Sex and violence

[wilicyote]

Rand states that pain is an agent of death. She argues that good does not come from suffering but from defeating it. I find these positions to be consistent with reality.

However I am having trouble understanding her position on sex, or specifically her portrayals of sex in her novels. Her philosophy of sex has been rational and consistent with reality. I have applied it to my own life without finding contradictions. But in her novels there is often an underlying current of violence (this may not be a good word for it) during sex. While she makes it very clear that both parties are fully willing participants, I am still confused about the pain element often described. Why is it there? Why is it necessary? How does this integrate with her postion that pain is an agent of death.

This is something I have been trying to sort out for many years, and having failed, I now turn to any of you who may help me see what I must be missing.

Paul

[noumenalself]

However I am having trouble understanding her position on sex, or specifically her portrayals of sex in her novels. Her philosophy of sex has been rational and consistent with reality. I have applied it to my own life without finding contradictions. But in her novels there is often an underlying current of violence (this may not be a good word for it) during sex. While she makes it very clear that both parties are fully willing participants, I am still confused about the pain element often described. Why is it there? Why is it necessary? How does this integrate with her postion that pain is an agent of death.

Usually, I think, the violent sex is a dramatic device, nothing more. The couples you're thinking of are in conflict with each other in spite of their love--the violent sex dramatizes this. This is true of both Roark and Dominique, and Galt and Dagny. It's probably also true of Kira with Leo and Andrei (though I haven't read WTL in a while). Interesting observation: once Roark and Dominique resolve their conflict at the end of The Fountainhead (once Dominique leaves Wynand), the last love scene that's portrayed is not violent. Look:

His fingers closed over her wrist and he pulled her hand back. He pulled her around to face him, and then he held her and his mouth was on hers. She knew that every moment of seven years when she had wanted this and stopped the pain and thought she had won, was not past, had never been stopped, had lived on, stored, adding hunger to hunger, and now she had to feel it all, the touch of his body, the answer and the waiting together.

She didn't know whether her discipline had helped; not too well, she thought, because she saw that he had lifted her in his arms, carried her to a chair and sat down, holding her on his knees; he laughed without sound, as he would have laughed at a child, but the firmness of his hands holding her showed concern and a kind of steadying caution. Then it seemed simple, she had nothing to hide from him, she whispered: "Yes, Howard... that much..." and he said: "It was very hard for me—all these years." And the years were ended.

She slipped down, to sit on the floor, her elbows propped on his knees, she looked up at him and smiled, she knew that she could not have reached this white serenity except as the sum of all the colors, of all the violence she had known. "Howard... willingly, completely, and always... without reservations, without fear of anything they can do to you or me... in any way you wish... as your wife or your mistress, secretly or openly... here, or in a furnished room I'll take in some town near a jail where I'll see you through a wire net... it won't matter.... Howard, if you win the trial—even that won't matter too much. You've won long ago.... I'll remain what I am, and I'll remain with you—now and ever—in any way you want.... "

He held her hands in his, she saw his shoulders sagging down to her, she saw him helpless, surrendered to this moment, as she was—and she knew that even pain can be confessed, but to confess happiness is to stand naked, delivered to the witness, yet they could let each other see it without need of protection. It was growing dark, the room was indistinguishable, only the window remained and his shoulders against the sky in the window.

She awakened with the sun in her eyes. She lay on her back, looking at the ceiling as she had looked at the leaves. Not to move, to guess by hints, to see everything through the greater intensity of implication. The broken triangles of light on the angular modeling of the ceiling's plastic tiles meant that it was morning and that this was a bedroom at Monadnock, the geometry of fire and structure above her designed by him. The fire was white—that meant it was very early and the rays came through clean country air, with nothing anywhere in space between this bedroom and the sun. The weight of the blanket, heavy and intimate on her naked body, was everything that had been last night. And the skin she felt against her arm was Roark asleep beside her.

TF, pp. 667-668

[wilicyote]

Usually, I think, the violent sex is a dramatic device, nothing more. The couples you're thinking of are in conflict with each other in spite of their love--the violent sex dramatizes this. This is true of both Roark and Dominique, and Galt and Dagny. It's probably also true of Kira with Leo and Andrei (though I haven't read WTL in a while). Interesting observation: once Roark and Dominique resolve their conflict at the end of The Fountainhead (once Dominique leaves Wynand), the last love scene that's portrayed is not violent. Look:

Thank you. I think this is reasonable.

Do you think that the pain/violence issue is like the problem Rearden had (a problem with basic premises) which led him to damn himself and deingrate Dagney the morning after their first evining together? If so, I am disappointed that she didn't resolve this in some manner for the benefit of the reader (the slow learners like me). I can see how this may be what she intended but since she did not resolve this by revealing what sex was like between Dagney and Galt, the point is never made clear.

