Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Three person intimate relationship?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:pimp: Thanks and you're welcome. It is an important issue to me too which I don't think nearly enough people give sufficient thought to. I've spent more time and thought debating this issue than almost any other except abortion by now and hopefully in the not too distant future I'll get the time to spend making a really solid proof via reduction once and for all to answer unassailably if only monogamy can ever be right or if polyamory can be too. Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I though do not feel jealous if somebody I deeply care for values somebody else, even as much as they value me. If they care about that other person that much then I'd want them to have that great value too. Asking what value there could be in this for me seems like asking "What value could there be for me in it, as somebody who isn't as big a fan of dogs as cats, if my dog-loving mate gets a dog?"

Love might be infinite, but time and attention are a zero-sum game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you've somehow managed to find that you can share enough in the way of values with multiple people yet not have them share enough to be able to tolerate each other's presence pretty well, like myself with the hypothetical dog of a mate of mine even though I may not be so fond of dogs that I spoke of in an above post, you can spend plenty of time with these people together so it need not have some kind of crazy division of time. You'd want to of course spend time and attention on them individually at times too, but typical lives leave plenty of opportunities where you don't even need to pick one or the other as you'll find one will be available often while others are busy. As for when you may decide to do something with just one when the others are not busy, well you do that normally at times going to spend some quality one on one time with friends already too without it being a problem (well, unless maybe you've got a *really* overbearing mate who doesn't want to let you keep any other company unless maybe they are there to chaperon you or a *really* needy one who can't bear to spend any time without you. Ever.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, generally even a person who supports polyamory doesn't support cheating.

...

As to hero worship, does the existence of multiple heroes in the Marvel universe mean that any one or all of them can't be recognized as heroes anymore? :P

First, I'd like to apologize for my phrasing. I was sloppy with my use of "you" and may have inadvertently made it seem as though my comments were directed at you personally. My intended targets were the Rands and Brandens and their particular situation. I don't know you well enough(at all, really) to comment as to the state of either your psychological health or self-esteem.

As far as the rest, i do not currently have the time to get into another debate about the subject and should of kept my mouth shut. Iammetaphysical and myself went round and round throughout several threads for many, many pages, so I doubt whether i would learn or provide much in the way of new information not covered in one of those threads.

If you find yourself bored enough to read those 18 trillion pages and find some argument that was missed on one side or the other, I would be interested to hear it.

If I remember correctly, the basic conclusion I was left with was that people individually, and men and women in particular tend to experience love in a very different way. Because of these differences it is possible for some very few, that a less devoted connection with more people is preferable to a more possessive relationship where a single individual is held up as one's ideal. I would equate this difference to that of homosexuality, where because of an alternate brain wiring, the most preferable romantic situation is one with the same sex for them. I believe the same could be said of polyamerous individuals.

My only disagreement with you is the suggestion that those who prefer otherwise have not considered it deeply enough. If you take the time to read the older threads, you'll see that that is not the case, with me. You can claim that I have not considered it rightly, but not that I have not considered it enough.

My main disagreement with the polyamory club generally, is the view that love is something unquantifiable and limitless in our ability to experience it. You are correct in identifying that as my premise. Because I believe that we experience love through time spent and energy invested in the object of our desire, it is a very concretized thing for me. These two very limited commodities are, I believe, a reasonable way to analyze the level of affection one feels for another(s). I see a strong correlation, between the things we invest in(even outside of romance)and how much we value them. More investment means more valuing of it. Applying this principle to polyamory, every time I am in the mood to cuddle, or have sex, or help someone, I have to decide which of the two, or three, or four women I wish to experience it with. Each choice alters the relative value of my relationships and insures that the original gal will get less of any and all things like that then they otherwise would have.

Like i said though, exceptions exist. In my life I have usually, only barely had the time for one relationship. Someone else with more free time could perhaps juggle two or three people such as myself. (though I confess, someone with that much free time probably wouldn't interest me) Generally though, and my experience with it bears this out, the idea of it and the practicality of it don't often overlap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't worry, I didn't think you intended it as a personal attack. I thought though that it sounded like you were generalizing and saying nobody with good self-esteem and mental health could be happy with a polyamorous situation, so I objected that I personally, as an example, had cause to believe my self-esteem and mental health were not lacking while I would not be generally opposed to such things. Granted though I do know that until or unless I've been put through a psychological testing gauntlet and have credible experts to testify on my behalf anybody who already wouldn't believe a mentally healthy person could be happy this way may still just dismiss my claim. That though is a part of why I try to go on and give my rational basis for why I could be happy with it though and not just see it as somehow a bad thing.

If you have a specific thread or so to cite where you've already discussed it a lot, I'd welcome going to give it a look over and see if I have anything to say which may get somewhere new. I recall there being one thread a while back I read before creating and account here on the topic which went one for a while, but it never really came to anything conclusive and seemed to just fizzle out after a while ending essentially on a note of "Hmm . . ." it seemed like.

