Roark And His Sex Life.

[brit2006]

Did Ayn Rand give an interview or write in one of her books about what Roark's past sexual relationships might have been like?

I remember reading about this somewhere but now I can't find it.

If my memory serves me well, I remember she described Roark as having had many one night stands in order to satisfy himself sexually. This was described as being moral as he made it clear through his body language to each girl that the act was about nothing more than sex.

If Ayn Rand did actually write this, can you ellaborate on why a one night stand is moral?

If nobody can find the interview I am thinking about (I am not even sure it exists), can you ellaborate on why a one night stand is either moral or immoral from the Objectivist point of view?

Cheers.

[Felix]

..., can you ellaborate on why a one night stand is moral?

If both people want sex but no love, I see no reason to call it immoral. It's no less immoral than masturbation, which is okay. I think it's even better because actual sex is more pleasureable.

[Dismuke]

Did Ayn Rand give an interview or write in one of her books about what Roark's past sexual relationships might have been like?

I remember reading about this somewhere but now I can't find it.

I suspect you are referring to the passages about Vesta Dunning which Ayn Rand wrote but eventually removed from The Fountainhead. They have been published in The Early Ayn Rand.

[JMeganSnow]

If Ayn Rand did actually write this, can you ellaborate on why a one night stand is moral?

Well, we could inform you as to why one-night-stands are not properly considered unequivocally immoral regardless of context, but without any details no one here could speak as to whether any particular one-night-stand would be moral or immoral for any particular individuals.

Let me give you some examples, and I'd like to see whether you can abstract the principle uniting them:

1. You are married, and you truly love your wife, and she would leave you if she found out. In this circumstance, it would be immoral to have a one-night-stand. Indeed, you probably wouldn't even want to have a one-night-stand.

2. You have picked up a random stranger at a singles bar while drunk. In this circumstance, i would say it was immoral to have a one-night-stand simply because you'd probably think better of it in the morning, and you might not be too quick on the using-protection front, possibly leading to some seriously undesirable consequences.

3. You just met someone that you are powerfully attracted to in a benevolent social setting (i.e. one that doesn't involve being toasted out of your mind) and they share your attraction. Optional; I'd consider it hasty, but I'm extremely shy and conservative in relationships.

4. The person that you've been seriously courting for some time shows up at your house and professes their profound love for you, as well as the unfortunate fact that they are leaving the country permanently in the morning. In this case, you should take a cue from the romance novels where this normally happens and only hesitate long enough to give an equally flowery speech before proceeding to hump like bunnies.

[mailegreene]

I don't recall Ayn Rand mentioning Roark's past sexual experiences in any of her published books, although I have yet to read The Early Ayn Rand.

If you have read Atlas Shrugged, you might rememeber the paragraph in which Miss Rand briefly describes Rearden's past sexual experiences. She indicates that Rearden, in sleeping with other women, was always looking for a sense of adventure in the bedroom. In the context of the paragraph, it doesn't sound like Rearden was involved in a commited, loving relationship with any of these women, yet I would be very hesitant to classify these relationships as immoral.

But since I am not a fictional character, I would have to classify one night stands as immoral, except in very odd circumstances, such as Jennifer has mentioned in point #4. This is due to the fact that one can change the entire course of one's life almost instantly-- by simply contracting an STD or by impregnating a woman. To me, the potential costs far outweigh the benefits, especially considering the fact that I would only care enough about this person to spend one night with her.

Edited February 8, 2006 by mailegreene

[intellectualammo]

Did Ayn Rand give an interview or write in one of her books about what Roark's past sexual relationships might have been like?

I remember reading about this somewhere but now I can't find it.

I have found this so far...

In The Journals of Ayn Rand, she writes this in regards to the character of Howard Roark:

“Until his meeting with Dominique, he has had affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such.”(p.97)

I have yet to find anything in the actual novel itself, but I am searching currently still.

