Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[Ifat Glassman]

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 around, 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, inhibited, multiple , sexual encounter. Other people may a well do not exist at that moment, you have no need for them.

Basically, you repeated your previous post. So basically, I am going to repeat my arguments again. I'll try to explain it better this time: I acknowledge that one has a limited amount of time, and limited ability to engage in sex. So after sex with one man, of course you would have no desire for having sex with someone else. But I wasn't talking about short term.

To annihilate this "but after a meal I am full" argument, let's suppose that your lover has gone away for a month for business. Galt is gone, but Francisco is there. Bye-bye argument of "but I am satisfied". No more. Now explain to me why you wouldn't have sex with Francisco.

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.

LOL!! I'll see if I can reduce the amount of men I am dating at the moment, though I think mathematically a division by zero is meaningless (hmm, maybe I can divide myself between -2 men)...

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.

you are giving two different arguments here: one is the value of intimacy (which needs to be explained further) and the other one is the message of not-fully-satisfied.

As for the fully-satisfied by one argument:

To use your example of a meal correctly: Suppose there are two chefs in town. One cooks wonderful chinese food, and the other cooks Italian. The Chinese chef is superb, so most of the time when you are hungry, you go eat at his place. But sometimes, even though Chinese is great, you have a craving for Italian. (Gee I can't believe I stooped so low to compare men to food, but as long as the metaphor works...). In the short term, you can only have one meal at a time, but in the long-term, you can choose to eat the food of the two chefs.

Plus I don't understand it... if you are totally 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?

I would still have a desire for the lesser man, because he still holds some of my highest values. And as long as he has them, my emotional response to him remains the same. The existence of a better man cannot change that.

As long as I have a desire for this other man, there is a value to be gained by consummating that emotion.

I can be completely in love with someone but still attracted deeply to someone else (I think, at least I don't see a logical reason why not).

I think the only argument you have left now that Galt has left town for business (or a physics convention) is intimacy.

[Ifat Glassman]

Moving to monogamy, to me, is a tribute. It is the highest 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.

If someone is giving me such an honor by denying their feelings, or putting a wedge between their feelings and actions, then no thanks. What would it give me if my lover wanted another woman (as well), but would simply not express it physically?

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?

Inspector, it is exactly because values do not exist in vacuum that it is possible to have a sexual desire for two people at a time. And those desires do not conflict exactly because they are a response to the same values.

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?

You need to make a distinction between having a desire and acting on it. If you look at the example of Dagny that I gave, you can see that it is possible and reasonable for someone to have a sexual desire for two people at a time.

Again, I ask you, what do you mean by intimacy? How will a sexual relationship with another person ruins intimacy?

[Inspector]

Inspector, it is exactly because values do not exist in vacuum that it is possible to have a sexual desire for two people at a time. And those desires do not conflict exactly because they are a response to the same values.

No, you are wrong. I will give the example of a delicious poison. The taste of it is a value, and by your logic a man should experience a response to that value even though it would come at the price of a higher value (his health). But a man of integrated mind, who knows that it is poison, will not experience any desire for it. To do so would be to desire the sacrifice of a greater value for a lesser one.

A rational, integrated man does not experience emotions that conflict with his values. Contradictions don't exist in reality, so if you experience one emotionally you need to check your premises. A man who has checked them thoroughly will not experience desires of the kind you speak of. And this has nothing to do with suppression. The emotion will not exist at all.

[~Sophia~]

Ifat, I think you have misunderstood my last post.

I have directly stated further down in my post that this is NOT a matter of not having unlimited resources. What you called 'but after a meal I am full' argument was my response to the question: Can you have enough values? What I wanted to show was that there is such a thing as a state of satisfaction in romance, at which point, it is not a sacrifice not to pursue romantic relationships with other people.

This is what Dagny and Galt had with each other. After meeting Galt, Dagny still responded to Francisco by finding him attractive and appreciating his value but she no longer had a desire to act on that appreciation. She had Galt in her life. To sleep with Franscisco would be sacrificing her higher value for a lesser one.

