Charles R. Anderson

I believe it is essential to bear history in mind and remember the context of human knowledge from the time of the Declaration of Independence. As has been noted, evolution was an unknown theory in 1776 and there was no developed alternative to believing that a supernatural power had created man. Jefferson and Franklin knew of prehistoric animal remains being found and were very interested in them. I do not believe either was much of a believer in conventional Christian religion. Jefferson has often been called a deist and was often accused of being an atheist in his day. But, man was of the natural world and had a nature as man. For those who believed man was created by a god or by some as-yet mysterious process of nature (which Franklin and Jefferson seemed to entertain somewhat), man must live in accordance with his nature to pursue the goals of his life. The rights that John Locke, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson and many other Americans believed that man had derived from man's nature and the desirability that every man should be allowed to live his own life. A high measure of individual independence had long been accepted as necessary for survival in the New World. There were no aristocrats to speak of to take care of the Americans. They were on their own from the early 1600s and it was only about the time of the French and Indian War when the English king and Parliament began to pay them much attention at all. It was not long before the Americans were thinking of the previous neglect as the Good Old Days. Certainly, there was no thought that all men are equal in abilities and motivation, but there was conviction that each man had a right to live his own life, if only because he had to to survive and Americans were generally benign enough not to wish ill to fall on their neighbors. These historical factors make it seem as though rights may just be a social convention. Those limits on the actions that others in a society can take with respect to others do need to become conventions in that society to become effective protections for each individual in that society. But we need to remember that rights are a political concept in our understanding of morality and must be consistent with man's moral actions and behavior. As such, a conventional right may in fact be immoral and hence it would not be a correctly identified right. Developing a moral code and its principles is not a trivial task and mistakes are often made by man. Developing a set of recognized rights for a society is also a difficult task and some declared rights may well be wrong by virtue of their failing in the goal of allowing each human being to flourish as best he is able and willing to in managing his own life in accordance with his own values. What I find remarkable is that Americans chose this path to try to allow individuals to choose their own values and manage their own lives. This was a bold experiment from the viewpoint of Europeans at that time and really in our own time. Of course, we were partly lucky in this, in that we learned the advantages of being on our own due to Europe's earlier benign neglect. But nonetheless, we learned that there was an independent individualist route to a fairly harmonious society. Since it should be our rational purpose to define rights in such a way that we can all live without harm to one another and with maximal opportunities to work with one another and trade with one another for our mutual benefit, while each of us can live our own life morally, rights are no longer just a convention, but an optimization of moral principles for life in society. The convention of rights should attempt to become an optimization of rights. That set of optimized rights is rightfully claimed by each of us as our sovereign and inalienable individual rights. To optimize man's rights, you must study the nature of man and ask how does man benefit from living in society with other men. Among other things, you must recognize that man must use his mind constantly to address the needs of survival and to optimize his own living processes. You ought quickly to realize that the primary benefit of living among other men is the many fruits of their minds, which make our own life much more secure and richer in many ways. The early American state constitution writers and the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights worked very hard to identify the necessary rights consistent with these purposes. I think they did a remarkably good job in the end, though along the way, there were some quite deficient state constitutions. The needs of man's mind were particularly well recognized in the Bill of Rights, which makes it clear that there was a great respect for man's dependence upon his mind. Given the state we are in now, it is too bad that they did not explicitly say that every American has the right to freedom of trade, although the interstate commerce clause was an attempt to provide just that. It was not meant to become the restriction of free trade that it has become. It is too bad that they did not explicitly protect the right to medical care. No, not the right to be given medical care, but the right to be allowed to manage our own medical care, in parallel with our right to freedom of speech. We cannot force anyone to listen to us, but we can speak and we are free to gather up listeners who will voluntarily listen to us. Our medical care right is the same sort of right. We have the right to seek or to offer medical care and to find anyone who will voluntarily join us in that activity. I am sure the Framers of the Constitution could hardly imagine the government would ever seek to constrain us from managing the care of our life by rationing and constraining medical care.

Charles, very nicely argued. It just seems to be getting precipitously worse for this little marxist coven in the green movement. Seems like the green illuminati just get rid of any date that gets uncomfortable. From The Sunday Times November 29, 2009 <h1 class="heading">Climate change data dumped</h1> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. Stunning coincidence, which, as the Sanskrit translation explains [coincidence] "....when traced back far enough becomes inevitable." http://www.offa.org.uk/agreements/H-0117%20University%20of%20East%20Anglia%20Oct%2005.pdf Looks like their budget is over 3 million pounds per year, but I am not sure. Adam Thanks Adam. Not only has the CRU not retained the raw data, but while they made negative land surface temperature corrections in the 1960s and early 1970s to the data, they made mostly positive corrections thereafter, as was the case with the NASA GISS data. This has the effect of lowering the start temperature and raising the later temperatures in the late 20th Century, setting up a "record" rate of temperature rise. It is strange that the main changes in the record of the land surface changes are positive when urban expansion continued with its positive local heat island warming effects. What is more, after 1990, many weather stations in Russia and the US were abandoned, mostly in more remote areas, where the readings were less affected by heat island effects. So, the CRU and GISS land surface temperature record in the 1990s is warmer than the more reliable sea surface temperature record and the satellite record. Is there any wonder why? And, the fact that the temperature profile with altitude which should accompany a major CO2 greenhouse gas effect is missing should always have been a major reason for rejecting the idea that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were largely driving the climate. The recent improved understanding of the solar cycle effects is also providing arguments which seem to better explain what has been happening than does CO2. Before we wreck any economies and put large numbers of people out of work, let us learn more about the major natural forces which affect the climate and have brought on much more severe climate change than anything we have seen in our lifetimes. Disclaimer: The expensive and unreliable electricity I expect to result from carbon cap and trade, from the EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant, and from energy restrictions mandated by the state of Maryland, may make it very difficult to impossible for my materials analysis laboratory to continue in business in the future. I have a livelihood interest in this matter. My work is also a matter of passionate importance to me. I am delighted that the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmist argument is collapsing on all fronts, despite being firmly embraced still by Obama and most Democrats in Congress and those environmentalists who hate mankind, such as Carol Browner and John Holdren.

