Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

Rate this topic


Anastassia Florine

Recommended Posts

I am going to respond but I want to make it clear that I do not wish to get deeply into this discussion again because this is a difference in values.

the sample was taken from a monogamous population indoctrinated into monogamy, for which any straying would create immense guilt. No wonder that sexual satisfaction increased with lack of guilt.

What is your evidence for your claim that guilt is the issue?

I personally don't feel any type of pressure to conform to any standards other than those which I have decided to be rational and proper for me. I would not have felt any guilt if in fact that lifestyle would positively contribute to my romantic goals and thus long term happiness.

However, having sex with someone other than your spouse doesn't trigger guilt in swinger couples.

What couples? 70% of respondents in this study were male! 25% of respondents admitted that jealousy is an issue. Plus this study specifically targeted people who treat sex casually and equate sexual satisfaction with sexual variety.

And this was interesting:

It appears that swingers, while valuing marriage and emotional monogamy as much as non-swinging couples...

Really? Hmm... I wonder why that is the case. If sexual variety if of rational long term benefit - why not emotional variety as well? Think of all of the emotional "values" you would be missing out on. /sarcasm off

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Live Forever or Die Trying,

Are you the same person who commented on my blog yesterday, on the same topic, referencing the same study (on swingers), making an identical argument to the one above, and posting under the name Laura Kipnis? If so, you should know that posting under someone else's name, especially a recognized intellectual in their field, is highly unethical and probably illegal.

Laura Kipnis is a professor at Northwestern University who wrote "Against Love: a Polemic," in which she supported extramarital affairs as beneficial to marriage. When you click on the name "Laura Kipnis" in Blogger, the link goes to a discussion of this book, so clearly the poster was intimating that he/she is, in fact, Laura Kipnis. I emailed Ms. Kipnis to let her know that I responded to her comment. She quickly wrote me back to tell me that she did not write the comments that were posted under her name. At her request, I have deleted these comments. I also notified Blogger that someone was using Ms Kipnis's name to post comments.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
<br />Live Forever or Die Trying,<br /><br />Are you the same person who commented on my <a href="http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2007/04/morality-of-monogamy.html" target="_blank">blog</a> yesterday

Yes, that was me. I simply intended to link to the review, not pretend I'm Laura Kipnis. I apologize for the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having searched through the other threads myself, I haven't found any post that directly addresses this (or where everyone reaches one conclusion). My personal response to this would be that this statement is inaccurate - and that I, and other members on this board, HAVE found a single person that fulfills all of our needs (intellectually, sexually, etc).

Catherine,

That is a fortunate case because your romantic and sexual needs needs do not extend beyond the realm of one person.

But, as a poster on Dan's blog pointed out, what if someone is bisexual or likes threesomes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having searched through the other threads myself, I haven't found any post that directly addresses this (or where everyone reaches one conclusion). My personal response to this would be that this statement is inaccurate - and that I, and other members on this board, HAVE found a single person that fulfills all of our needs (intellectually, sexually, etc).

Catherine,

That is a fortunate case because your romantic and sexual needs needs do not extend beyond the realm of one person.

But, as a poster on Dan's blog pointed out, what if someone is bisexual or likes threesomes?

I can't speak to threesomes, but as far as I know of from folks I've observed being bisexual has nothing to do with wanting more than one partner. Bisexuals can love/be attracted to men or women, but that doesn't mean that many bisexuals wouldn't be perfectly content to settle down with one man or one woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to threesomes, but as far as I know of from folks I've observed being bisexual has nothing to do with wanting more than one partner. Bisexuals can love/be attracted to men or women, but that doesn't mean that many bisexuals wouldn't be perfectly content to settle down with one man or one woman.

