DonAthos

Just as a brief note, I have read the essay to which EC had linked. I'm interested in providing a full response to it, but that's not a project I can undertake at the moment, nor do I know when I'll begin -- it may be quite a while. Really, what I have in mind is more than simply a response to this one essay, but a kind of postmortem on how this scene has been interpreted within the "Objectivist community," and an analysis of the specific arguments used; much more than a simple answer to a question of rape, this discussion has led me to reflect on questions of methodology, and how we engage one another in debate. Actually... accounting to how grand all that sounds, I may even have to let myself mature more as a writer and a thinker before undertaking it... I don't know yet, and maybe I will just break down and get out some concrete thoughts on this specific essay sooner. Anyways, in the mean time, and to engage in a little bit of dialogue on one of the matters raised, I present this quote that bluecherry has referenced and which forms the core of the essay's response to The Fountainhead scene: A question: the essay's author, Wendy McElroy, decides that the sex in question was consensual "rough sex," not rape, that it is "an ecstatic surrender to the ultimate value in life," and also "the culmination of the ideal male/female relationship." Given all of this, how does it simultaneously "degrade"?

As a question, to whomever, from my traditional position of ignorance: I don't think it's ultimately sensible to speak of law without governance, or law without enforcement. I don't think that there's an actual market without those laws which allow people to trade uncoerced. And so an anarchic market of defense, or laws, or government doesn't work in my estimation -- I don't think that anarchy is an ideal, or would exist "in nature" very long (as long as it would take for someone to organize a big enough force to institute his own idea of government). That said, governments can be organized in a multitude of ways. In a democracy, in theory, all of the people "are the government" to some extent. Therefore, could a society be designed with a body of laws under which various arms of "the government" -- perhaps even down to the individual level -- competed with one another to provide the best possible defense services for that society? (Assuming that they were constitutionally-bound only to provide that defense according to the objective principles of law and justice as defined by that constitution?)

Hey bluecherry, My thanks for your replies. Whether we ever agree with one another or not, I appreciate them (and especially your civility in our discussion). Once again, I feel as though I've expressed my argument just about as well as I can, though I'll continue to monitor the thread. If I ever feel swayed, or otherwise change my mind, I'll make sure to come back to say so. Otherwise, I may quiet down if I feel (like I do right now) that I can really only repeat things I've already said. As regards your position, I think it comes down to a general observation that, "as fiction, things in The Fountainhead don't have to work like they do in real life." That doesn't satisfy me, for a few reasons. First of all, there are fictions called "fantasy," which allow for things like actual mind reading. And if I believed that it was Rand's intention to create unreal people with fantastic abilities, leading to unreal situations, I'd accept that. But I believe that Rand meant for Roark and Dominique to be "real" in the sense of being possible, and even worth emulation. So if Roark's actions were moral and possible, I don't see why we shouldn't act in similar fashion, and heal the broken (but basically good) women in our lives with a judicious use of force. Further, I've been trying to imagine a "mind reading" fantasy operating in this same way, and that still looks like rape to me, for the reasons elaborated in my last post -- that there's a profound difference between subconscious "wants" and those conscious wants which translate into will, consent, and action. Even a mind reader who ignores what a woman consciously selects in favor of forcing upon her her "heart's desire," for her own good, would be a rapist in my book. Choice and consent are not subconscious products -- they are conscious. And if we're agreed that no real life Objectivist would want his conscious choice "overridden" by a do-gooder supposedly responding to our subconscious desires, I think this is the reason. Also, the "it's only a book" approach makes other readings of The Fountainhead problematic in other ways. Consider, for instance, this argument: "I have never heard of somebody getting raped and being suddenly pleased about it quickly." Well, it happens all the time in fiction. Finally, I'd probably give a lot of the "leeway" you suggest to fantasy literature in terms of "powers" -- Superman can shoot heat rays from his eyes, and it doesn't bother me. But if Superman laid claim to "squaring a circle," I'd call foul. And I can entertain the argument that Roark possessed Sherlock Holmes-like powers to divine Dominique's subconscious desires -- or even that he had outright magic to do so -- but "rape by engraved invitation" remains self-contradictory for reasons already discussed. It's either the sex was consensual or it was rape, and for the reasons given at length (and longer still! ), it continues to look like rape to me.

Over the course of this thread, I've come to recognize (at least) two things which I consider to be major red flags. Red flags which suggest that we're engaged in a sort of special pleading. And here are those two things: 1) The suggestion of "nigh-on-mind-reading." When we need to ascribe powers that are "almost" indistinguishable with a mystical process to our hero, in order to justify his actions (and what's more, to settle a question like "did he rape the heroine?"), I think we're already in deep waters. How did Roark "know"? "Somehow" seems to be the heart of our reply -- "you know, like a mind reader might... nearly." There's a further question as to whether Roark knew the results of his mind-reading consciously, or whether he simply "understood" it in an emotional sense -- whether it was "intuited," (as I believe has been suggested). In other words, Sherlock Holmes (or at least my cliched knowledge of Holmes) displayed similar "mind reading" where he would deduce specific truths based on observed phenomena. Did Roark reach a specific logical conclusion, "Based on factors X, Y, and Z, Dominique needs to be forced to have sex"? Or was he going with his "gut"? (Or some other part of his body, as Trebor suggested earlier: "She aroused his desire, slashed him across his face, and he took what he wanted"?) 2) Distancing ourselves from "real life." If we take Roark, or The Fountainhead more generally, not as simply some character in some story, but as partly the presentation of a reason-and-reality-based-philosophy, then I think it's extra-important to keep a context of reason and reality fully in mind when describing and evaluating the events of the novel. (Although, even if this were just "some story," this is still how I'd proceed.) If Roark didn't rape Dominique, and if he even acted rightly in cutting through Dominique's confusions... then why shouldn't someone who aspires to be heroic act in a similar manner? When we say that "we cannot trust that we just have such a deep and accurate understanding," why not? Was Roark operating on anything other than confidence in his own ability to discern Dominique's "true nature"? Why should someone who wants to be a hero like Roark lack similar confidence? The basis for understanding events in a work of fiction is our real life understanding. If we transport the events of The Fountainhead to real life, and recognize them as rape there, then they are similarly rape within the novel. Or, if they're not rape in The Fountainhead, then they wouldn't be rape in real life. And if that's the case -- if "mind reading" rightly leads to consensual sex -- then there's no reason not to act that way in real life. We just need to hone our skills of "mind reading," is all. And when the woman "apparently" resists, we should press on, because that's what a real man like Roark would do in such a situation. After all, we know better than she what she "really wants." How do we know? Intuition. In fact, we can apparently construe her very resistance as more evidence of the "screwy psychology" that is in want of our sexual healing. When we interpret her "no" as "yes," we're bound to get the answer we want to hear. When she describes the action thereafter as "rape," we can perhaps conclude that our job isn't quite done -- her eyes must be forced open, wider still. I think that the comparison to a soldier violating a specifically female enemy is more meaningful than simply placing them on opposite sides in a conflict. I think the suggestion of "violation," within a scene which on its actions alone appears to be rape, and which is thereafter described as "rape" by the apparent victim, isn't incidental. But all right, if you think that the word choice isn't that material, we can let it pass. (Though if we're not resolved to give importance to the actual words on the pages, then I admit that I'll feel pressed to construct this case or any other; I am relying on the words.) Agreed on all of this. She doesn't want to want Roark. I'll even say that, on some level, she recognizes her own attraction to him and is working overtime to deny it and push it down. And here I "almost" agree. But we have to be careful with the word "want." There is a level of conscious desire -- that level of recognized want, which we can ultimately articulate and take action to achieve; this is what it means to "will" something, isn't it? And then, we can perhaps agree that there is a subconscious level as well. This subconscious level of desire is not unimportant, and I'll agree that we can speak in terms of "wanting" something "deep down" (as has been done a number of times in this thread), accordingly. When we talk about Roark "reading Dominique's mind," we're not alone talking about her conscious mind -- her conscious mind is filled with terror and hatred at Roark's touch, and her will is made manifest in the actions she takes to terminate their sexual encounter. We're instead talking about a "deep down" mind reading -- reading her subconscious mind, those "desires" which have been repressed, of which Dominique is perhaps only partially aware (and is struggling against), and which are perhaps accounting to her feminine nature, or her underlying "goodness" (as you later suggest "she is really a good girl"). Her conscious mind is made aware of this gulf between what she believes she wants, and her "true desires," perhaps, at the moment of epiphany we've described when Dominique examines herself in the mirror. And perhaps it's hinted at before then. And certainly within the narrative, Dominique is ultimately grateful that Roark has given her "what she needed," though she herself was "unaware" that it was what she needed. But as to the question that I've been pursuing, and to which you're ostensibly replying -- whether or not this is rape -- the issue of "consent" upon which the question of rape turns operates on the level of conscious, not subconscious, desire. Which means that "giving a woman what she really wants (deep down)" when she is not sufficiently aware of her own "desire" or comfortable enough with it to be able to consent to it in a fully conscious manner, is rape. In approaching people's "true desires" as opposed to those desires of which they are aware, and take action to achieve, we are removing "choice" from them. That's the nature of force, after all, and it all follows suit in this scene, which depicts forced sex. This is, as Steve D'Ippolito described it, "ntervention via rape." And that's a fine case to make pursuant to the original post -- it is an argument that this rape was justified. But it's not an argument that it wasn't rape. Come to the (separate) question of justification, I think that in real life, no Objectivist would "want" themselves to be forced to do those things that others have judged they "really want, deep down," apart from their individual ability to evaluate, to judge, to decide, to will, to consent. They would not look at that as a kindness, or a moral action. And again, in interpreting these events in The Fountainhead differently, I believe that we are engaged in special pleading. "eing forceful was the right way to go about things"? Perhaps. But it's also a rape. So we have to entertain the possibility, at some point, that Rand is presenting a rape as "the right way to go about things." Or I will entertain that possibility, if no one else will, because I'm running out of other reasonable possibilities. (Or is our final way out of all of this to just give up the idea that any of this is "realistic" -- to conclude that there is no non-contradictory answer here, but that's okay, because people like Roark and Dominique don't and can't exist? I guess that's one last "possibility" if all else fails.) And as to "rape" versus "true, serious business rape," I don't know. Dominique also "made no sound" (...until she screamed in pain, and then sobbed -- as you do, when having good consensual sex, naturally). In "real life," sometimes it happens that women do not cry out, or generally do not do the things that we might expect them to do to successfully fight off their attackers. Sometimes women are said to have "invited" the rape, through their dress and flirtatious behaviors -- "clues" which "mind readers" pick up on as a statement of those ladies' "deep down desires." And sometimes people make the case that this all adds up to "no fault" on the part of the male. After all, if a woman "acts like she wants it," then what does she expect? Right? Remember, it's just like Roark said about the marble: the pressure builds up, and then the results can't be controlled. It's just masculine nature, is all, which takes what it wants like a lion. No disgust, huh? We've had "terror," "hatred," "contempt," "humiliation," "shame," "scorn," and "defilement"... but "disgust," you think, is some other order of experience? All that other stuff is just her being "freaked out"? You don't find that... a touch dismissive? And if we do not want something done to us -- done to our bodies, according to our belief that we have some sort of "right" to decide what is done to our bodies, or that we somehow "own" them -- it is not sufficient for us to be "freaked out," but we must be specifically "disgusted" to be taken seriously? It's beginning to sound like a magical formula... which, I'll admit, may be appropriate as an antidote to a mind-reading rapist. Well, I basically agree, except that I think that the way in which she can "try to deny being complicit" is this: that she wasn't complicit. So I think she succeeds on that score. Now, was she "complicit" in the sense of leading Roark on? Flirting? Absolutely. If you walk through a dark alley late at night having advertised the fact that you're carrying lots of cash, and you get mugged, we can certainly suggest that in some ways you've "brought it upon yourself." We can even speculate on your psychology -- and perhaps with some justice -- that you may have "wanted" to get mugged. But the mugger still mugs. And does a would-be rape victim who dresses in a provocative fashion, and hangs out with the "wrong crowd," or permits herself too much to drink, or etc., etc., -- is there any sense in which we might describe her as "complicit" in what ultimately takes place? Absolutely. But what we cannot do is describe it as other than rape. Because that is what it is. She did not surrender her rights or obviate her ability to consent -- or to withhold the same -- because she wore a short skirt, or looked funny at a guy. Consider: it can still be rape if a woman has stripped down with a man she's attracted to, and has been willingly kissing (or etc.) up to the point where she decides against sex, and rejects her partner -- but he forces her to have sex anyways. Those are signals rather more mixed than the ones that Dominique sent, and it wouldn't take any "mind reading" really, to infer her inner-conflict. And yet, the issue of rape is the issue of consent; and that is precisely what Dominique never gave, and Roark never had. We say that he used force, because he did. Not a "charade of rape," but a rape. Human beings all have complex psychology, made possible by histories several orders longer than The Fountainhead. We send mixed messages. We are confused. And yet consent is what it is, and sex absent that is rape.

