Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[aequalsa]

Not all consequences are negative. Aside from the fact that that depends largely on the individual relationship and is not a given, there is the issue that you also stand to gain value from the second (or subsequent) relationship in concrete, measurable ways. The problem with your position is that it assumes exclusivity and a certain degree of intimacy are values in and of themselves, the same for all people. I happen to think that people's values and needs are individual enough and vary enough to illustrate that this is not necessarily true.

I agree that you would gain value from the other relationships. I could take home a new women each day and gain "value" from them. But the value(s) gained will not be worth what you are giving up by coming to know a single individual who is your "top value" deeply.

Howard Roark Could gain value with a second job. He would learn a lot waiting tables or trying cases or whatever, but his architecture would suffer. It's not that he couldn't still do architecture, he would just never be as good at it as he was. It would not be as good because it was not an all consuming passion.

[Time_Maker]

Aequalsa: It appears that there is a confusion between "Polygamy" and, for a lack of a better word, "sluttyness" (if there is a better word, please inform me). Polygamy simply means having more than one sexual partner. It does nOT mean suspending morals or values, suspending who you are, or suspending your standards.

A person who is engaging in rational polygamy would not lower their standard. That means, they would not engage in sexual flings (or bringing home a new woman everyday) for the sake of immediate pleasure

I hope this clarifies polygamy. If it does not, please contact me, and I clearify it further. Thank you.

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa: I am quite perplex about what you said with the practical being moral. What is Practicalness, and for whom? Also, does that mean engaging in the non-practicle means that one isn't moral? Isn't someone who is just concern with the practical means that they don't want to understand the theory behind something, the "why" something is? But, this subject is completely off topic, and we can discuss this issue by other means, if you so elect.

You bought up a good point, about comparing a job to a person who one loves and admires. The problem with comparisons is that they break down. A person does not work 24/ 7, they take time off from their job, and engage in other activities. Doesn't engaging in those other activities cause the quality of work to suffer? If it doesn't, then doesn't that invalidate your point?

Even though you didn't bring this up (directly), you raised a question about relationships. You stated that if you "put a little bit into 3 relationships, and you have 3 little relationships". The conclusion that I draw from this sentence is that if someone is with another person, they can not have any other relationships. A relationship requires work, and if I am having a relationship with someone, then that means I must cease the relationships that I have with the rest of my friends, according to you. If I am mistaken in your conclusion, please correct me.

To clarify, by practical, I mean to say, that which is possible.

If I wished to earn gold medals in archery, gymnastics, track, judo, basketball, weightlifting, disc throwing , and skeet shooting in the 08 olympics and during that time build the worlds largest retail chain from the ground up, I would be being impractical even though value could be achieved from all of those goal. I don't believe that it is bad to have multiple partners so long as no one is forced into it. Any libertarian would agree. My belief is that with values in general, you derive more value from something which you are singularly devoted to.

Howard Roark was a great architect.

Or he could have been a good architect and a good lawyer.

Or he could have been a so so architect, a so so lawyer, and a so so doctor...

I believe more joy is to be found in the greatness then the mediocrity.

In the context of relationships, if you have what you believe to be 3 great romantic relationships, then I would believe that you have not had a great relationship with which to compare them to.

The drawback, is that a committed relationship requires better communication and a higher degree of trust. People are risk averse and this is emotionally dangerous. In a monogomous relationship you are required to work out issue and depend on someone for the fullfillment of all of those desires derived from a romantic relationship. If you have a harem and one gal doesn't provide what you want you can drive down the street to the next and never have to deal with the difficulty.

"The conclusion that I draw from this sentence is that if someone is with another person, they can not have any other relationships."

No, just not more then one primary relationship. One relationship should be put first.

[~Sophia~]

I will never have a person in my life who I am enslaved to (or who I will enslave) either emotionally, or physically. From the phase " he is absolutely everything to you" implies emotional enslavement.

