ago.

Well one of his essays in a collection of his Nature magazine columns (Bully For Brontosaurus) was entitled something about the purpose of the male nipple which led to a discussion of the embryological development of the various parts of the human sexual anatomy. What becomes the penis in the male becomes the clitoris in the female and what becomes the scrotum in the male becomes the labia majora in the female. That led to his pointing out how Sigmund Freud got it quite egregiously wrong when he postulated that a mature female should reach an orgasm through sexual intercourse with stimulation of the vagina. It turns out that the work of Masters and Johnson and others confirm that there are precious few nerve endings in the vaginal walls.

Evidently many women were led to believe there was something wrong with them thanks to the psychoanalysts of the Freudian persuasion and many were labelled as frigid.

Gould points out that stimulation of the clitoris leads to the female orgasm and also to a kind of intimate bonding between the male and female who discover this. Males who skip this step and proceed to the act which leads only to the male orgasm cause their relationship to come up short, no pun intended.

Rand's love scenes are sufficiently vague and inexplicit so that one may assume that Dagny does find joy in it even if she has to remove splinters from the railroad ties afterwards.

I post this because I assume all of us except perhaps a newcomer already knows this and it is for the sake of romantic relationships everywhere.

gulch

Gulch,

Human sexuality is an area I am heavily interested in. But very quickly and wanted to respond. A woman has 5 spots externally/internally that can lead to very intense orgasms if done correctly; that each person communicates and experiments with it, main goal is to know yourself very well not only psychologically but anatomically as this is a huge aspect of BDSM and knowing anatomical features, shared values, and so forth so there is much obviously intertwined with this and the complexities of it. I don't have a lot of time to go into it now but no doubt wanted to respond to your post and the inaccuracies of these individuals and to offer up a bit of education. Of course, the psychological aspects of it are there, values, BDSM which does enhance it as it seems Dagny had splinters in her tush or elsewhere, the D/s relationship, etc., etc., but a quick sex ed on a woman's body that many it seems do not know about. There are also areas of the man's body that are zones rather than just the typical penis as being the main one to be stimulated. For a guy and your question regarding Dagny, there are 5 spots on a woman's body that are errogenous zones externally and internally that can and will produce orgasms without the so called needed clitoral stimulation. 1. Of course, clitoris (external). 2. G spot (internal) 3. X spot (internal) 4. AFE zone (internal) 5. PFE zone (internal) All of these spots exist as I have personally experienced them and can produce intense orgasms aside from the BDSM aspects, D/s aspects such as Rand's views on sex. Please do not take this response as comprehensive and complete as it is not because there's a lot to it that I don't have time to go into it now. But I'm offering this up a bit now for you and any other person interested in wanting to understand or educate themselves a bit. Also, intense foreplay in my experience is not required as it seems many have drawn this conclusion in order for a woman to reach an intense vaginal orgasm or what have you.

I'll provide a few quick links now that you can read up a bit on it. There's other areas on OL where these types of issues are discussed aside from the one I've provided here but don't have time to track them down and the anatomical aspects.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2979&view=findpost&p=21598

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_fornix_erogenous_zone

http://bodyecstatic.com/deepspot.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/beyond-orgasmatron

Posterior Fornix Errogenous Zone, PFE zone (which is harder to find info regarding this spot but is definitely there)

Of course, the G spot.

Angie

[9thdoctor]

What becomes the penis in the male becomes the clitoris in the female and what becomes the scrotum in the male becomes the labia majora in the female. That led to his pointing out how Sigmund Freud got it quite egregiously wrong when he postulated that a mature female should reach an orgasm through sexual intercourse with stimulation of the vagina.

Freud should have studied the Hyena:

Zap ahead to 1:30

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/10/2010 at 0:05 PM, Selene said:

Angie explained, in response to Dennis relating the occurrence in Nathanial's group project:

This sounds a lot like the EST training from Werner Erhard which morphed into the current "Forum" with their "transformational technology". Rich and I are familiar with these "techniques" and "tactics".

However, a lot of it is not new. One of my favorite movies was Nightmare Alley about a carny who parlays these stock read techniques with the use of a verbal code and a high profile, high society female psychoanalyst into one of the great scams ever.

Here is a clip about looking into the eyes or the crystal and making one of those stock reads:

 

Adam

Post Script:

Our posts crossed. I agree with your post completely. As we have discussed before it is certainly not for the faint at heart lol.

Interesting thread.

--Brant

missing these people

[Brant Gaede]

Reprise