cleon

*** Mod's note: Moved post to relevant thread. -sN *** I am curious to know what Objectivism, or at least other Objectivists, think(s) of polyamory? Perhaps this should be a new topic in a different forum. Someone else mentioned in this thread, in more or less words, no one person can fulfill all of one's needs. We love people for the values they embody, and no one person can embody all values, so why should we not love people for the values they do represent to us, which might lead to open sexual relations with more than one person (as was the situation with Ayn/Frank/Nathan/Barbara. They all consented, there was no deception at the beginning, presumably)? The impression I've gotten reading here, is that it's somehow bad to have consensual sexual relations with more than one person, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. From a polyamoristic point of view, that Ayn Rand had an affair, becomes a "so what" issue. I realize from a 1950's point of view, it's repugnant, but, this isn't 1950. If sex is the highest expression of love, and if we find more than one person worthy of our love, I see no reason to view this in a negative light. "What is given to one, is not taken from another" is a quote that comes to mind (I can't recall the source). There's a lot more I could say, but I'm restricting myself for now, to gain a clearer view of this limited topic and how Objectivists view it. I don't want to get diverted into side-tracks, at least not in this particular thread (Judgement Day for the Brandens).