Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[Ifat Glassman]

Sophia, I noticed that you ignored my question about what happens when "Galt leaves town for a month", and also my question about the value of intimacy - what is it?

Anyway, as for the first question, after re-reading your posts I think I know what your answer is, since you already said it, though not entirely clearly and separated from your other arguments.

The reason you gave is that one is fully satisfied on the emotional level. Even if one does not have the option to get the physical satisfaction, the emotional one is enough to keep one interested in just one man, and since sex is tightly tied to that emotion, physical satisfaction without an emotion (for the other man) is not a value. (Am I right on this?)

I will ask more questions after you confirm my answer.

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.

If you read the quote I gave from Atlas Shrugged, you should have seen that their emotions for one another did not change.

However, what did change is the involvement with that emotion as a function of time. The amount of time Dagny spent thinking about how great Francisco is, was reduced since she then spent most of her time thinking how great Galt is. But the intensity of the emotion, when she would think of Francisco, did not diminish, since Francisco remained the way he was before, so her emotional response to the values in him should remain the same as well.

I think the rest of what you said of Dagny's emotions for him was a complete fabrication.

I also completely disagree with the rest of your post, that I didn't quote.

[Inspector]

I believe Mrock is asking you to explain how/why having a sexual relationship with someone 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?

No, it's not just because your partner would leave you. If you think that's what I mean, then you don't at all understand what I'm saying. Intimacy is the primary value in a romantic/sexual relationship. In a proper monogamous relationship, one values ones partner so highly that one would want to be as intimate with them as possible, and this value is a greater value than anything one could gain romantically/sexually from any other person. Since any such value would necessarily be gained at the sacrifice of intimacy with one's soulmate, and since the soulmate-intimacy-value is necessarily the greater value, then those other values would necessarily be a sacrifice. That is the premise behind a proper monogamous relationship.

If that premise is not true, then it is not a proper monogamous relationship.

All of your objections are assuming that one's monogamous partner is not of that level of value and thus you are assuming an improper relationship, whereas Sophia and I are assuming a proper one.

That is why you and mrocktor keep assuming it would be a sacrifice to be in a monogamous relationship: because if you assume an improper relationship, it would be. But, if you envision a proper relationship, then it would be a sacrifice not to be in it.

[IAmMetaphysical]

You are the one assuming things, we have asked you to demonstrate how these relationships you are talking about are proper, you keep begging the question.

[~Sophia~]

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 think that if you are not in a monogamous relationship, which means to me you are not in a relationship with someone who is 'all you have ever wanted in a lover and more' then is not necessarily better for you not to not pursue other lovers, epecially that your current lover also considers you not his/her final romantic choice, at least not at this time, and is doing the same.

It also depends what your romantic goals are.

Because it seems like you are arguing that mutually agreed upon polygamy is a lesser value than mutually agreed upon monogamy

I absolutely do believe that.

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.

It may not be of more value if you feel the desire to sleep with others. Satisfaction can be one sided. In such case why would this person ask you to make such a choice? Why would they want to be in a relationship with you, knowing he/she is not enough for you to be content, enough for you not to desire other people? Making a decision of monogamy, under those cirumstances, is pointless. Who would want your sacrifice? I would not want that from my lover.

And btw I think this one sided satisfaction happens a lot. I would move on.

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?

Meeting another person worthy of you does not mean that you automatically have a need to pursue them romantically does it? What would that need be caused by if you are pefectly happy with your current lover, in all aspects of your relationship? (and if you are not then that is an entirely different discussion).

Why this loyalty to people and not to ideas, to values, to virtues?

Because I am not in a relationship with ideas but with people.

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?

Not sleeping with someone or not pursuing a romantic relationship with them, eventhough they are worthy of you is not a betrayal of your values or their values.

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.

That is not what I am saying. See Inspector post above.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

You are the one assuming things, we have asked you to demonstrate how these relationships you are talking about are proper, you keep begging the question.

Such a relationship is proper if and only if the value of it is greater than any value to be gained by polygamous action.

Get it now?

[IAmMetaphysical]

No, because you are simply making assertions as if it were self evident.

Sophia: you said you are not in relationships with ideas but with people. What are people if not their actions based on their ideas, their choices of values or virtues, etc? What that seems to imply to me is what James Taggart was in search for, for love of his self, not anything that he does or believes, but for no reason. Certainly there are reasons why you love people and that is because they embody those things which you value, so you love the values first, then you love the person in as much as they are congruent with those values.