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifat, I think you have misunderstood my last post.

I have directly stated further down in my post that this is NOT a matter of not having unlimited resources. What you called 'but after a meal I am full' argument was my response to the question: Can you have enough values? What I wanted to show was that there is such a thing as a state of satisfaction in romance, at which point, it is not a sacrifice not to pursue romantic relationships with other people.

So what about my question about what happens if Galt leaves town for a month?

And I don't understand how can you say "it is not a matter of not having unlimited resources" and then on the next line say "There is a quota for one's physical and mental satisfaction".

This is what Dagny and Galt had with each other. After meeting Galt, Dagny still responded to Francisco by finding him attractive and appreciating his value but she no longer had a desire to act on that appreciation. She had Galt in her life. To sleep with Francisco would be sacrificing her higher value for a lesser one.

How is it possible to be deeply attracted to someone and yet not have a desire to act on it?

Isn't it like saying "oh, my judgement of you is very positive, and I love you, but I no longer have the desire to hug you"?

As for your delicious poison inspector: How would you explain Dagny's sexual desire for Francisco when she was in the valley? Irrationality?

[Inspector]

This is what Dagny and Galt had with each other. After meeting Galt, Dagny still responded to Francisco by finding him attractive and appreciating his value but she no longer had a desire to act on that appreciation. She had Galt in her life. To sleep with Franscisco would be sacrificing her higher value for a lesser one.

While you are right, I think your presentation of the food analogy was problematic. I understand that you only meant by it that one, like someone who is full does not desire additional food, does not even feel a desire to be with others. But it's a bad analogy because with food one will get hungry again and always want some other variety of food (variety being a value to the palette), etc. It tends to confuse people because you're not using it to compare the situation to food in that way. But they assume they can run with the analogy, as Ifat did.

My constructive criticism is to maybe abandon that analogy in the future. Hope that helps.

As you said, "To sleep with Francisco would be sacrificing her higher value for a lesser one." And that's what this is about.

How is it possible to be deeply attracted to someone and yet not have a desire to act on it?

How is it possible to smell delicious poison, but, knowing that it is both delicious and poison, have no desire to eat it?

As for your delicious poison inspector: How would you explain Dagny's sexual desire for Francisco when she was in the valley? Irrationality?

Without knowing the exact scene you're referring to, I would assume that Dagny hasn't made her final decision on Galt yet. Perhaps she hadn't fully fallen for him at that point.

If you could give me page numbers I could go look it up.

[Ifat Glassman]

Without knowing the exact scene you're referring to, I would assume that Dagny hasn't made her final decision on Galt yet. Perhaps she hadn't fully fallen for him at that point.

If you could give me page numbers I could go look it up.

Can't give you page numbers, I have an Hebrew translation of AS (Yeah, I know, should read it in English sometime).

I am talking about the scene in which Dagny is at Francisco's house, and he is showing her his new design of a furnace. I've tried to translate, but it sounds too horrible.

And Dagny has wanted Galt from the first moment she saw him. It was love at first sight. It took only 4 days for her to want him enough to decide she doesn't want to move to Francisco's house when offered. Given her feelings for Francisco, I would say it says quite a lot. She is offered to move a day after the scene I am talking about (and after she discovered the truth about Francisco).

Anyway, there is no need to look up scenes in AS: There is no logical reason why emotions for someone disappear upon meeting another person. You can either take Ayn Rand's word on it, or realize it yourself.

If you want Ayn Rand's word for it, here is my crappy translation for ya:

"Francisco, I loved you so much - " Dagny said and stopped her breath, amazed, realizing she did not mean to say it, and not in past tense"

"But you still love me", said Francisco calmly, smiling. "You still love me - even if there is one expression for that love that you will always feel and want, but will never give me again. I am still what I was, and you will always see it and give me the same love, even if there is a bigger one you would give another man. No matter what you feel for him, it will not change your feeling for me. And it would not be a betrayal in either one of us, since it comes from the same source, it's the same payment in exchange for the same values. No matter what happens in the future, we will always remain what we were to one another, you and me, because you will always love me".