I have a very good female friend who is bisexual. She is not at all content just desiring women. In a past relationship, her boyfriend demanded sexual exclusivity, and she resented the limitation. The materialization of her desire for both genders is a necessity for her. That is a fact. Of course, she could give up desiring women, just to be sexually monogamous to her man, but why? That would equate to heterosexual people becoming asexual: why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very good female friend who is bisexual. She is not at all content just desiring women. In a past relationship, her boyfriend demanded sexual exclusivity, and she resented the limitation. The materialization of her desire for both genders is a necessity for her. That is a fact. Of course, she could give up desiring women, just to be sexually monogamous to her man, but why? That would equate to heterosexual people becoming asexual: why?

What does being exclusive to her man have to do with giving up desiring women? Do you NEED to sleep with everyone you desire? Do you think a married person/person otherwise committed pairwise stops desiring others? To use the old turn of phrase, "I'm married, not DEAD." Thus, your analogy is still flawed. And if your friend resented her boyfriend's limitation, she shouldn't be with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does being exclusive to her man have to do with giving up desiring women? Do you NEED to sleep with everyone you desire? Do you think a married person/person otherwise committed pairwise stops desiring others? To use the old turn of phrase, "I'm married, not DEAD." Thus, your analogy is still flawed. And if your friend resented her boyfriend's limitation, she shouldn't be with him.

My friend did break up with that boyfriend, but let's get back on topic:

Bisexuals can love/be attracted to men or women, but that doesn't mean that many bisexuals wouldn't be perfectly content to settle down with one man or one woman.

What do you mean by "settle down"? I assumed "Be sexually exclusive with". In that case, my post simply says that a bisexual person who becomes exclusive with a partner of a given gender, will never be able to have sex with the other gender. For many truly bisexual people, this (i.e. just desiring sex with the other (non-settled-down-with) gender, vs. fulfilling the desire) is a silly limitation.

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that some perfectly rational folks have a desire for threesomes. For them, sexual monogamy is clearly not the best choice.

Edited by Live forever or die trying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live Forever or Die Trying your opinion seems to be centered around the idea that sexuality is predetermined by either genetics or raising. That somehow a person who is attracted to both genders implicitly needs to have sex with both genders in order to feel sexually satisfied. This not only indicates a lack of choice when it comes to sexuality, but also a separation between sex and love.

Now in Objectivism, at least from what I have studied, it is perfectly acceptable to be polyamorous or polygamous. That is to say, in a free Objectivist society, polygamy and polyamory would not be illegal. One of the best parts about our philosophy is that even if someone else thinks something I do is 'gross' I can still do it all day long, cause other people don't have the right to stop me. I have personally thought hard on whether I would accept a polyamorous relationship, and what I would feel like. I think it would be fun sexually for a period of time, but eventually, if the person I am in love with is truly an expression of my highest value, then I would want to settle down and be monogamous. If the person could not accept that, obviously the person isn't really the expression of my highest value.

As far as bisexual people needing to have sex with both genders, I'd like to see some scientific evidence of this. Being bisexual myself in a sense (I am sexually attracted to both genders, but choose one romantically) I see that as an attempt to mask an unwillingness to commit under the guise of 'She just can't help it you know, she has to have the vagina sometimes, it's in her genes(or the way she was raised).'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live Forever or Die Trying your opinion seems to be centered around the idea that sexuality is predetermined by either genetics or raising. That somehow a person who is attracted to both genders implicitly needs to have sex with both genders in order to feel sexually satisfied. This not only indicates a lack of choice when it comes to sexuality
.

Are we still debating whether gay people are born that way, or whether then can choose to stop being gay? The same goes for bisexual people.

I have personally thought hard on whether I would accept a polyamorous relationship, and what I would feel like. I think it would be fun sexually for a period of time, but eventually, if the person I am in love with is truly an expression of my highest value, then I would want to settle down and be monogamous.

I'm not sure a distinction is made here, so I'll try to clarify:

  • polyamorous relationship = romantic non-monogamy, sexual non-monogamy
  • monogamous relationship = romantic monogamy, sexual monogamy
  • swinging = romantic monogamy, sexual non-monogamy

The comment above seems to make a false dichotomy between polyamory and monogamy. There is a third choice: swinging.

As far as bisexual people needing to have sex with both genders, I'd like to see some scientific evidence of this.

The fact that bisexual people enjoy (not "need") to have sex with both genders is a obvious to me as homosexual people enjoying sex with the same gender. If you see a difference between these two sexes, then I'll look for scientific research. Although if I were to go to an LGBT meeting and claim that I need scientific research on that, those people will laugh in my face.

Being bisexual myself in a sense (I am sexually attracted to both genders, but choose one romantically)

That sounds more like being bi-curious.

Being bisexual myself in a sense (I am sexually attracted to both genders, but choose one romantically), I see that as an attempt to mask an unwillingness to commit

Why is committing desirable? To me, it seems like a self-imposed (or partner-imposed!) limitation. I don't want my partner to commit sexually to me because she is forbidden from exploring other options; that would be the equivalent of a sexual embargo, and completely contrary to the spirit of free trade. I'd like her to choose me because I'm a better option (weighing in the cost of searching for other options etc.)

Now, of course someone bisexual could commit to one partner, and not act on their desire/need for the other gender. But why, exactly, limit themselves, and why smother that desire?

Anyways, the Wikipedia entry on Swinging, and John Stossel's research in particular, make a very good case for romantic monogamy coupled with sexual non-monogamy (more precisely, shared sexual experiences).

Edited by Live forever or die trying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The jury may still be out on whether polyamory can "work", but I swear I have never met a single person who actively claims polyamory as a lifestyle who I consider the slightest bit functional or together, and most of them are people for whom I have absolutely no respect.

Has anyone around here ever observed a polyamorous relationship that is NOT some kind of dysfunctional train wreck? I'm genuinely curious at this point, because I seriously think this is one of the dumbest ideas in vogue today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone around here ever observed a polyamorous relationship that is NOT some kind of dysfunctional train wreck? I'm genuinely curious at this point, because I seriously think this is one of the dumbest ideas in vogue today.
I'm unsure of the reasons behind why polygamy doesn't work, but I had an "oddball" friend who tried it for years, and the stories I got were disasters. "She turned out to be nuts," "He was jealous," etc.

On the other side, the movie Vicky Christina Barcelona portrayed the most convincing case for polygamy that I can imagine, although Penelope Cruz' character was pretty much crazy (though so, so beautiful).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of the reasons behind why polygamy doesn't work, but I had an "oddball" friend who tried it for years, and the stories I got were disasters. "She turned out to be nuts," "He was jealous," etc.

On the other side, the movie Vicky Christina Barcelona portrayed the most convincing case for polygamy that I can imagine, although Penelope Cruz' character was pretty much crazy (though so, so beautiful).

Haven't seen the movie...can you give me the relevant details? Don't worry about spoilers, I don't plan on seeing it any time soon (I just about never care about movie spoilers anyhow).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of the reasons behind why polygamy doesn't work, but I had an "oddball" friend who tried it for years, and the stories I got were disasters. "She turned out to be nuts," "He was jealous," etc.

On the other side, the movie Vicky Christina Barcelona portrayed the most convincing case for polygamy that I can imagine, although Penelope Cruz' character was pretty much crazy (though so, so beautiful).

How so? I saw the movie and didn't find that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allegorical evidence is not conclusive. Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit! where they discussed a polygamous family of 4, 2 husbands, 2 wives, that worked quite well. I have horror stories about my own first marriage.

Based on that evidence, polygamy is the only right form of marriage and monogamous marriage is doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allegorical evidence is not conclusive. Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit! where they discussed a polygamous family of 4, 2 husbands, 2 wives, that worked quite well. I have horror stories about my own first marriage.

Based on that evidence, polygamy is the only right form of marriage and monogamous marriage is doomed to fail.

Agreed. I also know of a poly marriage, two and two, that not only blew up spectacularly but did so all over the intarweb since they billed themselves a "model family" with blogging and such. (When I say "know of" I mean I am in the same social circle as 3 of the 4 participants). And I know of a mono marriage that was full of fail for many years and ultimately ended (that would be my parents). So anecdotes will not help, UNLESS we can identify the principles at work that contribute to the success or failure of the relationship. I can say lots of things about what makes mono relationships fail, but I couldn't specifically say what makes poly relationships fail that is distinct from what makes mono relationships fail, if there are such causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd, personally, ask "are poly relationships successful *in the same way* that mono relationships are?" Are the same emotional qualities involved? Can you achieve the same deep, fundamental emotional attachment? These are all matters of psychology and I'm not sure even psychological professionals have the knowledge or data necessary to determine the answer.

For me, personally, poly is no-go simply because I have enough problems dealing with JUST ONE PERSON. However, a line from Terry Pratchett makes me wonder if it might not actually be *easier* to deal with several people in certain contexts--when you're dealing with two or three strong-willed people having a disagreement, there's someone to act as an arbiter. But this arrangement, too, has its faults: what happens when the arbiter consistently sides with one person? When the third spouse feels that the other two are "ganging up" on him?

I don't think it's possible to say "this is the ideal relationship form and everything else is sub-optimal". It depends too much on the context, circumstances, and psychological makeups of the people involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's possible to say "this is the ideal relationship form and everything else is sub-optimal". It depends too much on the context, circumstances, and psychological makeups of the people involved.

DING DING DING! We HAVE a WINNER! :confused:

BTW - in the context of fiction inspired consideration, if you want to see a different take on polygamy and other forms of open sexuality (including incestuous - to which I can only say yuck), read Robert Heinlein. Only from his writing could you legitimately consider the question, If you clone yourself but make yourself female, and then sleep with the clone, are you engaging in incest or masturbation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's possible to say "this is the ideal relationship form and everything else is sub-optimal". It depends too much on the context, circumstances, and psychological makeups of the people involved.

Maybe I'm confused on this point, but I thought Rand felt otherwise (whether or not that opinion was actually part of Oism). She seemed to be saying, or at least some people on this board interpret her as saying, that there was something of an ideal romance. Now, if this is her opinion, I don't agree, as her conceptions of masculinity and femininity seem to be deeply intertwined with the concept of an ideal romance, and I don't experience my sexuality anything like she describes. I still think much of what she has to say about sex and romance is valuable though.

I suppose I am more goal-oriented in my outlook on relationships than most people. I look to build something that can survive for the long-haul, or I don't bother. I think there is something to be said for learning who you are and figuring out what you want out of relationships, which could involve some seriality, especially in youth. But other than that, I don't see what the point is in deliberately setting yourself up for a short-term or totally uncommitted endeavor, and I don't think anything good can be said about casual sex. So what do you really get out of opening a relationship? I think other important questions, for me at least, revolve around what a person of self-esteem would do. For example, I can't see a person of self-esteem ever consenting to a relationship where they are "secondary".

Relationships are definitely more flexible than most people give them credit for, that's probably true. But I think there are destructive relationship patterns, regardless of the number of people involved, that can be commonly identified and then, hopefully, avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, madkat, but I'm trying to point out that this is a hugely complex psychological question, and psychology is an infant science at best, so no one can answer this question generally, you can only answer it for yourself on the basis of your personal experience and psychological makeup. It is not against forming an answer for yourself that I wanted to caution people, but against generalizing on the basis of self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, madkat, but I'm trying to point out that this is a hugely complex psychological question, and psychology is an infant science at best, so no one can answer this question generally, you can only answer it for yourself on the basis of your personal experience and psychological makeup. It is not against forming an answer for yourself that I wanted to caution people, but against generalizing on the basis of self.

Oh. Roger that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...