"If I remember correctly, the basic conclusion I was left with was that people individually, and men and women in particular tend to experience love in a very different way. Because of these differences it is possible for some very few, that a less devoted connection with more people is preferable to a more possessive relationship where a single individual is held up as one's ideal. I would equate this difference to that of homosexuality, where because of an alternate brain wiring, the most preferable romantic situation is one with the same sex for them. I believe the same could be said of polyamerous individuals." <-- This paragraph strikes me as odd for several reasons. First of all, not so long ago I had a conversation with somebody else from an O'ist perspective that went on for months debating this topic to death almost every day, at times even almost all day, but this is rather different than where our discussion went curiously. Second, I don't think it is quite correct to say just men and women or even just every individual will have the same experience of love because I think not only are there differences in those cases, I think there's also differences to keep in mind to who is being responded to. Though I think you can certainly love and even love equally and as highly as possible more than one person, there will always be various optional quirks and such to these different people that will impact the experience of what it is like for you to love this person versus that person. Hell, even at different times your love of the same person can take on different qualities. Additionally, at least in just what you've said here, I don't see why it is necessarily less devotion to have multiple mates. Does a parent have less devotion to their child if they have another kid a couple years later? Or the other way around, is it a sign of less devotion to a child if you don't insist on being the only person to play that most influential role of parent when it comes to raising and providing for their well being? As for possessive, even that I'm not so sure on as I have to ask if a husband and wife are co-owners of a home is it any less the home of either of them? And finally on sexuality, I laugh a little for a couple reasons. First, I was just talking to somebody else a few days ago who tried to make a similar equation of these issues. I asked what there was for evidence that this could happen in people, polyamory or monogamy to be hard wired, and I was told there were animal studies which indicated it could be hard wired in other animals. Given that I think people don't have instincts and are born tabla rasa unlike other animals, this was not good enough to qualify as evidence for me. Second, perhaps I'm more than a little unusual and maybe even an exception to the rule sort of on both the issue of polyamory AND sexuality here, so equating those things doesn't really help me grok this either.

([tangent/explanation]At around the same time in my early teens I actually remember that I really did sit down one day with no pre-existing stance and tried to rationally decide what to do about sexuality. In the end I concluded there was nothing I could see to really make anybody's sex inherently any kind of bonus or detriment for romantic compatibility with me, so I've long since concluded physical sex as entirely a moot issue romantically to me and I am really just interested in personality and values and such without concern for somebody's sex. Because of this I just plain do not understand how/why other people can just really care that much so as to be completely turned on or off just if their knowledge of the sex of a person changes. I know it DOES matter to most people, I just can't really identify with such feelings. Similarly, though not quite the same, I still remember when I used to think in my preteens and earlier that there just had to be something wrong with being romantically involved with multiple people and I remember having negative feelings toward it and not liking the idea, but I remember stopping and examining all the things upon which that feeling was built that I could think of and found that none of them were very reasonably sound. After that point seeing that, I changed my mind and my feeling toward the matter changed like with any other case where I realized I had held a position which I didn't have the logic and evidence to justify. I didn't just always and forever have this feeling of being with multiple people as good for as long as I can remember, I really did change how I felt and did so through the best rational exploration of the issue that I could.[/tangent/explanation])

I'm not saying by the way that I think everybody necessarily must have multiple partners, I just would really appreciate at least if I could stop being accused of some deep immorality for my position at least among the more rational people out there, to be recognized as having a valid position on this issue, and to get more people out there to give it serious consideration. (Not that you necessarily haven't thought about it, but most people haven't as far as I've found even among the more rational people who try to think things through more.) Then there's also issues of eventually getting rid of legal discrimination against polyamory, but I'm not in such a big rush for that personally for several reasons . . . Basically, though I will admit I haven't yet done the full unassailable exploration of the issue, I'd like more others to recognize that neither have they (unless somebody actually has unbeknownst to me?), you know?

Somebody earlier used a phrase I have used a number of times speaking of polyamory, namely that I say "love is not a zero sum game." Your value of one person doesn't come from a static quantity to be divided up which to give one person more (or any at all maybe) requires taking from somebody else. That earlier poster though were also right to point out though that time and attention ARE in more limited quantities, so your ability to hold good relationships does have some restraints on it. I just contend that for the vast majority of people, that constraint does not set the maximum number you could well keep up at one. Usually the number doesn't get too much higher than one for many reasons even among those that support polyamory, but even then I think a lot probably have still not hit the maximum their available time and attention spans would allow for. So I'd agree that somebody who claims to have 100 people they were in loving relationships with would probably be full of shit even if they did have that many official relationships as I think that is getting beyond humanely possible, but otherwise I'm not so sure where the exact human limit number would be here in this and so I think for the most part it is best left for people on a case by case basis to assess exactly how much they can handle. (But again though, I highly doubt for most people the serious answer would still be just one for what they could get the time and attention span for, not unless we suddenly found a way to make ADD contagious and airborne maybe . . .) Now, I do think also that love can come in varying amounts and while I think there may be a basic limit to how far any one person can get in your assessment at any time, what I mean in large part is that I think it is possible for multiple people at once to reach that highest level of assessment of their persons by somebody. I think in that way that it is quantifiable and does have a limit, just that the quantity and limit are limited to the possible achievement in your eyes of any specific individual. That's part of what I mean by my example with the perfect scores in class earlier. That one more kid got to the top didn't have to mean either that the other kid got bumped down lower OR that they got higher than the other first kid's score. They *tied* on both having attained the highest possible amount. Now with this quantifiable, tied top attainment of value and what to do with your limited resources of time and attention, first I've said one should try to not go over into numbers they know damn well they can't well sustain. Second, I've said you can spend time and do things with multiple at a time and that unless you start pushing the limits I find most people's lives naturally will work out to leave plenty of times where others will be busy that you can spend with just one available mate and that any more additional time taken beyond that for one on one time with them shouldn't end up being more costly to the other relationships than the time you may spend without your mate doing things with any one or more friends. Otherwise I get curious if there are any people who view any and/or all other human relations as encroaching on their turf, taking away time and energy and stuff that should be spent on them and that their partner doesn't care about them enough if they would go to that friend's piano recital instead of stay home with them and watch reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond (lets assume here for a moment for whatever reason this is a case where this person who wants to stay home either can't go to the recital or doesn't want to.) Anyway, as I said, there are people who I can understand would be just so strapped for time they only have just enough time for one mate if that, but there are plenty of cases of people who have lived fairly normal, non-lazy-bum-doing-nothing-productive lives and gone with not much difficulty on this limited resources issue while having more than one mate.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a specific thread or so to cite where you've already discussed it a lot,

I think it was this one but I also think there was another with better resolution than here. Just can't remember what it was under.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;hl=polyamory

A couple points of clarification,

Second, I don't think it is quite correct to say just men and women or even just every individual will have the same experience of love

I meant to say here that individuals will not have the same experience of love.