Welcome to the forum!!

[Evan]

That reminds me of how Hank Rearden's sexual history is described in Atlas Shrugged.

Until Hank Rearden starts sleeping with Dagny, he has never had true sexual pleasure in his life past the brute physical stimulation of the sex act.

-E

[brit2006]

I have found this so far...

In The Journals of Ayn Rand, she writes this in regards to the character of Howard Roark:

“Until his meeting with Dominique, he has had affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such.”(p.97)

I have yet to find anything in the actual novel itself, but I am searching currently still.

Welcome to the forum!!

Yes, this is the passage I was thinking of. Thanks!

This comes under the third example in JMeganSnow's list:

3. You just met someone that you are powerfully attracted to in a benevolent social setting (i.e. one that doesn't involve being toasted out of your mind) and they share your attraction. Optional; I'd consider it hasty, but I'm extremely shy and conservative in relationships.

Is everyone agreed? As long as you are not drunk, having sex in order to satisfy a physical desire is perfectly moral.

[Evan]

Yes, this is the passage I was thinking of. Thanks!

This comes under the third example in JMeganSnow's list:

Is everyone agreed? As long as you are not drunk, having sex in order to satisfy a physical desire is perfectly moral.

Well, the nature of physical desire means that for you to physically desire someone, there has to be a reason. There has to be something that you are responding to. If a guy gets physically aroused looking at a woman, there is something his body is responding to. That doesn't necessarily mean that a horny guy is reponding to values he indentifies and responds to in the woman. I can think of TONS of examples of guys looking at a beautiful woman and getting aroused without knowing anything about the woman other than the fact that she is gorgeous. In such an example, the fact that a guy identifies a woman as gorgeous and gets aroused is a response to that identification, but a persons physical appearance isn't necessarily a product of rational values, but just the fact that *some* values are present...so a guy really doesn't have enough information if he sees a woman and gets aroused but knows nothing about who she is. The reason WHY he doesn't have enough information is because there are women who just have good genetics that give them good features. There are also women (and men) that try to look good not for themselves, but because they have a fear of being scorned if they don't (which makes the maintainence of physical attractiveness at that point a response to other people and not something that is entirely self motivated).

I can think of an example of a sober guy having sex with a physically beautiful woman solely for the purpose of orgasm despite not knowing much about that woman. Thus, I agree with JMegan that in such a case, the interaction would definitely be hasty because your information about the person is limited, thus your desire is more prone to be subjective and not based on a proper and thourough realistic indentification of the person you are desiring in that case.

Is it immoral if you don't seek out a clear picture of the situation? That is what I think is the important question here.

[Capitalism Forever]

As long as you are not drunk, having sex in order to satisfy a physical desire is perfectly moral.

To those that wish to support this proposition, here's your challenge for today: Define the concept "physical" as used in "a physical desire."

[A.West]

I don't have Ayn Rand's Journals with me, but those were her early thoughts on Roark, right? There's a reason that that description of Roark didn't appear in her finished book. Note that Wynand's early love life did make it into the novel.

My theory - the attitude towards sex that Rand wrote about in her journals conflicted with her more fully developed thoughts on an ideal man, which Roark was meant to portray, and she didn't want to undercut him by injecting early character flaws. The case of Hank Rearden vs Lillian R makes clear Ayn Rand's views on attempting to divorce sex from love/values. Hank's early view, emphasized and concretized by Lillian was an error which he eventually overcame.

So no, not all agreed. Having sex is not scratching an itch.

[intellectualammo]

I don't have Ayn Rand's Journals with me, but those were her early thoughts on Roark, right?

Yes, correct.

There's a reason that that description of Roark didn't appear in her finished book.

Yes, correct.

In a letter to Archibald Ogden(August 24, 1967), Ayn Rand writes:

"Perhaps the most offensive touch in your Introduction is the following line (in regard to the matter of cutting the character of Vesta Dunning out of the book): "So, out went the Hollywood whore—and every line deleted was like removing one of the author's fingernails with a pair of red-hot pliers."