And also, whats with all the talk of satisfying "needs"? Are wants not important? What type of needs are you talking about? Basic needs of food, of survival, for a week, for a day?

And as to the circular thing, see my edit where I give an example of another type of that circular reasoning.

[Inspector]

No, because you are simply making assertions as if it were self evident.

You're not listening. Can you accept that there may exist somewhere, somehow a monogamous relationship wherein the value of it is greater than any value to be gained by polygamous alternatives available to the two participants in that monogamous relationship?

Edited October 25, 2006 by Inspector

[Inspector]

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.

Let me put it this way:

Suppose that "X" is the value of one person, who is valuable enough to be in a monogamous relationship, while "Y" is a second person that one values, although not as much. So X > Y.

Intimacy, however, acts as an exponential multiplier. And one can necessarily be more intimate with one person than one could be if one is shared between more than one person. The amount of intimacy is greater in a monogamous relationship [i(m)] than even the combined intimacy of a polygamous one [i(p)]. So I(m) = I(p)*n. (where n is the number of partners in a polygamous relationship)

So, just for example, the intimacy of a monogamous relationship might be 50, while polygamy would have a value of 25 to split up. (that's 50/2)

X^50 is a greater value than X^13 + Y^12, even if X and Y are really close in value. (actually, even if X=Y) You can divide the 25 up any way you like and it would still be true.

Now that not meant to be taken literally, I just wanted to illustrate the kind of mathematical relationship that is involved here.

The argument for polygamy that I am willing to give some credibility to is: "Well, what happens when your only option available is two or more people that, each of which isn't high enough value to warrant a significant amount of intimacy?" In other words, what if you never bump against the intimacy barrier of multiple partners because you don't have any partners who you're going to get that intimate with?

I don't know quite how I'd evaluate such a scenario, but I do know I'd pity such people.

[softwareNerd]

... there may exist somewhere, somehow ...

Here's an alternative formulation...

Can one imagine that just as loving someone is fun (a value), so loving someone as one's highest possible value is not just fun but made more fun (at least in someone's optional hierarchy) by the fact that she is your highest value?

Also, can one image that just as being loved is fun, so being loved as someone's highest value is not just fun but made more fun (at least in someone's optional hierarchy) because one is her highest value?

In other words, leaving aside whether it is rational to have such a relationship, can one imagine someone choosing it at least from a hedonistic perspective, as in: "I don't simply want to find someone to love, but someone unbeatable; and, I don't simply want someone to view me as unbeatable."

[IAmMetaphysical]

I don't know how this is going to sound to you sNerd, but my highest value is my own life. And anybody I am with, I hope that their highest value is their own life.

So, just for example, the intimacy of a monogamous relationship might be 50, while polygamy would have a value of 25 to split up. (that's 50/2)

This assumes that being intimate with two people means you are less intimate with each of them and not as equally intimate with them as if you were in a separate relationship with each of them. Maybe we're working on two different concepts of "intimacy". I doubt it though.

[softwareNerd]

I don't know how this is going to sound to you sNerd, but my highest value is my own life. And anybody I am with, I hope that their highest value is their own life.

It sounds like an "Objectivist gotcha", and to a non-Objectivist is might sound controversial. To me, it sounds obvious, but it also sounds content-less. On the other hand, if an Objectivist told me their highest value was their art, or their music, or their job, I would understand what they meant, and I would assume that they value their life and are filling it with these fun things.

However, how it sounds is incidental to the discussion.

Back on topic, I realize that I was assuming something that I should have made explicit: i.e. that this thread is discussing friendship/love values.

So, let me clarify, food might rank higher, medicine might rank higher, work might... there could be a whole list. Do we want to take the thread there: as to the relative importance of love versus other values?

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, I noticed that you ignored my question about what happens when "Galt leaves town for a month",

I did not ignore it. I will try again - directly. If I was Dagny and in the relationship with Galt, my ideal male, my highest romantic value, then the decision not to sleep with Francisco would not have been driven by the lack of unlimited resources (physical or emotional) thus Galt leaving town for a month would make no difference. Galt would have to die, go to jail for 25 years and tell me not to wait, not want me anymore, or something similar in order for me to revisit my romantic relationship with Francisco.

I would not do anything that would take away from the intimacy of my relationship with Galt.

(btw - my preference, reading AS was always for Francisco)

and also my question about the value of intimacy - what is it?

What is the value of intimacy?

