KevinD

Ben: That must not be a recent pic in your profile. Clearly, you've had the word "SUCKER" tattooed across your forehead. You do not know what another person is feeling; you only know what they tell you. (Read that statement 40-100 times until you get it.) When a person demonstrates in action that they have no integrity — when they are willing to lie to and deceive people whom they claim to love — why would you believe them about anything? It can be a challenge to remain in objective control when your feelings are overwhelming you. If you heard the kinds of statements coming from this lady spoken by anyone else, would they make the slightest bit of sense? What would it would mean to remain in a romantic relationship out of a sense of "obligation"? I have a suspicion that this lady is a master of having her cake and eating it, too. Don't tell me about a person's positive qualities when they're a deceptive liar — particularly in the romantic realm. Integrity is fundamental; to the extent she has brains and is likable, that only makes her more dangerous. You're sexually gone over this woman and it's frying your intellect.

Emotional responses per se are neither moral nor immoral. You don't control your feelings (at least not directly); the fact that you experience a given emotion is not necessarily evidence that anything about you is wrong or "bad." Your desire might indicate certain psychological problems. What specifically those might be, I can't say. If the desire upsets you, seek a qualified psychotherapist.

You say you are not sexually attracted to your girlfriend, and that your sexual life together is virtually nil. Yet you enjoy holding hands, cuddling and kissing. Are these not experienced by you, at least in some sense, as sexual activities?

Only that there were no avocados. On that front alone, I choose to remain in existence.

Robert Heindel illustrated the paperback covers of We the Living and Night of January 16th in the Signet editions from the 70's. (These covers bear his signature.) Others are stylistically similar, so they might be the same artist. The Atlas Shrugged image is not signed, but an article in ARI's Impact newsletter references Heindel as the artist.

Before I was born, I didn't exist. I don't remember much about it.

Congratulations — you are officially the Wishy-Washiest Man on the Face of the Planet!

You realize this is sick — don't you?

From Ayn Rand's interview in Playboy magazine, March 1964: PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved? RAND: Yes, to a certain extent. PLAYBOY: Why? RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man's evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose — a productive purpose. PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose? RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.

I won't comment further, out of respect for those involved. Suffice it to say, my statement was not made lightly, and is not intended as sarcasm or snark. There are giant red flags that this man needs to take cognizance of. None of them have anything to do with religion.

Don't hang around your ex. Problem solved!

She's breaking up with you.

If you don't know what it means, how can you say you disagree with it? As far as I know — and bear in mind I am not a woman — hero worship is an emotional experience; it's the desire to look up to a man within in a romantic context. I'll let others who are more adept than I am go into greater detail, but Miss Rand did a good job of explaining it in her "About a Woman President" essay. Themadkat, I have question for you: What do you think of Aretha Franklin's song "You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman"?

Bluecherry: You prove these ideas in your own life, mostly by experiencing them firsthand. Miss Rand was correct in her idea of hero worship — I'm certain of it. But how could I convince someone else that it's true? I couldn't, and Miss Rand never did, although she wrote and lectured copiously on many subjects. (That she didn't "prove" her sexual theory is a criticism often leveled against her.) The best anyone can do, is what Miss Rand did: you state the idea, perhaps even dramatize it, offer some supporting ideas and facts, and answer questions about it when asked. For the most part, you give your readers the basic material for a conclusion, and trust that they'll be smart enough to figure it out for themselves. I usually become challenged to "prove" my assertions in these exchanges. I'm letting everyone know in advance that I have no interest in doing that. Clearly, I don't believe these ideas apply to all "females" and to all romantic relationships. This discussion is about general principles of romance as they pertain to heterosexual love. In my experience, many men need a lot of help in this area, and some even welcome the advice and find it useful. Let's get back to what this thread is about!

Be careful about projecting your own ideas into my words. I can't imagine what it would mean to "refute the legitimacy" of anyone's relationship — gay, straight or otherwise. Some people are gay — and some are bisexual, and some fall in love with objects, while others are asexual, with no interest in romantic love whatsoever. Do you intend to study all of these, then draw a composite conclusion, from which you will deduce an understanding of male-female relationships? Incidentally, I'm happy to defend all of my positions on this topic, but I will not attempt to prove any of them. "Proving" ideas in the area of sex and romance (or trying to disprove them) is a game for losers and rationalists. To be sure, all of the ideas I've put forth in this thread can be proven — and they will be, eventually, if you consider them sincerely, and then get on with living your life.

Yes, of course. I don't know where I'd be without my female friends. Not exactly the same fashion — though when it comes to friendship, the significance of sexual differences can vary enormously. In the case of a friend I'm truly close with, I could never see them apart from the fact that they are a man or a woman. To try to mentally classify someone I cared about as a generic "person" feels insulting. It would amount to ignoring an important aspect of their identity. Of course, the way one views his or her own maleness or femaleness (and the significance they place on it) can also enter into the equation. One thing is certain: romantic love is not friendship. Whatever we might say about members of different sexes being friends, it's hard to draw parallels from that to the vastly different context of man-woman sexual loving.

I saw a documentary about a woman who had a romantic relationship with the Golden Gate Bridge. Previously, she'd been involved with a bow-and-arrow. Then there are the guys in Japan who marry their cartoon pillows. Does being human — or even being animate — have bearing upon the fact of romance?

