Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[IAmMetaphysical]

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

I expected that you would agree, thanks for the praise.

[~Sophia~]

In 1994, the University of Chicago Press published the landmark study The Social Organization of Sexuality, the most important survey since the Kinsey report. 9,000 addresses were selected from random geographical locations. The participants, aged 18 to 55 years, completed an hour and a half interview about their sexual practices.

Two authors of that study, Edward O. Laumann and Robert T. Michael, published This book in which they provide deeper analysis of the information obtained in the 1994 study.

In chapter 6, authors examine sex differences in reported sexual behaviors by commitment level (as indexed by relationship status of dating, cohabitating, or married). The authors found that women's, but not men's, reports of emotional satisfaction with a partner are positively associated with relationship commitment. The authors also report that, for both sexes, sexual satisfaction increases with emotional commitment and with the sexual exclusivity of the relationship.

Interesting don't you think?

[mrocktor]

The authors also report that, for both sexes, sexual satisfaction increases with emotional commitment and with the sexual exclusivity of the relationship.

Argument by statistics is no way to prove a principle you are claiming to be part of man's nature. Just for starters, the group that was surveyed is immersed in a society that preaches monogamy as the only moral form of relationship - on religious grounds primarily but also reinforced by law.

Its blatantly obvious that satisfaction increases without the guilt that these people are certainly carrying in the cases of non-exclusive relationships. We are arguing that this guilt is unearned where no deception exists.

The value of this study to our discussion is precisely zero.

Edited October 26, 2006 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

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.

What is your opinion of monogamy and why moral people might engage in it?

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?

I meant moral in both cases. That's an interesting idea; that if the people involved don't favor monogamy than that isn't really monogamy. It isn't what I meant, but I can see how it could be meant the other way.

[~Sophia~]

Argument by statistics is no way to prove a principle you are claiming to be part of man's nature. Just for starters, the group that was surveyed is immersed in a society that preaches monogamy as the only moral form of relationship - on religious grounds primarily but also reinforced by law.

Argument by statistics is no way to prove a principle ....

I did not offer it as such. I found this interesting and called it as interesting. This study was not about monogamy. It was a study of sexual behavior by two very respected in the field scientists. It is also one of the most statistically significant and unbiasted studies ever carried on the topic of sex.

I have no desire to prove anything here to anybody. Ifatart asked for rational reason for choosing the path of monogamy so I provided such reasons.

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.

Rand called love a spriritual payment - payment meaning it is costing you something, emotionally. Fransisco spend days searching for Dagny's crashed plane. Her well being became a part of his happiness. In the quote I provided Rand said that the intensity of someone's love can be measured by the degree to which your love'd one became important to you. She wrote that a man can risk his life for a women because, in the absence of her in his life, all of his values may loose meaning. So the meaning of man's values maybe become dependent on the well being of the woman he loves. Obviously Rand did not think such emotional dependence was immoral and it is not the kind which stopes you from living your life, you are not dependent on it for your survival. In the case of death of your lover your reason and objectivity will allow you to move on and find happiness again.

[Inspector]

...ostensive proof only works when the element in question is perceptually evident. In this case it is clearly not.

I've been a bit uncomfortable with the way I phrased that for a while, but the board has been up and down lately...

I'd like to clarify: this is something I believe is a part of human nature and the nature of romance. My source is induction; this is the way that I have observed it works. Everything I have ever observed in how romance works points to the fact of intimacy ("intimacy" is my word for it).

Serious polygamists, such as the scenario envisioned by Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress also implicitly acknowledge the fact of intimacy because the intensity of the romance involved is not particularly strong. It is, well the best word I can think of is: "adolescent."

I have only seen one group of people who totally deny the existence of intimacy: hippies. I think it's obvious that the hippies and their theory of "free love" is completely wrong and impracticable.

