You completely misunderstood what Ayn Rand meant.

“To love a woman for her virtues is meaningless. She’s earned it, it’s a payment, not a gift.”

Ayn Rand believed that love is a form of *conditional* payment, a trade, in exchange for any objective, life-serving virtues (good actions) a woman (or any person) practices, resulting in objective, life-serving values. In her view, *earned* payments are morally superior to altruistic, unearned “gifts”.

“But to love her for her vices is a real gift. Unearned and undeserved.”

To love someone for their vices is to give something for nothing in return. It is the antithesis of a trade of actual values. Envy, the desire for the unearned, is one of the most destructive force on the planet, second only to Evasion.

“To love her for her vices is to defile all virtue for her sake – and that is a real tribute of love, because you sacrifice your conscious, your reason, your integrity and your invaluable self-esteem.”

Ayn Rand despised sacrifice (the giving of something for nothing, resulting in a net loss). To her, need has no value. Sacrifice is seen here are morally evil. She’s mocking those who believe in *unconditional*, unearned love. To her, in order for a relationship to be good, you must never offer a “blank check” of unconditional “love”. Doing so sends a message to the other person that no matter how they treat you (even if they treat you like crap), you will love them anyway, regardless of earning it.

To live a good life you must diligently pursue objective (not subjective) values through virtuous actions. The most valuable things you have are your conscience, your reason, your integrity, and your invaluable self-esteem. Defiling all virtue for her sake is not honorable, it is despicable. It doesn’t perversely somehow raise her value. It not only cheapens love, it cheapens yourself.

For the record: Ayn Rand draws no distinction between “harmful” and “harmless” vices. The only kind of “harmless” action, in any long-term sense, might be what she called an “error of perception”. However, I strongly doubt she was referring to what you call “harmless weakness”.

Objectively, moral perfection is always possible, but it is never automatic. “Perfection” meaning “perfect track record invalidated by a single failure” is not a very empowering definition. However, “Perfection” meaning “a consistent state of adhering to an achievable standard, which if faltered from, can be repaired by correct action” is much more empowering and is actually achievable in a long-term, practical sense.

Weakness does not make a person whole. Judging someone in their entirety is a good thing. Overlooking their consciously adhered-to flaws is not. Trying to excuse the self-destructive behavior of allowing bad people into your life because of some powerful, short-lived chemicals released by your brain will not let you escape the consequences of the failure of your judgment. There’s a reason why loving someone for their strengths is easy. It’s easy because it’s good. Tolerating badness in your life is a sure-fire way to end up on the scrap heap.

I think your underlying motivations are commendable, but I strongly advise you to read more written by Ayn Rand. You sorely need more context. Also, keep in mind that even her fiction (most notably “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”) were written as aesthetic expositions of her underlying philosophy “Objectivism”. Objectivism serves as a complete replacement for any other possible guide you may have been offered to live a good, moral life. In this regard, it suitably replaces Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, Tribalism, and Mysticism, and all Religions. For her fiction, start with “Atlas Shrugged”. For her non-fiction, start with “Philosophy: Why do we need it?”. These are available in any local bookstore.

Good luck to you.