Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by KevinD

  1. I'm going to limit myself to a single idea, which I suggest you repeat over and over to yourself like a mantra: If you don't get this area of your life handled, sorted, managed and mastered, you are in for a very unhappy life.

    You'll not only make yourself miserable, but crazy as well. From what you've written here, it seems like you're well on the way. You talk about driving past this girl's house to check on the cars parked outside? I don't know if that's immoral per se, but it sure is loony as hell.

    You come across in your posts as very young, totally inexperienced (you admit as much), and utterly, absolutely naïve about women and relationships. This is not a crime, but also it's not a state you want to remain in for long.

    While you're crushing on and obsessing over this one particular girl, the reality is she is of no significance whatsoever. You think (or rather, you feel) that she is someone extremely important, when in fact she is nobody, irrelevant to the big picture.

    The important person here is YOU. You need to focus on improving yourself, bettering yourself, and above all gaining a mature sense of emotional perspective, particularly where sexual emotions are involved. In short, you need to make yourself into the kind of man who doesn't get irrationally obsessed with girls like this.

    Now that I've beaten you up, let me say there isn't a man reading your posts who can't sympathize with you, at least a little. Fortunately for some of us, your story serves as a reminder of our distant past. For others, the pain you describe is like an experience out of the movie Groundhog Day, something to be revisited and re-encountered again and again.

    The unfortunate reality is that most men never get this area of their lives handled, sorted, managed and mastered. They never really figure out sex. To the average man, sex — and its attendant features, such as attraction, masculinity and femininity, etc. — is always a bit of a mystery, which is why so many men make such humiliating wrecks of their sexual lives.

  2. If you want to argue that animals are essentially like children, and therefore have the "right" to be protected, I say — protected from what, exactly? From nature? From each other?

    If animals can act as predators toward one another, and this is considered perfectly natural, why is it unnatural and wrong for humans to prey on animals?

    Animals kill and eat other animals, why can't we? Why do humans not possess the same "rights" that animals do? 



  3. There is no such thing as a species that possesses rights, that has no means of exercising or implementing its rights.

    My response to those who argue in favor of "animal rights" is always: If animals possess rights, then why is it only humans who are able to violate an animal's rights?

    If you're going to argue that animals have rights, with all that the concept means and entails, then you'd better be prepared to hold them accountable whenever they initiate force against another animal (or a human being).

    And if we're to hold them morally accountable, must we not also hold them legally accountable? Are animals properly subject to arrest and prosecution? Do they have the "right" to a fair trial, by a jury of their peers?

    How would an animal be made to pay restitution to someone who has been damaged as a result of its actions?

    Naturally, all of this is absurd. Animals have no abstract understanding of the rightness or wrongness of their behavior. As far as they're concerned, the entire subject of morality is nonexistent — and rights, a moral concept, is likewise entirely inapplicable to them.

  4. I'm all for developing and using one's imaginative powers, but what you've described here seems rather pointless.

    I might have fantasized about myself flying through the air as a very young child, but as an adult I don't find it appealing.

    Using my mind toward an actual, creative goal gives me great pleasure. This sort of fantasy strikes me at best as a waste of time, at worst a dubious use of one's mental faculties.

  5. On 8/11/2014 at 2:09 PM, never_seen_boobs said:

    Today I arranged an encounter with an escort, my first time doing so, with the full awareness that it was an act of evasion.

    Strictly speaking, this is a contradiction in terms. If you were fully aware of what you were doing, you weren't evading per se.


    On 8/11/2014 at 2:09 PM, never_seen_boobs said:

    Although she was a very attractive young woman, and I am a healthy young adult male not suffering from any form of ED, I did not get aroused during the session. Her breasts, though real and spectacular, were nothing more than meaningless rubbery mounds of flesh in my hands, and I felt ridiculous and embarrassed as I touched them, as would if I was groping a mannequin at the mall in view of the other shoppers. I felt nothing even as she performed oral sex on me, during the middle of which I decided to dismiss myself without doing anything more. Do you think my Objectivist philosophical convictions prevented me fromf feeling sexual desire for the girl?

    It might surprise you to know that many men who hire "escorts" have similar experiences to yours, even if they have never heard of Objectivism.

    Ongoing sexual loneliness can be terribly painful. If you've never experienced sex, you can feel like you're missing out on an essential part of life. (You are.) Under such circumstances, the idea of paying for sex — if only to see what it's like — can seem alluring.

    I don't think what you did is immoral, but I'm not surprised that it made you feel the way it did. You may think you wasted your money, but actually you didn't. You learned a valuable lesson that you should never forget.