I wonder if the socialists will soon claim that it is simply a civic duty of the nature of serving as a juror in a jury trial. Or such as giving up your property when required under eminent domain. Since both of these are recognized in the Constitution, why shouldn't the requirement to buy health insurance be viewed the same way? My answer would be, that if the Framer's did want it to be viewed in the same way, they should have made it a requirement as explicitly in the Constitution as is jury trial and eminent domain. The Constitution does not make any requirement for involuntary jury duty. Perhaps the Framers assumed that there would always be adequate volunteers or that that was a matter for the states to deal with. While eminent domain is a bit sticky, the government was to be required to pay for the confiscated property. Only some are going to have the government pay their health insurance bills using taxpayer money. It sure does seem to be a very unique requirement that simply by being a resident in the United States, we must buy health insurance. Besides, we all have a right to medical care under the 9th Amendment. Not the right to be provided with medical care, but the right to have the opportunity to enter into a patient-doctor relationship of our choosing with any doctor willing to join us in that relationship. Our right to medical care is like our right to free speech. No one is required to listen to us speak or to provide us with a bullhorn, an auditorium, or a TV station, but no one should be allowed to prevent us from speaking or others from listening if they choose to do so voluntarily. We should not be prevented from hiring an auditorium or from building one. There is simply no way that we can be said to have an individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if we do not have the right to medical care in the sense I have defined. In the most direct way possible, some else is using government to deprive me of my right to life, most explicitly if they set up a socialized medical system that in any way rations health care. This is literally a rationing of life. It is further obvious that any government system depends upon the use of force to limit my freedoms with respect to arranging my medical care, so liberty is defeated. Finally, it may very well be critical to my happiness to alleviate a pain or to extend my happy life with medical care of my choice. How could it be any more obvious that government controls of my medical care constitute the most basic attack upon my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I have written about what I think is one of the most important things learned from the CRU data dump on my blog. The post is called: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Evidence Was Not Even Evidence The link is: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/11/catastrophic-anthropogenic-global.html

You expect the party that proudly gave us Medicare Part D to get rid of Obamacare? I have a bridges in Brooklyn for sale--moderately used, good condition, special low price for friends--if you are interested. More likely result of GOP domination would be a "reform" of Obamacare that would likely combine all the worst features of everyone's plans (insofar as Obamacare already doesn't combine them all). Jeffrey S. Ditto. All government agents are still agents of government, meaning: anywhere the government has power, those in power want to keep that power. Republicans will probably expand healthcare regulation just because it's the state's way of "doing something unique." If the Supreme Court fails us again, the only hope is such an unlikely event as the Republicans achieving such control that they can repeal the law. Sure, even then, we might well be disappointed. On the other hand, the message the People would have sent by making such a gigantic change in government over a four year period would be a strong one and if the People kept the pressure up, the repeal might be made. Of course, the Republicans might once again betray the American People, but 39 Republican Senators voted against ObamaCare, while 60 Democrats voted for it, at least to continue discussing it and presumably to bring it to a final vote. I understand the disgust with Republicans as socialists lite, but they rarely match the socialist politics of mass destruction practiced by the Democrats. Consider the fraction of Republicans favoring the disaster of the carbon cap and trade versus the fraction of Democrats favoring it as another major issue before Congress. Consider how much more strongly the Dems supported sub-prime mortgage lending or their support for labor union intimidation without the secret ballot and the mandate that any labor contract upon a card check election in dispute for 90 days will be settled by arbitration dominated by our socialist government. Yes, the Republicans are screw-ups, but they are the only hope against this determined, all-out socialist Democrat party to turn off ObamaCare, failing the Supreme Court doing so. If the Supreme Court fails us once again and if the People do not make a massive change in the control of the federal government, I am going to jail as a pauper. The fine for refusing to buy government approved health care is up to $250,000 and 5 years in prison. I have vowed that I will not provide the government any information on my insurance coverage and will not pay a fine, so I expect to go to jail. This is the only way I know to defend the last shreds of my Constitution and my sovereign rights as an individual. I hope large numbers of other people will do the same, all claiming that they are defending the Constitution by doing so. If it proves possible to force the government to back off on this basis, there is a possibility that we really can convince the American People to think about government once again as being legitimate only to the degree that it protects the sovereign rights of the individual.

A proposal larded with all the acceptable buzz words, it appears. Now it seems to allow you to discuss corporate socialism, but not by that name. Or corporate thieving aided and abetted by government, but only if you seem to favor it. As for limiting the power of government through the mobility of capital and employees, wow, what a wonderful escape route! At least there is sometimes one way to teach governments a lesson.

It is also interesting that New London sold Pfizer 26 acres of land to build their R&D Center for $10 and gave Pfizer tax breaks for quite a few years. All that is also down the toilet.

I would very much like to be surprised by the Supreme Court declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, but we can hardly count on it. After all, they let the Kelo eminent domain ruling stand and they let McCain-Feingold "Election Reform" stand, despite its clear violation of freedom of speech. The only other hope is a combination of 2010 and 2012 election results in which the House becomes majority Republican, the Republicans hold 60 Senate seats, and the President is Republican. This is what it will take to repeal ObamaCare and it is hardly a likely result. Americans dislike everyone else's Representatives and Senators, but they keep returning their own to office. Of course, ordinarily it is best for the Democrats to have a majority in either the House or the Senate to damp down the Republicans, but killing ObamaCare takes precedence over all other concerns. Killing the idea that CO2 is a pollutant and justifies huge energy-use restrictions is another all-important effort.

Save them? How? I only have a camera, not a long rope. Nope, I just watch them go down. Sorry, but there is nothing I can do. Do a take a picture? No. Better they fade away without a trace, given that they never should have made a trace in the first place. Then I would enjoy the thought that maybe many jobs were just saved, much debt would not come to be, taxes might be lower than otherwise, the death panels of ObamaCare might not come to be, and the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fraud might not be used as reason to kill the American and many other economies worldwide. hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved and billions of lives would be improved. Just the facts.

Did you mean to write "while I do not allow Ayn Rand to set my sexual goals and appetites"? But Rand did not see them as her subjective choices only. If it were only that, but thought they ought to be everyone else's too. Her theory of sex contains a catalog which faithful followers probably tried to follow religiously (just as several of them took up smoking) because she was an ideological guru. With regard to sexuality, Rand's heroes are clearly different from other fictional characters, like e. g. Nabokov's Humbert Humbert whose sexual preference is directed at a twelve-year-old (Lolita). But as opposed to Rand, Nabokov does not present his character as role model, on the contrary. Humber Humbert as an older man fighting his own fear of decay by becoming obsessed with the budding sexuality of a young girl is something entirely different. The domination/rape scene in The Fountainhead was plain sexual assault, and in that differed from a prearranged sex game. I really have problems with the word "caring" here. I didn't think of any weapon or strangling, since there is no evidence of that. I just could not visualize the scene from the description, that's why I asked what it could mean. On another thread, it has been suggested it was "a very powerful ejaculation", but for it to "hit the throat", the throat is a bit far away (unless oral activity was involved, but frankly, I don't think Rand would have been that explicit. I can image she'd feel it would taint the image of her heroine if she had her do that. After all, Rand was no Henry Miller). What you suggest has been in the back of my mind too, and considering the whole scenario ("single shock of pleasure clearly indicates an orgasm), I'm inclined to interpret that what "hit her throat" was the sudden deep breathing as part of it. I see them as mostly unempathetic, bordering on the psychopathic. Roark is totally uninterested in what others feel, Galt has traits of a tyrant; his following the heroine for 12 years is just plain stalking imo. Aside from being obsessed with Dagny, Galt has lived strangely sexless in all those years. So despite their intelligence and creativity, those heroes remain very artificial, cold cardbaord-cutouts mostly incapable of showing emotion, except hate. If one compares them to the many great portrayals of characters in famous works of literature, one will see how limited Rand was in her capacity here. The sexual encounters betwen Dagny/Rearden/Galt often show the same pattern. They mostly seem to have no sexual appetite at all, except for the heroine Dagny (D'Anconia, Rearden, Galt). Galt holds Dagny more or less captive. He is the king of the valley, the ruler. He reproaches her with having broken the rules of the valley by intruding in it, but how could she have broke any rules when she couldn't know that the valley even existed when her plane crashed there? I too don't see her as progamming the reader. Her magnum opus AS is a black and white superhero/heroine vs. enemies revenge fantasy, where those standing in the way of the auhor's subjective values finally get what they deserve. X-ray, it is clear that our perspectives on life are so different that we cannot find any way to even usefully discuss matters of sex and human caring. It is as though a life-long Capitalist were to undertake an economics discussion with a life-long Marxist. However, you are right that I somehow left out the word "not" in my First point. Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes my mind moves faster than my fingers can type and I had little time. While is true that Rand had a fascination with men dominating women, I do not at all see that as her only acceptable kind of sex. It is not my primary mode of loving and I see no fundamental conflict between my more tender style and Objectivist principles. I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels. Rand does have a strong sense of the dramatic, but no one lives every moment of their lives in that mode. That would be too unsettling a roller coaster ride. Mind you, roller coasters have their moments, but not so many as tender love. Galt holds Dagny prisoner in Galt's Gulch while she heals, knowing she wants an excuse to stay, and because he has no obligation to return her to the outer world until he is ready to do so. He does not chain her up and she is free to move around Galt's Gulch and presumably could walk out if she were so inclined. Apparently we do not share a common idea of what caring or revenge are. Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire. But, with Galt's motor and their various abilities, if they actually wanted revenge, do you not think they could have made very effective active war against the weak and crumbling likes of President Thompson's regime? Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others. I do not know what caring is for you, but I would find it very uncaring if it violates that principle. Given that others honor that principle, I see many instances in which Rand's heroes demonstrate caring and I am puzzled by the inability many have to see that. What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea. The important thing is that she developed many wonderful ideas and we have been greatly benefited by her life's work. Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action? Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you. What I am puzzled by here is this: Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you love or not? If not, why are you so interested in spending your time discussing her work?

Imo several sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged show a remarkable amount of violence coupled with lack of empathy and caring. This is currently being discussed here, quite controversially: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=440, (posts # 452 and # 454) This describes the first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt in the tunnel: AS, p. 957: Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure. (end quote) A question re the quote from AS: "then she felt when it hit her throat" What does "it" refer to? Rand often desribes her heroes as ruthless, etc. Galt is the complete opposite of a caring lover. Not to mention Roark, who even commits a gutter-level sexual assault, not matter how Rand tries to play it down by calling it "rape by engraved invitation" (in which case it would be a sadomasochistic scene). It is no so much Rand's subjective preferences which are the issue (what turns people on is their own business), but Rand's agenda was to present characters like Galt and Roark to the readers as the ideal man, "the man as man should be" (Roark). It seems like quite few people many first got acquainted with Rand's work at a fairly young age (in their teens), and therefore might think of the Randian heroes also as sexual role models to emulate. First, I will simply make it clear that while I do allow Ayn Rand to set my sexual goals and appetites, I in no way am condemning her for hers. I see them as her choices and they are perfectly fine when she is exercising them with a consenting adult. Second, I think Galt and Roark are consistently very caring lovers who are providing exactly the love that Dagny and Dominique want. That it is not what you want, is perfectly fine. I do not believe that every woman should necessarily wish to be dominated. Third, the "it" in "then she felt when it hit her throat" seems likely to be the emotion she is feeling rising up in her. I do not at all see it as a weapon or his strangling her or whatever you might be suggesting. Fourth, Galt and Roark are presented as thinking men who think for themselves, as Dagny also is and Dominique partly is. These men are presented as examples of heroes. They are good men. But, so are Francisco, Dr. Henderson, Hank Rearden, and Midas Mulligan. They are not all alike. A main characteristic of each is that he thinks for himself and he acts on his thoughts. There is little reason to believe they all have the same sexual appetites and needs. Indeed, the relationship between Ragnar and his wife seems different. Also, a fair reading of Dagny's stay in Galt's Gulch reveals a very great tenderness on Galt's part for Dagny. It seems clear that rough sex was hardly likely to be the daily form of sex in their on-going relationship. I believe Ayn Rand was seeking a thinking reader. I do not think she was trying to program her readers.

Damn, that must mean I'm comatose perhaps during it. LMAO This just struck me as too far out there to even put much validity into it. That MANY areas are deactivated during orgasm....interesting. I'll have to read each link provided. But as for the study that a lot of women report not being able to reach the big O doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, if it is pounded into you day in and day out and you are taught as you are growing up that women are not to enjoy sex and if that women have many partners that must mean you're a slut, etc., etc., etc., they wonder why women aren't responsive to sex or have problems reaching the big O, let alone that they aren't familiar enough with their own bodies. Let alone that, the responses I get when I ask a woman, do you masturbate and their first response to me is NO. I just have to laugh at this response of no. They're not being honest with me nor with themselves. It's truly unfortunate. I would not be at all surprised if appreciable numbers of women do not masturbate or at least do it very rarely. This is unfortunate, especially for those who do not have vagina orgasms, which some of Adams references indicate may be for genetic reasons. As for the brain shutting down, sometimes I don't have the energy to use it for a while after cumming. Perhaps my mind has shut down completely also. For sure, I often cannot stand up without feeling dizzy and off-balance, so even very fundamental parts of my brain appear to be shutting down. The reason why I said what I did is after their telling me no and the more I talk to them about it and get them more comfortable with me and expressing my own experiences, being very open in regards to my own sexual practices, they ultimately admit that they do. So that high percentage of women that claim they don't I definitely have a problem with and that these -- not all -- but many most likely are not being honest. Given the state of our society and how women are to view sex and how men are to view women and sex, admitting something that they think may be wrong and that they are to be condemned for it or judged in a negative light by it, of course they won't admit to it. As for the imaging studies, I just find this to be extremely intriguing and would be interested to see more studies in this regard. I know during it I am completely oblivious to what is going on around me. What I find to be interesting is what they qualify as MANY...given the complexity of our bodies and the numerous systems, what do they mean by MANY and what areas do they see as shutting down. It's just way too vague for me. I remember a long while back when I had imaging done of my brain, specifically the pituitary gland because they suspected a brain tumor, both of the doctors that were looking at the real time images were amazed at the amount of activity going on and that it was unusual and something that they only saw in about 10 percent of the population. I found that imaging study referenced above to be far reaching. Given if I can remember correctly that it was only a PET scan which has its limitations, I would be interested to see more studies done in this regard. Given the complexity of our bodies and the numerous systems and the areas of the brain that is used to keep these systems functioning properly, even at the lowest rung of "survival" without completely shutting down, is significant. As for my state and my being able to function afterwards, etc., is not quite as extreme as yours. But do have to admit that during it, all that matters at that time is what I am experiencing. I am totally oblivious to my surroundings, very relaxed. I find it hard to believe that the area that controls emotions is completely shut down in women. Having an orgasm, I am happy as hell that I got my BIG O. The emotion claim and that area of the brain, that's far reaching for me. Given they have barely understood the brain and its structures and again the complexities of it and how each area specifically functions with another and their integration, it's difficult for me to take the study as definitive proof. I would be very interested to know what the studies would show in 100 years from now or hell 50 years in any major advancements of further study into the brain and their finally being able to understand the complexities of it. While I expect some women really do not masturbate, just as they say, I am equally sure that many women will simply not share that information. There are a great many things that people do think about sexually or that they practice, which they are ashamed to admit to or which the childishness of social opinion on many matters of sex, simply makes it more costly than it is worth to share the information. Ask a number of men if they have ever thought about or had sex with another man and the positive response will be much below the number necessary to support the sex industries based on a positive response to that question. A mental state and activity after having sex is quite variable. I do not know of any cases in which my emotional response is cut off, but after being at the limits of arousal for a long time, I am very aware that some areas of brain activity have surely escaped my focus!

Adam, reading through these accounts has added still more examples of how incredibly unique and differentiable people are by adding so much information on the different female responses to sex. Thanks for the links.

Damn, that must mean I'm comatose perhaps during it. LMAO This just struck me as too far out there to even put much validity into it. That MANY areas are deactivated during orgasm....interesting. I'll have to read each link provided. But as for the study that a lot of women report not being able to reach the big O doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, if it is pounded into you day in and day out and you are taught as you are growing up that women are not to enjoy sex and if that women have many partners that must mean you're a slut, etc., etc., etc., they wonder why women aren't responsive to sex or have problems reaching the big O, let alone that they aren't familiar enough with their own bodies. Let alone that, the responses I get when I ask a woman, do you masturbate and their first response to me is NO. I just have to laugh at this response of no. They're not being honest with me nor with themselves. It's truly unfortunate. I would not be at all surprised if appreciable numbers of women do not masturbate or at least do it very rarely. This is unfortunate, especially for those who do not have vagina orgasms, which some of Adams references indicate may be for genetic reasons. As for the brain shutting down, sometimes I don't have the energy to use it for a while after cumming. Perhaps my mind has shut down completely also. For sure, I often cannot stand up without feeling dizzy and off-balance, so even very fundamental parts of my brain appear to be shutting down.

Yes. It is good to know that there is another man who has this experience.

