I Felt Like A Woman

A friend of mine recently said to me that she has found a man with whom, for the first time in her life, she felt like a woman. And she indicated that she was not as much involved in love with the man as she was in love making with him.

Incidentally the expression "made to feel like a woman" never applies to platonic love. It's woman speak for having had orgasms. Just like "he makes me laugh" indicates that a woman has a deep interest in the man. 

This reminded me of another friend who said that she preferred having many men in her life - one for love, one as a husband and one for love making (another for fixing a flat tyre?).

And these conversations took me back to what Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged - that one could never be involved only physically with another person. And that if one did then one had no character. One could not need different partners for different needs. Or that is what I made of what Ayn Rand said. I was vaguely unsure, ill at ease. Could Ayn Rand be right I wondered.

Now I am more sure. Ayn Rand was perhaps wrong. The body responds in a way which is not connected to the mind. And it is possible to need different persons for different needs. Rather it's quite possible to need a mate purely at the physical level while other things with them are, as yet, unsorted mentally and emotionally. And perhaps hoping that love and emotional connect will happen soon. 

But I still can't help but wonder. Ayn Rand did not make such mistakes as this. How did she goof up? Could it be that my friend was wrong in believing that she was more involved physically than emotionally? Maybe she was more emotionally involved with the man than she realized. And did I misinterpret what another friend said to me about needing different men for different purposes?

Ayn Rand did make one mistake. It was her belief that a man could choose to be what he wanted. And that a man could choose to be an Eddie or Wynand or Galt or one of the moochers. 

Quotes from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/atlas-shrugged/critical-essays/the-role-of-the-common-man-in-atlas-shrugged-the-eddie-willers-story - 

"Galt explains that rationality is a commitment to the facts — an inviolable willingness to face reality, no matter how painful, frightening, or unpleasant the truth may be in a specific case. Rationality means never placing any consideration above one's honest grasp of the facts."..."Eddie's character demonstrates the difference between intelligence and rationality. Intelligence is intellectual ability, whereas rationality is a method." "But intellectual ability isn't within a man's volitional control. The ability of his brain is something that a man is born with, but he chooses whether he uses it."

Intelligence is N, an ability, while rationality is T, the method - to use MBTI terminology. It is amazing that Ayn Rand (or the man who authored the cliff notes) got the difference between N and T so nicely. But the belief, that man could choose to use the brain - to be a T instead of F, is wrong. Much or most of what we do is without free will. Just as we cannot become more intelligent (the quote above does indeed say that man is born with a specific brain ability), we cannot become a T at will. 

While rationality and intelligence are attributes I like to see in a person i disagree with Ayn Rand when she says that persons who are not rational are evil. Nope. Not all of the non-thinkers are evil. 
Matter of fact I would go on to say that mankind's survival depends on the feelers. As I have explained here: http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/06/relation-between-nt-sf-natural.html

Additional reading:

1. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-is-courage.html
2. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2016/10/madurai-and-pandyan-express-train-photos.html