I would call intimacy a mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical closeness to your lover. It is one of the high points of a relationship and it does not happen by magic. It must be built up over time. Intimacy is a journey of discovery in a relationship. New dimentions of intimacy can be achieved, a series of deeper levels. Each discovery makes the relationship more rewarding and fulfilling.

Because sexual activity involves trust and taking the risk of being vulnerable, because it is a time when, both physically and emotionally, partners let themselves get close to each other, for most couples, one of the times when they are most aware of being intimate is when they are making love. But intimacy is much more than just sex.

The McGill report on intimacy states:

Men use sex as their primary measure of closeness. For women, sex is only one aspect of intimacy, along with time spent together, variety and value of exchanges, exclusivity, and mutual concerns.

Women value emotional exclusivity in a relationship, viewing it as a foundation for other dimensions of intimacy.

The reason you gave is that one is fully satisfied on the emotional level. Even if one does not have the option to get the physical satisfaction, the emotional one is enough to keep one interested in just one man, and since sex is tightly tied to that emotion, physical satisfaction without an emotion (for the other man) is not a value. (Am I right on this?)

I am talking about full satisfaction on all levels, including emotional and physical. Sexual incompatibility would not allow me be satisfied with just one man. I am talking about a relationship in which everything is to my satisfaction and to his. Sex is not only a physical act so not sure what you mean by physical satisfaction without an emotion.

If you read the quote I gave from Atlas Shrugged, you should have seen that their emotions for one another did not change.

I did not say that Dagny stopped loving Francisco but her love and desire for Galt were a lot stronger and her focus was concentrated on Galt. Her focus was not divided between them, with a higher percentage directed toward Galt, the way you are suggesting.

since Francisco remained the way he was before, so her emotional response to the values in him should remain the same as well.

The presence and intensity of person's romantic emotional reponses depend on much more than another's values.

[~Sophia~]

being intimate with two people means you are less intimate with each of them .

I hope that by being intimate you don't just mean being sexually intimate.

Aside from that I agree. And they are not fully opening themselves to you ether, knowing you are also pursuing other people romantically, knowing you are also sharing the most intimate aspects of yourself with someone else.

To achieve higher depts of intimacy requires full mutual romantic satisfaction and two people focusing/opening up/being volunerable only with each other.

and not as equally intimate with them as if you were in a separate relationship with each of them

Not necessarily. Not if both of them are not your highest romantic value, in which case, having a monogamous relationship with ether of them may not be much better.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

This assumes that being intimate with two people means you are less intimate with each of them and not as equally intimate with them as if you were in a separate relationship with each of them.

Yes, that is right. I am operating on the premise that total intimacy with one person is not possible if one is at all in a sexual relationship with any other person(s). That any other relationship would necessarily detract from the intimacy of the first one. If you dispute that premise, then all I can say is, "I disagree, and I am fully confident that reality on on my side. You are free to try to operate on your premise of how intimacy works, but I think reality will thwart you."

[~Sophia~]

Sophia: you said you are not in relationships with ideas but with people. What are people if not their actions based on their ideas, their choices of values or virtues, etc? What that seems to imply to me is what James Taggart was in search for, for love of his self, not anything that he does or believes, but for no reason. Certainly there are reasons why you love people and that is because they embody those things which you value, so you love the values first, then you love the person in as much as they are congruent with those values.

We are talking here about romantic love.

Yes, whom I fall in love with is not random, love is not causeless, love is a response to values, but I don't love the values or ideas as a floating, unatached abstractions. I love a specific person, specific soul, unrepeatable consciousness.

And also, whats with all the talk of satisfying "needs"? Are wants not important? What type of needs are you talking about? Basic needs of food, of survival, for a week, for a day?

I was talking about romantic needs, what one requires from a romantic partner. And yes wants and desires are important.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It sounds like an "Objectivist gotcha", and to a non-Objectivist is might sound controversial. To me, it sounds obvious, but it also sounds content-less. On the other hand, if an Objectivist told me their highest value was their art, or their music, or their job, I would understand what they meant, and I would assume that they value their life and are filling it with these fun things.

However, how it sounds is incidental to the discussion.

Back on topic, I realize that I was assuming something that I should have made explicit: i.e. that this thread is discussing friendship/love values.

So, let me clarify, food might rank higher, medicine might rank higher, work might... there could be a whole list. Do we want to take the thread there: as to the relative importance of love versus other values?