Additionally, at least in just what you've said here, I don't see why it is necessarily less devotion to have multiple mates. Does a parent have less devotion to their child if they have another kid a couple years later? Or the other way around, is it a sign of less devotion to a child if you don't insist on being the only person to play that most influential role of parent when it comes to raising and providing for their well being?

This was discussed at length in the thread I pasted, I believe. Essentially, A romantic relationship is categorically different from other relationships, for most people. From your description of your own sexuality(not sure whether bisexual or asexual is the right description) but it sounds like you do not experience yourself as either masculine or feminine and so do not benefit from their inherent symbiotic relationship. Because of this, it's easy for me to see how your view of relationship type would overlap strongly. If your sexuality is not significant, than friendships based on shared values would be equitable. I would only say that for most people,(Im sure you are aware) it is not optional. There is usually a strong masculine or feminine sense of life which makes the opposite sex infinitely more attractive in that context. As to your example, having more children does detract from the attention each child receives. As the oldest of 8 I can attest to this personally. The difference is that often times with parenting, less is more since it is(or should be) a relationship primarily of guidance. In a romantic relationship, devotion of time and energy is more inherent a part. You don't marry someone to direct them in the right courses of action. You marry them to experience life together. The more of it you experience together the more strong of a connection you will form due to the increasing size of the shared context.

polyamory or monogamy to be hard wired, and I was told there were animal studies which indicated it could be hard wired in other animals. Given that I think people don't have instincts and are born tabla rasa unlike other animals, this was not good enough to qualify as evidence for me.

Also for clarification, I didn't mean to say that monogamy/polygamy is hard wired, just masculinity and femininity as well as homosexuality. It may be, but I have never seen anything to suggest it. as to the tabula rasa thing, it might depend on what you mean exactly, but it is not correct. An increasing large mountain of data is accruing showing very big differences in brain structure and information processing between men and women. Also significant differences in the brains of homosexuals. If you have trouble finding something about it I can forward you stuff.

Then there's also issues of eventually getting rid of legal discrimination against polyamory, but I'm not in such a big rush for that personally for several reasons . . .

Don't want to derail, but I would be curious to know those reasons either in a new thread or PM'ed

"love is not a zero sum game." ...

go to that friend's piano recital instead of stay home with them and watch reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond

I think assessment is only a small first step for love. The rest, to be meaningful is action. I would stay home with a cherished love and watch I love raymond, if it was important to her. She becomes the primary relationship in that her needs are placed above all others. Hopefully, she would have good self-esteem and not be needy and codependent. Theoretically, a third party could be made aware that they were always "2nd place" and be fine with it. Sounds unlikely to me since in actuality what seems to happen is they begin to compete for affections, but I'll confess it is possible that someone is totally satisfied knowing their needs are never the priority. Hell, some people get off being gagged with big red rubber balls. I would just doubt the health of someone with that sort of mind set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to check that other thread out soon if it isn't the one I saw before, probably some time tomorrow though as it is getting late.

Ah, maybe my wording didn't work out so well. I knew you meant to say there could be differences you thought between men and women and between individuals, but I meant to say I don't think there is always a static consistency among men or among women or even in a certain individual always either. I think it changes constantly always among all people even within themselves and in regard to one other particular person.

I've frequently heard it said in similar discussions by people familiar with Objectivism that romance is just entirely incomparable practically at all to any other form of positive human relationship. I've so far never seen it well explained why this is at all though. The most I've ever seen given for explanation is that this is the highest form of all positive human relations, but then pretty much no explanation is given for how that results in that complete and utter difference. I'll check out that thread though as I said tomorrow and see if maybe this trend has been bucked for once.

[more meandering explanation, skip if desired or pressed for time] For what it's worth, actually I consider myself to be a form of pansexual (the first form the page mentions, the one that finds people's sex irrelevant as far as this issue goes.) As for gender, I don't place value on the concept, that's true, (actually, I've even often found it to be a nigh on impossible concept to really define or give much of a referent to except through reciting stereotypes, which I really don't think counts) though by the gender ideas of typical western society I'd probably still be deemed to be more "feminine." (Most likely because of how I look. I'm very puny and I still wear clothing aimed more at females both because it is made to fit my body shape better and because I'm artistically inclined and think that male clothing options are typically far too dull and restrictive. The taboo against males wearing makeup or bottoms that do not connect in between the legs, unless maybe they're Scottish and the garment is plaid, especially mystifies me.) However, at least in part the fact that I don't understand very clearly what a gender is (as opposed to physical sex) and furthermore that there's nothing I've ever heard of positive for either what is to be masculine or feminine which isn't a good thing to have in humans in general makes me just not see a point or any possible serious notable benefit to be derived from these things. I've tried to introspect on these things even on things like Rand's suggestions about the nature of femininity, but they just plain don't resonate with me. Deep admirations is something I think is very good for males and females both to have for their partners, and I don't see how this could possibly have any aspect of being a particularly female thing as opposed to general human romance except in parts where it seems to imply some kind of inequality between the two, maybe a sort of subservience of the female to the male, something I don't think is good for humans, I don't identify with, and which doesn't seem to be inherently part of being female even anyway either given some famous anthropological studies I've heard of. [/meandering] Anyway, there are also plenty of people who can have just good friendships with people of the sex they desire and who desire people of the sex they are too. I don't experience romance as like just friendship, but stronger either. Though generally in most cases the better of friends I could be with somebody the more likely it could develop into me finding the person is in fact attractive to me, I do still experience romantic attraction as being different in character than friendship. Also, as it is not only a matter of degree of my fondness for them but of type too, though I think a friendship could never quite get so far in value as a romance could, I could have friends who I value as friends more than other people who I may have a sort of lower grade romantic attraction to. So just not being technically labels for different degrees of friendship still isn't why I don't think you could ever in any way compare romance to any other form of positive human relation.