If it was a BDSM code thing, which Dominique was into and Roark picked up on, then why did she later consider it rape? If she had knowingly communicated this code, why did she feel terrified during the act? If it was what she'd wanted all along, why was her first thought afterward to take a bath? And speaking of baths... Yes. I've read that passage quite a lot over the last several days. It's quite popular with those who don't consider this to be rape. Slightly less popular is the preceding passage, wherein Dominique felt an "unbearable" need to take a bath... like, you know... our popular conception of a rape victim. Since these two, opposite reactions -- wanting to take a bath and not wanting to take a bath -- are not simply placed side-by-side, but are in a particular temporal order, separated by a "sudden flash of knowledge," what does that suggest? To me it suggests that Dominique was raped, and initially reacted as any woman might. But then she realized that there was something in it that she deeply enjoyed, and that her own reactions had "implications" about her nature, Roark's nature, and her future with him. I consider "permission" in the sense of explicit written or spoken consent to be a separate issue from consent, as such. I don't think Roark ever needed to ask for permission -- kinky sex or any other kind certainly could have taken place wordlessly -- but I absolutely think he needed her consent. Or, at the very least, that absent her consent and in taking her by force, it was an act of rape. Did he "wrong" her? It depends on what we mean by that. I think that Rand presents this, as has been argued by others, as a step along a healing journey for Dominique. So in that sense, I don't know that I'd say that Roark "wronged" Dominique. Is it contradictory to suggest that a person could be raped, yet not wronged? Perhaps, and over the course of this conversation I've come to believe that the contradiction finds its roots in a flawed theory of masculinity/femininity. I don't believe that in real life you could treat a woman as Roark treated Dominique and expect a happy ending. If that's true, then when Dominique thinks of the sex as rape, that should count for quite a lot. I don't think that's exactly what I've argued. Roark took Dominique by force -- that is, he raped her. She didn't consent to it; she tried to prevent it from happening, and was thwarted by his force. Afterwards, she decided that she had enjoyed it, and their relationship developed from there. That's what I think took place. All right, let's check this quote out then. Note that we're drawing two different columns of ways in which sex -- the "act" in question -- can be performed. Column A reads: "performed in tenderness, as a seal of love"; "the act of a lover"; "love"; "tenderness." Column B reads: "contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest"; "a soldier violating an enemy woman"; "scorn"; "defilement"; "shameful, contemptuous." This quote also specifies in the course of drawing this dichotomy that the act in question is from Column B, not Column A. Forgetting for the second the question of whether the sex of Column B could ever be "moral," per what we understand of the nature of sex, intimacy and love, have we considered that this sex finds its parallel in "a soldier violating an enemy woman"? What does "violate" mean? In what way is Roark like a soldier violating an enemy woman? And when it is described as "the kind of rapture she had wanted," what does "rapture" mean? If this sex is not rape, then why is there so much language to suggest that it is precisely that? If she had knowingly sent out sexy signals, and Roark had done nothing more than picked up on them and given her what she wanted -- if this sex is consensual -- then why is it contemptuous? Humiliating? Scornful? Defiling? Shameful? Rape can be those things, I'm sure that we can agree. But what are the circumstances under which consensual sex would be those things? When Roark's "lovemaking" (though it is not lovemaking) is described as "the thing done to her body," what does that suggest? I can picture a rape victim thinking of it as "the thing done to her body," but less so someone in the throes of consensual, passionate, kinky sex (as we would have as our alternate). I mean, right? That's the supposition. That this is a really hawt thing to do. That it's all sorts of passionate, and perhaps even life-affirming. And oh my, aren't we transgressive and radical? It's kinky! We're proud that this is the sex that we have -- that this is the sex of our heroes and heroines. But is it really? This sex is like "a soldier violating an enemy woman," which, if you can picture it, isn't very pretty or a turn-on. It's brutish and brutal. It's low. Animalistic. Non-consensual. Rape. No one of these things in isolation makes my case -- as against all suggestions to the contrary, we are all about context here. It is taking all of these things together, along with real life experiences, along with what we know about actual sex, along with what objective standards and evidence we would consider if judging this case in the real world, along with Roark and Dominique's relationship before, during, and after this sex, along with her thinking of the deed thereafter as "rape," along with her describing the deed thereafter as "rape," along with her attempts to flee and fight Roark off, along with the terror and hatred she felt as she struggled, along with Rand's description of the inherently contradictory "rape by engraved invitation," along with consideration given to her views of masculinity and femininity, and etc., and etc. It is with all of this together, in the fullest context that I can muster, that I consider my case made. As EC has pointed out elsewhere, this thread has existed for seven years. Years from now, people other than ourselves will pick up both sides of this argument. I'm in no hurry. And as I value both your time and your contributions, I'd rather have you pursue these discussions in a way that benefits your life and hurts you not at all. So take all the time you need. I don't mean to present bafflements, but I have a long history of it, I'm afraid. When I first read Rand, and tried to explain some of the (to me) new and exciting thoughts I was having, my parents couldn't make much sense of it. Nor could my friends. I've never yet convinced my father that anything other than the progressive/liberal politics he believes in are appropriate. And it's unlikely that I will. He knows the degree to which we disagree. And he also knows that I love him. Why do I bring all of this up? Honestly, I'm not quite sure. But over the course of this thread, I've really felt awakened to certain things that are far beyond the mere question of "did Roark rape Dominique?" Things that are potentially more important. So, whether or not you or I ever convince one another, I don't believe that my time here was time wasted. Hopefully you don't either.