Thanks to bluecherry and themadkat for responding to these statements! I greatly appreciate you sharing your ideas. I want to express some of my own thoughts on one of Mrs. Bird's quotes: "I am a woman, and that no doubt means a lot of things. It means I'm similar to all other women in many respects and probably different in many, but most important, it means I am not a man. I don't think like a man, feel like a man, or, in many respects, act like a man." In my experience, this is the key to understanding — and creating — romance. Men and women are not the same; how specifically we're different is the subject for a long and extremely enjoyable course of study. But one thing is certain: The differences between man and woman run far deeper than bodies and genitals. It's these differences that give birth to the delightful subject of romance; they're what make man-woman relationships so rife with thrilling possibility. The differences can also be our greatest nemesis, if we don't take the time to educate ourselves about them, and learn to appreciate them. In today's culture, romance is dead. Dating is dead. It's tragic, but much of what Mrs. Bird has to say may literally not be graspable by many people today.

One of my all-time favorite books on the topic of love and relationships is How to Make Your Wife Your Mistress by Lois Bird. Published in 1972, it's long out of print (though you can buy used copies of it on Amazon). I'm sure it wasn't a giant bestseller — in fact, I'm impressed that the book was published at all. It's a virtual axiom among editors that men don't buy self-help books, particularly ones that purport to teach them how to be more sensitive and intelligent lovers. Mrs. Bird's basic thesis is that there are too many wives and not enough mistresses, and that these two aren't mutually exclusive. Here are some of my favorite quotations from the book. I'm especially interested to hear women's opinions about Mrs. Bird's statements: "I am a woman, and that no doubt means a lot of things. It means I'm similar to all other women in many respects and probably different in many, but most important, it means I am not a man. I don't think like a man, feel like a man, or, in many respects, act like a man." "Every woman would prefer to build her fantasies on memories of what she has shared with her man. . . . We women collect memories like a miser saving coins. The more the better. Give your woman the stuff on which dreams are built, and you'll keep her far better entertained than a TV rerun." "We know we can win the boy-girl game only when you win too. Nothing could be dumber than a battle of the sexes." "We enjoy being treated like a mistress. . . . Playing female to a man's maleness is something every healthy woman enjoys. . . . We don't feel 'put down' when you come on with some good old-fashioned chivalry. It tells us that you recognize what we want you to recognize: that we are not 'one of the boys'; we are women. We like it, and we're glad you like it. We want to keep those sex differences." "Every woman knows — or ought to know — that sexiness is not incompatible with brains and capability. . . . It takes more than average brains to be truly sexy." "So long as you let her know you are interested in what she has to say, that's all that's important. . . . Just knowing you value what she may think is enough to turn her on." "Every woman is addicted to two things, and one of them is romance." "Romance is something which is not taught to boys as it is to girls." "Dating is not just 'going out somewhere' . . . . Much as I hate to give men a failing grade in anything, I'm afraid when it comes to dating, the average husband flunks out all the way. . . . We want our men to plan the dates, to ask us out for the evening, and to take us." "Imagination is one of the biggest elements in creating romance." "Romance is, in a way, the unnecessary gesture. . . . The romantic action is 'impractical.'" (This is an abridged version of an article written for my blog, The Wealthy Bohemian. For more quotes from Lois Bird, click here.)

What if your name is unpronounceable? What if you're starting a burger joint, and your last name is McDonald? An egoist in business considers all factors relevant to long-range success, and executes accordingly. Too many people are egotists when it comes to branding; they want to insert themselves into everything, even when to do so doesn't make sense.

This was quoted from a Spanish-language newspaper, from an interview that was (presumably) conducted in English, then translated back into English by Fox. I don't put much stock in quotes that appear in print. Who knows what the person really said?

What do you mean by "Objectivist values"? I enjoy reading a story because it's compelling and I like the author's way with words. I never, ever, read to be instructed in how I ought to live my life. Of course, a story has to embody some values that I agree with, if it's to hold my interest. My best advice: Write what interests you personally. Don't concern yourself with preaching any particular ideology, and do not ever write to reach (impress) any particular group of people. I've seen many examples of so-called "Objectivist art," and much of it is dreadful.

FYI, Ed Snider was indeed one of the co-founders of the Ayn Rand Institute. However, he subsequently broke with ARI and joined David Kelley's Institute for Objectivist Studies (later The Atlas Society). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Snider

Stop begging. Forget about trying to "get" a job — make up your mind what kind of work you intend to do, then focus on connecting with those who can help make your desire a reality.

Enixyle: The British humorist Quentin Crisp once spoke of the same kind of dilemma you are facing: "I'm an effeminate homosexual. And for people like me, the dream, the hope, the ambition, is to win and to keep the love of a real man. And of course the essence of a real man is that he does not fall in love with people of his own sex. Therefore, it's insoluble. It's unanswerable." (1970 interview, available here. Quotation begins at 6:03) Crisp was an exceptionally odd character; it's hard to know at times just how seriously to take him. I suspect Crisp is over-generalizing. I have known many gay people who seem to be happy and content with their sexual orientation. At the same time, I also think that the problem you describe might be more widespread than is commonly acknowledged. I'm sorry to say that I have no specific advice for you, but I can imagine being in your situation must be incredibly frustrating and difficult.