In your letter to me of July 26, you say: "I may have slightly exaggerated the story of excising the budding actress." What you wrote is not a "slight exaggeration," but an outright fabrication which implies some extremely derogatory things about me. To refresh your memory: it was I who decided that Vesta Dunning had to be cut—not for the reasons you state, not because she clashed with the Roark-Dominique relationship, but because her moral treason was a variant of Wynand's, which made her superfluous in regard to the book's theme. I decided this when I was writing Part III—and I told you of my decision in a telephone conversation. Your first reaction was one of regret, but then you agreed with my reasons. I did all the cutting myself, we had no conferences about it, so where were "the red-hot pliers" and who was applying them?"

from The Letters of Ayn Rand, p.646

My theory - the attitude towards sex that Rand wrote about in her journals conflicted with her more fully developed thoughts on an ideal man, which Roark was meant to portray, and she didn't want to undercut him by injecting early character flaws.

What do you mean by "early character flaws"?

What are you referring to, Roark's sex life before Dominique, that if it was added into the novel, it would "undercut him by injecting early character flaws"?

Say it was added, would that even be a character flaw?

[A.West]

If Roark had held a mind/body, sex/love dichotomy, then that would have been a flaw, or internal conflict to correct/resolve, as Hank Rearden did in Atlas. I think the journal entry would have fallen in that category. I can't think of any internal conflict presented about Roark in the Fountainhead. And I think that total integrity and lack of internal conflict was a key element of his character.

Note that in Atlas, Ayn Rand presented an appropriate early-life sexual relationship for Dagny/Francisco. And note that for Ayn Rand's top heroes, Roark and Galt, she did not present any early romantic relationships - they apparently waited for their ideal.

[hunterrose]

I agree with you to an extent.

“affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such.”

...is it just me, or does that not even sound fun? I'd rather no affair, than a cold, emotionless one. At least show some happiness or some excitement! Feh

That said, I personally am not prepared to place any moral status on that.

But that is one extreme, true love would be the other for the sake of the argument I suppose. What about sexual relationships that aren't "perfectly cold, emotionless," and yet aren't with a person who is the ultimate of one's desires?

And I strongly disagree that Dagny and Francisco's sexual relationship was faulty in any way.

[brit2006]

“Until his meeting with Dominique, he has had affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such.”

You guys are arguing that Ayn Rand changed her mind on this issue and decided, despite what she wrote above, that cold emotionless affairs that satisfy physical need only, are immoral.

I think that it is unlikely that Ayn Rand would have had such a reversal.

This is very interesting to me as it seems that there is a conflict with Objectivism and American ideals. Most Americans including those in this forum, have been raised with Christian values whether they are Christian or not. These values include no sex before marriage. While Objectivists on this forum say that sex before marriage is fine as long as your partner is highly valued to you, your partner must be basically marriage material and so the Christian value system remains in place.

Why is it morally wrong to simply value a womans beauty and have sex with her without knowing anything about her personality? Rand's quote above says she thinks it is fine. Objectivists who unconsciously hold Christian values disagree with Rand's quote above.

Am I right in saying that Objectivists unconsciously hold Christian morals which are in opposition to Objectivist morals?

[RationalBiker]

Rand's quote above says she thinks it is fine.

In the passage you quoted, where is Ayn Rand's moral evaluation of Roark's actions?

[softwareNerd]

You guys are arguing that Ayn Rand changed her mind on this issue and decided, despite what she wrote above, that cold emotionless affairs that satisfy physical need only, are immoral.

No, that is not what has been said. The discussion is about a work of fiction. Ayn Rand's change of mind does not indicate any change in moral evaluation. What people have said is that she changed whether to show Roark having such relationships. Her decision was not: what is moral? but rather: what should Roark be like?