I want to try to go a point at a time as to not miss anything. So we'll start here. I agree that it's a novel. I agree. I agree. However, I have no interest in taking this scene out of context. Agreed. I don't know what all "none of the rest of the novel may matter to you" is meant to entail, but it doesn't sound right. Of course the novel "matters" to me, in its entirety, and of course I try to relate parts to the whole in terms of assessing plot, theme, character and anything else. And of course we're agreed that "context always matters for everything," but that doesn't mean that every bit of "context" is always relevant to every conclusion (or, more strictly, that every surrounding incident is properly considered "context"). To wit: suppose we're talking about some other rape, and five minutes prior to the event the victim ate a sandwich. Now, suppose someone else says, "It wasn't rape -- she ate a sandwich after all!" And I say, "But that doesn't matter..." And then they say, "Of course it matters. Context always matters!" Now it winds up sounding a little Lewis Carroll to me, and I don't mean to mock you because I'm sure you're sincere... and hell, I can even envision your response, if you wanted to play along: "Ten minutes before that, the 'victim' and 'assailant' had a conversation where they agreed that, if she was eating a sandwich, it signaled that she wanted to have sex." But the point is, absent that conversation or something like it, it's unlikely that the sandwich-eating, "context" though it may be, will affect my judgment as to whether or not she had been raped. And here, it's not that I'm ignoring plot, or theme, or Dominique's character -- I swear to you that I'm not. Rather, I don't think that those considerations have the power to alter the nature of the actions on the page. Instead, our understanding of plot, theme, and character come from an initial recognition of these actions. Dominique's character, and her specific journey, cannot answer the question of whether she was raped (instead it is whether she consented which answers that question). It is by observing that she was raped, and how that affects her, that we come to know her character and her journey. Again, agreed. And were that information in The Fountainhead -- or presented to a jury of rational men -- none of us would conclude "murder." As with the above example -- that "murder" is not actually murder at all in the context of self-defense -- what specific events from The Fountainhead would you relate to a jury, so that they would recognize that the "apparent rape scene" wasn't rape? Is it -- as Trebor suggests -- that she hit Roark? Would a jury of rational, objective men and women conclude on that basis that it wasn't rape? Or would we tell them that Dominique is a "confused woman," and that the sex is necessary to help her on her personal journey? If none of that would lead such a jury to find for anything other than rape, then on what basis should I conclude differently? All right. I did find what I consider important-yet-unintended meaning in your metaphor, but we'll let it go. I understand your sentiment in asking me this. And of course it wouldn't be "an unprovoked assault." As to whether he would be justified in yanking her off of the horse, which might result in scratches or maybe in a broken neck, I'm not sure, because I think that there are aspects of force-in-reprisal that are a bit beyond me at present, and more to do with law-as-science. If someone hits me once in the shoulder -- hard, so it hurts -- am I justified in pistol whipping them to death in response? I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. Was there something flirtatious -- specifically sexual, even -- in Dominique's action? Sure. Let's just say that it was, at least, and we can find parallels to that sort of thing in young girls and boys dipping each others' hair in the 'little red schoolhouse' style inkwell. In my own life, I went to school with a girl who pulled my hair and actually kneed me in the crotch once, and naturally we wound up dating and finally getting married (end well? no it didn't). Of course her behaviors to that point, even those violent behaviors, had been flirtatious. But when we eventually made love, she wasn't terrified, and I didn't force her, because our lovemaking was not in the context of a reprisal against her for attacking me. If it had been -- if immediately after her assault, I had carried her into some school closet and forced her legs apart while she was looking for a way to escape -- would that have been other than rape? Assault? Potentially so, I think. The implications at least appear to be troubling. Now when we're talking about the woman "melting" and "surrendering," if we were to look inside her head, her emotions would probably be dissimilar to the "terror" that's described in The Fountainhead's scene. Dominique didn't melt, so far as I can tell. As the scene comes to a climax, she cries out in pain then has the unbearable need for a bath. So it seems to me more akin to the woman resisting all the way through the kiss, and then thinking to herself that she needs to gargle to get the taste out of her mouth. Now, doesn't Dominique then have her epiphany, and want to keep the "taste" after all? She does, but the kiss is long done at that point, and it would certainly have the appearance to me of a relatively minor assault (especially compared to rape), which she later decided that she actually enjoyed. At what point would a woman have to "melt" during a rape, in order to change the character of the overall deed from "rape/assault" to "consensual"? I don't know how useful such a question would be, honestly, and I wonder to what extent someone could "melt" in that way. May have to give this some more thought, but yeah, I think the deed would still be "rape," just as in the rape erotica I've mentioned previously where that very thing happens all the time. Tell me, do you think that those rape stories aren't actually rape at all, if the woman "melts" during the intercourse? Why or why not? It also may be important to consider the relationship between force and mind and choice here; i.e. that force is mind-destroying, and choice and consent depend on mind; we don't trust that the word of someone under duress is reflective of their true will. And in the scene we're actually discussing, Dominique's feelings -- her terror and hatred -- give more insight than anything else as to what her response to Roark's actions actually were. And her actions in trying to fight him off followed suit. It was not a melting. I don't doubt that it is all on account of finding him attractive. But a woman finding a man attractive, and acting in a manner expressing that, is not a license to any and all pursuant sexual activity. It's not a "get out of rape free card." I understand the argument that "Dominique didn't really know what she wanted." Hell, I even agree with that, and she was acting in a confusing and contradictory manner befitting her confused and contradictory mentality. But she still had the final say as to whether or not she was willing to have sex with Roark, not just "generally," but also specifically, in the time and place and manner that actually took place -- that alone is the issue of consent, upon which the question of rape turns. I can even entertain, as a separate question, the idea that was supposed to be the substance of this thread, per the OP: perhaps this rape was for the best. Perhaps this rape turned things around for Dominique, and helped to bring her out of her various philosophical malfunctions. Perhaps all of that is true. But the nature of the sex remains the same. It depends on the source of the injury. Boxing has a rigidly defined structure, with commonly understood rules. What a boxer agrees to is highly delimited. Though he's "agreed to a physical battle," should the other boxer knee him in the groin (ah, memories of my ex...) or bite his ear off, then yes, perhaps we would view that as assault, because it would be beyond the bounds of their actual agreement. Whatever else it was, I can't agree that Dominique's striking Roark was a license to just anything he wanted to do thereafter. Had Roark and Dominique entered into an actual agreement -- had Dominique understood what Roark would ultimately do (not every move, naturally, but in general terms), such that she could intelligently agree to it, then sure, that would be consent enough. And I don't mean to say a contract, like a boxer would sign. It wouldn't even have to be a verbal agreement; I could buy a wordless agreement. But there would have to be a demonstrable agreement in place that she understood. "Could"? I'd rather ask, were Dominique's actions such an invitation? Meaning: could Dominique reasonably expect that Roark would force her to have sex with him on the basis of her having slashed him? Would a jury agree that this constituted any sort of agreement to that effect? Why or why not? Moreover, did Dominique expect Roark to act in that way? Is there any evidence to suggest that? If we're suggesting that the sex was what she wanted, then why didn't she act in the way people do when they're getting what they want? She didn't want what she, uh, wanted? Her terror and her actions in trying to fight him off say to me that she wasn't getting what she had bargained for. And I also find it pertinent that she ultimately considered it to be rape; meaning, if there had ever been any "agreement" in place, she plainly didn't understand the terms. Maybe she "didn't know" what she had bargained for, in the sense of unleashing the consequences of force and violence? After all, consider Roark's warning to her: that "[p]ressure is a powerful factor. It leads to consequences which, once started, cannot be controlled." This is like Mike Tyson warning Evander Hollyfield that if they start boxing, Mike won't be responsible for what he does in the ring, because you can't control that kind of passionate violence once engaged. Like a lion and a lioness, you know? But that reasoning is untrue of human beings and doesn't excuse Tyson from biting Hollyfield's ear off. So anyways, I have a question for you, Trebor, in response to all of the thought-provoking (no lie) ones you've asked me. Suppose Dominique hadn't hit Roark, but their "dance" had otherwise played out in the same manner -- Roark still shows up, forces her mouth open, prevents her from running away, etc. Would it now be rape?

Okay, so it was a short week. In another thread -- the Laverne & Shirley to this thread's Happy Days -- EC recently described the feeling of being "on tilt." That's what I was feeling here, and over the course of participating on this board I've realized that it's good for me to recognize that feeling and take some action to cool down. Throughout my life I've been thin-skinned, and it's easy for me to say things in a passion that I later regret. Anyways, I feel better now. And in this happy state, I'm going to try to set some thoughts down while it lasts... You know, I've been getting that a lot. Of course, I disagree. Recently (though prior to your post) I said the following: So, okay, it's "he said/he said" at the moment. So what specific context do you think I'm ignoring? And by-the-by, but "purposely"? You suppose that I have some predetermined conclusion that (for some vaguely defined but doubtless nefarious reason) I "want" to consider this scene rape, and that therefore I'm willing to just ignore the great arguments to the contrary? Have I done something specific that leads you to have such a low opinion of me? Or does the nature of my opinion in-and-of-itself lead you to conclude that I must be ignoring relevant evidence? I feel like I'm being accused here, and it kind of sucks. Let's get right to the answer you want to hear, but then we'll talk about this a little bit more -- sound good? Here's the answer: not many, at "best." Certainly I don't know of any cases of this, and if I heard about one I'd have to wonder about the mentality of the victim. (It would require someone very confused. Has there been any discussion around here lately about a very confused character?) That said, consider that there have been rapes in human society for a long time. Going back far enough, and looking into the mythological and cultural traditions of ancient societies, it seems like there was a fair amount of raping going on as the basis for life-long relationships. There's the abduction aspect of rape (which ultimately implied the sexual, which I suspect is how the usage evolved) turning into a marriage, like the rape of the Sabines, or Hades' abduction of Persephone. There are instances in the Bible of the ancient Israelites "taking wives" from their conquered foes. And I have to imagine that the further we go back into primitive "civilization," the more common it was; growing up, I remember cartoons of cavemen knocking down their intended with a club and then dragging her off by her hair. Was it really like that, exactly? Ehh, probably not, but I also suspect a touch of truth. I suspect that early courtship was not much touched by a respect for man's rights, or the principle of the non-initiation of force. What of love? I'm sure it was a case-by-case deal, but I'd be surprised if there was never any love that developed between these folks. It's not quite the same thing, but throughout human history there have been arranged marriages, with women treated as property. Insofar as your arranged partner may not be the partner you'd select for yourself, there's some degree of compulsion going on. And yet I'm sure that many arranged marriages "worked out" in the sense of the couples eventually loving one another. And in modern times, we seemingly have cases of "statutory rape" which then develops into a "love relationship." But that's not what we mean, right? We mean the violent, against-the-will, non-consensual sort of rape, where the woman tries to fight the man off, bites him, feels terrified, tries to run away, cries out in pain, wants to bathe immediately thereafter, that sort of deal -- you know, rape (anyone know where I could find a scene that reads like this, for demonstration purposes? ). I'd guess that doesn't typically turn into love... except in certain works of fiction. I've tried to point out before, and no one's responded on this (because they don't think it relevant?), but there's an entire body of erotic literature which is specifically and unabashedly rape, yet in which the woman comes around to either simply enjoy the sex, or become devoted to her rapist. It's not that this is a rare thing; it's a common trope. And so, here's what we're left with: whether Dominique ultimately decided that she enjoyed the experience or not, and whether or not she and Roark ultimately loved each other, that doesn't help us to determine whether the sex scene we're talking about was rape. Consensual sex isn't defined as "sex you enjoy," or "sex with someone you learn to love," or even, "sex you would consent to, if you were fully rational." The question is only one of actual consent: did Dominique consent or did she not? And I contend that she did not. I'm somewhat tempted to ask how a person can "incorrectly believe" that they hate a person, or are frightened... but I know that you despise the "million extra words and sentences" that I seem to require to parse these ideas out, so I guess I'll let it go... Let's suppose for the moment that you're right: that this had to be forced on her, because it was like "her eyes being forced to see reality as it is." That this scene served a metaphorical or a thematic purpose. That's a fine argument to make. And yet, the actual mechanism underlying the metaphorical/thematic meaning would remain unchanged, because sex that is forced on a person is rape. This is why I said earlier to FeatherFall (to which he seemed annoyed in his response for my stating the "obvious"): His response was: So if you think this was forced on Dominique -- had to be forced -- I'm satisfied, because then we're both saying the same thing: that this was rape. From the get-go -- my first post in this thread -- my purpose has been "to call a spade a spade." That's all. The "justifications" can proceed from there, or not, as the OP intended. But we have to start with the basics, with the identification of what actually takes place in the scene. And if we're agreed that this was forced sex, then we're agreed, metaphorical interpretations notwithstanding. Saying that "A is A" doesn't specify the content of A, and it doesn't tell us how to feel about A. It's just that a thing is what it is. I think that the metaphor of lions is an intriguing one, and meaningful. Non-rational animals, like lions, don't have the capacity for rape -- or, in another sense, it's all rape for them, because all of their sex ultimately comes down to an application of force. But really, it's not sensible to speak of, because they're simultaneously unable to give consent. Like other issues of human morality, law, and justice, "rape" doesn't apply to lions. While human beings are animals, we cannot simply treat one another as lions do, because we do have reason, and we do have rights. The isssue of "consent" is inextricably bound with man's nature as a rational animal, and man's rights, and it's the boundary line between "rough-yet-consensual sex" and "rape." If Roark took Dominique like a lion -- like an unreasoning beast -- it's because the action he took was without respect to her wishes (i.e. her consent). Or, like this: And right. Roark didn't care what Dominique's wishes or desires were -- whether she wanted to have sex with him or not -- he simply "took what he wanted." But sex among human beings, consensual sex between partners, involves two people who must simultaneously want to have sex with one another. It isn't rape if a man takes a woman without caring whether she wants it -- but she does want it; yet it is rape if he takes her, and she doesn't. Dominique's actions and feelings during the scene in question demonstrate that she didn't want it. Roark didn't care, and he forced her to have sex anyways. Because these are not lions, but are human beings, that was rape. And that's why Dominique was right when she thought to herself afterwards that she had been raped. She knew full well whether she had consented or not. While I can respect that you don't think it important whether this was rape or not, I'm not certain why you're willing to grant that it isn't, or that at least "we don't have to read it" that way. I dunno. It feels like there's at least some willingness to agree on "force" and "consent" and stuff. Trebor likens the scene to the way that non-rational animals mate -- beyond consent, in a way -- and both he and EC apparently grant that it's a display of force. You're willing to question the morality of the action. So, is it... the word "rape"? Is it that we just don't want to name the action? Sometime ago, whYNOT said: "I don't know what underlies this topic." Speaking for myself, what underlies this topic is that I am simply interested in things being called what they are. I read through this thread one night -- apparently my first mistake -- and my blood ran cold as it seemed to me that A was being presented as not-A through a series of rationalizations, with respect to a passage of an Ayn Rand novel, and in an Objectivist forum, which all seemed a little too ironic to countenance (and yeah, I really do think). As to what underlies the topic for others, I'm not sure. My hope is that they're motivated by the same thing that I am: that they genuinely see this as not-rape, and just want that truth to be understood. But when we're at the point where we can agree that sex-by-force is rape... and that this is sex-by-force... but that it's somehow "not rape"... when we're discounting an "objective examination" of these events, and comparing it unfavorably to a courtroom... when we grant that in terms of real life we would never counsel men to act in this manner, or that to witness these events in real life we'd conclude differently as to their nature... when we account the nature of these events to people "intuiting" one another's "deep down" nature as a means to bypass their ordinary consent... that, somehow, it's not enough for a woman to refuse sex if she's "confused"... then I, too, scratch my head, and wonder what's really going on.