As for the kids thing, yes, that case you can have kids getting some less attention, especially beyond two or three kids it seems, but would you consider that in any way necessarily always child abuse? Does it mean they don't care enough about any of the kids or aren't taking good enough care of them if that one kid doesn't get their undivided attention always? I think this can be a more notable issue with kids than adults still though since especially the younger kids require more attention. They could accidentally kill themselves or die of neglect otherwise. Older children though who may still live with their parents but not be as needy necessarily probably don't have so much of an issue with this as long as they aren't made to constantly take care of the younger kids whether they want to or not or have trouble being able to get much of any "alone time" because they're constantly around the other kids and have no where else to go. (This is what I've gathered anyway from my mom who was one of up to 14 kids living with her parents for a while. That and that they at least were often really having a hard time funding getting more than just the essentials for all of them.) On a related note though about time and attention in romance as opposed to parenting, I've also found it is entirely possible to smother a relationship with too exclusive a focus on doing stuff together constantly. First of all you end up neglecting the unique parts of yourselves often, second it can get awkward and pressured trying to come up with what to do or say next that the other(s) haven't already just done or seen with you, third it leaves your schedules often really difficult to manage to have to constantly be together for just about everything, fourth it can wear on your other personal relationships if they can never get time to see just you, and fifth if you aren't careful those earlier things can start to lead to you getting tired of being around that other person, bored of them, maybe even a bit resentful.

"Also for clarification, I didn't mean to say that monogamy/polygamy is hard wired, just masculinity and femininity as well as homosexuality." First on just a small note, "polygamy" is technically defined as referring just to having multiple people officially married to each other, which wouldn't be the same kind of encompassing values/views stance and/or all practitioners of it like "monogamy" would, hence why I use the term "polyamory" as it covers the married or the unmarried and is about a stance on romance, not on a social and/or legal sort of contract/living-arrangement/what-have-you. Technically, you don't even have to love somebody to be in a polygamous marriage with them. In fact in a lot of the religious contexts one is used to hearing about polygamy in, a lot of them probably do not romantically love one another. It would look like the terms "monogamy" and "polygamy" should describe forms of the same thing, but sadly such a logical conclusion is not the case here. As for being hard wired for sexuality, I think the jury is still not quite completely in on that one (not meaning to say I think other people's sexualities are necessarily bad or should be completely in their control here though just in case that needs to be specified), but maybe also I just am a real odd ball missing something common to most people on that issue. Wouldn't surprise me too much actually, though I really don't think I'd find that anything to complain about; it just means my option pool is wider than it otherwise would have been and the wider a pool I have to draw from the better. As far as gender being hard wired though, unless somebody has seen something to somehow undercut the credibility of this work drastically, I mentioned earlier that there has for quite a while now been well known anthropological research showing that this appears strongly to not be the case as the gender roles are not static at all across cultures which have had little access with other cultures. Here's a brief mention about the study I'm thinking of: Source Though not said so much there as they don't seem to be as focused on gender, in two classes I've had - one on psychology during the section about gender and one on international studies in the section where gender was discussed - a little more said on the topic said basically in one of the studied groups both men and women behaved in ways that would be more fitting of the western idea of what was masculine, the other had both men and women behaving in ways that would be more fitting of the western idea of what was feminine, and then the third had different gender roles for men and women, but they were the opposite of how we'd generally assign them in western society, with the males seeming "feminine" and the women "masculine."

Also, having different structural functions doesn't contradict the idea of people starting off tabla rasa essentially. That we'd process information a little differently once we have it doesn't mean we are already born with built in sort of information like other animals with instincts. And I've seen some of the information on both male and female brains and homosexual brains, I wasn't meaning to deny that. Although the cause of such differences I think has not been well enough identified yet. What this means in conjunction with the above anthropological research - I think it means that there are some differences, but they don't necessarily lead to NEARLY the kind of significant consistent personality type categorical divide that most people seem to think must always exist among people. I think you may find more male math teacher perhaps in higher level mathematics typically for example as something they may usually tend to be better at, but I don't think it means you'll get one group of people that are compulsive shoppers, love romantic comedies and trashy romance novels, and have an extreme fondness for the color pink while on the other hand you'll get another group that insists on leaving a toilet seat up, shouldn't cry, must be the one to cook the food on the grill and is opposed to eating quiche.

