"Do I strike you as a man with a miserable inferiority complex?"
"Good God, no!"
"Only that kind of man spends his life running after women."
"What do you mean?"
"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."
"You'd better explain that."
"Did it ever occur to you that it's the same issue? The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you—just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. He does not seek to … What's the matter?" he asked, seeing the look on Rearden's face, a look of intensity much beyond mere interest in an abstract discussion.
"Go on," said Rearden tensely.
"He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises—because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives—and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else. Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws—and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find. His body will always follow the ultimate logic of his deepest convictions; if he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself and he will feel that depravity is all he is worthy of enjoying. He has equated virtue with pain and he will feel that vice is the only realm of pleasure. Then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind cannot conquer, that sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom, and sex—nothing but shame."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 455 - 456
Has any one read this book before? This excerpt has piqued my interest. I've been trying to figure out what sex means to me, how I think people value sex, and how one may judge someone else based on sex.
My sister gave me some advice as I was giving her the details of everything that bothers me with a guy-
You're a grown woman. You repeat all these situations and although I recognize your point of view is skewed and I don't fully know him, what are you looking for me to tell you that you don't already know? I think the issue is that you recognize that this isn't a relationship, yet you have issues with accepting the fact that you're in the relationship just for sex. You don't want to be associated with the stigma that women who do this are sluts.
I think it would have hurt to hear this a year ago, but I couldn't help but crack a smile with her candid and on-point remarks.
With most casual relationships, I always sought to make it more than it was- falling for the "fake spark," and thinking that it would be different. This was one of the first times though where I went in with the mindset that this was nothing. With my casual relationship experience, I'd be able to spot it and run with it. But with this, there was something about the way he looked to connect with me after, the sensuality of it that made me once again think that this was different. Or most likely-- I had been fooling myself all along, deep down thinking-- this would be the exception.
It's the concept that there's a prince charming out there- the fairytale notion that every girl/woman still has in the back of her mind-- and that men will prey on. It's also the idea that to be worthy, a woman must have standards. Based on the way I viewed myself, and how I judged the quality of my character, I wanted so badly to convince myself and everyone that I would never sleep with anyone just for sex. I had to make something out of it-- even if it meant extreme rationalization to the point of even fabrication. And while I'm trying to do this, I'm sure it's a great ego boost for the guy who sees the girl struggling to create this sense of something- wow, she must be so into me.. he must think.
We didn't talk much- and we didn't have similar hobbies- I found my favorite book in his apartment "Letters to a young poet" and got excited until I rummaged further and found a book on Tips and Tricks to picking up women. And gradually I amassed these inconsistencies with where he said he was Friday, and him not remembering places we went to together, and thinking that I've met his friends when I didn't, and the way we would part and never make plans for the next date.
In a passive, aggressive haste, I would call him out on certain things and half joke about it, awaiting his reaction. Last year, with the guy I was with, he would have gas lighted- deflected- and then dismissed me as "you're thinking too much." It was terrible since I started to seriously believe him. This year, this guy noticed the small jabs but would stay silent and then change the topic- and I wouldn't press. I think what I expected him to do was ask why I would say that and ask me if something was wrong, which he never did (I knew deep down he could read the situation as I had laid it out- but he chose to deflect silently, and I cowardly chose not to speak further).
That was the process-- and I never asked him where this was going-- always claiming it was too hard to bring it up in conversation. This was another lie to myself. I knew that regardless of the answer, nothing would nullify all the little things he got wrong. If I was in his shoes, and I confused which girl I was with and the conversations we had, and I got the sense that she was on to me, and then she asked me if I wanted to be in a relationship with her, I think I would write her off as retarded.
I've been struggling recently with the two buckets I would classify all dating prospects: (1) Attractive (2) great resume but no attraction. It seems like I am grossly oversimplifying-- but my ideal person would be be (3) attractive, intellectually attractive, great resume, similar values. There's no bucket for that as I have not found such a person. The other bucket which I didn't mention is everyone that doesn't pass the first date sniff test.
Trying to deal with what my two dating buckets- I've concluded earlier this year that when there's no spark- no matter what the similarities in values, in hobbies- I would only be able to talk to the person but not really break the touch barrier or have it lead anywhere. My friend told me that "spark" can be artificially generated and not mean much at all. Could "spark" really be artificial? Is it in the Tips and tricks to pick up women book?? Is there a book for women on creating "spark" with guys that I have similar values and hobbies but no attraction? If so, seems like I really need to look into that.
With the attractive bucket, when summer started up, and I met someone super hot, my experiment was to use that spark and try to convert it into relationship potential. I tried to identify similarities and values and hobbies after confirming physical attraction was there. What I learned was I'm very good at rationalizing- but ultimately nothing was there on the mental, emotional connection side.
Experiment complete- By now, I do recognize that you can't settle on one or the other- you need both intellectual/emotional and physical. Rand would say it's a process- and the physical is an expression resulting from the appreciation of the intellectual/ emotional capacity of someone. That threw a further wrench into my history- making me question the metering of past relationships and what is deemed enough for success. I think Ayn Rand would probably call my experience "the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives--- [full of] the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy."
And I guess my next question would be--- does everyone have this much trouble in converting dating prospects into relationships/ love? I feel like there are some people who are always in relationships... and while not all are perfect... some people are much more relationship oriented than others. If that's the case, can the traits or basis for that be developed?