But in a way I think the highest value thing being your own life is not content-less, it is a reminder that certain things are a means to an end, the end which is life. Some would say that sex is an end in itself, pleasure for pleasure's sake, but it still is about enjoying your life, your existence, the pleasure that your body can give you. I think we musn't lose sight of the fact that one's existence is one's highest value. I think most people, and it seems Sophia and Inspector as well(Although I may be mistaken), make their partners a very big part of their existence to the point of dependance. They make their lives inseparable from their partners and think of themselves not as an "I" but as a "we". So when they are in a situation where they are confronted with a choice of whether or not to sleep with someone they think about what their partners would feel or think (this part I am not attributing to Sophia or Inspector, but to most people) instead of assessing the situation and deciding for themselves, relying on their own minds, instead they abdicate that decision to someone else, and try to enforce the same on their partners. Let me make it clear that I am not advocating promiscuity nor multiple partners. I am simply against this feeling or belief in mutual "ownership" whereas one person has the right to decide the decisions of others. I think having one sexual partner is beautiful only if there really isn't a desire nor value in having sex with another, that is not the issue. I do not contend that it is impossible to only desire one person, only that it is not necessarily always the case when one is "integrated". IF there were no one worthy, I would desire no one. I respond to values and virtues. If they are present, I respond, if not, I do not. If one person displays those values or virtues I will respond accordingly only to them(thus being monogamous), if more than one I will respond as such, nobody has a monopoly on virtue.

This also depends on your metaphysical view of sex, and that is where the basic debate is. I did not want to get really involved in this thread as is it easy to get heated, but since I have I will sum up my basic argument for what I think is the ideal type of relationship:

Sex is a celebration of one's capacity to experience and--when involving another person--to give pleasure, usually involving genital stimulation and/or orgasm.

Intimacy is close physical proximity between two or more people, including but not limited to situations or scenarios where the people involved would not usually feel comfortable in around those they are not familiar with, e.g. being nude, being asleep, being totally defenseless.

Love is an emotional response to values. Love for another person is the emotional response to the values they exhibit, endorse, advocate, embody, express, possess, etc. It is not possible to love a person apart from their attributes, just as it impossible to value anything apart from its attributes.

Monogamy is the state of having only one sexual(or romantic) partner over a given period of time, be it a day, week, month, year, lifetime.

Polygamy is having more than one sexual(or romantic) partner over a given period of time.

Sexual attraction, like love, is a response to values, primarily values of the physical kind usually having to do with those physical attributes that imply sexual prowess, sexual stamina, sexual receptiveness, sexual appreciativeness, or inherently gender specific physical attributes such as breasts, penises, vaginas, chest hair, etc. Sexual attraction is not necessarily physically bias, but tends strongly to be. People can be and are(and should be) sexually attracted to other types of values.

Physical beauty is very often the result of virtuous actions. Beauty is not skin deep, it is subject to cause and effect and certain actions will enhance beauty, and certain actions will degrade it. Only a small percentage of people are truly "ugly" by result of their genes alone. Not everyone is born with the potential to be a "ten" but neither are they cursed to be 2's.

It is possible to love more than one person at a time, because what one is in love with is the values the embody, exhibit, possess, etc. The love one has for one's Mother does not take away from the love one has for one's friends, or one's lovers, because it all comes from the same source, and the same values (if one is "integrated"). Thus romantic love does not differ from Motherly love, it is fundamentally the same: an emotional response to values. The concrete values may differ, but the nature of the love is the same. The distinctions occur when things are added to the love, like sexual desire, possessivenss, willingness to risk one's life to save them, etc. The distinctions are not a matter of degree, as in loving one more than the other, one may love one's mother more than one's lover, or vice versa. The nature of the relationships is not dependant entirely on the degree of valuing (although some of the added things may be reliant on such things, such as willingness to risk one's life, but these extras need not depend upon the degree) but outside influences such as level of self esteem, paranoia, co-dependancy, etc may necessitate the addition of these extra feelings/emotions.

Since value in one person does not negate value in another, since they spring from the same source, sexual attraction need not be exclusive to one person who exhibits said values, whether physical or intellectual. If one recognizes the beauty of one woman, it does not make every other woman ugly. If one recognizes the rationality of one man, or the sexual prowess of one man, it does not render every other man an irrational eunich. In fact it would be a betrayal of those values if one refused to or failed to recognize them in someone, simply because that someone was not one's partner. To fail to recognize the beauty of a man's face, would be a betrayal of beauty. To fail to recognize the harmony in a woman's legs, would be a betrayal of harmony and of the beauty of her ability to walk, run, engage her body in the task of living. The recognition of value does not obligate action, so don't misundertand me, this part is only to show that it is possible to be sexually attracted to more than one person at a time. The reason is that when one is sexually attracted to someone, it is the values they exhibit that one is attracted to. And again, they don't own a monopoly on those values.