    It's easy to think of sex as a physical experience with a strong spiritual component. In fact, the inverse is true. Sex minus any spiritual aspect — sex which is the result of a commercial transaction and is divorced from any larger relationship — is unsatisfying because it's essentially meaningless.

    We think we want the physical elements of sex, and we do, to a degree, but what we really want is the spiritual meaning that those physical elements convey and represent.

  6. On 9/14/2017 at 2:28 PM, Kenny Davis said:

    Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

    How can this be the case? 

     "they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists." Seems to be saying that man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn't exist.


    This is so strange that feel like I'm missing something. 

    It's just a matter of time before a post such as the following appears on Objectivism Online:

    I was listening to a lecture Ayn Rand gave at the Ford Hall Forum, and at one point she said: "Two plus two equals four." Huh? I can't for the life of me understand what she could have meant by this. If you have two … and two … I'm sorry, where do you get "four" from that? If anything, you have 22. Someone please explain this to me as I am utterly confounded by this bizarre statement.

  7. Quote

    Please take the following as an official public notice: The only authentic sources of information about Objectivism are: my own works, the Objectivist Newsletter, a monthly journal dealing with the application of Objectivism to current cultural and political problems.

    It should be noted that there are two fairly obvious edits in this portion of the recording.

    In that section, AR was reading from her Los Angeles Times column from August 26, 1962. Here is how the published column read:


    Please take the following as an official "Public Notice." The only authentic sources of information about Objectivism are:

    My own works.

    "Who Is Ayn Rand?" by Nathaniel Branden, a book recently published by Random House, which presents an analysis of my novels, from the aspects of ethics, psychology and literary method, with a biographical essay contributed by Barbara Branden.

    The Objectivist Newsletter, a monthly journal dealing with the application of Objectivism to current cultural and political problems.

    The lecture courses on Objectivism given by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York and many other cities — and the publications of that institute.

    The lecture courses were organized by Mr. Branden in 1958, in response to the requests of my readers for a detailed, systematic presentation of my philosophy and for answers to specific questions.

    The fall course on Basic Principles of Objectivism will begin in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego in the first week of October. Mr. Branden will give the opening night's lecture in person. I suggest to those who wish to ask questions about Objectivism, that he is eminently qualified to answer them.

    In The Ayn Rand Column book published by Second Renaissance Books, this section is omitted entirely, and replaced by a bracketed summary.


  8. On 2/15/2017 at 2:49 PM, Heinrich Dorfmann said:

    If everything goes well and I sell my share of the business 8-10 years from now, I would become a millionaire (I’m talking about 8 digits).

    With the proceeds from this venture I would never have to worry about money in my life.

    There is very little risk involved in the business. I am very confident by my own judgement, that the business will succeed.

    You write like someone who is absolutely naive about the realities of business, money, and life.

  9. On 12/27/2016 at 11:57 PM, epistemologue said:

    In the same sense that everyone has to be a philosopher to some extent, since man by nature must be guided by a comprehensive view of life, do you think in a sense everyone has to be an artist to some extent, since aesthetic principles also perform a necessary function in the guidance of life (when it comes to metaphysical value judgments and sense of life)?

    I would say that, to the extent that one intends to live an interesting and fulfilling life, he should develop within himself the soul of an artist.

    Indulge greedily in works of art, yes — but more broadly, cultivate your personal values (what you like, enjoy, appreciate, etc.), and curate your life in such a way so that your daily existence reflects and embodies that which matters most to you.

  10. 8 hours ago, epistemologue said:

    I've heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive.

    To "achieve immortality" is an unreal concept. Scientific advancements may aid greatly in the extension of life and the improvement of physical health. But it's really not conceivable that you'll ever see the day when your continued survival has been rendered so absolutely inevitable that you cannot die.

    It's inherent in the nature of life that some effort, some struggle is necessary for its maintenance. This struggle in the face of alternatives gives rise to the issue of values — and values, not death or mortality per se, are what make life meaningful and enjoyable.

    6 hours ago, epistemologue said:

    I can imagine a thousand productive lines of work that don't pertain directly to the issue of survival, and would still be valuable if that problem were solved - any form of art for instance.

    Countless human values don't directly contribute to man's survival and physical well-being, but this doesn't mean they don't have significant "survival value" — particularly when one understands that man is a conceptual being, with needs of the mind and spirit as well as the body.

  11. Clearly not, since the beginning of the development of psychology as a science predates the "full development of an objective, reality-based and fully integrated philosophical system."