So there.

[Inspector]

So there.

<chuckle>

I will hold off reply to the text until I find it in the English version. Rand chose her words carefully and I will go by what she chose.

But I will say this for now: I don't say that one won't feel anything for other people, or even not love; what I say an integrated man won't feel is the emotion of desire to sleep with them.

[mrocktor]

Inspector,

I think I came on way too hard because of the use of the word "ownership". It has a specific meaning and definition - and it does not fit beings with rights. That is a fact. I'm sorry you find that offensive, it is not meant so.

You see disrespect where there is none. I am not questioning your values or emotions nor am I criticising your choices. I am questioning your logic. In the subsequent discussion with Ifat your point of view has been expanded and detailed - that is good.

But I will say this for now: I don't say that one won't feel anything for other people, or even not love; what I say an integrated man won't feel is the emotion of desire to sleep with them.

If romantic attraction is a response to values and if, by your own admission, you still love others while in a relationship - how exactly does it follow that there is no desire to sleep with them?

It is not a contradiction to feel attracted to multiple people you love - it is a contradiction to love multiple people and not feel attracted to some of them. Whether you should act on the attraction or not, is the question. That you should be free to do so is not debatable (and I mean this strictly in terms of the government's intervention).

[~Sophia~]

If romantic attraction is a response to values and if, by your own admission, you still love others while in a relationship - how exactly does it follow that there is no desire to sleep with them?

I think the love Dagny felt for Francisco, after she met Galt, changed from being the passionate romantic love to being a less consuming one - more of a platonic kind (well maybe not all the way there but certainly more on that side of the scale). Don't forget that she also still loved Hank. Romantically however, she was consumed with her desire for Galt and only Galt.

We often still love our past romantic lovers in case the relationship ended for reasons other than it not being a good one (it can happen). When we look back, we still think of them fondly but that love is not the kind we may feel for our current lover. We don't think of sleeping with them even if they lived next door.

In case of Dagny and Franscisco, it was also an unusal situation in which there was a lot of unfinished business with them. Dagny did not understand why he left her, knowing that he did love her, for years, which prevented her from reaching full closure. She met Galt and found out the reason almost at the same time. That scene, which Ifatart mentioned, was a moment of understanding and of closure for both Dagny and Francisco in which he could finally tell her why he abandoned their love and his work. She finally understood that he had good reasons.

I find Dagny/Francisco situation as unique. Normally to fall in love with someone, to feel this deep passionate love for them, you have to be arround them a lot and get to know them well (you have to be directly and for some time exposed to the values they possess to develop strong romantic response). In order to do all of that you have to take resources away from your current relationship. In essence you have to make a decision, you have allow yourself to develop deep feelings for another person. I think I remember from OPAR that, under normal cirumstances, men and women in relationship should not be spending time alone, like going to dinners, for example, with people of opposite sex other than their lovers. Guess why?

If you are making a choice to pursue someone else other than your lover, that is saying a lot about your commitment to them, about the intensity of your feelings for them, about their value to you. If your relationship with them was a fully satisfying one TO YOU - you would not feel the need to pursue someone else romantically.

[mrocktor]

We often still love our past romantic lovers in case the relationship ended for reasons other than it not being a good one (it can happen). When we look back, we still think of them fondly but that love is not the kind we may feel for our current lover. We don't think of sleeping with them even if they lived next door.

You should replace "we" with "I" in this paragraph. You are not talking about man, you are talking about yourself.

If you are making a choice to pursue someone else other than your lover, that is saying a lot about your commitment to them, about the intensity of your feelings for them, about their value to you. If your relationship with them was a fully satisfying one TO YOU - you would not feel the need to pursue someone else romantically.

Only because you are judging by the standard of the paragraph above - which you apply to everyone. What I want is the why.

[~Sophia~]

What I want is the why.