It is not a moral obligation to have sex with everyone that one is attracted to, if one desires to sleep with only one person, and chooses to keep that celebration exclusive, that is their right, but in the ideal relationship that choice should always be theirs.

Sex is a celebration of one's own capacity to experience and give pleasure. Sex with different partners will be of differing pleasure, experience, and value. It may be of lesser value to have sex with person A than with person B, this is true. Sex with Person B may be better, in that it is more satisfying, more pleaurable, etc. But, sex with person A does not make the sexual experience with person B any worse, just as eating a overly cooked porkchop will not make the filet mignon you had yesterday taste worse. If sex with person A is of no value whatsoever, then one should not engage in sex with that person. To the extent that sex with Person A is of value, is the extent to which a person should bed them if they so choose. To abstain from bedding them and to give up the value that sex with them would be is not necessarily a vice, it depends on the reasons for the abstinence. To do so for a sense of duty to your partner would be a sacrifice, for no duty exists.

In the ideal relationship(what I call an "Open relationship"), the members of the relationship are separate, independant individuals. Their participation in the relationship is voluntary and dependant upon the value the relationship has to their enjoyment of their life. No demands are made, but in the same vein, no sacrifices or laspses of judgements are made as well. Thus one does not have to accept the choice of sexual partners of your partner uncondtionally, if they engage in frivolous, meaningless, and irrational sex, they are betraying the values that you embody, they ARE betraying you, they are taking away from your sex life with them by acting contrary to the values you two are celebrating in those acts of intimacy. If those sex acts with others are of value, and do add to their enjoyment of their life rationally, they should be allowed to do so, even if it means they will grow to value that other person more; if they do(and they judge rationally) you and they, and the other person will each get what you deserve, an objective evaluation.

Lastly: Some people are only suited for certain types of relationships. Some are better for livinging with and raising kids with. Some are better for having fun with, going on trips with, etc. Romantic relationships are no different. Being in a romantic relationship does not necessarily mean that living together will come next, or is needed, or what have you. One might value that type of relationship very highly, and they wouldn't be wrong to do so. Monogamy is fine, as long as it doesn't involve sacrifice, or coercion. Monogamy is not necessarily sacrificial, neither is polygamy. An open relationship means freedom to choose, to enjoy, and to value. One can do this while remaining monogamous or while being polygamous from time to time. It is not an obligation to be polygamous, nor to be monogamous. It is the element of independance. The choice to be either one.

ASIDE:

I don't expect a warm reception of the above, but do try to be respectful. I do not really want to get into a debate about this, but I will discuss it to a certain extent. I figured I would lay out my argument and have others digest it for themselves. I expect most of the disagreement to be in the metaphysics, that is, my definitions of terms. These are what I do not wish to debate, as it is difficult to argue about things which have to be observed for ones' self, maybe its just me who is bad at debating metaphysics. My unwillingness to debate these points should not be taken as an unwillingness to look into them, if you have any ideas about my definitions, feel free to state them, i will read them, but don't expect me to respond. I hope I have not offended anyone, that was not my intention.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Yes, that is right. I am operating on the premise that total intimacy with one person is not possible if one is at all in a sexual relationship with any other person(s). That any other relationship would necessarily detract from the intimacy of the first one. If you dispute that premise, then all I can say is, "I disagree, and I am fully confident that reality on on my side. You are free to try to operate on your premise of how intimacy works, but I think reality will thwart you."

And I would resond: "You need to check that premise. And if you want to try to convince others of it as well, you should develop some arguments if not for your understanding." You're free to operate on your premise if you want. All I was asking for was some justification. But like I said above I do not wish to debate such things really. I was just wondering if you had some proof for it.

[~Sophia~]

I think most people, and it seems Sophia and Inspector as well(Although I may be mistaken), make their partners a very big part of their existence to the point of dependance. They make their lives inseparable from their partners and think of themselves not as an "I" but as a "we".

You are mistaken. The relationship which I am describing is only possible when two secure in themselves and sure of their own value, two of unbreached self-esteem, individuals come together. One has to measure himeself/herself as worthy of first obtaining such a love and then maintaning it long term.

It is two "I" 's sharing their lives together.

In order to love you have to allow yourself to be volunerable. If you are afraid of the emotional dependence, which may result from falling in love deeply with a person, like Francisco did with Dagny, then you may never know the kind of intimacy I am describing. Loving Dagny, and being dependent emotionally, did not stop Francisco from living his life. He remained "I".