This leads me to another question. What flawed premise did Rearden an Dagney hold which caused them to bring pain and violence into their sexual relationship?

[Sarrisan]

It's been quite some time since I've read either Atlas for The Fountainhead, so correct me if I'm wrong, but does she specifically mention pain in the sex scenes, or just violence?

[AMERICONORMAN]

It is interesting that there is an attitude of humor involved, amidst the violence and pain (Dominique), from the more integrated one of the two in each relationship.

FH:

Roark is certainly amused, though hurt, by Dominique (though she laughs in a significant way but not in the same way as Roark). Dominique, though in great pain and anger, is appropriately amused at Wynand. Dominique's amusement in regard to Peter is not significant here; it's not what I mean.

Atlas:

There is a very benevolent amusement from Frisco to Slug from the early days until Atlantis. There is an amusement from Dagny to Rearden. And of course, Galt to Dagny.

Roark rapes Dominique. Dominique hurts Wynand by loving him. Frisco has assert his privilege of slapping Dagny in their adolesence, and later, Frisco hurts Dagny by joining the strike and posing as a playboy. Galt takes away all the people Dagny loves and gives her the most violent ecstasy in the tunnel ... so that Dagny will eventually kill for him.

Finally Dagny says--paraphrase-- "things did not have to be this way." Dominique says something similar. All the inferior halves of the relationship must reach this state in some form. The violence seems a natural expression of the frustration that the superior one has to live with, and the violence, when it is of a physical kind, is acted upon the inferior half; it seems an expression of the pain that should not be interfering with love.

I would say that what Dominique does to Roark (by marrying Peter and Wynand and being stubborn for so long), when he is already living in bliss, is worse than a beating he could be given by his beloved.

But actually all of Ayn Rand's violent sexual scenes, I think are justified by the context of what came before them; so, really, there is no violence, or NEGATIVE violence.

So in reality, you should know the person quite well, and if you're beloved does not press charges, and continues to couple with you, then you have not committed a grave violence but an act of conquest. In fiction, the inferior beloved is inescapably causing great pain to the superior beloved, and so those few times we witness a rare act of violence. In reality, there has to be a moment of great and intense reproach, unless you have reached a "perfect" stage of mutual understanding where no words are necessary--you'll probably just do it tenderly at that point.

As for Frisco causing Dagny pain, it is worse in intensity than what Dagny is causing him or Galt, because she has not reached Atlantis yet. But what is Dagny doing? She is in effect their biggest enemy and threat to their cause to which they are all personally committed; she is necessarily a candidate for suffering, or suffering by violence, until she joins them.

[Mimpy]

Thank you. I think this is reasonable.

Do you think that the pain/violence issue is like the problem Rearden had (a problem with basic premises) which led him to damn himself and deingrate Dagney the morning after their first evining together? If so, I am disappointed that she didn't resolve this in some manner for the benefit of the reader (the slow learners like me). I can see how this may be what she intended but since she did not resolve this by revealing what sex was like between Dagney and Galt, the point is never made clear.

This leads me to another question. What flawed premise did Rearden an Dagney hold which caused them to bring pain and violence into their sexual relationship?

Keep in mind, that Ayn Rand was not only a brilliant philosopher, but also an incredible writer. There is a lot of symbolism in her novels that is usually only discovered by a keen eye. For an interesting literary analysis of the novel, I suggest you listen to Dr. Onkar Ghate's chapter-by-chapter discussion of the novel. It can be found here: http://www.atlasshrugged.com/book/atlas-sh...by-chapter.html

As for the flawed premise, Dagny held no such thing. It was Rearden who felt that he was reaching the pits of hell because he didn't understand that feeling attraction for someone whose mind he respected and shared actual values with was not something disgusting and low, but the highest value and something absolutely beautiful.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Mimpy

[wilicyote]

As for the flawed premise, Dagny held no such thing. It was Rearden who felt that he was reaching the pits of hell because he didn't understand that feeling attraction for someone whose mind he respected and shared actual values with was not something disgusting and low, but the highest value and something absolutely beautiful.

I am not asking about the flawed premise that caused Rearden to denigrate Dagney, but the one that allowed both of them to include pain/violence in their sex (they BOTH allowed it, so must have both had reasons to do so). Dagney allowed it from Francisco to some degree as well.