By this I understand: Why is it taking away from your current romantic relationship?

I thought my answer to this question was already provided in my previous posts.

The short version is that the choice of exclusivity is an indication of certain/higher level of romantic satisfaction obtained from that relationship. If you choose to romantically pursue other people that is also an indication of something. It is not causeless.

Edited October 23, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

If romantic attraction is a response to values and if, by your own admission, you still love others while in a relationship - how exactly does it follow that there is no desire to sleep with them?

Because (and I explained this already) emotions do not exist in a vacuum. An integrated man will not have an emotion which compels him to sacrifice a greater value for a lesser one. The premise you need to check is that people experience sexual desire in all instances of love or admiration, regardless of context.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Inspector

[Inspector]

I think I came on way too hard because of the use of the word "ownership".

I appreciate that you've recognized and changed your approach.

I admit that I am using the word "ownership" in a way that not everyone will be familiar with. However, I do believe Ayn Rand used it in precisely this way. I did look it up but am so far unable to find anything. I will let you know if I do.

[mrocktor]

By this I understand: Why is it taking away from your current romantic relationship?

It's not.

The short version is that the choice of exclusivity is an indication of certain/higher level of romantic satisfaction obtained from that relationship. If you choose to romantically pursue other people that is also an indication of something. It is not causeless.

If the choice of exclusivity is meant as an indication of value, I have to completely reject your argument. Sacrifice never increases the value of anything. What you have to prove is that being exclusive is a greater value than not - and to do it without circular arguments such as "exclusive relationships demonstrate greater value because they are exclusive and therefore show you value them more"

The premise you need to check is that people experience sexual desire in all instances of love or admiration, regardless of context.

I'm sure they don't. The question is, why would one such attraction "defuse" all others? And does it always and for everyone?

I appreciate that you've recognized and changed your approach.

It was the right thing to do.

[~Sophia~]

Sacrifice never increases the value of anything.

It is your opinion that it is a sacrifice to be exclusive in all circumstances.

What you have to prove is that being exclusive is a greater value than not - and to do it without circular arguments such as "exclusive relationships demonstrate greater value because they are exclusive and therefore show you value them more"

Being exclusive is not always a greater value. If you are in a relationship with someone who does not fully meet your romantic needs - exclusivity will not provide a greater value to you and it may feel like a sacrifice. When you feel the need to seek values from other people then exclusivity is a sacrifice.

In a fully satisfying romantic relationship, when you are completely in love/consumed by your lover, exclusivity does not feel like a sacrifice, in fact sleeping with other people at that point seems revolting. You do not wish to share your body, you don't wish to experience intimacy with anybody else but your lover. Doing so feels like a sacrifice; it feels like a betrayal of yourself.

When both people feel that about each other the level of intimacy between them increases, their bond is stronger, more special. Such thing can not be demanded or forced, it is ether there or it is not. You can't make it so by forcing exclusivity. You won't achieve it that way.

If it is not there some people may accept that in their life, others (like me) will move on to find it. It is the mutual complete satisfaction that I am looking for, when it comes to romance, which results in both people wanting to be exclusive. That satisfaction must be present first in order for the chain reaction to happen the way I am describing.

Exclusive relationships do not always demonstrate greater value and it is never just because they are exclusive. I provided scenario in which they do not - if it feels like a sacrifice to you, if you are choosing exclusivity out of some false sense of duty or guilt or fear and not because of the feeling of complete romantic satisfcation - exclusivity does not result in a greater value.

Not being exclusive, long term, in my opinion, is an indication of certain lack of satisfaction comming from being just with your lover. You seek values elsewere for a reason. This makes polygamous relationship a lesser choice, less special than a monogamous one of the kind I am describing.

Edited October 24, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

double post

Edited October 24, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[mrocktor]

It is your opinion that it is a sacrifice to be exclusive in all circumstances.

Yes. To the extent that romantic relationship is a value, giving up said relationship is a sacrifice. It may be a worthy trade (what is given up is of lesser value than what is gained). I have challenged you to argue this hypothesis.