To you deep, emotional attachment, which I call true love, is emotional enslavement. This is exactly one of my arguments, why someone would choose polygamy (not true for everybody obviously), which I presented to Ifatart, in private messages. It is a measure with which people avoid the build up of deep intimacy with one person. They do not wish to be emotionally deeply attached to anyone in that way.

[aequalsa]

That's not true. Some people might have enough time to have two relationships. Say your job does not take up most of your time. It is possible to have enough time* for each relationship. One does have limited resources, so having 4 relationships will probably result in having not enough time for each relationship. Just because a certain amount for a certain individual is not practical, does not mean that this must be the case for everyone. Time Maker has already pointed to this but you did not provide an explanation to answer his suggested problem with your argument.

* What is the standard of "enough time"? Basically, one must have enough time to get to know the other person. Beyond this, "enough time" depends on the lives of the two people involved, their individual psychological needs and lifestyle.

I don't disagree. As I stated, you can certainly make two or possibly more relationships work simultaneously, depending on your standards of value with regard to relationships, but any time and energy you devote to one relationship is time and energy you cannot devote to the other. There is a cost. I suggest that the benefits of polygamy do not outweigh the cost to the relationship which is supposed to be your top value.

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa: It appears that there is a confusion between "Polygamy" and, for a lack of a better word, "sluttyness" (if there is a better word, please inform me). Polygamy simply means having more than one sexual partner. It does nOT mean suspending morals or values, suspending who you are, or suspending your standards.

A person who is engaging in rational polygamy would not lower their standard. That means, they would not engage in sexual flings (or bringing home a new woman everyday) for the sake of immediate pleasure

I hope this clarifies polygamy. If it does not, please contact me, and I clearify it further. Thank you.

No confusion. A lower standard does not translate to slut. But it is a lower standard. That is how you can get more people to qualify for a position-lower the standard. If you have a fully fleshed out hiearchy of values, then one individual will be at the top of that hiearchy. And if they are at the top of your proper value set, then they also have the self-esteem to demand your full affections.

[Inspector]

And if they are at the top of your proper value set, then they also have the self-esteem to demand your full affections.

And you theirs.

[Kevin]

If you have a fully fleshed out hiearchy of values, then one individual will be at the top of that hiearchy.

This seems like an overly simplistic view. Why assume that one person must necessarily be the "most perfect" reflection of my own values? I don't see how it's something you can really quantify- this person fulfills 98 percent of my values, while this other person fulfills 99 pecent, so person B is the one to whom I devote my fullest attention. What if it's not a matter of more and less, but simply different? If you're willing to assume that there's one person who is the total fulfillment of your values, and that to settle for less would be, just that- to settle, then why deny the possibility of two, or three, or ten people completely fulfilling those same values? It's not as though a value hierarchy is a checklist, to which one can mark off points and add up a total score. People can reflect values in many different ways, and to many different degrees, and to say that there must always be one who is the "best" in that regard seems like an unfounded assumption. I think of it in the same way I approach art- I value many pieces of music, for many different reasons, and while there are certainly some that I value more highly than others, I don't think I could point to one that is the "perfect" representation of my values. In fact, the very idea of a perfect piece of music doesn't really make sense to me- there could always be something different, some change that might make it even better in my eyes. And it seems the same way with people- to say that one must necessarily choose a favorite strikes me as an oversimplification. Not that one couldn't have a favorite- I can certainly see how one might be able to say that they value this one person more than any other because of the qualities they possess- but I can also see how someone might say, "I value this person for these things, and this person for these other things, and I can't really say which one ranks higher on the value scale. They're just different."

[Inspector]

I can also see how someone might say, "I value this person for these things, and this person for these other things, and I can't really say which one ranks higher on the value scale. They're just different."

That might make sense, intuitively, if you are thinking about just friends, people who you like but don't love. The point is that love is a whole different story.

I wonder if anyone who is advocating polygamy has ever actually been in love.

