Ramare

Lots of good recommendations in this thread. I'm a huge fan of contemporary middle grade & YA fiction, so I can offer some more modern choices: The Inkheart trilogy by Cornelia Funke The Faerie Wars series by Herbie Brennan The Stravaganza series by Mary Hoffmann The Dalemark Quartet by Diana Wynne Jones (others by her are good, too, but these were my favorite) The Bartimaeus trilogy by Jonathan Stroud The Larklight trilogy by Philip Reeve (also enjoyed the first book in his Mortal Engines series but haven't gotten to the others yet) The Mysterious Benedict Society series by Trenton Lee Stewart (these are not fantasy but have a lot of almost fantasy style elements to them) The Printer's Devil and The God of Mischief by Paul Bajoria (also not fantasy but have a lighthearted caper-type style) Jennifer already mentioned Wee Free Men and Hat Full of Sky, both are hilarious fun Un Lun Dun by China Mieville and one older one . . . Peter Pan and Wendy by J.M. Barrie These all tend to be longer books with a grander sense of worldbuilding that to me have writing more on a level with the Harry Potter series than some of the books mentioned here that are directed at younger readers (not that those are not good books as well, but I was under the impression that this is more the kind of thing you were looking for). MadKat, I've read Tamora Pierce as well; I enjoyed Trickster's Queen & Trickster's Choice very much . . . but not so much a lot of her other books. Later when I saw that she had some nasty comments on her website about Ayn Rand's fiction I resolved not to buy any more of her books.

Just to be clear: the context is a monogamous relationship in which I find the man worthy of not only my respect, but my worship. Obviously, neither one of us actually thinks that I’m a whore, and his calling me such in the privacy of our bedroom is not going to confuse either one of us into thinking that I might be. Sex, for a psychologically healthy woman, is about surrendering herself to the man she worships. It’s about submission. It’s about showing, in terms of a physical act, “You are so absolutely fantastic that you can do whatever you want with me—and I trust you.” Using demeaning words like “whore” or “slut” is one way to symbolically underline that submission—thus heightening it and making the whole experience more intense. Other means might include bondage or role play involving rape. Did you find anything positive in Roark’s “rape” of Dominique? Or Galt’s taking of Dagny on the train tracks? That’s the type of thing I’m thinking of here. (Possibly think, too, of the tennis game between Dagny and Francisco. Definitely some parallells there. She's happy to be brought down a notch, so to speak, by the man who's worthy of it.) But this is an area in which personal preference is really all that matters. If this isn’t your kind of thing, it doesn’t need to be. And, you know, just as a little side note, lest we forget . . . as serious and important as sex is, it should also be FUN. Lots of fun.

Dan, you said it quite well. Thank you. Incidentally, DPW said some smart and interesting things that I think are related about how physical attraction works specifically for women in this thread. The only post I can find right now about it is Post 125, but I thought there was another one somewhere, too.

I have and will continue to date non-Objectivist men. In fact, I’d almost go so far as to say I prefer it, given the general selection of Objectivists. The large majority of Objectivist men I’ve met (of which there are many) are both repressed and rationalistic. They have a lot of trouble knowing how to treat a woman in the context of romance. In addition, many of them have the idea that Objectivism is all or even most of what matters. They are looking for their “Dagny,” and as soon as a reasonably attractive Objectivist woman walks into their lives, they want to take her out—regardless of what her personality and interests are. If things like dancing in goth clubs, talking dirty, and bondage make you uncomfortable, most likely you’re not going to be romantically compatible with a girl who likes those things—no matter how long she’s been an Objectivist. There are a huge number of things that can/should be a priority in a relationship (is he a cat person? does he like Asian food? does he wake up at five AM to play golf on weekends when I want to sleep in with him?), and what those things are can, quite rationally, be different for everyone. I think you should figure out whether you think he or she is honest (in the full sense of the word); aside from that, go with what you like. There are a lot of great people in the world who’ve never heard of Ayn Rand (and a lot of “Objectivists” who are really horrible people . . . but that’s another topic). Don’t forget that romantic relationships are about feeling good—the icing on the cake of your life, so to speak. Just as a sidenote: My two most down-to-earth male Objectivist friends are both in long-term relationships (one is married) with non-Objectivist women. I think part of the reason they are both successful relationships is that the guys respect their women and don’t go around trying to change them.