Up to now, all you have offered is "there comes a point where you don't desire any more values than you have". That just won't cut it.

Being exclusive is not always a greater value. If you are in a relationship with someone who does not fully meet your romantic needs - exclusivity will not provide a greater value to you and it may feel like a sacrifice. When you feel the need to seek values from other people then exclusivity is a sacrifice.

Good to see that you are not advocating that sacrifice shows you value the relationship - its great to have that out of the way. But again the quota. There is no such thing as "enough" values. I fully agree that if you don't desire anyone else exclusivity is no sacrifice - my question is why wouldn't you desire other people that meet your standards of value?

Assuming for an instant that you (and this is a hypothetical you, not personal) are in a successful monogamous relationship, what exactly happens when you meet someone even more wonderful than your current partner? Please don't give me Galt vs Francisco, I know full well Ayn Rand's opinion expressed in her work.

In a fully satisfying romantic relationship, when you are completely in love/consumed by your lover, exclusivity does not feel like a sacrifice, in fact sleeping with other people at that point seems revolting. You do not wish to share your body, you don't wish to experience intimacy with anybody else but your lover. Doing so feels like a sacrifice; it feels like a betrayal of yourself.

Again, where you use "you" you should be using "me". Unless you connect that with man's nature in some rational way, you are merely begging the question by stating as a fact exactly that which I asked you to prove.

If it is not there some people may accept that in their life, others (like me) will move on to find it. It is the mutual complete satisfaction that I am looking for, when it comes to romance, which results in both people wanting to be exclusive. That satisfaction must be present first in order for the chain reaction to happen the way I am describing.

Complete satisfaction only makes sense if values are limited. There is no amount of love that is "enough".

Not being exclusive, long term, in my opinion, is an indication of certain lack of satisfaction comming from being just with your lover. You seek values elsewere for a reason. This makes polygamous relationship a lesser choice, less special than a monogamous one of the kind I am describing.

Not being exclusive only indicates lack of satisfaction by your standard - the standard that such a thing as "complete" satisfaction exists, a state where no more values can be added. I find this completely unsupported and at odds with reality.

Edited October 24, 2006 by mrocktor

[~Sophia~]

To the extent that romantic relationship is a value, giving up said relationship is a sacrifice.

Additional romantic relationship is not always a value. In order for it to be a value to a person there has to be a need for it. Things that I do not need provide no value to me. If there is a need then the match is not ideal to say the least, not good enough, and considering my romantic goals, for me, it would be a signal to move on.

It may be a worthy trade (what is given up is of lesser value than what is gained). I have challenged you to argue this hypothesis.

Trading a lesser value for a greater one is not a sacrifice.

Up to now, all you have offered is "there comes a point where you don't desire any more values than you have". That just won't cut it.

No, what I said is that I am looking for a good enough match between me and my lover so that there is no desire on both sides to seek more value. I am not interested in relationships in which the match is not that great so that ether one person or both are feeling like they are sacrificing something by being monogamous and want to seek other lovers.

There is no such thing as "enough" values.

I know this is not true. If there was no such thing satisfaction of any kind would not have been possible, happiness would not have been possible. So there is 'enough' values.

So next question is: Can enough values in terms of romance be obtained from one person? And the answer is yes. Full romantic satisfaction with one person is possible. I know it.

Next question is: Why is it better than achieving this level of satisfactory 'enough' with two people or more? The answer is that to achieve it with just one person is the ideal because it gives rise to maximum connection/intimacy between two people. It is an indication of a very good match between a man and a woman.

I fully agree that if you don't desire anyone else exclusivity is no sacrifice - my question is why wouldn't you desire other people that meet your standards of value?

I don't understand why you would being happy and satisfied with what you have.

Assuming for an instant that you (and this is a hypothetical you, not personal) are in a successful monogamous relationship, what exactly happens when you meet someone even more wonderful than your current partner? Please don't give me Galt vs Francisco, I know full well Ayn Rand's opinion expressed in her work.