Am I right in saying that Objectivists unconsciously hold Christian morals which are in opposition to Objectivist morals?

Questions like that go nowhere. Firstly, what do you mean by "Objectivist" ...anyone who gives themselves the label? Second, what's "unconsciously"? If one were to answer that some who called themselves Objectivists do hold mixed premises, with Christian values being part of the mix, where does that get you? Sure some do. What of it?

The real question is what Objectivism says and why. To address that, I suggest an excellent starting point is to answer the question posed by CapitalismForever:

As long as you are not drunk, having sex in order to satisfy a physical desire is perfectly moral.

Edited February 9, 2006 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

Define the concept "physical" as used in "a physical desire."

In a letter to Gerald Loeb, (June 3, 1944) Ayn Rand wrote this in response to some of the letters she apparently had recieved from him *pay careful attention to the last few sentences*:

"Why is man a slave to sex? Because he needs it so strongly? Well, his need of food is even stronger, and more urgent and more immediate. But nobody thinks of himself as a slave to food. We simply take for granted that we need it—and we are in complete control of the means by which we get it. We keep on inventing new means all the time—we find new pleasures in food—and the whole matter is not tragic at all. In fact, in a normal, modern civilization, to a normal, average man the problem of getting food is no problem at all. Yes, he does need food, he is not free to decide not to eat—but why should he decide that? He is free to satisfy his need in an endless number of ways, he controls his means of production —he is a free man. (I am speaking of a civilized, capitalistic society—not of a collectivist slave pen.) The basic fact about sex—its overpowering necessity—is the same. So the mere fact that man needs it does not make him a slave. Now, of course, his means of satisfaction are not as simple as in the matter of food. But still, he is in control of them. The thing that seems to terrify your hero is the fact that his satisfaction depends upon another human being, upon some woman. There is nothing so dreadful in that. Not if he found the right woman. It can appear terrible to him—only until he does find her. But if he doesn't—well, as he matures and grasps the subject, he would learn that he can find a second-best substitute. Let's say, not a wife, but an attractive mistress. It would not be sex at its best and highest—not the perfect union of the spiritual and the physical—but it would not be terrifying or degrading or enslaving. That typically adolescent feeling comes, I think, only from physical impatience—a strong physical desire that drives the man to women he despises, for lack of anything better, while his mind naturally objects. Why should his mind object if he found a woman he did not despise?"(from The Letters of Ayn Rand, approx. p.146-7)

(I'm not really great at this) So, when a "typically adolescent feeling comes", it would be described as arising from, or being traced back to "physical impatience", which is a "strong physical desire that drives the man to women he despises, for lack of anything better, while his mind naturally objects"...this arises because??...he cannot wait for the actual ideal woman, that he is impatient in that sense, and he has learned "that he can find a second-best substitute", instead?. Do I even come close with that one?

So, if he was patient, he wouldn't find it necessary enough to have to "find a second-best substitute" he would just wait for the actual ideal woman he has in mind. Do I have that right? Okay, for an example of this that is very clear, would be like what Prinzivalle did with Vanna, in Maurice Maeterlinck's play Monna Vanna, he waited, was willing to wait, was patient, and so he never found himself trying to "find a second-best substitute". Only Vanna would do.

Anyways, I tried here, but I think that those last few lines I have quoted above in Rand's letter, has at least some relevence, here, I think.

Edited February 9, 2006 by intellectualammo

[A.West]

I agree with you to an extent.

...

And I strongly disagree that Dagny and Francisco's sexual relationship was faulty in any way.

Are you agreeing and disagreeing with me? I wrote of the Dagny/Francisco relationship as an "appropriate" early relationship, so I think we agree on that.

