The subject line says it really. Is monogamy the only 'ethical' lifestyle open to someone who believes in Objectivism?
I never thought so. But today I got into an unpleasant conversation with a group of Objectivists that felt that this is the case. So much so that in the end, I was compared to a murderer, and asked to leave the group.
Let me frame my question a little more:
My involvement with Objectivism:
I picked up 'Atlas Shrugged' after being told by several different people that I would like it. I read it, and found that I quite enjoyed both the story itself, and the philosophy of Ayn Rand as expressed through it. As I'm sure it was to most of you, I felt that Objectivism just 'made sense' to me, and started to use it more and more in my daily life.
I have never had a chance to pick up another of her books, as free time is very sparse in my life, though I plan to do so in the future.
Objectivism however is not my only inspiration. I've read over Zen works, the writings of Confucius, Pagan teachings, and a great many other inspirational texts.
My lifestyle:
I don't want to get into too much detail here. Not only have I been recently attacked on this matter (as described above), I frankly think that the details of it are not particularly relivant to the discussion. Suffice it to say that I am in an 'open relationship'.
Here are some relevant wikipedia links for those that may not be familiar with the terms involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
As is typical of any type of poly relationship (the former being an instance of the latter class), my SO is fully aware of this and doesn't have a problem with the arrangement. She knew about this before becoming involved with me, and there is never any deception.
Why I do this:
Don't ask. It doesn't matter. It'd be like a gay man trying to answer 'why' he sleeps with men and not women. It simply is. I could pretend to be monogamous about as well as a gay man can play at being straight and having a wife. It would be destructive to my mental health for me to live such a lie.
It's psychologically damaging:
Research from groups such as the American Psychological Association and DNA testing of wild animal families seem to be showing us that at least for some, monogamy is not as has been long believed the only psychologically healthy expression of love. More and more clinicians and counseling psychologists are finding healthy and working non-monogamous relationships.
Previously it was thought that many species of animals were completely monogamous, but we are learning that this is not the case. The evidence is mounting that social monogamy, and sexual monogamy, are indeed very different things and that species can often exhibit the former with little of the latter.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun07/voles.html
http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%...%20monogamy.htm
However, you may of course reject the notion that Human behavior should be explained by that of animals, that we are meant to 'overcome' such things. In an effort to avoid debating that, please understand that I put it here as a curiosity, and not a central point of my question.
You would be monogamous if you really loved her:
Please don't even dream of suggesting that I do not love her deeply, or that she is not, as Ayn Rand wrote, 'the highest type of woman can find, the woman admire, the strongest, the hardest to conquer'. She is. I do. Don't presume to understand how my relationship with her works without seeing us first hand.
You're a brainless slut then!
No, I'm not. I'm intelligent and articulate. I've spent many years analyzing my motivations. I do not sleep with everyone I have the chance to. I'm actually very picky about my 'friends with benefits' that I indulge in. And they all really are good friends, people I can admire and see things of value in that I would like to copy in myself.
And the use of 'slut' as a label is name-calling, unless you mean it in the form of 'The Ethical Slut'. (It's a book, and consequently a re-thinking of sexuality and monogamy that came from the book. Though it's rather 'hippie' writing style is a turnoff to many.)
Yes, I do take some simple, possibly 'hedonistic', pleasures in life. But nothing dangerous, harmful or destructive. I've never smoked, never done drugs, never intentionally harmed anyone. Chocolate and caffeine would be my only real 'dirty pleasures'. Is it 'hedonistic' to savor Belgian chocolate? Or is it reverence of the chocolate to enjoy it, to own it?
Ayn's own lack of fidelity:
If the article on Wikipedia is correct, Ayn herself had a significant extra-marital affair with someone she admired, with the full knowledge of her husband:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand:
I would have done the same. Dishonesty in any sexual relationship is a fatal flaw.
Philosophers are not infallible:
Modern Objectivists are starting to come to the conclusion that Homosexuality at least, may not be as 'immoral' as it was once labeled by Ayn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%2..._homosexuality:
In the same vein, the Dali Lama is a great man, but he does organize terrorists. (Possibly rightly, for the retaking of Tibet.) Gandhi did amazing things for India, but was oddly fond of having enemas. Our heroes, even Ayn, are people too. Sometimes their emotions get the better of them.
Why I keep referencing Homosexuality:
I use homosexuality as one example of a non-traditional sexual relationship. Something not strictly 'one man, one woman'. It is currently moving closer to acceptance than are many of the other fringe sexualities. (Poly, Kinky, Submissive) I hope that other groups will begin recognizing the healthiness of other forms of relationship.
Separation of one's reflexive instinct, from one's reason:
I suspect that much of our infatuation with monogamy is historical and cultural. People everywhere reject that which they do not recognize. Even we, as Objectivists, do this. It's a very natural reaction, but we need to be aware of it so that we can monitor it. Are we labeling something 'immoral' because it confuses us, because we cannot fathom why someone would do it? Or do we rightly label it as immoral for being damaging to another's rights, property or livelihood?
Traditional relationships work too!
Please don't think I'm trying to advocate any kind of alternative lifestyle for any of you not already having one. The typical traditional relationship works for a great many people. I would never try and tell you who to sleep with or how to handle your private affairs. All of the lovely arguments for why monogamy can be a beautiful thing are ones I agree with.
Dan Edge had a good post here that describes his position well:
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=9047
But my only real reply to it is, "I'm glad that works for you. But what is healthy and happy for you, may not be healthy and happy for me. People are different. We all have slightly different needs to keep us happy. Sure, we all need food, but I need steak, and my SO needs pasta, or we're both cranky. You need a monogamous relationship to make you happy, and I wish you a long and happy and loving one. But please don't presume to be certain you know what it takes to make me happy, and people like me. We may be a small percentage, but we are not damaged and we are not broken, and we are not immoral, just because you don't understand us."
But the children!
Everyone likes to do things 'to protect the kids' when it comes to sex.
Well, for myself, I have none. I've chosen to have none. (This will also boggle many people. Deal with it, it's my choice.) So don't do anything 'in the name of the children' when it comes to condemning my lifestyle.