So no, I do not have a deductive “proof” to give on this one. I have only introspection and the inductive evidence of everything I have ever seen. (the above examples should not be taken as an exhaustive list of the latter)

[mrocktor]

I'd like to clarify: this is something I believe is a part of human nature and the nature of romance. My source is induction; this is the way that I have observed it works. Everything I have ever observed in how romance works points to the fact of intimacy ("intimacy" is my word for it).

This is how I interpreted it. As I said, I acknowlege your position. I have a different opinion based on my own observations (necessarily a distinct data set - and we have no practical way of sharing data) and inductions. I explain your data, and a lot of my own, by social pressure to conform to the monogamic christian standard.

Yes in an overwhelming majority of cases monogamy will be considered by people to show you value the relationship more. Yes people will feel "insufficient" or "not good enough" if you refuse monogamy. Yes polls will indicate people in monogamous relationships are happier. It is a fact though that pretty much everyone has been indoctrinated from childhood (women especially) that monogamy is "right", that monogamy shows "valuing" and that there is such a thing as being "completely satisfied, romantically" or a "soulmate" exists. Integrating these facts makes one question that monogamy actually is the "ideal state" based on human nature. I have yet to see any evidence supporting this proposition that cannot be explained by the above factors.

As I said before, I think the issue of intimacy is a very interesting line of inquiry. I'm very interested on any arguments on that. The induction from the experience that "i'll be less intimate with person A if I also have sex with person B" is not sufficient because person A and person B have most likely been indoctrinated with christian/monogamous values and will recoil from intimacy because of those disintegrated values they hold without a rational basis.

Edited October 31, 2006 by mrocktor

[Ifat Glassman]

It is a fact though that pretty much everyone has been indoctrinated from childhood (women especially) that ... such a thing as being "completely satisfied, romantically" or a "soul-mate" exists.

mrocktor, I do think that such a thing as a full satisfaction in the short term exists. Perhaps people here should clarify what is the time span which they are talking about when using the word "satisfied".

Second thing: I would not use the words "a soul mate", but I do think it is possible for two people to be perfect for each other, in the sense that each of them has every trait that they admire. They share their individual values completely.

As for intimacy: I find that other friends that I had tended to close up when they felt that I preferred someone else over them. That, however, was never the case for me, unless I thought I was preferred because of flawed hierarchy of values/flawed judgement. I once had a friend I loved: she had another best friend, but I didn't mind. I wanted to tell her things about me, the most personal thoughts I had. It gave me pleasure to be psychologically visible to her, I didn't care that at the time I wasn't her best friend (and even if it stayed that way I wouldn't mind as well).

For me the ability to develop intimacy with someone depend primarily on their character, and not on past experiences or the amount of people the other person is sharing personal information with (as long as they are all worthy).

I don't think that having intimacy with one person diminished the level of intimacy with another person. At least for me.

[aequalsa]

Yes in an overwhelming majority of cases monogamy will be considered by people to show you value the relationship more. Yes people will feel "insufficient" or "not good enough" if you refuse monogamy. Yes polls will indicate people in monogamous relationships are happier. It is a fact though that pretty much everyone has been indoctrinated from childhood (women especially) that monogamy is "right", that monogamy shows "valuing" and that there is such a thing as being "completely satisfied, romantically" or a "soulmate" exists. Integrating these facts makes one question that monogamy actually is the "ideal state" based on human nature. I have yet to see any evidence supporting this proposition that cannot be explained by the above factors.

As I said before, I think the issue of intimacy is a very interesting line of inquiry. I'm very interested on any arguments on that. The induction from the experience that "i'll be less intimate with person A if I also have sex with person B" is not sufficient because person A and person B have most likely been indoctrinated with christian/monogamous values and will recoil from intimacy because of those disintegrated values they hold without a rational basis.

I have a problem with the use of the word intimacy and wonder if you could explain what you mean by it in concrete terms. It feels to me like it's a floating abstraction right now. Here's what I mean.