....romantic love does not differ from Motherly love, it is fundamentally the same: an emotional response to values

The concept of love subsumes a vast range of values and of intensity. Romantic love is the highest level of love and the most exclusive one. Having been exposed to both, motherly love is not the same as romantic love (nether is a love for a friend, or a parent, or a sibling). Platonic love is not the same as romantic love.

....The nature of the relationships is not dependant entirely on the degree of valuing (although some of the added things may be reliant on such things, such as willingness to risk one's life, but these extras need not depend upon the degree) but outside influences such as level of self esteem, paranoia, co-dependancy, etc may necessitate the addition of these extra feelings/emotions.

The nature of a romantic relationship depends highly on the degree of valuing, the intensity of the love between two people. There are many unhealthy relationships out there but we are talking here about rational, mentaly healthy, individuals of high self-esteem.

....If one recognizes the beauty of one woman, it does not make every other woman ugly. If one recognizes the rationality of one man, or the sexual prowess of one man, it does not render every other man an irrational eunich. In fact it would be a betrayal of those values if one refused to or failed to recognize them in someone, simply because that someone was not one's partner. To fail to recognize the beauty of a man's face, would be a betrayal of beauty. To fail to recognize the harmony in a woman's legs, would be a betrayal of harmony and of the beauty of her ability to walk, run, engage her body in the task of living. The recognition of value does not obligate action, so don't misundertand me, this part is only to show that it is possible to be sexually attracted to more than one person at a time.

No one was advocating that. Perceptions do not shape reality. From your description it seem like simple recognition of value is an automatic trigger for strong sexual desire and the only way not to have such a desire would be to evade reality, not to recognize the value arround you. That is simply false. You don't have to stop being a valuer, you can still recognize people for who they are.

I found this quote from Rand:

If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it. A man my love a woman, yet may rate the satisfaction of sexual promiscuity higher than her value to him. Another man may love a woman, but may give her up, rating his fear of the disaproval of others (of his family, his friends, or any random stranger) higher than her value. Still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would loose meaning without her. The emotions in these examples are not emotions of the same intensity or dimension. Do not let a James Taggart type of mystic tell you that love is immeasurable (bold mine, any errors mine).

Edited October 25, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

Since we seem to be at an impasse, I will clarify my position. I do not intend to provoke further debate with IAmMetaphysical or anyone else.

I do not advocate monogamous “duty.” A proper monogamous relationship is one in which neither party desires to be with anyone else because being with anyone else is not worth the loss of intimacy with their partner, who is of greater value than anyone else out there. If their partner isn't of greater value than anyone else, then that is not a proper monogamous relationship. The idea of being monogamous only because your partner wants it, and not because it is of greater value to you is abhorrent to me.

I do not disagree that it is possible and healthy to love more than one person. Love is a response to values and one's love for one person does not take away from one's love with another. Note this is exactly in keeping with what Francisco said.

Intimacy, on the other hand, is exclusive. By sleeping with people other than one's soulmate, one most certainly does take something away from the intimacy (and thus, the quality) of that relationship. And because of the intense value of intimacy, this is always a losing game. It will, necessarily, take more away than could possibly be gained from the affair with the third party, even if that third party is very close in value, as in Francisco and Galt. (and as I said, I could see this might not be the case for two people who aren’t particularly in love) Thus, a man of integrated values that is selfish will not desire sex outside of his soulmate. It would be impossible for him to have such a desire; a desire to sacrifice a greater value (intimacy with his soul mate) to a lesser one (sexual pleasure with another, lesser, person).

Note that this is also exactly in keeping with what Francisco, Dagny, and Galt did. A polygamous relationship between them was completely out of the question and what I have said, I believe, explains why.

The words: "[in an ideal relationship] Their participation in the relationship is voluntary and dependant upon the value the relationship has to their enjoyment of their life. No demands are made, but in the same vein, no sacrifices or laspses of [judgment] are made as well." are completely true. I disagree with him elsewhere, but not for those words. He does present those words as if they were dependant upon a polygamous, “open,” relationship, but they are most emphatically not.

I take great exception to the idea that "possessiveness, willingness to risk one's life to save them, etc." are things which stem from "[low] level of self esteem, paranoia, co-dependency, etc." Nonsense. They stem from intense love. Sure, people with low self-esteem and paranoia will imitate these behaviors in a reversal of cause-and-effect. The same is true of a promiscuous man pursuing an effect (sex) while bypassing the cause (love). And these paranoid, co-dependant types will suffer eternal frustration just as much as the promiscuous do.