Yes, please! The more my guy talks, the more it turns me on. He should tell me what he's going to do and how much I'm going to love it. And I'm not sure what words/attitudes JLG is referring to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with calling me a whore or slut, either, because at that moment, that's what I want to be--his whore. I don't want him to be thinking about how smart I am. He should want me for everything I am, which includes--just as much as my mind--my body, and in the middle of sex, it ought to be all about my body. Plus, he should feel welcome to tie me up. There is nothing wrong with fantasy/roleplay within the context of a normal, healthy sexual relationship. Both dirty talk & bondage can be great, fun ways to concretize the fact that I am his--he can do whatever he wants with me. Think of it like art; it helps you see your values in action.

This thread seems to have died out a bit ago, but now that it's July I'm living in NYC, subletting & looking for my own place. If any real Objectivist in the area wants to chat/meet up with a fun 27-year-old girl who's been an Objectivist for going on nine years now (ohh so old), send me a message. Rationalists, anti-body people, and Kelley-ites need not apply. Love dancing to industrial/goth music a plus. :-)

The reason Objectivism is capitalized has to do with the specificity of the content. It is capitalized because it’s a proper noun, which means: a specific, unique entity. In this case, a one-of-a-kind set of ideas. What that means is that you cannot pull any old idea out of a hat, add it to the pile, and say you're an Objectivist, or that that's Objectivism. Objectivism is an integrated whole, and can only contain the specific set of ideas that Ayn Rand delineated as part of her philosophy.

I'm moving out there this summer. Anyone have any thoughts on whether it's feasible to park a moving truck in Queens or Brooklyn & do the move with a friend, rather than using movers? I don't know where I'm moving to yet, and I'm trying to figure out what the best way is to do this.

Hey all, I'm headed to New York in a week and am wondering if there are any likeable Objectivist New Yorkers out there who might like to get together for drinks and/or dancing. I know a few people out there already but am hoping to meet others. I am considering moving out there next summer and would love to chat about pros & cons and different neighborhoods. If you want to know more about me, you can look at my intro on here (from way back when) http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=730&hl=ramare or send me a personal message. Rachael (Fixed url-link -sNerd)

Pony Girl, Manav’s question was about how to know when to ask a girl out. He showed some confusion about whether it was okay to ask a girl out “only” because he was physically attracted to her. He seemed to think he had to know something about her values and character, etc. I’m saying that not only does her physical appearance tell him something about her values and character, but those two things are hardly separate. They are two sides of the same coin. You missed my point entirely. “Would you pick a guy because he’s eye candy” suggests that there is somehow a divide between attractiveness & intelligence—as if the man who is sexy is automatically a dolt. As if I have to choose between not-so-bright “eye candy” and somewhat goofy looking, but fabulously heroic! It’s a nonexistent dichotomy--for both genders. The sexiest man I’ve ever met (we’re talking movie-star good-looking here) is also the smartest, with a whole host of other great qualities that make him my greatest friend in the world. (It’s not a coincidence that this is the case. Physical appearance & moral character/values are not separate things. That’s the great thing about there being no mind-body dichotomy.

I have two main things to say about this conversation: the first is that everything Kevin said about women wanting men to approach them is correct, and please, please, please heed it, to any men out there wondering. Any woman who is even remotely in touch with herself romantically wants a man to come after her, not vice versa. Damn!! If I have to ask a man out, that's already a big fat red flag that he's not what I'm looking for--it's already clear to me that I am braver and more efficacious than he is. Francisco wouldn't have had to wait for me to ask him out--and wouldn't have wanted to wait, either. The other is that y'all are giving way less credence to physical appearance than it deserves. You can tell a ton about a person's character from their appearance--much, much more than a lot of people think. And I'm not just talking about things like clothes, makeup, and hairdo, although those things are good indicators. I'm talking even about actual physical characteristics--like droopy eyelids (a prominent facial characteristic of certain wildly irrational members of my family), where wrinkles are placed or not (sunny disposition vs. sour will create a very different-looking face--haven't you ever seen that kind of dour, crabby old woman where you just know she's a bitch?), etc. I knew a guy once who was a complete slut, slept with three different women in the six months I knew him (sometimes simultaneously). He had an STD that caused him to get small, ugly bumps in the area around his eyes. Voila. Character into face, so to speak. And that's one of the more obvious examples. Most of these things are so, so, so subtle that you won't know what it is that's making you like her when you look at her--you just feel attracted. As such, you should trust yourself more. Don't say "oh, it's only physical"--physical appearance is not separate from moral character & sense of life. Also, if you want to get better at identifying these kinds of things, you can. When you like or dislike someone early on in getting to know them--say you meet a new co-worker and she really rubs you the wrong way, ask yourself why. What is it about her that puts you off? Maybe it's that she's a phony. Well, how do you know she's phony? It's not like she walked up and said, Hi, I'm phony, nice to meet you. No, she did things like made exaggerated, unnecessary gestures with her hands when she talked, and held her eyes open unnaturally wide, and cocked her head in a cutsey way. Plus she wears all the latest in trendy fashions--especially the ugliest ones. Voila--character into face. There are *all sorts* of clues that people give off about who they are very early on. The better you get at noticing these clues and integrating certain behaviors/looks with certain character traits, the more you can tell about people before they even open their mouths. AR talks about this in The Art of Fiction--concretizing your abstractions (abstraction: phony; concretes: What does phony look like? "How do you know it in other people?"). While she discusses it there in the context of writing fiction, it's also extremely useful for life. That cliche about not being able to judge a book by its cover? Well, you might not entirely be able to judge a person by her appearance, but you sure can get a headstart.

Once long ago in the mythical land of Minnesota, there was a club of unbelievable size and astounding quality, associated with the U of M. Unfortunately, all of the excellent members of that club have taken wing to warmer parts, mostly due to educational pursuits. Except for yours truly, that is, who remains cold as ever. Recently a group of somewhat misguided unfortunates tried to resurrect said club, which is now, sadly, defunct, as you say. It must be the snow. And by the way, Iakeo, it's Objectivist. Capital O. Proper noun. Ayn Rand's philosophy, the one, the only. Always and forevermore.

Nothing better than the picture of Scrooge McDuck swimming through his money. Here's one from Walt Disney that I found funny in an odd way: "I have never been interested in personal gain or profit. This business and this studio have been my entire life." And one from that wizard of words, J. K. Rowling: "THIRTY-ZERO! TAKE THAT YOU DIRTY, CHEATING" "Jordan, if you can't commentate in an unbiased way--!" "I'm telling it like it is, Professor!" ~J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I read a lot, mainly in the areas of fiction and history, especially history of science & the American Revolution. I enjoy a few authors already mentioned here, including Sabatini and Bradbury, but how about a few you might not have heard of or considered good reading possibilities . . . J. K. Rowling is amazing. She is second only to one other writer on my list of favorites. (Bet you can’t guess . . . ) Arturo Perez-Reverte is a Spanish writer whose literary mysteries have been translated into English. He is probably one of my favorite fiction writers, with The Flanders Panel being my favorite work to date. Beryl Markham was a pilot in the 1930s--the first woman to fly across the Atlantic from west to east, and the first person to fly from England to America. Her writing is amazing, and it’s a shame it isn’t more well-known. West With the Night is her beautiful memoir, and the harder-to-find The Splendid Outcast is a collection of her short stories. Tom Standage, Simon Winchester, and Ross King are all writers who’ve written more than one book I’ve enjoyed. And, last but not least, I cannot help but mention David McCullough’s biography of John Adams. If you’re at all interested in American history, this is a must-read. And even if you aren’t, it’s a damn good biography.

I have to say, I do agree. Over the last several years, I've learned a lot about relationships and about myself in response to men, and everything you're saying is very interesting to me, Kevin. The joking insults is one of the things that annoys me the most, and always has. It's definitely the mark of friendship and not of romance.