I would have to answer to myself: What is the value I am getting from my current relationship as compared to the value I would gain form a relationship with this new person? What is the level of commitment between us? Is this new person even interested in a relationship with me and if so can I provide enough value to this new person to sustain our relationship long term?

There is not enough context to answer this question.

There is no amount of love that is "enough".

Enough for what and for whom? If you truly believe that then how can you ever be romantically satisfied? Two people won't be enough ether. No number of lovers will be enough.

Edited October 24, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

When you feel the need to seek values from other people then exclusivity is a sacrifice.

...or it means that your values are not integrated.

[Inspector]

I fully agree that if you don't desire anyone else exclusivity is no sacrifice - my question is why wouldn't you desire other people that meet your standards of value?

Because to desire other people that meet your standards of value would be to desire a sacrifice of a greater value to a lesser one. An integrated man will not desire to sacrifice his values.

Your question amounts to: if a chef enjoys chopping things, why won't he desire to chop his fingers off? The answer is: because the value of chopping is less than the value of having intact fingers.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Next question is: Why is it better than achieving this level of satisfactory 'enough' with two people or more? The answer is that to achieve it with just one person is the ideal because it gives rise to maximum connection/intimacy between two people. It is an indication of a very good match between a man and a woman.

That answer is totally circular. It amounts to: A monogamous relationship is ideal because it allows the two people to be monogamous.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Because to desire other people that meet your standards of value would be to desire a sacrifice of a greater value to a lesser one. An integrated man will not desire to sacrifice his values.

I believe Mrock is asking you to explain how/why having a sexual realtionship with somone who would normally be of value to have sex with, if one was not in a monogamous relationship, is necessarily of less value than not. I imagine that if your partner would leave you because you had sex with another that would mean the loss of a value, is that what you are talking about? Because it seems like you are arguing that mutually agreed upon polygamy is a lesser value than mutually agreed upon monogamy (I think we both agreee that a non-mutually agreed upon monogamy or polygamy are the worst types of relationships).

So what I think Mrock is asking you to do is this: Demonstrate how it is of more value to be involved with someone who asks you to abstain from having sex with others, regardless of the value of that sex. do not think that Mrock is is confused about the issue of a single person choosing for himself to not have sex with anyone who does not fit the bill so to speak, for example if someone had the option to have sex with another but never found anyone worthy of the act. That is what you have been saying, that an "Integrated man" would not desire to have sex with anyone but his mate. But this does not cover the situation where that integrated man comes across a person who is worthy of that sexual act, because they embody those same values as that man's original partner. He is asking you: what happens then? Does that person not value those virtues anymore because they have loyalty to the person of their original lover? Do they break up with their original partner in order to start a new relationship with this new person?

My question is: Why this loyalty to people and not to ideas, to values, to virtues? Why be loyal to one person who embodies your highest values and not loyal to those values themselves? Why betray those values when they appear in someone new who you have no history with? Why ask you partner to betray the very values they saw/see in you?

[~Sophia~]

That answer is totally circular. It amounts to: A monogamous relationship is ideal because it allows the two people to be monogamous.

That is not what I wrote.

Meeting your match, meaning one person with whom you can achieve full romantic satisfaction is the ideal because it allows for a deeper connection/intimacy between two people. Their bond is special because no one else is needed to make them happy. I did not say "because it allows for monogamy". Full romantic satisfaction is not achieved by being monogamous. Monogamy is not the cause but the result of being content but it does produce further benefits.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

That's what I mean, you are essentially saying that being with only one person is better because it allows you to be with one person only. And being with one person is better because, you have a deeper understanding, and its special. You assume that it can't be deep with more than one person, or that a relationship with someone necessarily makes the relationships you have with others worse.

EDIT:

In other words, it would be equally circular to state: A relationship between three people is ideal because it allows for the maximum amount of intimacy between three people.

Edited October 25, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical