Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[Inspector]

Geez, if the above is not "argument from intimidation" I don't know what is.

It's not an argument. It is my own amazement. Don't misconstrue it as being an argument or attempt at intimidation. I know the medium of the web doesn't always convey everything, but I am genuinely surprised.

[Ifat Glassman]

Let's take one step back. Before asking why a rational person would want to share someone else's love with another object of that love, ask: why would a rational person want someone else's love in the first place? I mean, if love is a response to values, and that's all there is to it, why would anyone care if that love is reciprocated?

Somebody would want their love reciprocated because of several reasons. I would start with the most obvious one:

• When love is mutual, it opens the option of physical consummation of that love, which is enjoyable.
  
• The simple fact of seeing someone you love feel the same for you is enjoyable, which is a reward for who you are, and what you achieved.
  
• Knowing that someone you love feel the same for you is a form of justice (assuming your love is a response to values that actually exist in the other person), in the sense that it indicates that no mistakes of judgement are made by both sides: If you love someone for some traits, you probably have those traits yourself. If they don't love you back because of those same traits it means that there is no justice, someone is faking or holding bad ideas, which would mean that either you are mistaken in your judgement of that person (and then you lose a value), or that they are correct in not feeling for you and those traits that you love in them do not exist in you (for example, you betrayed them in some way). Each option is painful. So one would want their love reciprocated as a way of confirming that there is justice in one's world.
  

The last point isn't relevant to the topic, I think, but it is needed to make my answer complete.

[Whoisjohngalt]

...and you should understand that whether it is good, and whether it violates rights, are two separate questions. ...But I detect you might be discovering that right now.

True If given a choice, I would not be a polygamist. Edited October 19, 2006 by Whoisjohngalt

[mrocktor]

You're assuming it's an issue of Ethics (i.e. a non-optional decision).

Every choice, qua choice, is an issue of ethics. Still, they are contextual.

Sorry sN, for an optional decision your question is completely valid.

but it is needed to make my answer complete.

That was very good Ifat.

[Ifat Glassman]

Of course monogamy is practiced because people are unwilling to share.

Okay, Inspector, since this is so patently obvious to you, I will now ask you for the answers (too late to back down now, muhahaha):

Suppose your mate would only be with another man on times that she could not have spent with you anyway, and suppose the other relationship would not lessen her energy when she is with you: what would be the reason why you wouldn't want her to have it?

Edit: Forgot to say: Thanks mrocktor, for your last comment. I needed to hear it.

Edited October 19, 2006 by ifatart

[Inspector]

Suppose your mate would only be with another man on times that she could not have spent with you anyway, and suppose the other relationship would not lessen her energy when she is with you: what would be the reason why you wouldn't want her to have it?

Because she is mine. The very thought of another man so much as touching her makes my blood boil; just reading your question my pulse is up and I can feel the adrenaline course through me. I'll also note that I took cognizance, at that moment, of the location of my gun.

[mrocktor]

Because she is mine. The very thought of another man so much as touching her makes my blood boil; just reading your question my pulse is up and I can feel the adrenaline course through me. I'll also note that I took cognizance, at that moment, of the location of my gun.

So you think you own a person?

[Inspector]

So you think you own a person?

I said, she is mine. I don't think she is mine, I know it. We tell each other all the time.

I'm insulted by the tone of your post. (i.e. So you think you "x?") I thought I made it clear in my last post how seriously I take my marriage.

Try to exercise some manners when asking questions about and making implications about someone's marriage.

Everyone: tread lightly when talking about something this deeply personal. Avoid even discussing such matters on this forum if it can at all be helped.

Mrocktor and Ifat: consider carefully the necessity of asking such questions. Don't get into personal subjects like this if you can think of a way to avoid it. I'm granting you both the benefit of the doubt on the idea that you are asking these kind of questions because you lack these concepts. But that benefit only extends so far.

[Ifat Glassman]

Because she is mine. The very thought of another man so much as touching her makes my blood boil; just reading your question my pulse is up and I can feel the adrenaline course through me. I'll also note that I took cognizance, at that moment, of the location of my gun.

I asked why do you want what you want, not to describe to me how strongly you do not want. Why do you feel, and not how do you feel.

And I see no other way of getting this question answered but to ask someone who can (hopefully) explain their reasoning behind this feeling. I don't see how this question is personal. I didn't even know you were married when I asked it. I am after the reasons, and not your love life (as I have stated before in another thread ).

[RationalBiker]

I see no reason why the topic of polygamy need give rise to strong emotional responses. No one needs bring their personal life into it, and if they do, then they have only themselves to blame (as I know full well in another thread where I brought up a personal interest). If the topic generates that much of an emotional response, one can always choose not to participate. I think we can also take judicial notice of the fact that all the forum participants are from the planet Earth so no further inquires of that nature are necessary.