There is no doubt something I am looking to express but haven't quite gotten it organized in such a way that is presentable at this point and haven't quite put my finger on it. I'm taking in the entire paragraph and the context of what you are saying and the underlying message so to speak is quite profound and gives great insight. You are most definitely correct in that it is just a moment but what is ultimately taken from that moment, aside from the physical pleasure, is the deep emotional connection which is wholly justified and should be this way regardless. Oh, man, this is going to irk me like crazy. Hmmm...I'll have to come back to this one at some point. I've read this paragraph many times over and there's something about it that I haven't yet identified in what it is. Nothing bad or anything and maybe I'm just too damn tired at this point but this paragraph I find to be extremely intriguing. So very well said, my dear!!! You have one very very lucky wife it seems to me!!! When I said too many people make too much of ejaculation, I forgot a cardinal rule. Namely, that it is clearly the case that not everyone is like me. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed riding my bike around the perimeter of Rod Field and all over it in Texas. Later, I came to find that I enjoyed running long distances. When running, the first half mile was always the hardest and after about one and half or two miles, the running was shear pleasure. When I ran regularly, that shear pleasure would commonly last out to about 8 miles of hard running. Now, clearly, this is not true for everyone. We differ. For me, often long before I ejaculate, I have reached a state of euphoria in making love, which includes some aspects of that runner's high. Believe me, the feeling is great and it can last a very long while. The feeling is more than a runner's high to be clear in that there is more going on in my mind, such as the wonder of all the sensations from my nervous system, which my wife is a master at invoking. Or, the anticipation of her next move. Or, my thrill at finding that she is very, very wet or at her moans. And, much more. I really can and should only say that it in the context of the very heightened pleasure that I feel that ejaculation may be overrated. Others may not, and probably often do not, reach such levels of pleasure, so that their focus on ejaculation may be fully justified. Sometimes, I do not ejaculate at all if my focus has been very strongly on trying to please my wife. This does not at all disappoint me in many cases. Again, my pleasure was just too great to regret. Pleasure comes in many complex forms and having a variety of forms of pleasure is rather spicy! Unfortunately, there are times when my wife is disappointed that I did not come and I have a hard time convincing her that I am perfectly happy. But, I really am. There are also times when I simply enjoy the pleasure my wife is giving me so much and I can so concentrate on it, that I also do not come. Again, I have absolutely no regrets, except concern that she is disappointed that I did not come. So, it is in this context, which is probably shared by at least a few other people, if not many, that I say that sometimes too much is made of ejaculation. Now, I believe my wife is reasonably happy with me, but I bow before her as a lover. She is incredible. She does claim that I am an easy subject and very easy to please. There is truth in this, but still she is an incredible lover. She so enjoys torturing me with near-overloads of pleasure! I wish she had as much capability for experiencing such pleasure directly herself, but she does not. We are all different. I can't help but have a huge smile on my face!! My, oh, my, what a phenomenal answer and I completely understand your point of view as well as your wife's point of view of her being upset that you didn't fulfill that one aspect. When it comes to a loving relationship, taking joy and happiness in fulfilling your partner's desires and making them happy is a reward in and of itself and there is no sacrifice because each person benefits in their own way. I cannot say that I haven't ever done the same as well as many others here on this site and elsewhere I am sure. Some here may frown upon this and say it is a sacrifice and the whole O'ist deal but I don't and I really couldn't care if someone screams it's so un-O'ist of you. LOL When you are in a loving relationship, their joy becomes your joy and being able to provide what your partner is desiring at that time, wanting to make him/her happy, gives rewards and payoffs to each. I cannot say that every time that I've made love with my partner that I've had an orgasm every time because I can't BUT there have been times where it is available to him if and when he needs it, despite my not being in the mood so to speak and despite my never reaching that big O during it. Having him happy and satisfied brings me happiness and that I am able to provide him with what he is desiring. But I still cannot deny that it is my goal, a goal not always achieved, but definitely my goal because that orgasm and the intensity of that orgasm....*sighing* I don't think I would even be able to describe and put into words what it's like. In learning so much that I have up to this point about sex and experimenting, the orgasms have only gotten better and 100 fold in intensity. People say, yeah, orgasm this and orgasm that but the differences between certain orgasms and the areas being stimulated are tremendous and to get the double or triple whammy such as having a clitoral orgasm, G-spot orgasm, and the above all favorite X spot orgasm and you get hit with a simultaneous triple whammy and all three areas erupting at once....OMG, just the thought mesmerizes me. Or the orgasms with double penetration are distinctly different in and of themselves but when combined, the overall sensation is far different than just a G-spot orgasm or clitoral orgasm and is far more intense. So although I do understand where you are coming from and I can't deny that this is something I am familiar with in wanting to please my partner but man, oh, man, oh, GOD, yes, I do want that orgasm and if it's a double or triple whammy....phew, that's some good stuff. LOL Thinking more about this though, I find it very interesting that there's many ways to please a man but I honestly believe that women have far more ways of achieving orgasm and how to intensify those orgasms far and above what can be done in stimulating a man. Hmmm....but then again, I know of 5 spots on a man that can produce intense orgasms. Interesting for me to think about and comparing the two and who is ahead so to speak....hehehehehe ;) But as always, great answer and you are definitely unique in so many ways. And as I said, your wife is very very lucky to have you!! Okay, it's way past my bed time and in need of some serious sleep. More sometime tomorrow -- well, today I suppose and I possibly gave way too much info -- but regardless, the discussions have been interesting up to this point. For the sake of education and furthering my own understanding and exploration, I'm willing to talk and not so reserved. 'night!! I understand that having the desired response from your lover is a great reward for your efforts to give them pleasure. It may even be that there is an evolutionary factor built in with regard to a woman wanting to acquire a man's semen, thereby heightening her need or desire for his ejaculation. But, some people are blessed with an intense response to touch over many areas or some areas of their bodies which are not the source of orgasms in most people. The feeling is nonetheless very electric and stimulative of a euphoria of the mind which is but little less intense than an orgasm or ejaculation, but has the advantage of lasting much longer. Sometimes, when I have been suspended in this state of being long enough, I lose the ability to ejaculate, though I may remain very stiff or not by the time I must finally relax. When I say some people, I am basing that on myself and one female friend, so my statistics are lousy, especially given that I have had fewer sexual partners than most people. But 2 people at least establishes the existence of the phenomena. Given that I believe we are all very unique, it is often a puzzling thing to try to perceive something as complex and emotion-intense as love-making through your lover's eyes. There is always some limitation in that we are each subject to insight based upon our own introspection of such feelings and emotions, yet those feelings and emotions are not the same as those of our lover. There are many times when I wish my mind were more like a long-wavelength quantum state that could literally become entangled with the corresponding mind-state of my lover and we could each directly experience what the other was feeling. Pure science fiction, but wouldn't that be incredible, at least if it were only possible by permission of two consenting adults! For instance, it would be amazing to actually feel your lover having a clitoral, G-spot, and X-spot orgasm all at once! Ahhh... but we struggle with so many limitations. Still, that struggle is delightful. While I have never enjoyed the idea of trying to gain dominance over others, including lovers, it is a joy to know you have the power to give them pleasure and satisfaction. That sense of efficacy that comes with seeing and feeling their pleasure is itself very rewarding. If you care about someone enough to want to make love to them, then it is right that you should feel good about the success you have in doing so. As for whether this is an Objectivist viewpoint, I do not lay anyone else's template for "Objectivist love" or "Objectivist sex" over my life. I believe the basic principles of Objectivism are right, but their application to my life is to be worked out by me and need not be consistent with anyone else's template, not even Ayn Rand's. There is no question that my views on sex and love are very different from Rand's in the details and this is a good thing, because I am not her and I believe I am a lot happier than she was! You have an unusually great capacity for enjoying love-making, Angie, and that is wonderful thing. Love and sex are among the best things in life and we should embrace their enjoyment. They are also well worth thinking about, which you have done in some respects more than I. It is a pleasure to learn from you about this incredible knowledge you have amassed! And, I know of no woman who has thought about her sexual responses as much as you have. I wish many more women were willing to do so and were also willing to talk about it.