[JASKN]

I wonder if anyone who is advocating polygamy has ever actually been in love.

That isn't a fair argument against polygamy. Being in love is such a rare occurrence that I doubt many would find themselves in love with even two people at once. It is difficult enough to find people who you would like to befriend, much less fall in love with. Thus, those pro-polygamy are probably arguing from principles.

[RationalBiker]

A lower standard does not translate to slut. But it is a lower standard.

But the point I was making is that polygamy does not necessarily have to involve "lower" standards, which implies a negative, but rather "different" standards. I reiterate that you are assuming that exclusivity and a certain degree of intimacy have intrinsic values the same for all people.

[aequalsa]

This seems like an overly simplistic view. Why assume that one person must necessarily be the "most perfect" reflection of my own values? I don't see how it's something you can really quantify-

...

You're right...it can't be quantified. It's qualitative in nature and as such it can be ranked. "This one is better, that one is worse" rather then lisa=8.4 and susan=9.3. And you do not find perfection, you simply find the best that you can.

[aequalsa]

But the point I was making is that polygamy does not necessarily have to involve "lower" standards, which implies a negative, but rather "different" standards. I reiterate that you are assuming that exclusivity and a certain degree of intimacy have intrinsic values the same for all people.

I get what your saying. Your statement about my assumption is mainly accurate, although I would modify it in this way; I don't believe intimacy and exclusivity are things that all people value, just that they are things that all people should value.

[IAmMetaphysical]

That might make sense, intuitively, if you are thinking about just friends, people who you like but don't love. The point is that love is a whole different story.

I wonder if anyone who is advocating polygamy has ever actually been in love.

I love some of my friends, and I have been in love a few times as well.

EDIT: On a side note: Being a wedding photographer gives me the opportunity to hear 1st Corinthians chapter 14 a lot, where St. Paul talks about love. "Love is patient, love is kind, it is not boastful, yadda yadda, yadda..." It seems that some of the people in this thread treat love as equally mystical as Paul did, as if it were not rational, and rested on feelings of ownership, or jealousy, as if jealousy were a valid, rational emotion to begin with. The essence of love is "an emotional response to values". And that is it. It is not some other wordly or overly exotic or even "rare" occurence. Emotions are emotions, they are not special, or above reason, or "tools of cognition." Let's remember that.

Edited November 5, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Inspector]

That isn't a fair argument against polygamy.

No, but it is a lead for something to think about.

Thus, those pro-polygamy are probably arguing from principles.

Ah, but what use are those principles without a clear understanding of the full meaning of what love is? If true, passionate love is not only unknown but inconcievable to some here, then how can anyone expect them to know why anyone would want exclusivity? Whether or not this is the case, it illustrates just how much the two sides here do not have in common in terms of premises.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Hmmmm, "true, passionate LOOOOve", sounds like "pure" logic and other non-concepts.

[Time_Maker]

~Sophia~:

You said in post 179: "To you deep, emotional attachment, which I call true love, is emotional enslavement."

I completely disagree with the words "emotional attachment". Emotions are not physical, and they can't attach to anything or anyone. However, that phase "emotional attachment" is used quite common in the English Language, and I think it does mean about the same as emotional enslavement. In conclusion: I disagree with the words, but not the meaning behind the words.

You also said "It is a measure with which people avoid the build up of deep intimacy with one person. They do not wish to be emotionally deeply attached to anyone in that way."

I am not exactly sure what "It" is in this case? Polygamy? I also don't understand what intimacy, "emotional attachment", and polygamy have to do with one another. Those three concepts aren't related to one another. One can be intimate without being polygamist (e.g. having sex). One can engage in polygamy without intimacy or "emotional attachment" (e.g. picking up a barfly). One can also be "emotionally attached" without being intimate or engaging in sex (e.g. "co-dependency"). (Please note, I don't know how one can be "emotionally attached" without suffering from co-dependancy, however, this topic belongs to a different thread).

You make "emotionally attachment" sound very important. Can you please inform me (either e-mail on in this thread) why emotional attachment is important to a human being?

aequalsa, in post 180, you said "I suggest that the benefits of polygamy do not outweigh the cost to the relationship which is supposed to be your top value."

You are arguing polygamy from an economical viewpoint. Which I like and enjoy. However, you are assuming that you have a choice between spending time with Person A, and Person B. That choice usually doesn't exist. Lets say you work with Person A. You spend a lot of time with Person A, engaging in work related activities (e.g. working on projects, going to conventions, etc). Person B, for a lack of a better idea, is a "housewife", and you don't work with her. You can't very well swap time with Person A with Person B (because of the differences in value they bring to the organization). And, you also value and enjoy your job, so quitting your line of work would not be feasible. So, how does spending time with Person A, results in less time with Person B?

(For what its worth, I disagree with the idea of ACTIVELY seeking someone when one is in a relationship. I know no one here brought up the morality of that, but if you aren't happy being with an individual, one should break away from the relationship quickly.)

aequalsa: in post 181, you said "If you have a fully fleshed out hiearchy of values, then one individual will be at the top of that hiearchy". I looked up "hierarchy of values" in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and I was unable to identify where that definition is located it. I next looked up the word "value", in the same book. "Value... that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (208). In the same paragraph, he describes value as an "the object of an action: it is that which some entity's action is directed to acquire or preserv[ed]". So the next question is, what are some values that should be on our Hierarchy? And, shouldn't the people we have a relationship with be based on character?

Kevin: in post number 183, you brought up an excellent point, which I want to flesh out further. You stated "Why assume that one person must necessarily be the "most perfect" reflection of my own values?" Given the definition of value that I quoted, how can one person fulfill my values? There should be other things that I value besides a person (and why would I value that person for anyway, if not her character)?

Inspector: In post number 184, you stated "I wonder if anyone who is advocating polygamy has ever actually been in love. (emphasis yours)". Can you please tell me (without going into descriptions) what the meaning of the word "in love" means? And why does being "in love" will prevent someone from being "in love" with more then one person at once? What characteristics of love prevents someone from loving two people at once?

IAmMetaphysical: You stated in post 189 " Emotions are emotions, they are not special, or above reason, or 'tools of cognition.'" Emotions are NOT emotions, they don't exist in a separate plane. Emotions come from somewhere, and they are quick, instant reactions based on the philosophy an individual holds. You then later stated in post 191 that "Hmmmm, 'true, passionate LOOOOve', sounds like "pure" logic and other non-concepts." This is interesting, what exactly is "love" and in what context? Love, in current American Society, is thrown around very often: "Love thy neighbors", "Love humanity", "Love the Earth", "Love your children", "Love your parents". So, what exactly does "love" mean, and should the word "Love" be split out into two different words: One to mean "Romantic Love" and another one to mean "non-romantic love"?

[IAmMetaphysical]

IAmMetaphysical: You stated in post 189 " Emotions are emotions, they are not special, or above reason, or 'tools of cognition.'" Emotions are NOT emotions,

I think you have a typo here with that first part of your statement, I will assume this as you have not demonstrated a propensity to the illogical.

they don't exist in a separate plane. Emotions come from somewhere, and they are quick, instant reactions based on the philosophy an individual holds.

I agree, that was the point of my statement.

You then later stated in post 191 that "Hmmmm, 'true, passionate LOOOOve', sounds like "pure" logic and other non-concepts." This is interesting, what exactly is "love" and in what context? Love, in current American Society, is thrown around very often: "Love thy neighbors", "Love humanity", "Love the Earth", "Love your children", "Love your parents". So, what exactly does "love" mean, and should the word "Love" be split out into two different words: One to mean "Romantic Love" and another one to mean "non-romantic love"?

At its essence "love" is (to borrow the definition from Ayn Rand) "an emotional response to values". What this means is that love is a form of appreciation with a strong tie to emotional response. So while saying "I like chocalate" is an evaluation and appreciation, it is not love unless coupled with a strong emotional response, such as great joy. In simpler terms, "love" is an intense amount of liking, so much so that it causes a strong emotional response. "romantic" and "non-romantic" are qualifiers on the term and do not alter the nature of love. "Romantic love" can be said to be: "love plus sex, plus sexual-intimacy, plus desire, etc." "Non-romantic love" is Love without sex, without sexual intimacy, etc. The concept of romantic has a precise set of concretes, and so does the concept of love, neither one being grouped with other changes its fundamental nature, or the nature of the other.

[~Sophia~]

The essence of love is "an emotional response to values".

We both agree with this statement but I think what we understand by it are two different things.

My understanding is that love is a response to values, meaning love is not mystical, not causeless. It is a rejection of the notion that love is a matter of the heart and not of the mind - that love is blind. Also, the fact that love is a response to values does not mean that we are romantically in love with values. We fall in love with the embodiment of those values, with a particular soul, unrepeatable consciousness.

What it does not mean is that every time I feel admiration for a man's achievement or character trait, if I also recognize him as physically attractive, this automatically results in my sexual attraction/romantic love for this man. And if I am not sexually attracted at that point then I am not a valuer, I am an evader of values arround me.

Should I sexually desire my brother in law - an attractive man, who has many very admirable qualities, and many achievements behind his belt? According to your theory it would be natural, and even further - if I am a valuer, automatic for me to do so. That is just plain crazyness to me.

This process is not automatic the way you are suggesting. Aside from recognizing values, a person has to open themselves up to the possibility of romantic attraction toward that particular person. It is a mental green light a person has to give themselves. You have to switch from seeing this man in platonic terms (admirering him or even platonically loving him just like I would a woman with similar traits) to thinking of him as a sexual being, object of my desire.

I recognize and aknowledge the values arround me. It is a matter of justice. I call a spade - a spade. But that green light is reserved only for the biggest hero I can find and only for him. It is not through the words that you show what you value, it is through your actions.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Emotions ARE automatic, but their spring is not.

If you do not have a sexual attraction to your brother in law, it may be for a variety of reasons, I will not venture to guess. I do not suggest that one should feel sexually attracted to all those that exhibit certain achievements. I suggest that one is sexually attracted to that which one has chosen as one's standard of sexual attraction. People are and can be sexually sttracted to a whole host of things. I suggest that whatever it is you choose to be sexually sttracted to, you will be sexually attracted to those things once you are confronted with them, it is your choice from there whether or not you want supress those attractions, evaluate them if they are irrational(or to find out if they're rational), act on them, or simply recognize them and move on. Being sexually sttracted to someone does not make one obligated to express that attraction or to engage in the sexual act. It is only those who consider sexual attraction an impulse that would feel this way and treat it as such, as some mystical impulse not to be questioned and to be simply obeyed. I do not view sexual attraction in this light. Sexual attraction, and desire to actually engage in sex are two separate things.

Sexually, I am attracted to (in no particular order): Sexual honesty, breasts, immodesty, vaginas, full lips, green-blue eyes, light brown eyes, clear skin, thin/fit bodies, curvy bodies, hips, buttocks, orgasmic appreciation and ability, etc. My response to these values is mostyl physical or physiological, and somewhat emotional. But unlike love, it is mainly physical. My response is the dialation of the pupils, engorgement and erection of my penis, redness in the ears, quickening of heart rate, etc. These responses for the most part are out of my immediate control. I can stop an erection only if I remove the perception (imaginary or not) from my field of attention, or draw my attention away from the integrated conception or perception of a value, e.g. ignoring the fact that it is a breast I am looking at and instead focusing on the color of skin which in itself does not turn me on. Anytime I am encountered with these things, I will have these responses (unless my attention is drawn to something else more pertinent, like my imiinent death or something of that nature) no matter who it actually is that posesses these qualities. Wether or not I will want to have sex with these individuals is another story. My desire to bed someone is not based on purely physical, or disintegrated attributes, or how you state it : being "romantically in love with values." My basis for a sexual partner encompasses a great many things beyond these attributes which bring about these sexual attractions and responses in me. Other values such as consistency, integration, etc, play a part in whether I am sexually attracted to the entire personage before me. I do not and can not separate people from their qualities and/or attributes, just as on a more simple level, I can not separate the evaluation of an otherwise esquisite breast from the cancerous tumor growing on its nipple. I can not and do not have sex with some of the values that people embody apart from the dis-values that they embody as well, and it is those dis-values, or vices that would kill the act's purpose for me. This does not mean that one must be perfect in order to garner my sexual desire, just that one can not hold a significant breach of objective standards. This makes the list relatively small, but not non-existent, nor exclusive to one person (although currently, there is only one person on the list right now, that I know) If there was a another person like her (not a clone, but virtuous enough, and physically attractive) I would want to have sex with her, with both of them. And I feel the same way for her, that if she found someone that she could rationally enjoy sex with, that she would have the option to do so.

[Ifat Glassman]

...The fact that love is a response to values does not mean that we are romantically in love with values. We fall in love with the embodiment of those values, with a particular soul, unrepeatable consciousness.

We fall in love with a combination of our highest values, embodied in someone. The love is romantic when the person is of the right gender for you, and indeed shows their masculinity/femininity in a spiritual/psychological way as well.

What it does not mean is that every time I feel admiration for a man's achievement or character trait, if I also recognize him as physically attractive, this automatically results in my sexual attraction/romantic love for this man.

Single, isolated traits and achievements do not automatically result in falling in love. But once someone has all your highest values, all those virtues which you value the most, then you fall in love. Sexual desire should be experienced as well if the person's masculinity/femininity is visible to you.

To use Atlas Shrugged as an example: Dagny should have still felt sexual desire for Reardan, and sexual desire for Francisco, even after she met Galt (and in fact she did). Since none of them changed, there is no reason why her emotions for X be affected by Y.

This process is not automatic the way you are suggesting. Aside from recognizing values, a person has to open themselves up to the possibility of romantic attraction toward that particular person. It is a mental green light a person has to give themselves.

I don't understand what green light you are talking about. Maybe the opposite is true: that one does feel sexual desire automatically (as a response to values in the way I described), but might choose to repress it.

Sophia, you said something earlier about explaining something about monogamy to me in our correspondence. I don't know what you are referring to. Please make it public.

[~Sophia~]

~Sophia~:

You said in post 179: "To you deep, emotional attachment, which I call true love, is emotional enslavement."

I completely disagree with the words "emotional attachment". Emotions are not physical, and they can't attach to anything or anyone. However, that phase "emotional attachment" is used quite common in the English Language, and I think it does mean about the same as emotional enslavement. In conclusion: I disagree with the words, but not the meaning behind the words.

When I dislike someone, it is a specific person I dislike for specific reasons. When I love someone it is a particular man I love for specific reasons. Affection is only applicable in regard to a person.

I am not enslaved by anyone by having certain strong emotions towards them, like deep love. I don't feel like they have a dominant influence on me or that I am subjecting them to a dominant influence. I don't consider it a loss of freedom. I am still in the driver seat when it comes to my life and my actions. It is not paralyzing that I love them deeply.

Undirected/indifferent love is a contradiction in terms.

I do think that it takes certain level of bravery to allow a person to become very important to you and your happiness. Bravery - because there is a risk involved - you may experience a loss. The higher importance of this person to you, the bigger the loss maybe. However, I do not operate out of fear and I am not looking for a man who does.

You also said "It is a measure with which people avoid the build up of deep intimacy with one person. They do not wish to be emotionally deeply attached to anyone in that way."