(As for why I'm not personally in a rush on legalizing polygamy, I can answer that quick enough in basic form. 1) I don't personally think I'll be needing any of the main legal benefits that comes with marriage any time soon 2) Though for reasons which have nothing to do with fearing commitment, I don't ever want to get a legal marriage and would prefer to have long term relationships where we intend to stay together for life as far as we can imagine without the government involvement 3) I'd much prefer that there was legal reform which made marriage not a legal issue but just a social one with the the current legal benefits associated with marriage able to be fairly freely assigned by citizens in ways completely independent of marital status.)

I think it is entirely possible to love somebody to whom, or whatever reason, you can not take action to express it. If you can and such is welcomed, go ahead and do so. In the reruns V. recital case, I'm assuming the reruns though are not important to your mate, she's just got nothing much to do whereas you have been really looking forward to your friend's piano recital which is very big in their life. (And though a small side issue, if the reruns themselves WERE important I think I'd just suggest doing something like recording it for playback to watch together later when I returned.) More or less I think part of my point was that in romance versus a friendship case you can have romance overall more important, but have occasions where the friend is coming out ahead for some reason without it meaning you don't value your mate. Likewise I think you can have multiple mates of equal importance and usually you don't have to pick between them, but every so often if you do it need not be based on valuing one overall more than the other (assuming you don't have a policy or strong tendency of nigh on ALWAYS picking one more than another in those cases) or that you must be being terribly unjust to the party who you didn't have the activity with them/that they wanted coming out on top in this case. So again I don't think that if you don't always get picked to do something with that it must mean you're just not as highly esteemed. I really don't find it that bothersome in principle to think that at times my mate may want to go do something with friends without me maybe or have me just invited to come along if I'd like, but dag nabbit they are going on that trip they've had planned for weeks even if I maybe would find other things personally more appealing, likewise I'm not bothered in principle with the idea that sometimes the same may come about but with somebody else who is also a mate too instead of just a friend. I just don't see any of this as making me less valued than that other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to check that other thread out soon if it isn't the one I saw before, probably some time tomorrow though as it is getting late.

...

I apologize but I am unable to respond to all of your points currently. I am enjoying the conversation and would like to pick it up at a future date, time permitting.

One of your comments reminded me of the other thread where I think these issues were discussed at some length.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ity&st=1240

Also, I would suggest looking deeper into the many neurological studies which have been done on gender differences and combine them with the epigenetic model in psychology. Seemingly subtle biological differences(genetic and otherwise) can lead, through feedback loops, to extremely different and surprisingly predictable differences. Males and females can have more feminized brains or masculine brains respectively, but generally these patterns develop. Males have only 75% of the corpus collusum that females have, so inter-connectivity between both hemispheres is quite different. Part of the brain that deals with facial recognition is 1/4 the size in males. The part that deals with sexuality, 4x's the size. In their most active state, male brains are less active then female brains in a passive state. Male brains go through periods of intense focus and intense relaxation which women mostly do not experience. The focus in males is activated by physical activity. These sorts of differences are huge and play a part in the big differences and even the small, stereotypical differences you mentioned.

Take men not crying at movies or touching moments. If we generally don't notice most of the nonverbal communication taking place, we grasp a significantly smaller part of the story. So it moves us less. Or women shopping. Women's clothing used to be sold like men's-given the dimensions in inches. Marketers realized that the size thing caused women to stay and shop a great deal more, tapping into their sorting/gathering preferences. Men stopping for a beer before coming home from work is a response to their inherent need to relax before changing gears since we lack that ease of switching and ability to multitask that women usually have. I need to stop or ill go on for days about this; I have studied this subject a great deal-the last few years especially-and I promise you that the data and integrative theory is there to support these things. And of course I realize, and believe, that you might be one of those exceptions so I would recommend keeping in mind that your fundamental experience in life will not correspond to people generally in this regard. So as an outlier, I would recommend distrusting your own experience in regard to general principles about human masculinity and femininity as you investigate the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sorry, I know I'm really bad at being concise. It's one of several odd issues I have been noticing over time that I have with language that I'm trying to work on.

I haven't gotten to check the thread out yet as I'm on an odd sleeping schedule currently and woke up not so long ago. I'm about to go get something to eat, but when I come back later I'll make a new post once I've read the other thread on my conclusions from reading it.

I've heard of most of those things about the brains before actually, but for the most part I don't see them leading to such hugely distinct categories of personality types anyway still. Because I do find it so odd and it does seem to matter so much to other people I have tried to look at what scientific information I could find on these subjects when I came across them or came up with something new to search for information about. The one about the focus issue though when I first heard of it gave me an idea about the source of some well known differences and difficulties when it comes to sex that I'm not sure if I find rather funny or rather sad. Also, haven't looked it up before, but I wonder if more females are diagnosed with ADD then males though I seem to typically see males depicted as the ones with the problem when ADD is discussed or an example person is given with the problem.

Crying at movies is something stereotyped for females to do, but I think even then it isn't normal for most females either by far and even then it is further narrowed down to only females who like certain types of movies it seems and there are men who can cry at movies too still even when there may not be females doing so. Also, I think possibly most of the time anyway probably one doesn't cry for the characters and how much they understand what is going on for those people so much as it reminds them of something about themselves and they are responding to how they know it would be for themselves, something much easier to guess at how it would be and which probably already holds more personal significance. This is just a suspicion though, I'm aware. Wait, do you mean to say people made it intentionally difficult to find clothing in your size for females? If so, oh those are some foul people indeed. D:< Maybe some females will buy more this way, but the rest of us (possibly more sane ones I'd say) just decide it isn't worth bothering to go get clothing unless we really have to and we get out of there as soon as we've found anything at least fairly suitable. As to the end of that paragraph, gee doesn't that sound like stuff I seem yo hear more and more lately, "You're not normal, you don't count for understanding what can or can't be for people in general." ^^; Ah well, I'm going to get something to eat now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Usually such a conflict gets resolved by the man throwing her out of the house. There is no waiting for the woman to make up her mind.