There is no doubt something I am looking to express but haven't quite gotten it organized in such a way that is presentable at this point and haven't quite put my finger on it. I'm taking in the entire paragraph and the context of what you are saying and the underlying message so to speak is quite profound and gives great insight. You are most definitely correct in that it is just a moment but what is ultimately taken from that moment, aside from the physical pleasure, is the deep emotional connection which is wholly justified and should be this way regardless. Oh, man, this is going to irk me like crazy. Hmmm...I'll have to come back to this one at some point. I've read this paragraph many times over and there's something about it that I haven't yet identified in what it is. Nothing bad or anything and maybe I'm just too damn tired at this point but this paragraph I find to be extremely intriguing. So very well said, my dear!!! You have one very very lucky wife it seems to me!!! When I said too many people make too much of ejaculation, I forgot a cardinal rule. Namely, that it is clearly the case that not everyone is like me. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed riding my bike around the perimeter of Rod Field and all over it in Texas. Later, I came to find that I enjoyed running long distances. When running, the first half mile was always the hardest and after about one and half or two miles, the running was shear pleasure. When I ran regularly, that shear pleasure would commonly last out to about 8 miles of hard running. Now, clearly, this is not true for everyone. We differ. For me, often long before I ejaculate, I have reached a state of euphoria in making love, which includes some aspects of that runner's high. Believe me, the feeling is great and it can last a very long while. The feeling is more than a runner's high to be clear in that there is more going on in my mind, such as the wonder of all the sensations from my nervous system, which my wife is a master at invoking. Or, the anticipation of her next move. Or, my thrill at finding that she is very, very wet or at her moans. And, much more. I really can and should only say that it in the context of the very heightened pleasure that I feel that ejaculation may be overrated. Others may not, and probably often do not, reach such levels of pleasure, so that their focus on ejaculation may be fully justified. Sometimes, I do not ejaculate at all if my focus has been very strongly on trying to please my wife. This does not at all disappoint me in many cases. Again, my pleasure was just too great to regret. Pleasure comes in many complex forms and having a variety of forms of pleasure is rather spicy! Unfortunately, there are times when my wife is disappointed that I did not come and I have a hard time convincing her that I am perfectly happy. But, I really am. There are also times when I simply enjoy the pleasure my wife is giving me so much and I can so concentrate on it, that I also do not come. Again, I have absolutely no regrets, except concern that she is disappointed that I did not come. So, it is in this context, which is probably shared by at least a few other people, if not many, that I say that sometimes too much is made of ejaculation. Now, I believe my wife is reasonably happy with me, but I bow before her as a lover. She is incredible. She does claim that I am an easy subject and very easy to please. There is truth in this, but still she is an incredible lover. She so enjoys torturing me with near-overloads of pleasure! I wish she had as much capability for experiencing such pleasure directly herself, but she does not. We are all different.

Thanks for your comments, Angie. As you describe Adam, I would say that it should be a pleasure to get to know him better through conversations here. The Fall period is usually the busiest time of the year at the lab, so I am very pressed for time this time of year, but I will try to get back into OL a bit. What with my blog war with socialism and the Obama government, I am spread a bit thinly.

I found this very interesting. I wonder if the clarity of the regular ejaculate in larger quantities is a function of the initial fluid reacting with or mixing with fluids already in the urethra to make a milky fluid and it simply clarifies as the pre-ejaculation fluids are washed out by the early ejaculate. In any case, I prefer our breathable micro-tight mattress cover sheet to having to move a towel all around the bed when you want to concentrate on making love, not worrying about whether the towel in in the right place. This cover was a very good investment. Besides, there are other fluids to think about, which may not be so localized. Some of us have been known to get quite a physical workout over the course of an hour or two of love-making! Perspiration can be an issue.

I just noticed a bit ago that I had earlier failed to read the page 2 comments, so I missed the fact that CNA is now openly Angie. That is wonderful! Well, Angie, every time you say sweetie, my spine tingles. Every time you smile, I smile. Thanks, as always. I hope all goes well on putting your case package together. While I love every note you send, I also know you are under great time pressures and you get much too little sleep and rest. I can wait, as need be. But I will always be here.

Thank you Adam. Angie thinks highly of you, so I especially appreciate your response. I look forward to getting to know you. There is certainly something very positive about those who have a serious interest in sex, at least when coupled with a high level of rationality.

To think I started this by simply passing along a joke one of my many sisters sent me to a good friend! Since my esteemed friend has been so kind as to refer to me as someone who has thought about the experience of sex and love-making, I suppose I might venture a few thoughts. First, I do think that the brain is the principal sex organ in many ways, as was wisely noted already. The brain evaluates the desirability of our sexual partner, including everything from appearance in all of its many manifestations, to how nice the person is, how intelligent, how interesting, and how spirited. So, by these standards CNA is certainly a love goddess. But to each his own. Then there is the anticipation of making love which may last for years, weeks, or minutes, but can be a great-feeling prelude to love-making and can be very rewarding in good feelings all by itself. Then in love-making, the brain processes the feelings from the nervous system. God, or Goddess, those feelings from almost any part of your body can be heavenly, if you have the right state of mind and perhaps a great nervous system. I believe strongly in the individuality of each human being and I believe this has a basis in our DNA and other aspects of our biochemistry, in our brains and the way we develop them, in our organs and nervous system, and in our more obvious sexual organs. Our response to touch seems to be very different, for instance. For me, well, I am simply in heaven with the right lover's touch to my arm, the palm of my hand, my upper back, or my lower back, or my side, or dozens of other places. Some combination of a good nervous system, the right partner, the anticipation of the brain, and maybe a biochemistry that gets high really easily, makes me a very responsive and appreciative lover. This is true of some other fortunate souls too, but clearly is not true of many others. One of the biggest turn-ons is to have an appreciative lover who really is enjoying herself. Making love to such a lover is fantastic and I find it strange to think that one would not want to do so for hours at a time. I find simply hearing the voice of my lover to be a major turn-on. Of course, if my lover is talking about sexy thoughts, that is even better. Or if she is spinning a tale about a fantasy, that is, well, heavenly. A kiss anywhere can be wonderful, and of course there are different orders of magnitude for wonderful and I am not here going to go into some of the most wonderful areas to kiss. But, I have cum from simply being kissed mouth to mouth by a wonderful lover after a period of great foreplay. Perhaps it is mostly mental. Yes, yes, it is. Above, there was talk about penis length and girth, points of stimulation in the vagina, and female ejaculation and lubrication, and vagina size, all of which is interesting and important. But, for me, while ejaculation is a great moment, it often suffers from being a moment. Sometimes it is almost a sad moment, because the anticipation is over and the many pleasures that preceded it are likely to end. In other words, I tend to think that a little too much emphasis is placed on cumming. Too many people think that is the primary point and making love should end when that is accomplished. Sometimes, even after coming I wish the love-making would go on. Sometimes, I am so high at that point that I simply cannot move and I just want to hold my lover. I imagine there are many individual responses at this point. I am an experimental scientist. I have to observe reality very carefully in my work, make hypotheses based on what I know from the past and have observed, and find ways to test those hypotheses. It is amazing what you can learn simply by careful observation. Sometimes the hypothesis is wrong and sometimes the effort to make it and to test it, teaches me new things. The whole process is one of observation, development of capabilities and skills, exploration, and enjoyment of the results. In many ways each of us should be doing the same thing with respect to our love-making. There is so much to observe, so much to try, so much to understand, and so much to enjoy. It is most unfortunate that we are not encouraged more by our society to undertake this experimental and developmental effort as a serious matter affecting our pursuit of happiness. It is most unfortunate that the centrality of love-making as an issue of high importance to our happiness is not recognized by the grant of much more freedom to discuss it and to share experiences. It would be great if there were much more open-mindedness about sex and the need to accommodate the high degree of individuality of human sexuality. By the standards of society, those who have as much interest in it as I do, are simply perverts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, my most lovely friend, I hope you have enjoyed my response to your invitation to participate in this conversation.

The great puzzle is why Christians often claim that god must exist as the necessary intelligent designer that evolution cannot provide, but they give up the opportunity to claim god's existence is implied by how otherworldly sex can be. I cannot remember anything that could be called sex education in high school in the 60s. I think my younger sister was the first in our family to get something called sex education. All I remember was guys claiming to know things that it was clear they did not know. I sure did not.

Angie's Institute for Sexual Information, AISI Angie's Sexual Information Institute, ASII, pronounced: A Sigh! Angie's Venus Institute, AVI, no that is already taken, having something to fo with video formatting. Angie's Sex Improvement Society, ASIS, asimilar to Isis, the Egyptian Goddess of Love, but it should be similar. Angie's Sex Institute, ASI, a one-letter advance on ARI, but is that enough improvement? Angie's Lovemaking Institute, ALI, sounds Muslim and they do not like sex, except after death. Angie's Sex and Love Institute, ASLI, no that is the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute. Angie's Fun and Games Institute, AFGI, no that is the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, surely not given to fun and games! Well, it looks like the winner is clearly A Sigh! I am not able to improve on that.

Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis was funny and enjoyable. I always enjoyed Mark Twain and O'Henry.