I am not exactly sure what "It" is in this case? Polygamy?

I ment having multiple lovers at the same time, spreading yourself among a few.

I also don't understand what intimacy, "emotional attachment", and polygamy have to do with one another.

What I think the relationship is has been already covered in this thread.

You make "emotionally attachment" sound very important. Can you please inform me (either e-mail on in this thread) why emotional attachment is important to a human being?

Why is intense love, like the kind Franscisco felt for Dagny, important to a human being? I guess one could live without it but that is not the life I envision for myself.

[~Sophia~]

I don't understand what green light you are talking about. Maybe the opposite is true: that one does feel sexual desire automatically (as a response to values in the way I described), but might choose to repress it.

I can assure you that I do not feel desire for my brother in law, no matter what new accomplishements of his, moral or otherwise, I am presented with.

Sophia, you said something earlier about explaining something about monogamy to me in our correspondence. I don't know what you are referring to.

This was when I suggested that one reason why people may seek multiple lovers maybe that they do not wish to get too emotionally attached to one person.

[Time_Maker]

IAmMetaphysical: In regards to post 193, all what I can say is "Good Job". I am sorry I misunderstood the two quotes up above, however, it is nice to know that we are both on the same page with regards to emotions.

I also really like your definition of Love, that you gave. However, I don't think love is caused by an intense amount of liking, it is an intense amount of valuing something and knowing why you value it. I also think the inverse is true as well, that one can hate something because there is an intense amount of disliking caused by a knowledge of how anti-life something is.

Sophia: in regards to post 194, I agree with this sentence "It is not through the words that you show what you value, it is through your actions." I live by a shorter version of this motto: Show Me, Don't Tell Me. In fact, the moment a person starts telling me that they have value X, I start getting really suspicious of them (e.g. when someone tells me they are honest).

Of course, I don't agree with everything that you say, like in post number 197. You said "Why is intense love, like the kind Franscisco felt for Dagny, important to a human being? I guess one could live without it but that is not the life I envision for myself." Maybe its me, skimming over that part in Atlas Shrugged (honestly, I never liked fiction of any kind, but I can tolerate literature), but I don't remember that part that well. How do you know what Franscisco felt for Dagny (besides the actions)?

Also, you asked the question, "why is intense love ... important to a human being"? I don't know. I do know that its not important to living or to life. I vowed NEVER to have that intense love ever in my life because I am not a slave, nor do I seek a slave. However, if I'm wrong, then reality will correct my errors (which means, no doubt, death).

You also said "I do think that it takes certain level of bravery to allow a person to become very important to you and your happiness. Bravery - because there is a risk involved - you may experience a loss. The higher importance of this person to you, the bigger the loss maybe. However, I do not operate out of fear and I am not looking for a man who does."

First of all how do you "allow" a person to become important to you? I don't see how that's possible, the method how an individual can allow another person to become important.

You also said that it requires bravely to allow that person in. To be brave about something means that one would have to make a conscious choice to engage in an action, to know the risk of the action, and then to engage in that action. Because I don't know how an individual can let someone be important to them, to their happiness, therefore, there is no conscious decision to be made. No conscious decision, no bravery.

Do I operate my life out of loosing things of value or importance to me? Nope. I do what gives me pleasure in my life, and if those things may have some degree of risk, I still engage in them (as long as I get pleasure out of it).

[aequalsa]

To use Atlas Shrugged as an example: Dagny should have still felt sexual desire for Reardan, and sexual desire for Francisco, even after she met Galt (and in fact she did). Since none of them changed, there is no reason why her emotions for X be affected by Y.

Often times literature is an excellent way to convey a complex idea. I am wondering what you think John Galt would have said if Dagny had stated to Galt that she was still attracted to Francisco and Rearden and would continue sleeping with them....Galt would still be her highest value but she also values these other men....she would try not to have their schedules interefere... yada, yada...Would he have understood and acquiesced to the demand?