My intention in referring back to Somalia wasn't to raise it as an objection. It's an attempt to visualize how the things you're describing would "look," if put into practice. I wanted to know what it is that Somalia lacks vis-a-vis the system you're arguing for -- to find the crucial difference between the anarchy which exists there, and the anarchy that you think would work. I think that what you're saying is (something like) that for Somalia, or anyone else, to have the system you recommend, Somalis would first need to be Objectivists (or maybe at least something like it; something akin to the philosophy of the Enlightenment). That's a topic that I think could stand further discussion, but let it pass for the moment. Do your societal requirements end there? You also say that you'd want "a specific kind of polycentric legal order with a specific kind of law code." And if possible, I think this is some of what I'd like to explore. When you say that there's a legal order, and a law code, how would those things be implemented without an overarching government? I mean, if we're saying that there's a "law code," that means that someone could presumably choose to violate that code, right? How would the society we're talking about deal with those who opted out of your law code? (Or if people could opt out of this code as they chose, then in what sense could we say that this society operated by that code at all?) Maybe it would also be helpful to have an idea as to the kinds of things that this law code would specify... can you give me an idea as to the nature of this law code?

Hey, so, I've been reading along for a while, though I have to admit that I struggle to understand some of the back-and-forth. Even though you may have spoken to it before -- and I apologize if that's the case -- I have a few questions to ask in order to help clarify matters for myself. If you don't mind? Let's agree that modern Somalia isn't your "ideal." What would your ideal country specifically need as foundation in order to have your proposed free market in defense? What would it need that Somalia doesn't at present have? Or another way to approach: what practical changes would the modern US need to make to achieve what you're talking about? I don't need all the specifics, and I don't expect you to have them, but in general terms how might this be implemented?

As "this 'discussion'" initially referred to a thread in which I had been participating, and perhaps as the driving force, I have reason to believe that some of your complaints were aimed at me personally. Why is "discussion" in quotes? Do you believe that what's taking place in that thread, or in this thread, or on this board generally isn't actual discussion? What's the implication exactly? As for it going on for seven years (is that a long time, btw, for people to be chewing on philosophical topics?), do you think that I have been talking about this for seven years? These topics don't simply exist as threads in a forum -- they're reflective of the thinking that people do, actual people in the context of their specific lives. And speaking for myself, I've found that it's often helpful to have other people to discuss ideas with in the course of my thinking. It's helped me at every level of education, and while I guess students could simply be given textbooks with no instructor, no classmates, and etc., to learn as they may, if I were running a school that's not how I'd go about it. Where this board is concerned, I'd sought it out specifically to have people to discuss these sorts of ideas with, which shouldn't be too surprising since I think that this is a discussion board. If the point of this board is just to direct people to Rand's books, then I don't see the point in participating. So yeah, "ad infinitum" about sums it up, because there will always be new people encountering these ideas for the first time, and if they're at all like me, they'll want to hash them out for themselves. And yes, there will continue to be discussions about matters you consider settled, because what is settled for you is not necessarily settled for others. I wonder at the phrase "attack the validity of a certain Objectivist position." Are we talking about something like "A is A"? Capitalism? Or are we still talking about how to interpret a sex scene in a novel? Does that count as "an Objectivist position"? If I conclude that the scene in question portrays rape, should I no longer call myself an Objectivist? And what's with "attack," anyways? Is there no room in the world for argumentative discussion which is not simultaneously some sort of antagonistic battle? Can it not take place in a friendly manner? I'd say, rather, that with respect to the relevant thread that I disagree with the conclusions which others have reached, and that I question the arguments they've used to arrive at those conclusions. But I consider those who engage me in discussion as my partners in trying to sort these matters out; that is, I'm grateful to them, and eager to either make my points successfully or see where I'm wrong. Am I looking at this cockeyed? Is everyone who disagrees with me simultaneously my enemy? Should I hate you, EC, because I think you're wrong? (And I do think you're wrong.) And furthermore, you think that anyone who disagrees with an "Objectivist position" should feel that they "probably are wrong"? Really? How does that work?

Wait, wait... I have more to say, dammit. But then I'm out -- I have to be out for my own sanity. Likely I'll impose a week-long ban on myself from logging in or something, so if I don't reply to something vital, my apologies. But, I was reflecting on "what kind of context would allow me to construe the sex scene as 'not-rape'"? Follow my train of thought, if you will... An actual, engraved invitation would do it. Suppose that Dominique handed Roark a card that said, in elegant, cursive font, "Please rape me tonight. Love, D." That would provide the required context. (It doesn't have to be engraved -- she could have said it.) But then I realize that there are problems even there. Her suggestion of "rape" is as self-contradictory as the whole idea of "rape by engraved invitation"; we can read this as an invitation to "kinky Klingon sex," of course, but in granting permission the deed loses the very character of "rape." It becomes nothing more than the kind of "rape fantasy" that Marc K. had described. Okay, so let's say that it's not "invitation to rape," but "invitation to rough sex." And now the question: does the invitation have to be literally engraved, or spoken? Or could it be an unspoken, though-clearly-given invitation? It could! So maybe that's the solution. But there are problems there, too. Perhaps more than anything else, it would not be the full portrait of masculinity that I believe was intended. Roark responding directly to Dominique's invitation is not him taking her; it is, instead, as Rand suggested what a Peter Keating might do, in shifting the responsibility for seduction on to the woman. For Roark to truly be a man in this sense, he must do precisely that which he was not invited to do. Also, I don't believe that Dominique would allow herself to be taken, in this or any other fashion. She had to be truly overcome. Finally, had "her invitation" been to rough sex and not rape, I don't believe she would have been terrified during the act or thought of it afterwards as rape. She would have recognized it as the rough sex she'd requested. So... let's suppose that on some deep, non-conscious level (where her femininity somehow "lives"), Dominique understood all of this. Let's say that she had some kind of vague awareness that she needed to be taken against her will, because she could never have willed for herself the things she deeply needed. Could she have asked Roark -- though somehow unaware of "asking" which would invalidate the entire premise -- to rape her in fact? So that during, Dominique could struggle against him genuinely (and not the playful struggles of a rape fantasy), and afterwards she could think of herself as having been raped in fact, and enjoy all of that delicious, delicious humiliation? Perhaps this solves the riddle. But then I think... suppose I asked someone, whether outright or through this vague process described above, to "violate my rights through the initiation of force." So then they agree (after warning me, through a description of how certain marble is created, that I won't be able to control the results of my request), and they take out a gun and point it at my kneecap. Suppose I'm terrified and attempt to beg off. "No, wait!" I say. "That's not what I meant!" Well, now what? Have I rescinded my "implied consent"? Or is my response part and parcel to what I've somehow agreed to? Could my "rights violator" do anything which was outside the bounds of my initial request? Is there anything against which I could now assert my rights? Could he murder me, but then insist that it "wasn't murder," because I had wanted something which violated my rights, and thus his actions had "bypassed my consent" and given me what I'd asked for? No. The idea of wanting someone to do what you do not want them to do is... ultimately self-contradictory, I find; it gives rise to the same sort of idea as "rape by engraved invitation," and fails due to the same defect. As a person cannot willing surrender their freedom, and thereby enslave himself, I don't believe that a person can, on any level, surrender freedom from the initiation of force. When I tell the person not to shoot me in the leg, I am asserting a right that I could not have given away. The nature of marble formation does not excuse him, if he opts to go ahead and pull the trigger. Dominique's wordless rejection of Roark during the rape scene is as meaningful as any wordless invitation she might have offered previously, and it makes the character of the sex which follows rape. Which I think is precisely as Rand intended, because it had to be rape for Roark to fulfill his role as masculine man -- he could not be responding to her actual wishes in any sense, except for those deep down "feminine wishes" of which Dominique was not consciously aware; Dominique's struggles against him had to be genuine for her to be properly feminine. In short, I think that the apparent contradiction of "rape by engraved invitation," and our present controversy in trying to find a non-contradictory way of interpreting all these many events in The Fountainhead, finds its roots in a flawed understanding of sexual identity.

I am not ignoring anything in the book -- not "the parts of the book that put the scene in context." I've examined everything that has been brought up, and for reasons that I've taken the pains to elaborate, I have judged that they do not change the character of the sex scene. I'm not "focusing narrowly on the scene in question." I'm taking it together with Dominique and Roark's relationship leading up to it, and their relationship thereafter, and anything else you want to consider. Of course you can disagree if you choose, but I think that with everything taken together, that sex scene remains a scene of rape. Nor am I confused by Rand's phrase "rape by engraved invitation," which is an evaluation like anyone else's, and does not form the text upon which I'm basing my judgment. Though I think that you're right that Rand's phrase is ultimately self-contradictory. In taking it back to the text to resolve that contradiction, I think you'll find nothing in the context you've referenced which "appears" to be an actual "engraved invitation," but something that does "appear" to be an actual "rape." So that seems to resolve the contradiction; instead of "rape by engraved invitation," it turned out to be the usual sort of non-contradictory rape.

