~Sophia~

The dancing did seem to make the erotic experience much more enjoyable. I certainly do understand why. However, the customers that I talked to did not seek to experience 'the grace of female movement' without the nakedness. If the women were not naked their dancing - even if very erotic/artistic would not have brought these men into the club and made them spend a lot of money. In fact the owner of the club would remind their employees about this very fact almost every day (the fact that it was all about their ..... and not their dancing).

I also do not see productive value in stripping. Back in college, durring one of my summer breaks, I worked as a waitress in a strip club. I have never seen anyone entering that club with the intension of experiencing 'the grace of female movement'. It is true that some of the strippers offer better presentation (better show) than others but their purpose is not the presentation. It is very different than going to a broadway show. I have never herd strippers claiming any sense of productive achievement ether - most of them were honest about the fact that they did it for the money.

That is even more true in situations when it is the woman who takes on the teacher role. It is not a good idea. I think it all depends on how big of a change that would have to be. I do not know any people around me who share my values. (It is sad but true). When I meet someone new, at some point, I introduce them to Rand's non fiction. If they are interested in me - they will want to learn 'what drives me' they would want to know why I am the way I am and why my values are what they are. Then I wait for their reaction. If they have similar sense of life as me - they will be at least on some level positively affected by what they read. I am not looking for them to accept my philosophy at this point (although that would be great - even better would be to date an Objectivist! - where are you?) but if they are completely unmoved by what I consider ideal characters then that is an indication to me that we are too far apart. If they are completely unmoved they will never be able to fully appreciate me. A part of me (hmm ... a big part) will always be unvalued by them (in best scenario valued but not named). If I discover that we are just too far apart I make no attempts to change them or their 'sense of life'. At this point I ether accept them the way they are or move on. In case when I see that they have been positively affected by what they read; that the book gave them a lot to think about; that they feel challenged yet not afraid to face that challenge; only then I feel like this is a ground on which I could build on. That is the foundation on which I can see the possibility of 'growth'. That growth can only be spiked by their own curiosity. One can not encourage 'growth' or 'change' in a person if they are not open to exploration of new to them ideas.

I think you can run into this kind of dilemas only when you hold false beliefs. A person without a sexual partner is not evading reality by acknowledging the fact that they have sexual needs (like any healthy human being single or not) that are not fullfiled. If you hold a false belief that masturbation is immoral regardless of cirumstances (and decide to fight those natural urges and not self-relieve) then you will be in this situation in which your biology, your physical reality are going to be in conflict with your mind. When your beliefs match reality (in this case recognizing that masturbation in itself is not destructive - but it can be in some circumstances) then you do not run into such conflicts. From Galt's speach: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

Masturbation as such is not immoral but if this behavior becomes destructive to your well being or to other's well being it becomes immoral. Ayn Rand said: " If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradition in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood; not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." Here is your answer. There are not set in stone rules regardless of context. The moral is the rational.

Killing is immoral. Killing in self defence is a moral action. Does that mean that killing is not a question of morality? No.

Some facts from Wikipedia: Masturbation has been observed in many mammalian species, both in the wild and in captivity. Being the main outlet of child sexuality, masturbation has been observed in very young children. Frequency of masturbation is determined by many factors, for example one's ability to resist transient sexual tension, hormone levels influencing sexual arousal, and one's attitude to masturbation formed by culture. Masturbation allows a healthy way to express & explore one's sexuality and to release sexual tension without all the associated risks of sexual intercourse. Health professionals agree that this private touching is a natural, normal mode of self-exploration and sexual expression. Masturbation can also be particularly useful in relationships where one partner wants more sex than the other — in which case masturbation provides a balancing effect and thus a more harmonious relationship. Compulsive masturbation can be part of sexual addiction and should be treated as any other compulsive behavior. Same as: Eating is good; compulsive, uncontrollable eating is bad.

