Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eponine

  • Birthday October 23

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern NM
  • Interests
    Musicals, a cappella, linguistics, translation, gender roles, sexuality, non-traditional relationships

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    - I'm polyamorous. - I'm asexual and very sex-positive. - As you may have guessed from my name, I'm a big fan of Les Mis (both the musical and the book). - I come from a socialist country.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - the best thing I did in 2014!

Eponine's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. I get what you guys are saying, but I think there's a difference between what happens in the socio-political scope and what happens in the interpersonal scope. Andrei's political beliefs are destructive, but in his personal relationship with Kira, he has always been kind and respectful to her despite their different political views. That's why I think he doesn't automatically deserve to be used by a friend because of his wrongdoings in the political scope. That said, as I said before, what I disagree with most is not Kira's action itself (I agree it's forced and all), but her apparent lack of guilt and regret. Though as Repairman pointed out, it could be an extreme response in an extreme situation. This got me thinking: What if Andrei wasn't a communist, but another Leo-like guy who somehow had a lot of money? (I know it's unlikely, but just hypothetically speaking.) Would you be more sympathetic toward him because he's more "innocent" in this case?
  2. Yeah, I did think of that possibility. After all, she said that to Andrei after Andrei arrested Leo, in a moment of extreme emotions. In the movie, Kira also said something like "Oh Andrei, what did I do to you?" which showed her regret. But I don't recall the same words in the book.
  3. **Warning: Potential We The Living Spoilers Ahead** I like the character of Kira and I can see why some people consider her the best Rand heroine, but I just can't agree with what she did to Andrei in order to save Leo. She used a friend by pretending to love him romantically. I understand that she had tried every other way in vain and Andrei was her last hope, but lying is lying, hurting someone is hurting someone. I also understand that many people might do the same in the same situation, but what really bothers me is Kira didn't feel guilty - she told Andrei she was proud of what she did. Did Andrei deserve to be used and cheated on, just because he was a communist? He was a communist, but also an individual who had feelings. Furthermore, he's not a communist like Victor; he's a person with integrity, which is why Kira loved him as a friend. And because they were friends, I find Kira's action worse than if she did it to someone she didn't care about. If I was in Andrei's place, I'd be very angry at Kira, even if I agreed with her criticism of communism. I wouldn't care she had another lover (I'm not monogamous), but I can't tolerate dishonesty. Anyone else feels the same?
  4. This. Even the Chinese constitution acknowledges Chinese citizen's freedom of speech, press, protesting, etc, but in reality everyone knows they're just empty words. If China gains more and more control over HK, the same thing may eventually happen to HK laws.
  5. Economic freedom is just part of the whole package. John may very well decide that living in country A makes him happier than living in country B, because country A's positive aspects outweigh its lack of freedom. It's just like you may love a non-Objectivist more than you love an Objectivist because of the first person's other good qualities.
  6. I can access the Miscellaneous Topics subforum (http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showforum=8), but there's no post inside.
  7. The Miscellaneous subforums are still there, but the topics directly under Miscellaneous seem to be gone. I can still find a Miscellaneous topic from my content, but the link doesn't work.
  8. Thanks for your answer and compliment, JASKN.
  9. I get an error message "You do not have permission to vote in this poll" every time I try to vote. I assume only certain user groups can vote, but what's the exact eligibility to vote? Like, do I need to make a certain number of posts? Also, I'm surprised to find I have 2300+ profile views after only 1.5 months and 17 posts. Not many people showed up in the "latest visitors" though (I guess you can visit people's profile anonymously, but I'm not sure). Do profile views from guests or myself count?
  10. I agree, if "bond" is defined broadly. For example, I've enjoyed free hugs; I didn't know any of the people I hugged personally, but I guess you can say we shared a bond in the sense that we both saw the beauty in sharing a simple gesture of kindness and affection. And for people who are okay with casual sex, perhaps simply seeing each other as attractive and decent people is enough of a bond. Agreed with that too.
  11. It's different from being picky. A picky person may desire sex without any specific person in mind or find many people sexually attractive, but will only have sex when there's an emotional bond/committed relationship; a demisexual doesn't desire sex or experience sexual attraction at all until an emotional bond is formed. I just don't get why sex is singled out from all the other physical contacts. One can desire a good massage or a hug independent from any mental connection (e.g. getting professional massage service or giving free hugs to strangers), and no one says that's a mind-body dichotomy, so why desiring sex just for sex is? Again, it comes back to what I said in my first reply: it depends on how you experience desire. If your desire for sex is inseparable from desire for emotional connection, then don't have sex with people you don't love; if you experience desire for the physical aspect of sex alone and are comfortable with casual sex, then casual/non-romantic sex may very well be good for your life.
  12. I don't think Rand's idea about sex is realistic. She seemed to believe a virtuous person will only be sexually attracted to people who share his values, and her heroes (Francisco, Galt, etc.) can be celibate for years because the person they love isn't available and they're not attracted to anyone else. This is kind of like demisexuality, but it's not the norm. From what I observed, most people can experience sexual desire that is independent from desire for a specific person, or be sexually attracted to people they're not romantically interested in. Now, I'm asexual so I don't experience any of that, but I'm very sex-positive in that I see (other people's) sexual desire as part of human nature that shouldn't be denied and casual sex can be good and healthy. This is against Rand's view on sex, but I think it's consistent with the basic principles of Objectivism, because sexual desire is part of the objective reality. It's better to accept it than to suppress it.
  13. Me too. If you can enjoy the more casual kind of sex, then don't deny yourself sexual pleasure just because Rand said sex without romantic love was immoral. However, it seems that some people do need to be in a long-term relationship (or at least to see the potential of it) to be comfortable with sex; physical attraction alone isn't enough to them. For people like that, I guess casual sex will indeed be a self-sacrifice as Rand claimed. It seems to be the OP's case to me, though I can't be 100% certain. Of course, there are many shades of gray between the two extremes of "not needing emotional connection at all to enjoy sex" and "absolutely needing to be in a committed relationship to enjoy sex." Is it more important to have the sexual experience itself or to have sex with someone you love? That's up to you (the OP) to answer. If you conclude that you need to be in a committed relationship to enjoy sex and there's no one suitable around you, there's still the option of trying to find someone who is right for you (by expanding your social circles, joining interest groups, online dating, etc.).
  14. I agree with your whole post so much, and the above quotes especially resonate with me, because I've been feeling the same when reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I don't like the mind games Roark played on Dominique early on. I can't relate to the violent sex scenes. As a female, I've never wanted to find a romantic partner I can "look up to." I don't even feel extra feminine in front of a romantic partner. I also tend to be attracted to gender-neutral men, so my relationships are pretty much devoid of gender roles. I guess those who identify strongly with their gender are more likely to relate to the kind of gender dynamics portrayed by Rand, but gender-blind or gender-neutral people like me tend to find those ideas alien. I want to bring up a quote by Francisco: "The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of women he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer..." I totally agree with the gist of this statement, but "the hardest to conquer" is what rubs me the wrong way. I'll be totally turned off by a man who wants to find a sense of achievement by conquering me. I want someone who sees me as an equal companion, not an object, a conquest, a trophy. I can sort of understand that "the hardest to conquer" basically means the best you can find, the person who matches your own excellence. I agree with that, but I'll never use words like "conquer" or "look up to." It's alien for me to think in those terms. So even if what I mean by "an equal companion" may be equivalent to what Rand or someone else meant by "someone to conquer/look up to," our different choices of wording reflect fundamentally different views on gender roles.
  • Create New...