Rand worshipped herself and her promiscuously active genitals, not necessarily in that order. If 50 million innocents had to die for the convenience of those younger than her but of similar social habits, it was a small price (none) for her to pay.
She had no room for God. She thought she was a god which shows how truly limited her imagination was.
She "excommunicated" Murray Rothbard face to face, when he was still an atheist, for merely becoming engaged to an Episcopalian because, in Randian dogma, no rational person could marry a believer in God and remain rational.
When people marry, they exchange marriage vows. Was La Rand not guilty of interference with the marriage vows and contract of Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon to say nothing of abandoning her own vows to Frank O'Connor? Complete with the usual rationalizations for adultery dressed up as a "philosophy" of "objectivism" [Sort of: Well, we just had to do it and do it again and again and again because, ummmm, whom you bed reflects your self-image and, ummmm, we had a very high mutual self-image and, ummmm, it could only be satisfied by...... at least until La Rand realized that Nathaniel was just such subRandian scum and may have cheated with his own wife and....and....and....]
What makes Ayn Rand different from Elizabeth Taylor???? Well, Taylor was a verrrry attractive woman in her prime and a talented actress and she did not bother to shame herself by pretending to dress up the peccadilloes of her way of life as a "philosophy." From the Arkansas Antichrist???? Slick is a better liar and a far more persuasive politician and knows enough to mock the process by saying that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. Even Slick did not pretend that Monica, much less the treatment of Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, or Juanita Broderick constituted a "philosophy" of some sort. Now Epicureans or other connosseurs (sp.?) might point to Jennifer Flowers......