[Ifat Glassman]

'Pain is an agent of death' is a generality. It does not mean that ANY pain is bad for your health and must be avoided. Examples: When you work out, muscles hurt (but it's healthy for you). When you do some physical work, it might hurt. When you're in a life-saving surgery, you might feel pain, but it's good for you. Violent sex is not life-threatening. The pain is intensifier of pleasure and not life threatening. In my understanding it is an expression of the intensity of emotions involved in the act between the characters.

To add: pain as a mechanism IS a warning mechanism of danger. (In the examples I gave there really IS some temporary damage done to the tissues of the body) Still it is the role of reason to take the warning under account and evaluate overall what is good or bad.

[~Sophia~]

It does not mean that ANY pain is bad for your health and must be avoided. Examples: When you work out, muscles hurt (but it's healthy for you). When you do some physical work, it might hurt. When you're in a life-saving surgery, you might feel pain, but it's good for you.

Pain rationally is not a value in itself. In every case, is always an obstacle to overcome in a pursuit of a value. If you think about what is common about the examples you mentioned you will notice that.

The capacity to feel pain is a value to the extend that it allows our body to message our brain that something is wrong. It is designed to function as an emergency alarm or a stop sign.

It is a mistaken equivocation between aggressive sex and pain.

[K-Mac]

I don't think violence has to be painful, right??

From http://onelook.com/?w=violent&ls=a ...

Quick definitions (violent)

▸ adjective: (of colors or sounds) intensely vivid or loud ("A violent clash of colors")

▸ adjective: effected by force or injury rather than natural causes ("A violent death")

▸ adjective: acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity ("A violent attack")

▸ adjective: characterized by violence or bloodshed

▸ adjective: marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently; fervid ("Violent passions")

[wilicyote]

Pain rationally is not a value in itself. In every case, is always an obstacle to overcome in a pursuit of a value. If you think about what is common about the examples you mentioned you will notice that.

The capacity to feel pain is a value to the extend that it allows our body to message our brain that something is wrong. It is designed to function as an emergency alarm or a stop sign.

It is a mistaken equivocation between aggressive sex and pain.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. There are numerous examples in my own life where I endure/overcome pain in order to achieve a value. The fact that these values cannot be acheived any other way is why I am willing to pay the price. Even in these situations I don't seek out unnecessary pain. Can someone tie this type of pain to the pain/violence sometimes included in sex. Specifically, is this pain an unavoidable obstacle which must be overcome in the pursuit of a value (in this case the highest form of intimacy)? If so, how does this square with ifat's assertion that pain hightens the sensation of pleasure during sex?

At my age some pain must be overcome during sex (yes I am older than the hills). However this pain does not increase pleasure, in fact it inhibits it. Its really a pain in the ass (figuratively speaking ). This other kind of pleasure enhancing pain ifat referrs to, well maybe I have been missing something all these years. Or is that more like the really good feeling you get when you STOP hitting yourself on the thumb with the hammer?

Edited January 29, 2009 by wilicyote

[~Sophia~]

However this pain does not increase pleasure, in fact it inhibits it.

You are not alone.

Some people do associate pain with pleasure psychologically though. Parent spanking a child on the buttocks, an erogenous zone in childhood, for example, can create in the child's mind an association between love and pain and further pain and pleasure and especially when a child receives little parental attention except for when he/she is being punished.

I also think that when people treat sex casually they may want to pursue other venues to achieve a higher level of intimacy - a feeling of specialness and so they may view sharing an experience of pain with someone (and trust involved with that) as more deeply intimate than an experience of pleasure (lower trust threshold for them).

Edited January 30, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[Ifat Glassman]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. There are numerous examples in my own life where I endure/overcome pain in order to achieve a value. The fact that these values cannot be acheived any other way is why I am willing to pay the price. Even in these situations I don't seek out unnecessary pain. Can someone tie this type of pain to the pain/violence sometimes included in sex. Specifically, is this pain an unavoidable obstacle which must be overcome in the pursuit of a value (in this case the highest form of intimacy)? If so, how does this square with ifat's assertion that pain hightens the sensation of pleasure during sex?

It is not an obstacle to overcome, like, say, lifting weights. It is there as an expression of the intensity of the emotions the characters feel for one another. They want to "have" one another so much, and the pleasure sex gives them is so great that the act has a violent nature.

Compare a simple, gentle hug that friends have to how Rearden would want to hold Dagny after wanting her for 2 years without any outlet or external expression of that. He wanted her like crazy, and because of that he would hold her very tightly and firmly, which may cause her some pain. The pain here is minor, none of the characters really care about it or even aware of it - all they are aware of is sexual pleasure as an expression of what they feel for one another.

Edited January 31, 2009 by ifatart

[wilicyote]

Ok, I'll buy that.

Thanks guys for taking the time to help me sort this out.

Paul