Roger that. Unless he is a wimp.

The hypothetical example I gave in my post could happen the other way too.

It's also possible for an honest married man to be in love with two women at the same time and to be in a temporary state of conflict about the issue so as to enter into an affair with one, while remaining married to the other, where the affair is known to, and is with the consent of, the other.

In such a case, the conflict could quickly get resolved by the woman throwing the man out of the house without waiting for him to make up his mind.

But if she doesn't throw him out, I guess that would probably make her a "doormat", right? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aequalsa,

Firstly, it's true that Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth", as Ayn Rand informally called it, and that focusing on what she did in her own life gives one a better idea of what it means to live by her philosophy, particularly since she was the kind of individual who had the integrity (emphasis added) to practice what she preached.

But when we focus on her life, it should primarily be those aspects of it that are governed by philosophy. And not every aspect of Man's life is governed by philosophy.

For example, Ayn Rand liked "tiddlywink" music and didn't care for "rock-n-roll". And there's nothing in Objectivism that prescribes the kind of music one should be listening to. So if one likes "rock-n-roll", one wouldn't take her musical tastes as a guide for choosing what songs one will listen to.

Similarly, there's nothing in Objectivism that prescribes monogamy in a marriage as a moral good and polygamy or polyandry as moral evils. And there's nothing in cognitive psychology either (the only rational school in the field I can think of) that has objectively validated monogamy in a marriage as proper and polygamy or polyandry as improper.

The only things philosophy can say about a marriage is that its participants should be:

1. rationally selfish (they should not be sacrificing for one another),

2. honest with each other (to quote Galt, they should not be faking reality in any manner whatsoever.)

Just as the only thing Objectivism can say about sex is that it's good for Man. It cannot prescribe the sexual standards every individual implicitly holds on the basis of which they choose the kind of person they find attractive and sleep with, and the manner in which they make love to them.

Secondly, when it comes to judging a person's actions, one does so:

1. When there's a real context in one's own life that requires one to judge their action.

For example, if one gets swindled by a grocer who sells rotten fruit and refuses to take it back, one will judge him to be a "jerk" and take one's business elsewhere.

2. if one knows all the facts required to objectively judge their action.

For example, if one judges Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran's President) as evil, one does so because one knows he's doing things that could ultimately destroy one's life.

But there's nothing about Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden that leads to an actual context in one's life, which requires one to judge her action.

Likewise, notwithstanding the garbage the Brandens have written in their memoirs and James Valiant's proper response to it, not a lot is known about:

1. the kind of relationship Ayn Rand had with her husband and the kind of man he was (Was it just based on a sense-of-life compatibility? If so, was he someone who could accept that fact and let his wife have an affair with a man who seemed to be her intellectual equal?),

2. the terms and conditions of their marriage (Did both of them believe in monogamy and expect it from the other?)

3. the exact state of the marriage at the time of the affair (Was she still happy in it or was she thinking of leaving him?)

So any attempt to evaluate Ayn Rand's behavior towards her husband at the time of the affair would result in (I hate to say this) an out-of-context and ill-informed judgment based on one's own personal standards of what is proper or improper in a marriage.

For the record, I believe in monogamy in a marriage and I would not love and be married to one woman, and at the same time, love and have an affair with another, even if my wife consented to it. But I hold my belief to be a personal standard, and not as something which the science of philosophy can validate, or which the science of psychology has already validated.

Cheers,

Ramesh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

Check out "The Silence of Ayn Rand’s Critics" by Casey on SOLO.

There's nothing in Neil Parille's series of articles, which objectively refutes what Casey has written.

In fact, the following quotes from it about PARC (Valiant's Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics) are quite revealing of the moral character of the Brandens:

"Among its revelations, PARC proves absolutely that Rand was not the irrationally jealous 'woman scorned' the Brandens depicted when she broke with the Brandens. Rand was not holding the Brandens’ business relationship hostage to a sexual relationship with Nathaniel Branden. The reverse is true. The Brandens were using the possibility of a sexual relationship between Nathaniel Branden and Rand to insure a business relationship with Rand, as Ayn Rand’s own contemporaneous journal entries conclusively prove. In the notes it is clear that Rand is frustrated by years of being led on by a manipulating bastard to whom she shows more fidelity to truth and toleration than any of Rand’s critics are now willing to show to her. Most ironically of all, Rand herself is the ultimate skeptic as to the Brandens’ bad intentions. She is the one who has to be shown the monstrous truth of a years-long romantic deception before she finally, agonizingly, reaches a personal and professional breaking point."

"On the other hand, the reliable evidence, from so many varied sources, has always clashed with the Brandens’ unique claims that she was cold, quick to dismiss friends, living a life of lies, helpless in the face of practical reality, insensitive to personal context, ungracious to benefactors, and humorless, to name a few of their condemnations. The testimony of virtually everyone else who knew her suggests that Ayn Rand was warm, loyal, honest, practical, sensitive, gracious and grateful to a fault, witty and appreciative of humor, and practiced remarkable integrity and devotion to those she loved. Even the Brandens’ own individual recollections contradict their broad negative pronouncements. The evidence from her journals in PARC confirms the observations of the non-Branden sources in spades."