    Here's a more fascinating question: Is such a philosophic system possible without at least some knowledge of man's psychological nature — e.g., that he is a conscious being who possesses volition and who experiences emotions?

    I say no. To arrive at valid philosophic insights, let alone a complete, integrated system, one must first have at least a general idea of whom he is philosophizing for & about.

    Put another way: You can't induce valid philosophic principles so long as you believe that it's possible, however remotely, that man might be an unconscious automaton.

    The entire field of philosophy rests on the idea that man possesses a psychological nature; a psychological dimension. To assert otherwise is to be guilty of the Stolen Concept.

  12. Esthetics concerns itself with two issues which are essential to a fully integrated philosophic perspective: metaphysical value judgments and sense of life.


    Qua branch of philosophy, esthetics studies the nature of art; its meaning and the role it plays in man's life. Esthetic principles, however, have application well beyond the evaluation of art works. Properly understood, they can shed enormous light on the way a man experiences himself, and how he sees himself in relation to the universe.


    Esthetics represents "the soul of philosophy." A person could conceivably attain a high level of awareness of Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics, but lacking a clear grasp of its esthetics, he is unlikely to make Objectivism his way of life. Philosophy will seem somewhat distant to him — somewhat removed from his moment-to-moment existence.


    Ayn Rand was an artist, and in a sense she had to be. While you can learn a lot from her nonfiction (as well as Peikoff's OPAR and other works), if you haven't read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you haven't yet experienced the full impact of the Objectivist vision. These novels are literary and philosophic powerhouses; they make their ideas real to the reader in a way no treatise or series of lectures ever could.

  13. (This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog for men, The Leading Man.)
    In 1981, The Pointer Sisters released a song called "Slow Hand." I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with its lyrics:

    I want a man with a slow hand

    I want a lover with an easy touch

    I want somebody who will spend some time
Not come and go in a heated rush

    You might have noticed that virtually every "pick-up artist" selling a course on the Internet emphasizes the importance of speed.

    Years ago, one of the first prominent gurus in this area had a program called Speed Seduction. A related online newsgroup became the virtual birthplace of the modern PUA movement: alt.seduction.fast.

    (I recently saw a website for a program called "Same Night Seduction" — presumably if you follow its instructions, you can meet a woman, take her back to your place, and have sex with her the very same night!)

    Why this near-obsession with things happening quickly? Because that's what guys want — particularly young, underdeveloped, immature guys.

    Young guys are horny. They're self-absorbed, obsessed with sex, and they want it now.

    The PUA gurus are selling, for the most part, to men's weaknesses. They tell guys what they want to hear, not what they need to understand.

    Sexy, seductive, romantic men take it slow. We've cultivated that "slow hand" that a woman craves.

    We're willing to "spend some time," as the song says. We're not in a "heated rush," unlike the crazy horn dogs!

    Of course, our goal is to form a meaningful, deeply erotic relationship with a woman — we want lasting connection. PUA's generally have one thing on their minds: "getting laid."

    Leading Men create a gourmet meal in romance and sex, not cheap fast food.

    If I had one specifically sexual piece of advice to share, it would be to embed the chorus of the Pointer Sisters' song in your memory, and mentally play it on a loop whenever you are looking to create an intimate experience.

    Slow the experience way, way down. Tune in to the woman you are with. Focus on creating pleasure for her; learn to enjoy immensely your power to make her feel good.

    If you are young & horny, this will undoubtably require some discipline on your part. But then, all of growing into maturity does.

    Being an adult in any area of life requires that you develop the ability to move beyond the gratification of the moment, and discover what will lead to long-lasting fulfillment and enjoyment.

    © 2013 Kevin Delaney

  14. I see you've replied to me yet this post is obviously not addressed to me personally. Why would you do that?

    What the hell are you talking about??


    Ask me a sensible, non-hostile, non-dishonest question which pertains to the article I have written, and I'm more than happy to respond to it.


    Otherwise, I have no problem allowing my critics to have the last word in a discussion.

  15. Here are the seven principles I'll be discussing at today's free Webinar:

    1. A Master Seducer moves guiltlessly in the area of sex; he has no qualms whatsoever about seduction.

    2. A Master Seducer is confident in his own sexual value.

    3. A Master Seducer understands the role that fantasy plays in a woman's life — particularly her sexual life.

    4. A Master Seducer is a sexual giver.

    5. A Master Seducer sees seduction as a process. A Master Seducer takes his time.

    6. A Master Seducer educates himself about a woman's nature, and her uniquely feminine needs.

    7. A Master Seducer recognizes that Earth overflows with highly seducible women.

  16. The PDF I wrote to accompany this Sunday's Webinar on seduction contains a number of ideas which some people might find somewhat provocative . . .