Theoretically you could be intimate with any number of different people from one to 6 billion, but in actuality it is not possibe because of quantitative restraints. Building intimacy in relationships requires the investment of time, energy, focus and probably money. A great open communicative relationship doesn't happen automatically. If I was independently wealthy and retired, and approached it like a career, I can imagine, with a palm pilot and good planning, being able to squeeze in 3 maybe 4 intimate, simultaneous relationships and have all of them be fulfilling, but alas, I work and sleep most of my hours away and with the time I have left, it is barely enough to spend building a strong and loving relationship with one person.

I suggest that any relationship you have outside of the primary would neccessarily reduce its value. And sure, you could keep it all in balance so that from your personal perspective it seemed that no relationship suffered, but in actuality you would be giving 50% of your available attention to each. Likewise, when you increase the harem to 4, each gets 25% Of your discretionary time, effort, focus, and money.

Another factor that is pertinent is economics. If you have ever had someone share something personal with you that they have never told anyone, then you will understand what I mean. If you choose to share all of your most cherished thoughts and feelings with someone, this conveys significant trust, affection and esteem for them in a way that would be debased by making that same choice with a group. This applies equally to sex.

This idea of an overflowing, infinte fountain of intimacy that you can spread far and wide sounds a little too much like the christian notion of unconditional love. You can say that you are as intimate with someone you see for one hour a month as someone you spend 3 hours a day with, in the same way that you can love warren boils as much as howard roark.

All that being said, not everyone wants or is ready for the intimacy required of a serious monogomous relationship. Which is fine by me, but understand that what you are getting out of the relationships is demonstrably less thyen what you could have with an individual.

[Inspector]

because of those disintegrated values they hold without a rational basis.

You mean misintegrated values; M not D.

Not that I agree with your position (I don't).

[RationalBiker]

I don't think that having intimacy with one person diminished the level of intimacy with another person. At least for me.

I think this is the key and I agree with Ifat. Exclusivity is not a universal or intrinsic value that everyone values equally, nor is it necessary for them to do so to have a moral, happy life. Comparable levels of intimacy do not necessarily have anything to with the value of one relationship for one person and another relationship for another person.

I see very little evidentiary value for any one person to say that "my relationship(s) are best served this way" as having any real bearing on what another person's relationships should be like.

[Inspector]

I see very little evidentiary value for any one person to say that "my relationship(s) are best served this way" as having any real bearing on what another person's relationships should be like.

Actually, I agree. As I said earlier, I think it is entirely possible that a specific kind and intensity of relationship has to be involved for intimacy with one to be the greater value than multiple relationships. Of course IMO this is a very narrow and rare circumstance and does not properly apply to most people. (although it might be tempting for some to kid themselves into thinking so, in order to have their cake and eat it too)

That last part is not referring to anyone in specific.

[~Sophia~]

I think, it is all about the hierarchy of values and the fact that it differs from person to person. How much someone values exclusivity depends on person's requirement for intimacy, which may may or may not be a constant throughout one's life and certainly is not the same for everybody. Furthermore, if one values sexual variety over intimacy they won't value exclusivity as much. Some people may not be interested in long term romantic relationships at all.

[Inspector]

Furthermore, if one values sexual variety over intimacy they won't value exclusivity as much.

...and that deeply smacks of hedonism/promiscuity. I'm highly skeptical of anyone who claims reason as the source of his valuing "sexual variety" over romantic intimacy.

[softwareNerd]

I don't think that having intimacy with one person diminished the level of intimacy with another person. At least for me.

By implication, are you saying that you would think it not merely "not irrational" but actually very rational for your husband to have sex with your best girlfriends? [Not just want to, but actually to do so?] For instance, you come home early one day and find your husband in bed with your best friend, and your husband is all smiles, saying: 'Hey! What a coincidence that you came home on just the day she and I decided to sleep together. Don't worry, I'm not tired out, we can still go on with our plans for the evening." Would you say that any negative reaction one might have in such a situation is merely baggage one has been taught, and that is best discarded?

