Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Aurora Afiag

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aurora Afiag

  • Birthday 03/04/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
  • Real Name
  • Occupation

Aurora Afiag's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. Thank you everyone for responding! (whether I agree with your viewpoints or not) to JMeganSnow: You Rock! I know exactly what you were talking about! oh dear i have been interrupted and i will have to post when i have more time Thanks everyone! -aurora- p.s. "Another observation I've just came to is noticing that there is a parallel between thinking that "objectifying" requires that you regard consciousness as non-objective, and people who think that communism "works in theory" and is an objective, logical concept, with capitalism on the other side being a passionate, reasonless, faith-driven concept. Its the people who think that to be objective means to be cold, inhuman, to sacrifice others to self, to regard humans as ants serving the queen ant of society. It's the same premise that causes both viewpoints." nice point!
  2. WHOA First of all, I have no earthly idea why you directed me to that thread. If you had read it all the way through, you would realize that the idea that it was not rape is highly unpopular and even proven with direct quotes to be untrue. Dominique WAS raped. (however, it being fictional, that account was more symbolic and not really involved in what i was talking about) Regardless, my question is more about the Objectivist view on the morality of rape. -aurora
  3. Actually, I agree that it is an honor, but only on some levels. And why would you bring feminists into this? (out of curiosity) I am not a feminist by any means. Feminists are like radical christians, and, therefore, are of no use to me. I am a woman and the scenes between Dagny and Rearden, Dagny and Galt, and Dominique and Roark are very arousing for me. But is rape an honor? It would seem so, by your response and Ms. Rand's description of how Roark's rape of Dominique changed her character in a positive manner and essentially saved her from destroying herself. Help me out here. Does this really align itself with the basis of her philosophy? And if so, what does that mean? To be objectified, desired, and overcome by a man is definately sexy, and an honor. But to me the honor would come in knowing that this man also has a lot of respect for the woman. Particularly in Dagny's character it is clear that Rand is not a feminist but also does not support feminism, either. Dagny is credited with running the railroad and has much greater value beyond the honor of being desired by a man. She is also greatly respected and rape is not usually associated with ideas of respect. If a man wanted a woman that badly, based on his value system, wouldn't it show that his rape of her means that he had no respect for her mind/person or even for her body? If nothing else, please define the morality of rape to me. Thank you, aurora
  4. "...[sex is]an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire." -Francisco D' Aconia- from Atlas Shrugged One could argue that by virtue of this statement she contradicts herself. If she finds the feeling of being dominated sexually arousing then the act is not in self-exaltation but in self-abasement meaning that her own sexual preferences are in direct conflict with her philosophy. -aurora-
  5. Judging by the sexual interactions of Rand's main characters, one could infer that she was aroused by being dominated by men. I would love to hear the various opinions that I am sure exist about what this says of her morality. If ones values are expressed through sex, then what does it mean to long to be dominated and overcome physically? (as both Dominique and Dagny are physically dominated by the male heros of the books) -aurora- p.s. i love that different opinions that i get to read on this website which is why i hope to get some feedback on this topic
  6. I thought that this was an interesting ending to that article... ------A columnist in The Times derided the bishops' report as the latest example of "regular outpourings of Western self-hatred and the appeasement of tyrants from the Church of England." "What distinguishes America is that when it fights it does so not to impose tyranny but to promote freedom and the stable democracy of which the bishops are so contemptuous," wrote Stephen Pollard. "Without America sending its sons to fight for liberty, we would be speaking German."------- Gags, reading your post was like popping out of water and gulping down breaths of fresh air. THANK YOU. -Aurora-
  • Create New...