[Ifat Glassman]

If I was Dagny and in the relationship with Galt, my ideal male, my highest romantic value, then the decision not to sleep with Francisco would not have been driven by the lack of unlimited resources (physical or emotional) thus Galt leaving town for a month would make no difference. Galt would have to die, go to jail for 25 years and tell me not to wait, not want me anymore, or something similar in order for me to revisit my romantic relationship with Francisco.

Sophia, I did not mean to ask what you would do. The "what" was obvious to me. I am asking why.

Now, since I am so gracious and kind, I also provided your expected answer, as I think you would give it.

Here it is:

The reason you gave is that one is fully satisfied on the emotional level. Even if one does not have the option to get the physical satisfaction, the emotional one is enough to keep one interested in just one man, and since sex is tightly tied to that emotion, physical satisfaction without an emotion (for the other man) is not a value. (Am I right on this?)

But you understood this to be some sort of summary of your entire position. It was not, it was just an expected answer to my question "why would you not sleep with Francisco when Galt is away for a month".

And the reason I asked this question is because your main argument for monogamy was that complete sexual satisfaction annihilates one's desire for sex with anyone else. My question was meant to remove this argument, so your answer will focus on the core reasons for monogamy and not the minor ones. I removed it by showing that even when sexual satisfaction is not possible temporarily, you would still choose monogamy.

[Can you explain to me why you did not understand what I was asking? Is it because I did not phrase my question well or because you are not reading it carefully? (just a side question, since I found this problem of communication to repeat itself a lot on the forum, but since I value your opinion specifically, I am surprised to see that this problem to understand questions exists in you as well)]

I did not say that Dagny stopped loving Francisco but her love and desire for Galt were a lot stronger and her focus was concentrated on Galt. Her focus was not divided between them, with a higher percentage directed toward Galt, the way you are suggesting.

The presence and intensity of person's romantic emotional responses depend on much more than another's values.

We are still in disagreement, and Atlas Shrugged is on my side, as stated in the quote from Atlas shrugged which you are ignoring. The intensity of Dagny's emotions for Francisco remains the same. It is stated explicitly in that quote.

And the book also makes it clear that Dagny's focus did divide between Galt, Francisco, and the rest of the people she valued. The presence of Galt does not vaporize her other values.

Galt is a greater value, much more than the rest, and therefor he gets most of her mental focus and time, but not all of it.

As for emotions depending on other things than virtues: those things are an additions, not subtractors.

On the topic: I find your #131 post about the relation between virtue and man to be brilliant, IAmMetaphysical.

Yes, that is right. I am operating on the premise that total intimacy with one person is not possible if one is at all in a sexual relationship with any other person(s). That any other relationship would necessarily detract from the intimacy of the first one. If you dispute that premise, then all I can say is, "I disagree, and I am fully confident that reality on on my side. You are free to try to operate on your premise of how intimacy works, but I think reality will thwart you."

Inspector, premises do not exist in a vacuum. "Let's agree to disagree" is the most cowardly way to allow one to cling to one's ideas without justifying them. If you're not going to justify this premise and explain the rational behind it, at least stop repeating it and using it as an argument. It's a time waister.

Now that Sophia has defined what she means by "Intimacy", someone needs to proceed to show how that intimacy is necessarily reduced by having another lover. No one has shown it. Instead you people just keep on repeating your position, as if repeating things can make them right.

[Inspector]

Inspector, premises do not exist in a vacuum. "Let's agree to disagree" is the most cowardly way to allow one to cling to one's ideas without justifying them. If you're not going to justify this premise and explain the rational behind it, at least stop repeating it and using it as an argument. It's a time waister.

So now you've called me a coward.

The fact is that I've identified the central premise of our disagreement. The premise I and (I am fairly sure) Sophia am operating on that you and others are not. If you're not impressed, then I don't care; I'm not here to impress you.

Secondly, I have not been merely repeating it, and my last response should make it clear that I don't intend to "use it as an argument." As I said,

If you dispute that premise, then all I can say is, "I disagree, and I am fully confident that reality on on my side. You are free to try to operate on your premise of how intimacy works, but I think reality will thwart you."

If that isn't clear to you as a statement that I don't intend to argue the point further, then I am now saying so explicitly.