[Time_Maker]

After reading this thread, and reading everyone's opinion on

polygamy, and thinking it over, I would like to give you my opinion on

polygamy. Given something as controversial as polygamy, I am now

going to define the words which I will use so everyone would be on the

"same page", so to speak.

What is Polygamy? Polygamy is the practice of having more then one

wife or husband at the same time (1). Husband and wife are religious

concepts and imply ownership (2). Therefore, I will replace those two

words with "Sexual Partner", because partner, by definition, is

equality (3). The definition of polygamy now becomes "the practice of

having more then one sexual partner at the same time".

We now have the question of "What is sex?". Sex, according to Rand, is

"a celebration of self and of existence" (4). Sex is not physical in

nature to a human being, but metaphysical.

Where does the urge to have sex come from? Sex is, of course, an

emotion. All emotions come from our brain, which means, it comes from

our intellect (where all other emotions come from). We are also in

control of our mind, and we choose which philosophy, ideas, and such

to hold, which reflects on our emotions.

Who should we want as a sexual partner then? According to Peikoff, a

man will want a women who "he can admire, a woman who … shares his

moral standards, his self-esteem, and his view of life" (5). (If you

are a woman reading this, please reverse all references of male/

female from now on). What does Peikoff mean by admiration, self

esteem, and views of life? Regrettably, I was not able to find the

meaning of those words, so I am assuming he is referring to commonly

held definitions among objectivists.

Because sex is value based, what values should a partner have?

According to Peikoff, a person must "define and validate the specific

values of character … that he regards as important to him personally."

(6). A rational person would want a partner who has values that

resembles, or are the same, as his. It is rational that if one person

identifies another person who shares a his values, that the first

person will eventually want to engage in sexually activity with the

other.

What does Objectivism have to say when not to have sex with another

person (if both people want it)? The only sentence that I could find

is by by Peikoff: "When a man and woman do fall in love – assuming

that EACH IS ROMANTICALLY FREE AND THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE –

sex is a necessary and proper expression of their feelings for each

other." [Emphasis added] (7). Sadly, Peikoff never explained what the

meaning of the word "Romantically Free", and the context he was

referring too. In my readings of Objectivism, I never came across a

definition for "Romantically Free". If someone has read more

information from Ayn Rand ( e.g. her newsletters), please clarify for

me.

I believe we have now come to the main source of the problem, and

disagreement (either implicitly, or explicitly). At what point are we

no longer free, and we become Romantically Enslaved? I believe we

are always "Romantically Free" to pursue another person, HOWEVER, a

person should know another person very well before engaging in any

romantic relationships with her.

What is the chance of one male finding two females who share his

values? For the iGeneration ( the generation who is very fluent with

the Internet, and other methods of long distance communications), it

would be highly likely to find two or more women who he may consider

"worthy".

Monogamy was common in the earlier generations. I believe the further

back one goes in time, the more monogamous relationships were (and the

less infidelity that happened). The reason I believe this is because

of the circle of communication an individual has decreases the further

back in time we go. At the start of the country, most people wouldn't

be able to leave their towns, resulting in a lower chance in finding

someone who shares the values. In present times, communicating with

someone on the other side of the world is cheap, and instant,

resulting in a higher chance of finding people who share the same

values. I believe the iGeneration is going to be a lot less

monogamous, or perhaps, engage in infidelity more.

Now, are there some societies that practice some form of polygamy?

Yes. The most known about society would be the Arab society, however,

the source of their polygamy is different. An Arab society sees women

as inferior creatures, as chattel. Therefore, when an Arab male

marries a woman, he is taking her as almost as a form of property. It

is also the males who are allowed to have more then one wife, and not

females who are allowed to have more then one husband. Monogamy

happens much more often, in earlier times, in rational societies (e.g.