"In terms of moral character and integrity, Rand stood head and shoulders above other celebrated intellectuals, who are not run down personally in conversations about their ideas, whether they be Picasso, Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, or even Karl Marx. It is no doubt antipathy for Rand’s ideas that has led many of her critics to latch on to the Brandens’ portraits with such avid interest, but it is also a fact that Rand claimed to live by her principles. The mendacity of the Brandens has therefore done more than harm Rand the person -- it attacks the most basic claim of her philosophy by suggesting that Objectivism is no more practicable than any other clever subjectivist philosophy. Therefore, the revelation that the Brandens lied about such things reveals a malice not just toward Rand but toward Objectivism itself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramesh, I sincerely thank you for putting some relevant information my way. I know that you are genuinely convinced by this, and by other sources you've found - however, I am not.

There are some deep waters here; and I am going to limit myself to saying that there were several witnesses to those events back then - and several who have their own personal axes to grind. (And SOLO grinds many.) I have read quite a number, and in the end it is my personal 'take' on the obvious integrity in Nathaniel Branden's dozen- plus books; as well as his continuing honour and esteem for Objectivism, that is the deciding factor for me.

I will add that what goes on, or went on, in those high echelons of Objectivism, although upsetting to me initially, actually doesn't change a thing for me : I will always have the utmost respect for all those brilliant thinkers and stalwarts of O'ism, no matter their differences - the Brandens, Dr. Kelley, and Dr. Peikoff.

Each has tremendous value to me as a life-student of Objectivism. That is where my real concern begins and ends.

In conclusion, there are many versions of the true events and motives out there, Ramesh, and I'll ask you this, as I have constantly asked myself (in the name of justice) :- "What if you are wrong ?"

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently in an intimate relationship with two other people. The relationship consist of myself, my wife, and my wife's best friend. We are all involved sexually and we all feel that we passionately love each other. It is very early in the relationship and we are already running into difficulties, though they seem to be stemming from other's negative reaction to our situation.

I am just looking for good honest advice and opinions concerning our relationship. I don't know anyone in the same situation to turn to. We really want to make this work. Thanks for any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
In conclusion, there are many versions of the true events and motives out there, Ramesh, and I'll ask you this, as I have constantly asked myself (in the name of justice) :- "What if you are wrong ?"

Such a question indicates a skeptical approach towards knowledge and truth.

It's a skeptic who holds the premise that since Man is capable of error, there's always the possibility that he could be wrong in his perception and judgment in any given case.

It's arbitrary to speculate the possibility of being wrong in a given case if one has no hard evidence that proves there has been an error.

If there's evidence, then the error's no longer just a possibility. It's a fact and the rational approach is to rectify the error and move on with one's life.

But if there's no evidence, then allowing the arbitrary into one's consciousness does only one thing: it invalidates it, by making it unsure of anything. Be it the pursuit of knowledge (of reality) or of values for living in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmm, well, thanks for the lecture on skeptism, but it seems you have misunderstood me : after reading piles of sources on this subject, I AM certain - as it is possible to be - of my conclusions. I made an attempt to raise a little doubt in your own position, that's all. Didn't work apparently.

I know enough to also know that the complete facts of the matter might never emerge; the people closest to this have kept a long silence. So all you or I can do is study all the sources and form our own opinions, and that means going further afield than just Valliant's book.

The automatic villification of Branden by so many, who it seems have not researched the subject beyond PARC and a few other sources, is disturbing to me.

Surely I don't have to re-iterate that an Objectivist must always be concerned about facts, and judgment, and independence of mind, and definitely, justice. And should never rush to judgment. Especially when one of the finest Objectivist minds after Ayn Rand herself, is at stake. (Giving you a lecture, for your lecture here ;) )

For me, it has become clearer that there were faults and errors (very human ones) on both sides of the issue, but this has only increased my admiration for the two powerful personalities involved.

In the very last resort, what does it matter anyway? The philosophy is what counts, and the sometimes silly, self-defeating rivalry between the factions is ultimately not my concern. This is a philosophy for the Individual primarily, with the Group a distant second.

If only these schisms can be resolved however, O'ism will be all the stronger for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

A three-way relationship may "work" in the short run, but not in the long run. It is impossible to completely "shut-out" outsider's opinions on this issue or how they make you three feel. After all, you're asking some "outsiders" for advice on what to do. The mere fact that you're here asking questions seems to strike me as odd. For one, you are not completely sure of this thing. If you aren't completely sure of this, you, yourself, know this might not work or isn't working.

Bottom line: you're trying to rationalize hedonistic behavior through Objectivism. I may add, that each and every person rationalizes their behavior from their philosophies. Just because you can rationalize it this way, does not mean it will work or what you are doing is "right". Don't get me wrong, threesomes are fun as all hell and bring a lot of pleasure into your life. However, as time goes on, that "special" feeling wears off and you'll be faced with a problem. The problem of who you're going to be with. This will happen, make no mistake about it.

You should be concerned about your mental health as well as your physical health. I know this three-way feels damn good, but think about what it's doing to your conscious and mental health. This is obviously affecting your mental stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you haven't read this whole thread. If you had, you'd see the author already posted the resolution to their situation. Since I can tell you haven't read the whole thread, I'm going to suggest you do so and take a look at the arguments presented before saying it must just in all cases be rationalization to think polyamory could ever be good. This particular line, "It is impossible to completely 'shut-out' outsider's opinions on this issue or how they make you three feel," I find suspect as it sounds like you could say the same thing to try to argue against homosexual relationships or maybe even that none of us should be atheists because so many people wouldn't approve and surely that must upset us that people don't approve of us. :) Also, other philosophies are wrong, so just because something works in them doesn't mean it is consistent with what can work in reality. Objectivism on the other hand is based off identifying how reality works, so if something works with Objectivism it should be fine with the way reality works (with some caveats about what the limits are of what is the province of philosophy and what is the province of the specialized sciences to determine.) " However, as time goes on, that "special" feeling wears off and you'll be faced with a problem. The problem of who you're going to be with. This will happen, make no mistake about it." The question though was not supposed to be about just threesomes, just having sex with multiple people, it was supposed to be about actual romantic *relationships* with multiple people. Hypothetically for the moment, if somebody really deeply and equally loved more than one person who also loved them back and was fine with the situation, do you really think this person would just get bored with sex with their partners and so decide to get rid of one (or more) of them and go back to just having one?