To others quoting Ayn Rand's early letters and journals- they simply aren't her fully-worked-out thoughts on the matter. They are interesting, because they might be the very documents/thoughts that inspired her to develop more fully those elements of Objectivism. You'll find Ayn Rand's well-developed analysis of sex and love presented in Atlas Shrugged, which she worked on for over a decade, a bit longer than her journals or letters. There are numerous relevant passages, but in particular, Francisco's comments and Hank Rearden's development makes her views quite clear. In particular, see the passage in which Francisco talks to Rearden, which begins with:

Do you remember what I said about money and about the men who seek to reverse the law of cause and effect? The men who try to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind? Well, the man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value. ...

[brit2006]

To those that wish to support this proposition, here's your challenge for today: Define the concept "physical" as used in "a physical desire."

Physical desire is when you need sex, similar to hunger.

[softwareNerd]

Ayn Rand summarized Objectivism's philosophical position on sex by saying "Sex is Good". (Sorry, I don't have a reference handy.)

Does Objectivism hold that one must only have sex with a partner who is "marriage material"?

As an absolute, it definitely does not.

Even in normal contexts, it depends -- of course -- what one means by "marriage material"? If there is a single-dimensioned gradation from "yuck" to "wow", somewhere within that scale comes "marriage material". Somewhere else in that scale comes "potential sexual partner".

[dondigitalia]

If there is a single-dimensioned gradation from "yuck" to "wow", somewhere within that scale comes "marriage material". Somewhere else in that scale comes "potential sexual partner".

I'm guessing it's somewhere around, "Hmm...."

[intellectualammo]

Ayn Rand summarized Objectivism's philosophical position on sex by saying "Sex is Good". (Sorry, I don't have a reference handy.)

Well, I do, and you may have seen it on p.346 in OPAR, Peikoff writes, “I asked Ayn Rand once what philosophy specifically has to say on the subject. She answered: ‘It says that sex is good.’”

Does Objectivism hold that one must only have sex with a partner who is "marriage material"?

This has relevence here:

"PLAYBOY: You have denounced the puritan notion that physical love is ugly or evil; yet you have written that "Indiscriminate desire and unselective indulgence are possible only to those who regard sex and themselves as evil." Would you say that discriminate and selective indulgence in sex is moral?

RAND: I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.

PLAYBOY: Does this mean, in your view, that sex should involve only married partners?

RAND: Not necessarily. What sex should involve is a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons' lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives -- a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values."

(Playboy 1964 Interview)(italics emphasis added)

Sex must not be severed from one's code of values then, right?

[intellectualammo]

To others quoting Ayn Rand's early letters and journals- they simply aren't her fully-worked-out thoughts on the matter.

Yes, you're correct. That being said, then I'll need to look at what she had published then.

You'll find Ayn Rand's well-developed analysis of sex and love presented in Atlas Shrugged...In particular, see the passage in which Francisco talks to Rearden...

YES!! This can also be found published in FTNI in the chapter titled "The Meaning Of Sex", p.99.

This passage also says that sex must not be severed from ones code of values, which comes directly from her published works, as well as in others of hers, including her interview with Playboy and from "Of Living Death," in TO. OPAR does as well, but that still is not directly her published material.

Francisco says this:

"He does not seek to gain his value[through sex], he seeks to express it[through sex]."

"...and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one's code of values."

Edited February 10, 2006 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

Sex must not be severed from one's code of values then, right?

And, that's fine, as long as one does not interpret this to mean that Objectivists can only get sexual value from other Objectivists.

Also, there are other important contextual elements. For instance, a life-long philanderer is different from someone who occasionally has a short-lived sexual relationship. Similarly, a young person's sexual experiments might be largely that: experiments.

It's not the same as thievery, and one does not go blind. If such sexual activity is going to leave one feeling empty, it's best to learn that by induction from experience rather than taking someone else's word for it.

Hopefully it's not too cheesy to extend Ayn Rand's food analogy by saying that one aims for great taste, great presentation and great nutrition in one's choice of food; but, it is completely understandable if someone has a slice of bread to keep them going.