Edited October 20, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Inspector]

I asked why do you want what you want, not to describe to me how strongly you do not want. Why do you feel, and not how do you feel.

Check the first four words.

As for the rest, all I ask is that you do your best to avoid getting personal.

[RationalBiker]

Ayn Rand was once asked "Is an open relationship consisting of one man and two women immoral?"

Two quotes from her reply stand out to me;

Not necessarily, though usually it would be.

and;

As a general principle, be very careful about passing judgment on the romances of others. Do not pass judgment unless you know something is improper, and so don't wish to deal with that person. If you are not personally involved, don't pass judgment.

- Ford Hall Forum, '68 (Ayn Rand Answers - pg. 138) Edited October 20, 2006 by RationalBiker

[mrocktor]

I said, she is mine. I don't think she is mine, I know it. We tell each other all the time.

Well, I'll break it to you: you don't own her no matter what you say (or she does). A being with rights cannot be owned.

I'm insulted by the tone of your post. (i.e. So you think you "x?")

Acknowleged. That was inapropriate.

I thought I made it clear in my last post how seriously I take my marriage.

Try to exercise some manners when asking questions about and making implications about someone's marriage.

Everyone: tread lightly when talking about something this deeply personal. Avoid even discussing such matters on this forum if it can at all be helped.

(...)consider carefully the necessity of asking such questions. Don't get into personal subjects like this if you can think of a way to avoid it.

You brought your personal life into the discussion. I will certainly treat you respectfully but if you can't stand to have your opinions questioned and judged, you shouldn't be posting them here.

You have offered no basis for your claim that its "obvious" that someone would not share romantic involvement, by claiming "ownership" of a person you have flaunted a basic element of Objectivist Ethics (that each individual life is an end in itself). Your emotion does nothing to support your opinion - quite the contrary.

mrocktor

[~Sophia~]

What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"? Suppose the time Dagny would spend with Francisco would not be at the expense of the time she could have spent with Galt (for example, she would sleep with Francisco once a month when Galt is not available anyway).

(bold mine)

I am one of those people who would not want to share or be shared.

After Dagny met Galt she did not have a need to have a romantic relationship with any other man. Her needs, desires, wants were perfectly satisfied, her values perfectly matched. He was enough for her in every way and he gave her the same response that she was also enough for him to be perfectly satisfied romantically in ever which way. That is the ideal which I am unwilling to give up. It is something I want to have in my life. For me finding a person with whom I can achieve such mutual complete satisfaction and being able to maintain it long term is the key to romantic happiness in it's perfect, ideal, most satisfying form. I want to have that kind of ultimate long term intimacy/connection with a man.

I know that the qualities that both people must possess to make this happen, especially when it comes to maintaing such high level of mutual satisfaction long term are very high. I want to work towards it and I expect similar commitment from my romantic partner.

I don't think polygamy/polyandry is irrational ether, but I consider it a lesser choice. Some people maybe willing to accept it - I am not willing to do so. I am not willing to give up on achieving the ideal. I am not intersted in having a long term romantic relationship with a person who is not enough for me or for whom I am not enough. I want to find my match, close enough match so that we both can be perfectly happy and satisfied with each other without the need for additional romantic partners on ether side.

[Ifat Glassman]

After Dagny met Galt she did not have a need to have a romantic relationship with any other man. Her needs, desires, wants were perfectly satisfied, her values perfectly matched. He was enough for her in every way and he gave her the same response that she was also enough for him to be perfectly satisfied romantically in ever which way. That is the ideal which I am unwilling to give up.

Okay, going to give you some hard time now:

You are talking about "needs, desires, wants" as having some quota that one has to fill. I don't think that this is entirely true for people. I think that the needs, desires, etc' are also a direct response to someone who has one's values.

In other words, one does not have a "need to love" that is filled by 1 or 2 people. Instead, one can feel love for whomever has those required traits that one values deeply.

In the same way, one can have a sexual desire for as many people as one finds matching one's highest values.

Now, I agree that time is a limited resource, and that if you love someone more than other men you would want to spend your free time with him. However, his existence does not mean you would stop seeing your other friends, right?

Dagny would not stop seeing Rearden, Francisco and other friends she might make just because she has Galt (talking about after she is in the valley after saving Galt). Why then, can she not use her time with, say, Francisco to express her emotion for him? I just showed that the limited resource is not time.

Okay, bet you are going to say that sexual activity is the limited resource. I agree that there is a limit to one's ability to engage in sexual activity (physically), but it is not so limited that having sex once a month with another man will not allow a woman to have another sexual relationship.

I just showed that this is not the limited resource as well.

It is something deeper than just limited resources. I just don't get what it is.

[mrocktor]

That was a well written and thought out post Sophia. My question to you is, how can you have "enough" values?