In "interpreting" the word "appear," I'm talking about the events of the scene as they "appear" to Roark, and "appear" to me, the reader. I think that I'm taking "appear" to mean precisely what it does mean, which is, "to have the appearance of being; seem; look; be clear or made clear by evidence." Among which evidence are Dominique's actions and mental state at the time of the sex act. The appearances do add up, and they add up to rape. Yes, a courtroom jury would probably proceed along similar lines, because they're interested in knowing the truth of "what happened," just as I am. I know that it has been claimed that the events of fiction are not to be "objectively examined," but I disagree on that score. I don't know why an Objectivist should ever shrink from an "objective examination" of any situation, though I suppose that if objectivity is out the window, then this scene can be anything that anyone wants it to be. But if objectivity is in? Then Dominique didn't consent, and she was raped, clearly and to all appearances. What the writer "intended"? Or what the writer actually wound up doing? I can "intend" to write a piece which glorifies slavery. If I'm honest enough to my subject, however, and when the events of my story are "objectively examined," it may well be that I've not glorified slavery at all, but shown its horrors. What Rand "intended" does not really matter to me as regards this scene (or rather, that's interesting information in its own right, but is immaterial to the argument before us); she very well have meant to portray what she regarded to be masculinity in its full bloom, though that's speculation on my part. But what she did portray was a scene of rape. That's fine. I wasn't talking about any symbolic or thematic aspect here. This can be a step along a journey; I have no problems with that. If, however, we're making the claim that some symbolic/thematic/"literary" understanding of this scene makes it therefore not rape, then we have an issue. It's putting the cart before the horse. Look, hopefully you've read The Lord of the Flies. In it, there is a conch shell by which Ralph organizes the other children into a community... for a time. The conch comes to symbolize leadership, or civilization (or maybe that's more apt of Piggy's glasses), or something like that. The shell ultimately shatters, and it's not just a literal event but a symbolic one, too. What is crucial to recognize, however, is that the shell's symbolic significance -- let's say as leadership -- utterly depends on first having a proper reading of the literal elements of the story. We must first recognize it as a conch shell. We must see what happens when Ralph finds it. When Piggy attempts to use it. How the other boys respond to it. And how their response changes over time. Etc. Thematic elements work the same way: they derive from the literal events of the story. Not vice-versa (though it is often the opposite of how the writer constructs his events -- from abstract to literal). Before we can answer any questions about the significance of this sexual relationship between Roark and Dominique, and what it implies for their characters and for mind-body splits and for masculinity and femininity and for hero-worship, etc., before we can do any of that, we must first settle what actually happens. We cannot take it from anywhere, not even from the author, that "these are the themes that my work expresses" and then determine what the events of the novel "must be" to satisfy those intended themes. On a very literal level, Roark and Dominique have sex. We can, and have, debated whether it was consensual sex. But if we decide that it's not, then it's rape. The themes flow from the actions (in reading, at least), and not the other way around. Well, I stress this definition to demonstrate the faults in formulations like: "if Dominique enjoyed it, it's not rape"; or "if Roark and Dominique were 'in a dance', it's not rape" or "if Dominique didn't wind up with emotional scars, it's not rape," as you've suggested above. None of these things are true. If Dominique wasn't forced, it's not rape. But she was forced, as I feel I've demonstrated several times over, and it was rape. Well of course. And also if we were read it as a written transcript. And also if we knew Dominique's internal state, which was terrified. And also if we knew that she thought of it afterwards as rape. In all of those cases we would conclude it was rape, even if we simultanteously knew that Dominique had "invited" it by being flirty, and even if we knew that she decided afterwards that she'd enjoyed it. "Rail"? Is that what you think I'm doing? "To utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation." No. I've not been "railing" against anything, except for what I judged before to be incivility.... Rather, I've been exhausting myself mentally and physically to try explicate something that I've felt truly shouldn't be hard to grasp. A simple point of order, almost: look at this non-consensual, violent, terrifying sex -- isn't it clearly rape? I've kept my thoughts on the subject matter of rape, which I find depressing, and continue to run into the same objection ("but she wanted it") as though I have not considered it, and responded to it at length, a multitude of times and in a variety of manners. And actually, it's probably (past) time that I've desisted in my effort. After all, my case has been made to my satisfaction. You're right: a jury -- or anyone else committed to an objective assessment of the scene we've been discussing -- would agree with me that this is rape. In that, I'm satisfied. If I see opportunity in the future to quickly add an important observation, I'll probably take it, but otherwise my thanks to everyone for the lively discussion.

I think this is right on the money. I believe that this is meant (in part, at least) as a dramatization of Rand's view of masculinity and femininity -- that men take and women are taken. Perhaps it's relevant to this conversation (though maybe not?) that I've often found myself at odds with what I take to be these sorts of views, whenever I've encountered them. For instance, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. I do not believe that women are, by nature, unsuited for the presidency. In another thread, I recently encountered the view that wearing a "gender-neutral" cologne/perfume can "[cause] one to lose awareness of sexual identity." Perhaps there is some inconsistency rooted in my thought here? Or, if Rand might have been mistaken with regard to some of her views on sexual identity, then perhaps this scene might manifest some of the confusion or contradiction that I would eventually expect. This might be the rubber meeting the road. After all, I don't believe that Rand would advocate the initiation of the use of force, and rape certainly falls under that category. And yet, I do believe that Roark rapes Dominique, perhaps as you've suggested here, as a demonstration of Rand's (in my opinion, mistaken) view of masculinity. I think we need to take a step back for a moment to consider your suggestion here. I believe that you're saying, "Dominique thinks she was raped, but she's wrong." Please consider: for Dominique to be wrong on this point, she would need to be wrong on the question of whether she consented to the sex that she and Roark had. Roark, in contrast, would have to know better than Dominique whether she gave consent. Well... what's the nature of consent, anyways? Since "consent" in this case alleviates another from the ban against "the initiation of force," and turns mind-destroying force into permissible violence (per FeatherFall's suggestion), can we really say that a person could consent to such a thing unawares? On what grounds could I ever say to a woman, "You don't know it, because you suffer from profound contradictions, but you're consenting to sex with me right now!" And if she should try to physically fight me off and try to run and what-not, what then? Is that simply more evidence of those contradictions -- that the poor thing doesn't even understand that she actually wants to have sex with me, and has invited it? And if she describes the event thereafter as "rape" -- this is proof of her irrationality, not that I raped her? Because I feel that this is the very case you're making re: Dominique. Also. If the case is that Dominique was a very confused lady (which I think can certainly be made), then how can we say that the "romance" between her and Roark up to the rape, ably described by Trebor here, constitues a clear "consent" to everything that happens afterwards? I mean... if you're saying that she didn't know what she'd done, by calling what wasn't rape "rape," then why do we assume that she knew what she was doing in the first place? And if she didn't know what she was agreeing to -- if she was surprised, or even terrorized by Roark's actions (as is true) -- then exactly in what way did she consent? Finally, if Dominique's actions up to the rape constituted some sort of an "implied consent," then what actions would she have had to perform to withdraw that consent? Would it resemble trying to fight Roark off? Trying to get away? No, I don't believe that they do. But you're right that this is perhaps an important insight. Perhaps the kind of (confused) person who could draw "pleasure" from humiliation is the same kind of person who could draw similar pleasure from contemplating the fact of having been raped. Remember: the question of rape is the question of whether someone has been forced to have sex. It does not have to do with whether or not the victim experiences pleasure or pain, either physically during the act, or emotionally thereafter. (Also consider that during the description of the sex act itself, the word "pleasure" is used once -- to describe what Roark experiences -- and the word "pain" is also used once, to convey what Dominique experiences.) To try to explain further by analogy, suppose a masochist is mugged and stabbed in the process. Perhaps the masochist (though I wonder) takes some sort of "pleasure" in his experience. If he does, it would not mean that he had not been mugged, or had not been assaulted. Even if afterwards he looks upon the incident with a fondness, that wouldn't mean that he had originally "consented to be mugged"; it would not change the money lost into a willingly granted gift. Physically during the act? I'd think typically not, though I don't know that it's impossible. In a previous post, I suggested that it was a bit of a trope in certain kinds of erotica to present a rape in which the victim ultimately experiences pleasure. For instance, here is a link to a short story entitled "Raping Lucy." Be warned: I skimmed though have not read it, but I've seen enough to not recommend it for generally any purpose other than making this particular point, and I'm sure it would be offensive to many or most. I chose "Raping Lucy," because "rape" is in the title, so I guess the author intends to portray a rape. Also, this sentence in the opening paragraph caught my eye: "This is the story about how I 'tamed' Lucy, and gave her back some of the humiliation that she gave me." There's that word "humiliation." And in the end, you'll be happy to know (Spoiler Alert!) that Lucy climaxes. Perhaps the narrator of this tale, like Roark, knows what a truly feminine woman wants. Or maybe I'm being saucy and unfair. I don't know, though I'm sure you don't care how some random porn on the Internet reads. My point is this: that however Dominique experienced her sex with Roark, either at the time or later in her memory, does not change the nature of the sex itself. If it was forced upon her -- and I believe that it was, and moreover that I've clearly demonstrated that it was -- then it was rape. In isolation, I think this is a fine argument to make. Certainly, Dominique could be describing "rough-yet-consensual sex" as "rape" simply to goad him. But I think that the picture is different when taken together with Dominique's thinking of the act to herself as "rape," and then the description of the sex act itself, which clearly reads as a rape. I think I've expressed as clearly as I can what I think about her later emotions, and whether those change the nature of the sex she's had -- i.e., they don't. That said, here she becomes aware of a post-coital feeling. That she becomes aware of it, and the implications of it, may help to show that she had not been aware of it before. In other words, perhaps it now occurs to her that there is something about "what just happened" that she enjoyed. But that doesn't mean that she was aware of enjoying it at the time, or most importantly (because it is upon this that the entire argument swings) that she agreed to it at any point. And after all, let's remember what comes immediately before the passage you've selected: So initially she feels an "unbearable" (that is to say "not light") need to bathe. This is a typical (if not cliche) portrayal of a woman following a rape, wouldn't you say? Then she has a "sudden flash of knowledge" -- that she does not wish to bathe, and what that implies. Does it imply that she "had consented before or during the sex"? No. Short of building a time machine, she will not change that actual history which has been captured on the pages of the novel. So she will continue to think of the act as "rape," which is appropriate, because that's precisely what it was. But might she take some pleasure in her "humiliation"? Perhaps, because Dominique is apparently that kind of girl. I understand "rape" being "shameful." But what is "shameful" in consensual sex? "Contemptuous"? What is "contempt"? Per Dictionary.com: "the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless" and "the state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace." This all seems fully in line with understanding that "act" as being a rape, but is harder to square when viewing it as consensual sex. Oh, and "rapture"? I'm glad it was the kind of rapture she had wanted, but rapture derives from rape. It also connotes "great pleasure," so it can serve precisely the double-purpose that I think captures what actually transpires on the page. Dominique was raped. And yes, she ultimately decides that she enjoyed it, and Roark's contempt for her, and her own humiliation. One confused cookie, that Dominique! In this case, they are the thoughts of a fictional rape victim. If they don't agree with the typical thoughts of actual rape victims, then neither do the thoughts of those victims in the erotica I've referenced, like poor/pleased Lucy. I'd fully understand if actual rape victims felt besmirched by either depiction, though I don't mean to speak for them. On the other hand, this is fiction, and I'll give a lot of leeway to individual characterization; I can accept Dominique as a rape victim who has thoughts like these -- it seems strange to me, but still possible. I'm certain you're aware that your use of "terrified" -- Dominique's fear that Roark will be destroyed by the world -- has nothing to do with my use of the word, which is the description of her emotional state while supposedly having consensual sex. Besides that, I'm not sure that you've hit upon the correct "key words" in what you've quoted. Actually, "typically" and "less" were an attempt at levity via understatement, to soften the "grotesque" nature of my point overall, which is something like this: consensual sex is not terrifying; it is not hate-filled; it is not abusive. Now is that true in all cases, which is what I believe your point to be? No, I guess not. Perhaps when John Wayne Gacy had consensual sex with his wife (if he did?), he was filled with hatred...? Perhaps if Carrie White (from Stephen King's Carrie) had had consensual sex (did she?), she would have been terrified, on account of her abusive mother and her ignorance of her own proper bodily function...? And as for consensual sex being abusive...? Perhaps when David Carradine accidentally killed himself through auto-erotic asphyxiation (that's what happened, right?), he was being self-abusive? Do you see what I mean about "grotesque"? Let's keep in context here the nature of sex and intimacy -- which I think we typically regard as being "good" (didn't Peikoff relay from Rand that "sex is good"? I thought I've heard that) -- and also our own personal experiences. Sex that is terrifying, hate-filled, and abusive is in no way healthy or normal. We would recoil from it. In fact, it sounds a lot like a rape, which makes sense in our particular case, because... that's the very thing we're talking about. By the way, with regards to your post to Eiuol, I don't mean to implicate "rape fantasy," or all S&M play, or B&D, or etc. There's a difference between legit de Sade, wherein he wrote about rapes, murders, and assorted other atrocities, and folks who call themselves "sadists" because they lightly whip their partners' buttocks for mutual gratification. As you noted, in real life when we indulge in these sorts of things, we typically (will you call me out again on this word, I wonder?) go to even greater lengths than usual to have explicit consent for what's about to happen. In order to preserve an illusory quality that allows us to fully enjoy the fiction, we might devise a "safe word" so that we don't need further discussion on the issue of consent. We draw our lines clearly, both due to the underlying compassion and love we have for our partner (befitting the intimacy of a consensual sexual relationship) and also out of the common respect we have for not violating our partner by committing acts of force against them. Roark and Dominique did not have "clearly drawn lines," or a "safe word," because instead of "compassion," "love," or "intimacy," they shared "contempt," "hatred," and "humiliation." He also did not respect the line of the initiation of force; he sought to violate her. They were not acting out a rape fantasy; instead, Rand was providing material for a rape fantasy (which, let's observe, is not watching others "pretend" to rape/be raped) -- that is to say, a rape. At the risk of going all "Clinton" on you, there's "want" and then there's "want." "Want" in the sense of something she generally lacked, and that ultimately wound up good for her? Yes, I'd say that Roark knew what she "wanted" in that sense. "Want" in the sense of a desire she had of which she was conscious, and able to articulate in the form of consent? No. Roark didn't "know what she wanted" in that sense. He gave her what he wanted to give her, not what she had asked for or agreed to. Just so we're clear, I didn't intend to be flippant to you in my response. I meant something which I consider to sometimes be a profound issue in the discussions I've had with other Objectivists, both here and elsewhere. And also to be clear on this point, I don't mean to imply that I think lightly of Rand in any respect; quite the opposite -- I feel, as I'm sure that most here do, that she is the greatest single mind I've ever come into contact with. It is for that reason that I feel I must pay scrupulous attention to my own processes, so that I don't simply acquiesce to her viewpoints, and preserve my own judgment as paramount. Would I want to "preserve my own judgment" on any given issue and be wrong? Never. But it is a risk I'm willing to take. A risk I must take. "Give their opinion a very heavy weight"? I don't know that I can agree with that as stated, though I agree with much of the sense. (Or perhaps as I describe what I mean, it will become clear that we agree fully...) If Ayn Rand says that "X is true," I will give deep and serious consideration to X. (Please observe, for instance, the lengths I have gone through in this single conversation we've been having. Yes, I continue to disagree with Rand, but I don't think I've treated this lightly.) However, the fact of her believing in X will not help me to assess whether I agree, in the end, that X is true. I can only agree that X is true when I've seen it for myself, or the opposite, and come to that Ayn Rand's opinion is not a factor at all. In the last analysis I give her opinion zero weight. By the way, I'm not certain of all that "never been out of contact with reality and whose descriptions always accurately describe it" entails, but I regard "never" and "always" as being dangerous criteria. I've heard (but intend no claims, because I honestly don't know) that Rand went through a "Nietzsche phase" at one point in her life? Would that run contrary to your assessment of her...? Or, honestly, this isn't going to help us get to the root of our disagreement regarding rape, so feel free to disregard this section entirely.

Of course. And we should be willing to consider everything that we find relevant. Perhaps all of this signals that Dominique was interested in Roark. If so, that does not mean that the specific sex act which then took place was consensual, not forced, not rape. In real life, all sexual acts -- rape and otherwise -- take place within some context. Where a given rape is concerned, we might sometimes view some of that context as a woman dressing in a "provocative" manner or otherwise giving "mixed signals." Sometimes it is within the context of a date, or even a marriage. Sometimes there are sexual activities which are consensual up to a point, but then the woman (for convenience; I intend no statement about gender exclusivity) decides that she does not want to carry things further. What makes a rape a rape -- the introduction of force -- is not changed even if we can prove that a woman was attracted to her rapist, had "led him on," or that she "generally wanted him," if she did not consent to the specific sex act itself. It is not novel to The Fountainhead, and actually is to my understanding something of a cliche, for rapists to claim that their victims actually "wanted it," and that it was therefore not actually rape. Sometimes, when we don't know the specifics of the event, we might wind up having to speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The woman comes up to the man's hotel room, late at night, dressed in a negligee? "Ahh," we say, "then perhaps she's lying about what happened behind closed doors. Those details certainly suggest that she was prepared to consent to sex." But in The Fountainhead, we are witness to the sex act itself, and Dominique's struggles to fend Roark off. And what is more, we are privy to her internal state -- that she was terrified (a word that is much stronger than "afraid"; consider that people blow up marketplaces and bring down buildings to inspire "terror" in others). And so, what ever Roark and Dominique's relationship up to that point, the question of whether or not Roark raped her comes down to whether or not he had sex with her by force. That we are shown Roark forcing Dominique, that we see her attempts to get away, and that we know that it makes her terrified all conspire to make me believe that yes, she is forced, and yes it is rape. Dominique, who was in the best position to determine whether she had consented or was forced, came to the same conclusion. "Shattered"? Not particularly, though I don't know how highly I regard her mental state in general. While I'm not prepared to attempt a full character analysis of Dominique at present (nor do I consider it necessary to answer the question before us), if we agree with Marc K.'s claim about Dominique's "apparent split between mind and body," it is possible that she wasn't completely "whole" to begin with. In any event, however she comes ultimately to regard Roark does not seem to me to be material. I don't know if you've ever read any erotica, but it's a common plot for a woman to be raped (or otherwise defrauded/connived into non-consensual or disagreeable sex), only to discover... that she likes it! Or that she wants more. Or that she should become her rapist's willing slave. But the initial character of rape cannot be retroactively changed because the victim later has positive feelings for her rapist. A hostage who experiences Stockholm Syndrome was no less taken hostage. A child abducted who grows to love his abductor was no less abducted. In every case, the perpetrator probably hopes to believe otherwise; that the fact of his abducted child's love changes the nature of his initial action, and shows that he acted rightly. But A remains A, and forcing someone to have sex is rape, even if they enjoy it, or later ask for seconds, or thirds, or marry their rapist. And now, to reassess your question, let me answer this: "The thoughts of a rape victim?" These are the thoughts of a rape victim.

I quite agree. That is central to this discussion and my argument overall. Agreed again. Can't we clearly say, then, that if Roark "forced" Dominique to have sex, then he raped her? And here's the crux of our disagreement. I'd like to question two words: "appeared" and "desire." 1) "Appeared." Let's say that Dominique wanted to have sex with Roark generally, and that her "appearance," in word and deed, followed logically from that, and that Roark read it appropriately. Does that mean that she wanted sex at the very time and place, and in the manner, which Roark did? Does that mean that she necessarily wanted "kinky Klingon sex," as you suggest? Did she appear to want this sex? And how would we (or Roark) judge such a thing? When she attempts to fight him away physically, does she appear to want this sex? When she tries to flee, does she appear to want it? When her eyes are "shapeless in terror," does that give the appearance of desire? If I were trying to make the case that she "appeared" not to want to have this sex, don't you suppose that it would be the stronger case? And in our lives -- I urge you to look within -- if we ever were to witness someone who "appeared" to be fighting off someone, "appeared" to try to escape, "appeared" to be terrified, and then held down and made to have sex... would we judge that as anything other than rape? 2) "Desire." Since something has been made about the windows which fiction provides into peoples' souls, allowing the reader a more universal understanding than we have in the ordinary course of events, I think it appropriate to ask whether this "desire" that Dominique supposedly had for Roark's actions was manifest either before or at the time of the sex act (i.e. at those points where she would have had to consent for this to not be rape). What do we know of her internal state? As I've pointed out previously, she was terrified. She experienced hatred. Having been fortunate enough to have experienced "sexual desire," I must report that these types of emotions are not consonant with my experience. They do seem to be appropriate, however, to someone who is in the process of being raped. *** Now, perhaps this is not yet convincing? (Though it certainly appears convincing to me.) Perhaps, beyond observing Dominique's actions and knowing her mental state -- both of which suggest rape to me -- we could ask her afterwards whether the sex was consensual? If we did so, I suppose that she would say that it was not consensual, and that she was raped, because that is what she did think to herself and what she did say.