I don't see this as being something I can "prove" to you any more than I can prove that the sky is blue. I can point at the sky, and say that it's blue. If, say, you agreed that some other things are blue, then I could hold them up against the sky and point to both of them. I think I've done at least the equivalent here, in the several pages I've responded to you with in this thread. But if that fails, then you're on your own. As I said in my very first response to you, I consider this to be a fairly obvious fact of human nature and am dumbfounded that anyone older than a child hasn't grasped it. (although articulating it, as myself and Sophia have done, is another matter...)

If I can find any other way to put, present, or compare it then I will post up. I would not withold anything. But until then, I am done and no amount of insults on your part will beguile me to action. Good day.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

You are mistaken. The relationship which I am describing is only possible when two secure in themselves and sure of their own value, two of unbreached self-esteem, individuals come together. One has to measure himeself/herself as worthy of first obtaining such a love and then maintaning it long term.

It is two "I" 's sharing their lives together.

Good. Then I apologize for lumping you in with the crowd that preaches ownewrship and the concept of "sharing".

[mrocktor]

In order to love you have to allow yourself to be volunerable. If you are afraid of the emotional dependence, which may result from falling in love deeply with a person, like Francisco did with Dagny, then you may never know the kind of intimacy I am describing.

I reject this completely. True love subsumes no dependence at all, the idea that you have to accept a level of dependence to fall in love deeply is completely flawed. Dependence is always immoral. Gaining a value is never to be feared because you might lose it, that is irrational.

The concept of love subsumes a vast range of values and of intensity. Romantic love is the highest level of love and the most exclusive one.

Here you are arguing in circles again. Romantic love is rare because it demands exacting standards. That is the only way in which it can be said to be the most exclusive. It, on the other hand, in no way means that it is mutually exclusive.

The fact is that I've identified the central premise of our disagreement. The premise I and (I am fairly sure) Sophia am operating on that you and others are not.

(...)

I don't see this as being something I can "prove" to you any more than I can prove that the sky is blue.

I agree you have identified the essential disagreement. I acknowlege your position on this assumption and all I can say is that ostensive proof only works when the element in question is perceptually evident. In this case it is clearly not.

Thank you very much for your participation. I think narrowing the question down to "is intimacy mutually exclusive" was of great value to the discussion.

IAmMetaphysical, your post #141 is an excellent write up on the issue and I agree with the reasoning you presented.

Ifat, your identification of "limited resources" as an issue was also very relevant to the discussion. Thanks for that.

Edited October 25, 2006 by mrocktor

[KevinD]

Intimacy is the primary value in a romantic/sexual relationship.

I disagree. I would say the primary value one seeks from romantic love is a sense of psychological visibility — followed closely by companionship, and the experience of sexual enjoyment. "Intimacy" is too high-level a concept to be meaningful, apart from these other more essential factors.

In a proper monogamous relationship, one values ones partner so highly that one would want to be as intimate with them as possible, and this value is a greater value than anything one could gain romantically/sexually from any other person. [. . .]

If that premise is not true, then it is not a proper monogamous relationship.

All of your objections are assuming that one's monogamous partner is not of that level of value and thus you are assuming an improper relationship, whereas Sophia and I are assuming a proper one.

I'm a little bit baffled by your use of the word "proper" in this context. Initially it seems as though you're saying that if the conditions you describe do not exist, then properly speaking — that is to say, by definition — one does not possess a monogamous relationship. But then you begin talking about what you call an "improper relationship," which clearly implies a (negative) moral evaluation. Can you explain how you apparently went from one meaning of the term to the other?

Edited October 25, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[softwareNerd]

But in a way I think the highest value thing...

Good post Meta; very clear.

Of course, if one is speaking of most people, then they might be remaining monogamous for religious reasons or (more likely) through inertia. Clearly this is wrong. I agree that anyone who thinks of sex outside of marriage primarily in terms of it being dishonest etc. might be treating monogamy as a duty rather than as a choice. Even seening monogamy as a "committment" might indicate more of a duty-bound approach (but not necessarily). As for sexual attraction, any man who thinks he ought not feel a sexual attraction when a he sees a beautiful woman is setting himself up for unearned guilt.

Monogamy is not a value unless the two valuers get some objective value from having and being the highest-valued person in someone's life. Unless there is objective value to be gained from that quality of visibility then polygamy would be a better choice. In other words, my recommendation is: opt for polygamy unless you really think its great fun to be monogamous.

(Frankly, I'm hoping that I can get Ifat, Meta and MRocktor to move away from an accusation of stoicism and accuse monogamists of hedonism, because that would indicate that both sides are speaking of the right referent. )