EDIT: ifat beat me again...

Edited October 20, 2006 by mrocktor

[~Sophia~]

You are talking about "needs, desires, wants" as having some quota that one has to fill. I don't think that this is entirely true for people. I think that the needs, desires, etc' are also a direct response to someone who has one's values.

There is no quota but a state of total romantic satisfaction is possible to achieve. Ether one is satisfied or one is not. If "enough value" was not possible at all because there is always more value to be gained then two people would not satisfy you, nor three, nor four... and so on. So there is a state of 'enough' in which one is perfectly happy and content and does not feel the need, does not have desire for different or more.

It is like after you just had a wonderful meal, which was exactly what you wanted. You feel no more hunger or food cravings - you have no desire to eat more. There is a feeling of full satisfaction. There is more food arround, which looks very delicious but you have no desire for it.

It is the same satisfying 'enough' as the feeling you get after you just had a wonderful, long lasting, unhibited, multiple , sexual encounter. Other people may a well do not exist at that moment, you have no need for them.

I want to provide enough value to a man and be provided with enough value by him so we could achieve this state of total romantic satisfaction being only with each other. For me it is a goal worth striving for.

I have experienced it in the past and I want it again. In my personal opinion, if you are not giving yourself a chance at achieving it (by spreading yourself among many people) - you are missing out at something absolutely wonderful. But of course - you may not want it, it may not be your goal. Which is fine. I accept it as an alternate choice.

You have asked for rational reasons for choosing the path of monogamy - so I gave my answer.

Now, I agree that time is a limited resource, and that if you love someone more than other men you would want to spend your free time with him. However, his existence does not mean you would stop seeing your other friends, right? Dagny would not stop seeing Rearden, Francisco and other friends she might make just because she has Galt (talking about after she is in the valley after saving Galt).

The requirements for friendship are very different, meaning a lot lower (and of much lower importance to me) than those for satisfying, long term romantic relationship.

This is not an issue of having limited resources. It is damaging to the intimacy of a romantic relationship to have other lovers. What you will have as a result is a lot less than what I am describing above. Among many other things, acting on sexual desire toward another man would send a message to my romantic partner that he is not enough for me sexually or in some other psychologically intimate way (sex is not only physical). It would mean that have a need that is not fulfilled by him.

Plus I don't understand it... if you are totaly in love with your 'soul mate' and he is THE ONE, your highest value, no other man matches your values more closely than this man and he is equally in love with you - what would be rational reasons for looking for sexual encounters with lesser than him men? Why would I desire lesser than him men? It has never happened to me.

I has happend to me that I was attracted to more than one man at a time, in my life, but it was when nether of those men was THE ONE. That is however not what I want for my life. I am not willing to compromise what I know is possible.

[Matus1976]

So you think you own a person?

Isnt she hers? If there is something that compels her to the bed of another man, by what right do you demand she sacrifice that part of herself? Love is based on admiration and *respect*, demanding someone do something other than be true to themselves is demanding not only a sacrifice, but that they be someone other than who they are.

[Matus1976]

Okay, going to give you some hard time now:

You are talking about "needs, desires, wants" as having some quota that one has to fill. I don't think that this is entirely true for people. I think that the needs, desires, etc' are also a direct response to someone who has one's values.

In other words, one does not have a "need to love" that is filled by 1 or 2 people. Instead, one can feel love for whomever has those required traits that one values deeply.

In the same way, one can have a sexual desire for as many people as one finds matching one's highest values.

Now, I agree that time is a limited resource, and that if you love someone more than other men you would want to spend your free time with him. However, his existence does not mean you would stop seeing your other friends, right?

Dagny would not stop seeing Rearden, Francisco and other friends she might make just because she has Galt (talking about after she is in the valley after saving Galt). Why then, can she not use her time with, say, Francisco to express her emotion for him? I just showed that the limited resource is not time.

I agree Ifat, one can certainly have a sexual desire for many people and one can even love and respect many people. They can also, rationally and in a healthy relationship, be polygamist. Moving to monogamy, to me, is a tribute. It is the highst honor one could pay another person. It is saying that the deepest and most physically intimate interaction possible to man is something I choose to share only with you, and no one else, ever. Love is not dependant on the physical expression of those emotions, so Dagny could still love Reardon and Francisco, and they would still love her. They are all still the same people with the same principles and convictions. But Dagny chooses only to physically express that admiration and joy with the most important person to her. Thats the way I see it anyhow.

[Inspector]

Well, I'll break it to you: you don't own her no matter what you say (or she does). A being with rights cannot be owned.

Don't you dare tell me that. If you aren't going to approach this respectfully, this discussion is over.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Inspector

[Inspector]

So there is a state of 'enough' in which one is perfectly happy and content and does not feel the need, does not have desire for different or more.