    Here's an example:


    "A seductive gentleman seeks nothing less than to rock a woman's universe, and turn her world upside down. It's not enough for women merely to like us or be attracted to us; we have to reach & stimulate a woman on a deep psychological level."


    Statements like this are bound to make certain men uneasy. "Rock a woman's universe"? "Turn her world upside down"?


    Of course we want to make a big impression on a woman. But isn't this kind of language a bit extreme?


    As I use the term, seduction is an entirely benevolent and good process. But one thing it isn't always is nice.


    We're not here to be "nice guys" with women. We're here to be solid, seductive, romantic gentlemen. Our mission is to create a powerful, even possibly overwhelming feeling experience within a woman.


    For us, and for her, nothing less will suffice.


    Have you heard the song "I Feel the Earth Move," written & performed by Carole King?


    I feel the earth move under my feet

    I feel the sky tumbling down, tumbling down

    I just lose control

    Down to my very soul


    "Losing control down to your very soul" would likely be terrifying for a man — but King's lines, taken as a sexual metaphor, describe an emotion which is entirely positive, eminently desirable, and utterly, thoroughly feminine.

  17. Like a lot of guys, at one time I had a fairly negative view of the idea of seduction.
    As a kid, I remembered hearing about Darth Vader being "seduced" by the Dark Side.
    There was a book called Subliminal Seduction — about the ways that the media (purportedly) programs people's minds to make them behave in ways they ordinarily wouldn't.
    Another book, published in the 1950's, got a lot of attention: Seduction of the Innocent, which alleged that comic books were contributing to the moral decay of youth.
    Go to Google and type the word "seduce." You'll get the following definition:
    attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy.
    Good grief! TheFreeDictionary.com offers several definitions, some of which are a bit better:
    1. To lead away from duty, accepted principles, or proper conduct. See Synonyms at lure.
    2. To induce to engage in sex.
    3a. To entice or beguile into a desired state or position.
    3b. To win over; attract.
    So "seduce" can mean simply "to induce to engage in sex." It can also mean "to win over; attract."
    At Sunday's Webinar, I'll talk about the issue of seduction — romantic/sexual seduction — from a totally positive point of view.
    I'll share seven principles of a Master Seducer. One of these is "Sexual Benevolence" — the view of sex (and therefore seduction) as an entirely good thing for everyone involved.
    A seductive man is focused on creating positive feelings and exciting experiences, for himself and the woman he cares about. What could ever be wrong with that?
    Go here to RSVP, and download your 3-page PDF of notes for the program: http://www.LeadingManBlog.com/FreeWebinar
  18. Join me on Sunday, October 20, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. Pacific / 8 p.m. Central / 9 p.m. Eastern for a free, live & interactive Webinar, held in conjunction with my blog The Leading Man.
    I'll discuss seven key principles of romantic/sexual seduction for men!
    RSVP now, and get instant access to a 3-page PDF of notes for the Webinar.
    Some of what we'll cover:

    The importance of a guiltless attitude toward sex. Why doubts, insecurities & hang-ups can be a man's worst enemies in seduction.


    ▪ Being a "sexual giver" — why you must focus on creating an outstanding feeling experience for a woman, not your own immediate gratification.


    ▪ The role of time in seduction. Seduction as a process which cannot be rushed.


    ▪ A quotation from a famous female author which reveals a profound longing shared by many women.


    The "abundance mindset" — and how to handle rejection with aplomb!

    This program is free to attend, however you must RSVP. As soon as you do, you'll be able to download the PDF.
    Go here to RSVP: http://www.LeadingManBlog.com/Webinar
    I look forward to talking with you on Sunday!
    Please note: Although this program is directed primarily toward men, women are highly encouraged to attend & participate.

  19. All the things that he lists, does he think that guys who actually do those things do them because they surveyed women to find what makes them seem confident?  All those things are by-products of actually being confident.

    Not necessarily. Eye contact, for example, tends to be a much more important issue for a woman than it is for a man. A man might fail to make eye contact out of ignorance; it feels awkward for him simply because he is not used to doing so.


    As you yourself acknowledge, a man can have certain "bad habits" which could give a woman who meets him for the first time a somewhat wrong impression of him.


    My article is not intended to instruct men who "completely lack confidence with women" on how to "mimic the appearance of confidence." I hope it sheds light on the issue of confidence, and helps a man to deepen his awareness of the subject by looking at it from a female perspective.

  • Create New...