I have not read this book but this sounds very strange to me. If I was married to someone whom I would consider my highest value (which if he was not I do not see why I would be married to him in a first place) I do not see how I could stand the thought of him being intimate with another woman not to mention how I could go even a step further and suggest to him to do so. A situation in which your partner reveals to you a desire to have an affair is a very diffucult one especially if you know he will continue to see this other woman almost everyday (as it was the case with Miss Rand and Mr. Branden) even if you don't agree to their affair. It must be extremely painful to endure such cirumstances and I do not see how any person of self esteem could go through this and not be negatively affected by it. If your actions deeply hurt other people, people you claim to love and value, how they can be 'good'? Do you truly think that Miss Rand's affair did not hurt Mr. O'Connor if he considered her his highest value? In any case what an affair says is that your partner is not enough for you for whatever reason and whatever he/she is lacking is significant enough for you to look elsewhere. If that is the case you need to find someone who will match your needs more closely and you need to give the other person a chance at the same.

It absolutely does. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. Its failure in countries around the world (Easter Europe, Cuba, China...) can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores economic incentives. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people--human resources. If you do not properly reward people financially for their work – they are not going to produce or create. This fact about human nature (which is very rational) has been realized very quickly in collective (socialistic) societies. In order to fight this ‘animal’, ‘greedy’ human nature at one point they started rewarding exceptional people with fancy titles (at least in Poland they did). This was supposed to be the more noble – ‘non greedy’ form of reward – not like the immoral reward of money. Needless to say, it has not worked – people still felt exploited, slaved and wanted to escape. So of course the next step was to close the borders in order to prevent them from leaving. How happy, creative, or productive would you feel if imprisoned? Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit. - just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats or the people who are fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they are only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba.

An employment contract (in a free market system) is based on a free trade. Each side has something to offer to the other and thus is in a position to negociatiate the conditions of the trade. The contract is voluntary; no one is forced to accept a wage lower than deserved (that only happens in Socialism). Even though people must earn a living to survive, they are not forced to accept any particular employment offer. In order to compete private business must attract the best employees possible by offering them better working conditions, better wages, better benefits. It is because private business must be run efficiently to stay in business (due to the competition) that it can then offer better wages. As productive capability increases the wages of workers also increase. Profits can be increased by innovation, by technological improvement; by producing a better product or producing it faster, cheaper, or selling more of it. It may mean automatization and thus fewer employees. When one expropriate money from business by force, working conditions decline (longer hours ect) and wages fall.

My first post on this forum I was born in Poland in the early 70’s and lived there until the age of 17. I have seen the consequences of full blown Socialism. Socialism leads to the decline in production (and thus the decline of the standard of living). Capitalism generates a constant re-optimization of resources by redirecting them away from failing and inefficient companies (less profitable) toward those which are the most efficient and successful at meeting the consumer demands (most profitable). It moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency and ensures optimal production levels (if there is demand they will be supply) This profit/loss measure of success or failure is absent from Socialism. Without profits, there is no way to discipline companies that fail to satisfy consumer demands and no way to reward those that do. The system creates and maintains great inefficiencies. Common property encourages irresponsibility and waste. When everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Resources are being mismanaged and wasted. Competition is the driving force in improving the efficiency of the economy, which in turn leads to new innovations, products and services being produced at increasingly lower costs yet of increasingly higher quality. Socialism is a non-competitive system. When there is no competition there is no incentive to increase efficiency, no need for improvement or innovation. Socialism promotes economic equality among individuals without the regard for their individual abilities, talents and skills. There is no material incentive to do better, to be better, to improve your skills, to increase productivity because one does not receive rewards for a work well done. There is no competition for workers. Individual companies have no way of attracting the best skilled and efficient workers. The wages and benefits are the same (everyone has a right to the same pay). Also, firms are forced to hire more workers than necessary due to the fact that 'everybody needs a place to work'. Employment is a right and not a privilege granted to you based on your skill, and efficiency. Companies are forced to keep poor performing employees. Prices, the types and the amounts of goods produced are not determined by the market, instead by the government. The final result is a failure to produce enough consumer goods to satisfy even the very basic of necessities. Since there is not enough to go around for everybody, the government starts placing restrictions on consumer purchasing rights. For example, a person is only allowed to purchase two pairs of shoes per 12 month period, one chocolate bar per child per month, 2lb of beef per month ect. If you would like to explore this topic further I would recommend “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" by Ludwig von Mises.