All right. Rather than belabor the unhelpful point that this is an ongoing thread, and that I was merely referring to posts already available and under discussion, here are the relevant posts. In support of Dominique considering the act a rape: In support of Dominique describing the act as a rape: Here is some more material for us to consider. Not that this will necessarily carry any weight, but in doing a search I came upon SparkNotes' analysis of that scene. Here is a telling sentence: From ARI's site, here is a question from their lesson plan/study guide for The Fountainhead: And with the above as background here's my case and the conclusion which I draw from it: Rape is forcing someone to have sex. In that Dominique struggled against Roark "like an animal," he forced her to have sex. If there were further question on this account, Dominique reckons the act to have been rape. She also describes the act to have been rape to another. Perhaps we can conclude that this rape was "a violent but necessary encounter." Perhaps we can conclude that it is "rape by engraved invitation." Perhaps in answer to the query that this thread's title suggests, we are able to justify this rape and account it moral. All of these are possible (though I would demur from arguing them at present), but based on the scene itself, I must first recognize that it does indeed depict a rape. Because it's so central to our discussion, I'll now go ahead and present the scene in question (taken from this site), emphasis added: There's more, and perhaps that more is relevant, but let's look at what we have, as this is the very sex act under discussion. In describing Dominique's internal state, the word "terror" is used three times. She fights against him physically, using her fists, her elbows, her teeth. She looks to escape by the door and huddles against a table. Her arms are pinned behind her back, "wrenching her shoulder blades." This is the description of a rape. Or, at the risk of being grotesque, at least allow me to observe that consensual sex in my (limited?) experience typically involves less terror, "hatred," and physical abuse. Now, what if "deep down" she "wants it"? What if Dominique is "conflicted"? "Confused"? Then she is conflicted and confused. A person has the right to be conflicted, and confused, and free from force. A person has the right to be conflicted and confused on the issue of whether they want to sleep with another, and yet not be trapped in a room, have their arms pinned behind their back, their mouth forced open, and thereby forced to have sex, which is rape. What if, thereafter, Dominique was glad to have had this happen? Then she was glad to have been raped. Consider Rand's understanding/explanation? Of course! Why would you think I wouldn't?! I'm willing to consider anyone's explanation (well, just about, at least ), and I have no reason to prejudge your explanation as being inferior to mine, or Rand's, or anyone else's. I am fully willing to consider any understanding which disagrees with my own, and should I find it more reasonable, I plan to adopt it. But I won't defer to anyone, not even Rand, and honestly that's what I felt you were suggesting. As to contradicting Rand "at my own risk," it's not Rand I fear contradicting -- it's reality. And you're welcome to agree with Rand and disagree with me for any reason at all, but I'd hope it was because she made the more compelling argument. If you can consider the case that I've made, and read the above scene, and continue to believe that this was not the depiction of a rape, more power to you. I don't begrudge you that at all. And should you and Rand prove to be right, and if I can see that (which I will endeavor to do), I will have no compunction at admitting the fact. I am not hostile to those who disagree with me; in the context of friendly and spirited discussion, I regard them as my benefactors. Your points are fair in that tone is hard to read and that my response was "leaning snarky"... Actually, if I managed "leaning snarky," I'm a little proud because what I was feeling was much darker. I tried to rein it in, but I apologize for any failure. (And that goes for brian0918 as well if in fact I misread his tone.) As for "methodology," I do consider it courteous to read a thread before engaging in it (within reason; some threads, here and on other boards, are miles and miles long). But no matter. We're here now, hopefully your desire for reference points has been assuaged, and if you'd like to proceed in civility, I'd be happy to continue.

Certainly those are three different things. And had I been replying to a compelling demonstration of those three things, and not an equally dismissive (and I will add "offensive") "Apparently not," I would have replied in kind. We all have the choice to be civil or not and many of us don't consider it of importance. I consider it important, but I'm growing weary of those on this board who don't, and frustrated by them, and angry, and I feel ever-more-strongly that engaging with them is a waste of everybody's time. There are others, and I don't mind naming them, who seem to me to be unfailingly civil, including Eiuol and Dante. They also regularly seem the most reasonable to my understanding, and their arguments the strongest. I suspect this is not coincidental. I suspect that the incivility of many stems from a weakness in their arguments, and in their thought overall. But that's not really to my point here. My point is: be nice or leave me alone. (And because I've received this kind of response to that sentiment before, this has nothing to do with the truth of the case; it's fine to say that I'm wrong about something. I *love* that. And I love being shown wrong so that I can understand my error. There's no need to choose between being clear and in opposition, and being friendly. That so many people seem to think there is, as demonstrated by their actions and rhetoric, is a deep shame.) I grant this omniscient understanding, and that Dominique experienced internal conflict. It is this taken together with her struggling against the sex act, and her considering it to be rape thereafter, that I conclude that it is rape. You're welcome to conclude otherwise, but based on the evidence we've thus far discussed I will consider your conclusion mistaken. Possibly so. I guess that's for each man to judge for himself; I can only present my case. Where I'm personally concerned, would you suggest that I substitute someone else's understanding (of anything) for my own? I read The Fountainhead and these are the conclusions I've come to. I have no better to offer than that. Ah, I see. Well in that case, hopefully you took up the apology I'd proffered in what you've quoted. Or, if not, then perhaps you could avail yourself of the opportunity to read the thread -- this very thread that we're now participating in -- to find the material which I've referenced. Truth be told, I would have expected you to be familiar with the contents of the thread prior to joining in.

No? You honestly suppose that if I were in a library, I would look for The Fountainhead in the nonfiction section? Or are you just being jerky for its own sake? (If the latter, let me know now so we can end this conversation quickly.) The events of a story aren't supposed to be objectively examined? If you say so. Dominique experiences internal conflict? Agreed. It still appears to be rape to me, on the basis of what I've already said. If you wouldn't push past a woman's physically struggling against you, then perhaps you find such a scenario to be rape, too. I want to classify the scene according to the events the author dramatized. I'm relying on the material already provided and discussed in this thread. I apologize if that is insufficient.

I find myself a little bit staggered looking through the history of this thread. The initial consensus appeared to be that this was not at all a rape: This is the first reply in the thread: It's been a very long while since reading The Fountainhead, so I'm relying on the material I've found throughout this thread, but apparently Dominique "fought like an animal." Apparently she thought to herself thereafter that she had been raped... and then told another character that she had been raped. I don't know. That sounds very similar to rape to me. And perhaps I'm one of those men "like Peter Keating," but I guess that if a woman was trying to physically fight me off, that might discourage me from engaging in intercourse with her. But then, I don't suppose I'm Howard Roark, and I don't have his particular powers of observation. My ability to divine a woman's true wishes as against her trying to resist me physically, and then describing our congress as rape, is limited. Do we suppose, if I was arrested and brought before a jury of Objectivists (perhaps the ones I've quoted who do not regard this scene as "rape," for convenience), that I could convince them otherwise? Do we think that I could successfully argue that she'd given me significant glances, and contrived to put us in situations that assured me that she wanted me to force her down? That deep down inside, she really actually wanted it? Or do we think that they would pronounce me a rapist and put me in prison? I get that this is fiction. But even within that context, I'd prefer to call a spade a spade. And this does seem like a rape.

I didn't mean to suggest a poll, and I'm not sure about our use of the term "generic," here. At the risk of adding unnecessary (or possibly off-point) complication, may I present an example of the kinds of things that I do in approaching my own art? I'm a would-be writer, and my primary interest is fiction. When I write, I often have in mind certain themes that I'd like to explore, or emotions that I'd like to evoke in my reader, etc.; I'm interested in producing very specific effects. When I've finished an initial draft of my story, I typically ask my wife to read it over, and then I ask her for her impressions. When I do that, I'm interested in feedback on many levels, including her general interest (was she ever bored?), how she evaluates the characters (are their motivations understandable? are they sympathetic?), and also whether I've accomplished those specific effects I was initially after. For instance, if I had intended a suspenseful tale... did she actually experience suspense? Depending on her answers, I may probe further. Beyond simply her experience (or lack) of suspense, I'd like to try to determine the source. In/through my art I'm interested in communicating specific emotions or messages or what-have-you, and my wife's responses help me to determine the nature of my success or failure. My wife is not alone my audience, but I rely on her as being representative (in part) of my audience, which is ultimately something like "a rational human being." Ultimately I set the standards and I am the final arbiter as to what meets those standards. I take my wife's feedback into account, but I wouldn't place her aesthetic judgment above my own; it is my art, after all. However, when she says, "No, I didn't feel suspense. Actually, I felt bored at that part," I really want to understand why she's reacted that way, insofar as I'm able. Her reactions often provoke me to new insights about my material. It is in this manner that I give thought to my audience, and also in the principles that I'm able to derive from my experiences. Ultimately I hope to have a strong understanding of "what makes rational people, generally, feel suspense." I suspect that this was the method employed by folks like Hitchcock and others who've been judged to be good at creating that sort of thing. Did he ask himself, "What would make me feel suspense?" Unquestionably. But did he also seek to hone his understanding of suspense, in itself, through observation of other peoples' reactions and experiences, and much more so through the reactions and experiences of those whom he considered to constitute "his audience"? Again, I suspect that he did. I think that what I'm describing is less a poll of people-on-the-street than an endeavor to understand the underlying principles of how and why we experience art in the manner that we do. But do you think I'm approaching this in the wrong way? All men? No. And this certainly has nothing to do with percentages or anything like that. The audience I'm concerning myself with is not a question of numbers, but the kind of person who would be receptive to my sort of art. If we imagine Ellsworth Toohey or Genghis Khan or someone-else-cleverly-selected-by-me-as-inappropriate to step into Roark's temple, I don't think they would experience it as he'd intended. And certainly Roark shouldn't care one whit (in fact, their rejection of his temple would be a type of affirmation that he'd achieved his goals). But if Ayn Rand were to step into Roark's temple and have critical comment, or not experience what Roark assumed a person like that should, then it might be worth Roark's attention and subsequent investigation. He might have to question whether he'd made the correct decisions. (Perhaps he ultimately accounts Rand's dismissal or deviant experience to some fault or quirk of hers, rather than his temple? Perhaps. But that conclusion would be at the end of a process of inquiry, not preclude the inquiry as such.) I don't remember specifically where it came from, but in replying to this post I seem to recall Ayn Rand talking about "[her] kind of reader." (My search only brings me to the ARI site with the phrase unreferenced.) That phrase seems to speak to what I mean. I don't believe that, either through her fiction or her non-fiction, Ayn Rand was only talking to herself. I don't think she would have cared whether "every man" understood her. But I also think she would have wanted "her kind of reader" to understand, and that she made certain decisions in order to produce that understanding to the best of her ability. To do so, she would have had to consider the effects of her art on "her kind of reader," according to the nature of "her kind of reader," as she understood it. Absolutely he would. But I don't think that's the whole story, or that it truly conflicts with my meaning. Again I want to try to understand this in terms of my own experiences "as an artist." I react in certain ways to certain art. Though I'm about as introspective a person as I've ever met, I'm not always aware with precision as to why I have the experiences and reactions that I do. And that's a "difficulty" which seems somehow increased when it comes to producing my own art; while I may be strongly aware of what I mean to communicate -- and while sometimes I think I must have succeeded at its communication -- that isn't always the case (at least judging by the reactions I get from those who I otherwise consider to be rational and "my audience"). I somewhat suspect that parts of my reactions to art may be personal to me -- to the specific context of my life -- and less generalized. For instance, I love the musical Hair, and if pressed I'm willing to defend the reasons why. At the same time, I admit that my very first date ever was to go see a production of Hair, and the experience was a thrilling one for me. I don't know that I can swear that my emotional reactions to Hair, even up to this day, fully come from the musical itself and not at all the personal experiences and context I had while watching it for the first time. In hypothesizing an "ideal audience," and through real and specific interactions with my wife or various other critical entities, I believe that in part I seek to minimize those aspects of reaction to art which stem from incidents in my specific past, and attune my understanding to a more general "rational human" relationship with those artistic elements. Perhaps this could all be accomplished through a greater-still level of introspection and a heightened clarity of thought? Perhaps mine is the only human mind I ever need to access for true principles, whether aesthetic or philosophic in general? I grant that this is possible. But I am certain that reading Ayn Rand helped me to understand certain philosophical principles far faster than I would have done without her (if ever I would have done), and where my art is concerned, I truly believe that my wife-as-audience provides me a benefit in assessing whether I'm accomplishing my goals in producing certain reactions or communicating certain aesthetic experiences. Not at all, but neither did they discount the nature of their audience -- in this case, those who would observe their temples. Rather, the physical nature of their audience dictated the terms by which they would have to procede in order to produce those specific visual effects. If you were distributing a book in China, would it matter to you whether the book was published in Chinese or English? What would you feel about the art of a man who created his own language, though no one else would or could ever understand it, then created his masterpiece in that language? If communication is at all an artistic goal, then there are rules that must be obeyed. It isn't just up to the artist to set the terms; he must understand the nature of the audience to whom he desires to speak. If I want to produce suspense in a rational man, I must first determine "what makes a rational man feel suspense." To arrive at that, it might not even be enough for me to ask "what would make me feel suspense?" though I consider myself rational. The crucial point here being that: I would have to take my audience into account.