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question:

Are there any threads (that anyone can remember off the top of their head) that deal with the issue of what marriage should be?

I think rationality and attraction are often two very different things. With attraction, there is often much more rationalizing then rationality. If you believe someone is of high enough value to be intimate with, and even have children, if that's rational, shouldn't there be some form of commitment? But how much?

Those are the sort of questions I'd like to discuss, so, is there a relevant thread anyone knows of?

And no matter what view you had, I think this thread has been very interesting from all perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a sheer matter of fact, it is impossible to have two people in your life who are your highest value. That's a contradiction in terms. Now, if we take love to mean admiration of values apparent in another person, same or opposite sex, then it's quite possible to love many people. But in the sense of romantic love, where the target of your affections represents a wide range of important values to you, including your highest values, I do not think it is possible to have two such people in your life. For one, it's a matter of time: who did you meet first and spend time with first? After several years of marriage, you may meet another woman/man with whom you could easily have fallen in love had you met them before you met your current partner. But you spent your time, energy, money, affection, everything on your current partner. And you've begun living with them, sharing every single detail of your life with them. And you've had sex with them. How can you honestly, without fooling yourself, do the same thing again while still married? You cannot; not without some serious evasion on your part.

As for one-time, three-way sexual intercourse...that's more up to personal preference, but it defeats the purpose of sex, which is to experience a kind of physical and emotional intimacy with your partner that no other action can afford you. Your partner is the operative word here, not some other woman or man, close friend or otherwise.

I find too often that Objectivists or semi-Objectivists will throw all tradition out the window because they have come to think that tradition is bad just because it's tradition. This is a totally false idea, whether you hold it explicitly or not. There are many good, logically sound traditions that should be followed. Monogamy is one of them. The origin of the tradition is completely irrelevant; all that matters is the content of the tradition: what does it say you should do? Is there some logical justification for this action? I've given one for monogamy.

Don't think that just because some traditions are mistaken or even evil that *all* traditions are like that. That's a broad generalization, and it's also a logical fallacy to say that tradition is bad because it's tradition. It's like saying new things are good because they're new, or old things are bad because they're old.

As for other people's opinions of you for engaging in polygamy or groups sex, this is not an argument. An argument is not right or wrong just because someone says it. Therefore, you shouldn't care what other people think just because they think it. Christians think premarital sex is evil, even when objectively, it can easily be proven that it is not. What matters is the *content* of their argument. It is right of people to look down on polygamy as a perverted and even immoral act, but not just because they think that. They're right for the reasons I listed above, if those are indeed their reasons.

One could probably come up with hundreds of rationalizations for engaging in group sex or polygamy, but not a one of them is right. I've heard some people use the excuse that sex is instinctual, that humans have to have as much sex as they can, whenever they can, with whomever they can. They think it's some kind of uncontrollable urge that's part of their brain since our early evolutionary period. I'd rather not go into why this view is so horribly mistaken right now, but if you want to see why I think so, just read my posts on the thread about Objectivism explaining sexual attraction. In short, people who think sex is some kind of uncontrollable, animalistic urge will act as such, thereby deluding themselves into thinking that their sexual urges are indeed uncontrollable instincts. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is often turned into a rationalization for having more than one sexual partner at the same time, but for the reasons I just gave I find it morally repugnant. I find it odd that Objectivists, who should put reason above all else, fall for this junk science. Evolutionary biology and its deterministic explanations of sex has some kind of odd attraction to Objectivists/libertarian types and I don't know why. It seems Penn Jillette has fallen for this nonsense, in light of his Bullsh*t episode about romantic love being a myth. Yet again we see the all-too-easily accepted idea that all tradition is bad by dent of being tradition that so many o'ist and libertarian types are lured into. I suggest reading Nathaniel Branden's explanation of the origins of the concept and practice of romantic love in his book on romantic love.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a sheer matter of fact, it is impossible to have two people in your life who are your highest value. That's a contradiction in terms.

Ties, have you heard of 'em? If not, I suggest you get yourself acquainted with them. Take a look at the long, illustrious history of people achieving equally high spots in many different areas. You may object to the idea of it being in fact possible to have two highest values, but the idea is not just a flat out contradiction in terms which makes it impossible. You'll have to give a better explanation than that for why it is impossible.

"But you spent your time, energy, money, affection, everything on your current partner." So? Have you never become acquainted with somebody or something after somebody or something else and just through what it/they are had it possible for them to fairly quickly catch up in importance and value to you as that other first person or thing? I know it's happened to me plenty and resulted in there now being ties in value. Aside from that though, this probably would be much rarer, but you could potentially meet more than one person at the same time who was equally right for you.

To be clear, I agree with you that what other people think just because they think it isn't an argument and also that not everything which has become a tradition is necessarily bad. I am not trying to challenge the idea that only monogamy can ever be good just because monogamy is an old, widely advocated for practice though. Nor do I support the stupid "instinct" arguments. Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...