Yes, thank you. People assume there is some kind of sacrifice involved. There is not. This is about choosing the greatest value (monogamy with the one you love) and not sacrificing it.

This is not an issue of having limited resources. It is damaging to the intimacy of a romantic relationship to have other lovers. What you will have as a result is a lot less than what I am describing above. Among many other things, acting on sexual desire toward another man would send a message to my romantic partner that he is not enough for me sexually or in some other psychologically intimate way (sex is not only physical). It would mean that have a need that is not fulfilled by him.

Again, yes, thank you.

Plus I don't understand it... if you are totaly in love with your 'soul mate' and he is THE ONE, your highest value, no other man matches your values more closely than this man and he is equally in love with you - what would be rational reasons for looking for sexual encounters with lesser than him men? Why would I desire lesser than him men? It has never happened to me.

Perfect. Exactly.

I will say that I do not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some people may choose polygamy; that it is the best thing for them given their circumstances. But:

1) It is inappropriate for the all-consuming kind of love that I know, and that is between, say, Galt and Dagny.

2) The possibility that I acknowledge is theoretical at best. I don't understand why anyone would want that kind of thing; I suppose if the kind of thing I know was impossible to them (and they knew this, somehow). Just because I can't envision it, doesn't make it impossible though. So I acknowledge (but doubt) the possibility.

Isnt she hers? If there is something that compels her to the bed of another man, by what right do you demand she sacrifice that part of herself? Love is based on admiration and *respect*, demanding someone do something other than be true to themselves is demanding not only a sacrifice, but that they be someone other than who they are.

You've got it completely backwards (and your tone is disrespectful). I am tempted not to answer.

But for others who want to know: There is nothing that would compel either of us to be with another. That's the whole point. This ownership is something earned; something given voluntarily. And something wonderful.

Moving to monogamy, to me, is a tribute. It is the highst honor one could pay another person. It is saying that the deepest and most physically intimate interaction possible to man is something I choose to share only with you, and no one else, ever. Love is not dependant on the physical expression of those emotions, so Dagny could still love Reardon and Francisco, and they would still love her. They are all still the same people with the same principles and convictions. But Dagny chooses only to physically express that admiration and joy with the most important person to her. Thats the way I see it anyhow.

If you understand this, then why your comment to me above? Don't you get it that I'm describing the same thing?

Edited October 21, 2006 by Inspector

[~Sophia~]

Moving to monogamy, to me, is a tribute. It is the highst honor one could pay another person. It is saying that the deepest and most physically intimate interaction possible to man is something I choose to share only with you, and no one else, ever. Love is not dependant on the physical expression of those emotions, so Dagny could still love Reardon and Francisco, and they would still love her. They are all still the same people with the same principles and convictions. But Dagny chooses only to physically express that admiration and joy with the most important person to her. Thats the way I see it anyhow.

Yes!

[Inspector]

Ifat,

A thought occurs: When you say that you don't see why one wouldn't want to spend spare time with other lovers, I think you're looking at the act of sex as just something fun to do with people you like. It's not like playing checkers; the value and purpose of sex is primarily spiritual, not physical. It's an act of romatic intimacy. The point of monogamy is that the value of increasing this intimacy is greater than any value one could gain by being with anyone else on earth. This is what it meant by "true love."

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifat,

A thought occurs: When you say that you don't see why one wouldn't want to spend spare time with other lovers, I think you're looking at the act of sex as just something fun to do with people you like. It's not like playing checkers; the value and purpose of sex is primarily spiritual, not physical. It's an act of romantic intimacy.

Hell, no: I don't see sex as some casual activity on a bored afternoon (lol!). This is why I gave the example of Dagny, Galt and Francisco: all of them shared each other's highest values.

The point of monogamy is that the value of increasing this intimacy is greater than any value one could gain by being with anyone else on earth. This is what it meant by "true love."

Ah, now you're talking.

What is intimacy, and how does one increase it by not expressing one's sexual desire for someone else? Again, keep in mind that I am not talking about a situation in which one has exclusive desire for one person, but that they do have a fully-established, fully-justified desire for two people, it's just a question of whether or not they act on it.

I agree that the relationship would be special if both people had sole desire for each other, but if they don't, how will acting like they do make it special? Isn't this like a reversed case when one buys something to make oneself believe he has the traits required to own it?

[sophia, I'm going to read your post later today and respond to it.]

[Inspector]

Hell, no

Well, then check your premises...

What is intimacy, and how does one increase it by not expressing one's sexual desire for someone else?

You're assuming that a person would have such a desire. Desires don't come from a vacuum; they reflect our values. Would someone of integrated values have two desires that conflict? If the value of the intimacy is greater than any value to be gained sexually from any other, and if engaging in such activities destroys the intimacy (the greater value), then on what basis would an integrated man experience such desire for others?