In reading Dante's post and your response, I have to wonder... do you think that there's nothing about music which a person could learn with regard to the typical effects of one musical choice or another? All I read Dante as saying (though maybe there's more) is that certain music will generally produce certain effects in the listener; a musician who strives to express himself to others -- to reproduce in them the sensations or what-have-you which he feels and seeks to share -- must take that into consideration, in order to attain his goals. He must consider the audience. Though it's been a while since I've read The Fountainhead, I seem to recall Roark designing a temple such that man would feel grand inside of it. Well, to accomplish such a thing, Roark couldn't simply throw anything up as it came to him -- he would have to give lengthy consideration to what would produce the effects he was after in those who would enter the temple. When Greek architects wanted their columns to appear straight from a distance, they had to make mathematical calculations in order to produce the desired visual effects. And aren't there parallels to this sort of thing in music? Aren't there considerations given to thematic variations and resolutions, etc., depending on what musicians think those will "communicate"? Aren't there different emotions associated (for instance) with major or minor chords, or fast or slow tempos? (Or the timbre of various instruments?) I don't know. I'm flailing in that I don't really know much about music or architecture (as I'm sure is obvious). But while I don't believe that architecture or music can convey stories in the manner that a film or novel can, I have to believe that there are still lessons in craft that an aspiring artist in either genre could learn. And where artistic expression is concerned, that craft would have to take into consideration the audience; the recognition that certain architectural or musical choices produce certain predictable effects in a typical observer/listener.

This is something I have a hard time relating to/understanding. My hatred is typically pretty straightforward. All right, let's start here: it's nice to look at pretty things and people. However, you can't really mean it when you say that you value physical beauty "more than anything else in life," can you? That must be hyperbole. In people, specifically, you value physical beauty over intelligence? Courage? Compassion? Integrity? Honesty? How would you assess a gent like Ted Bundy? By most accounts, he was a handsome guy, and yet... Physical beauty in a woman is a wonderful thing. I mean, for real. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a sucker for a good-looking woman. (And though I'm pretty damn straight, I'll observe that I enjoy physical beauty in a man, too.) That said, physical beauty is not the only thing that's important to me when it comes to my relationships, nor is it the central thing. Relationships are about much (much) more than gazing lovingly at one's partner. And so it's important for me to assess everything that I know about those around me, to properly judge the value they potentially represent to me and to my life. I think that over the course of my life, my experience of "attraction" has come to follow this more holistic evaluation. For instance: My wife is beautiful, but that's not why I'm head-over-heels for her. And there are certainly more beautiful women in the world. But nobody is more attractive to me than my wife. I don't think you have to defend liking handsome men. But where this specific handsome man is concerned, it's still a question of whether he's good for you or not. And I can't answer that for you, but I ask it because the way you describe this guy makes it sound like you don't value him very highly overall, as a human being. And the way you describe your various frustrations makes it sound like the relationship doesn't make you particularly happy.* And I'm of the opinion that we have these relationships for our fulfillment, in pleasure, in happiness, and in our lives generally. If they don't serve that purpose, but make us miserable instead... well... that's good reason to reassess and make a change. * Though I could be wrong about any or all of that. Writing these posts surely gives a skewed view of what I'm sure is a complex relationship (as they all are). I'm only basing my responses on what I can read in your posts and infer from there, but if he's actually a great guy, and if you're loving your relationship, then I guess my responses wouldn't be very useful. See, here again you lose me... I believe I've observed before (though I don't know that you share) a certain mentality which views "romance" as suffering in its essence -- that values the emotional ups and downs of a chaotic affair, and would find a relationship without those downs somehow lacking. But that's not why I'm in the game, and that isn't what love means to me. Or sex, for that matter. I've heard of angry sex, and even of hate sex, but I don't think I've ever had any of that... nor do I really get the appeal. For me, love and sex are about pleasure and happiness. If I feel hatred for a woman -- or even anger, howsoever temporarily -- the last thing I'd want with her is intimacy. Even if I decided intellectually that I wanted to have sex, I don't know how I'd get my body to respond the right way. Perhaps you'd suggest that I could somehow compartmentalize my feelings? Ignore what I otherwise know about a hypothetically awful-yet-beautiful woman in order to enjoy her physical appeal or something? But 1) I don't know that I could accomplish it, and 2) I don't know that would be good for me. In fact, it sounds dangerous. If my anger/hatred is rooted in reason and reality, and if I'm right to feel that way about her generally, then she's probably bad news for my life. If I can switch off my disgust at her character so that I can simply dig on the shape of her legs for a while, then that sounds liable to backfire. It's best to keep folks of disgusting character at arm's length, or farther. (See above, re: Ted Bundy.) I don't know the podcasts in question, so I can't really comment on that, except to reiterate that I don't understand the sexual appeal of anger or drama. But if what you're really saying is that you groove on pain, then I don't guess that lying or anything else should be a problem for your relationship. I mean, if you desire misery in your relationships -- if the drama itself is part of the appeal -- then I guess no advice can really go wrong for you...

In my life, I've found that a person grows more (or less) attractive to me based on what I know about them -- what is true more fundamentally about their character -- and less based on simply their physical appearance. I'm not Avila, and don't mean to speak for him in response, but I can't imagine a woman so beautiful that I would want to be with her if I simultaneously considered her to be stupid, immature, manipulative, deceptive, etc. I can't imagine that I would continue to find her attractive (which, to stress, is more than simply "good looking"). When I think about the costs that being around such a person would entail -- the stress of it, the uncertainty, etc., -- it makes my blood run cold. Does this relationship make you happy? When you describe your confusion, your frustration, it doesn't sound like it... but you'll know better than anyone. Anyways, if it doesn't make you happy, then what purpose is it serving your life?

It's late (/early) where I am right now, so I'm just going to type off-the-cuff; if anything comes across as strange or offensive, please chalk it up to my insomnia. Forget the term "invalid" for a second. When we're agreed that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," we're in complete agreement on this subject. When we reference "order," I mean nothing more than the recognition that "contradiction is metaphysically impossible," or to put it in another way, an "orderly universe" is a universe in which things can be relied upon to act according to their nature. If our line of inquiry is "why couldn't there be disorder?" or "why order over disorder?", I must first assess the idea of a disordered universe, which I take to mean: "a universe in which contradiction is metaphysically possible," where things will act contrary to their very nature. It isn't that the question "presumes a contradiction," of itself, but that disorder does when we take it under consideration. A disordered universe would of necessity be a universe in which logic and reason would not apply (due to the existence of metaphysical contradictions); there is no way for me to rationally assess such a thing -- or to even imagine it, which would require me to imagine items such as "square circles," or effects which precede their causes. And it is this inability to rationally assess the very thing I'm meant to deliberate upon which leads me to conclude that the question is "invalid." I just can't make sense of it, nor do I believe that sense can be made. Please take me at my word that beyond this conclusion that I've reached (and which you're invited to challenge if you think I've erred), I've no interest in "squelching" anything. Inquiry is an excellent thing. It isn't anti-inquiry that I've reached this conclusion (and as I hope is evidenced by the fact that I'm sitting here, typing this), but rather at the end of my process of inquiry. Does that make any sense? Well, I can't speak for, let alone defend every Objectivist you've heard from. I can barely defend myself at times! But I have no belief that theists are idiots, or stupid, or etc. I've known many very intelligent Christians -- and folks from various other religions -- and have befriended quite a few. That said, where religion is concerned, I do believe that they are wrong. And irrational? In their faith, yes. Of course you're right that this is a matter of "differing philosophical interpretations"; Objectivism is a philosophy after all, so we should expect the points of divergence with various other philosophies to be precisely that. This has nothing to do with any particular animosity towards individual theists, or pretending as though Christians haven't made contributions to science (though I feel compelled to mention that this is not necessarily to the credit of Christianity, itself). I'm open to the idea of intelligent, well-meaning, valuable-as-human-being theists... but at the same time, I must continue to disagree with them when I believe that they're wrong, and identify their irreason as I see it.