United States of America) because the majority of people hold reason

to be of the highest value, and that they must find a mate who shares

their values, not necessarily for other reasons.

Sofia, you brought up a good point about two people being

"romantically occupied", and when two people are in that state, they

become satisfied and no longer requires anyone else. The problem with

this is simple. It ignores the cause of the emotion called sexual

attraction. Emotions are based on a person's mind. One person would

feel emotions for another person based on what the first person knows

about the second person. Being involved with a third person will not

change who the second person is, and a normal person will still feel

an attraction to the second person.

Perhaps you think satisfaction exists because two people's values

are filled. Values are insatiable, just like life is. This is the flaw

in your analogy with food, because food becomes satiable (if it

doesn't, then that is unhealthy physically). If one values

intelligence , then one would not cease being around other people who

are "too smart". Please contact me if I did not fully understand your

post.

Aequalsa, I like your post about the economics of being polygamy ,

however, the issue raised is one of ethics, and not one of

practicability. Just because its not particle for someone to have 6

lovers, it may be particle for someone to have two lovers. Just

because someone is unable to have six lovers at once does not change

the ethics of having two lovers at once.

End notes

(1) Oxford Dictionary. Computer Software, version 1.0.1. Apple

Computer Corporation, 2005.

(2) I would like to refer the reader to the marriage vows of the three

major religions.

(3) Definition of "Partner", Oxford Dictionary. Computer Software,

version 1.0.1. Apple Computer Corporation, 2005.

(4) Rand, Ayn. The Voice of Reason, "Of Living Death", pp 54.

(5) Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,

"Happiness", pp 345, Meridian, New York.

(6) Ibid, pp 237

(7) Ibid, pp 345

[Inspector]

I just got done listening to Peikoff's lecture on Love, Sex, and Romance, and have to say I do feel quite vindicated, and quite happy to have reached the exact same conclusions on this subject.

He was asked specifically about multiple romantic partners (i.e. polygamy).

His answer was NO, 99.99999% of the time. He gives, as an example of .00000001%, Rand herself who could not find a man to match her unprecedented intellect did have an affair while married. She had two different men that represented, Peikoff presumes (and clarifies he wasn't ever told the details), two different top values and was "torn" between them. Even this, he stresses, was and must be a temporary arrangement that must come to an end, as it did when Rand chose to end hers. Rand was, in his exact words, “a provably unique woman.”

He also gave another example of a man who had gone to war and was thought dead. He returns to his lover to find she has moved on and has another relationship. But again, he stresses that this is temporary and she must at some point make a choice and that "it would become intolerable to all of them involved if [she] couldn't, if they were rational."

Because no two people are interchangeable and even clones are just physically interchangeable, no one can be 'your top value' in exactly the way that another person is. One of them has to be higher given whatever your hierarchy of values is and their embodiment of it. And therefore if you say, "I really don't see any difference," you are basically condemning yourself - not on the grounds of being promiscuous but on the grounds of having such vaguely defined values that you don't know what you want at all, which is an even worse "sin."

“If you are not in some kind of *rare* circumstance like that where… you are this kind of super-genius or the other person [had been presumed killed] or something like that… [in] the normal 9999 times out of 1000 it would never come up. Because you would never get to know two people that way; that intimately. Because as you start to find the first one that really attracted you, you would get completely involved with them and until and unless there was trouble with them, your relationship to everybody else would be like a closed book: you could nod at them, and find them attractive, but you’d never get to the point where you’re in love with them. So if somebody who doesn’t have fantastic extenuating circumstances [says] ‘I sleep around because I have all kinds of top values’ is just a promiscuous equivalent of a ward heeler in politics; it’s BS out and out!”

I love that "BS out and out" part, given my previous post in this thread (which I swear I made before listening to this!)

I will stress that everything in quotes or "[ quote ]" tags are his exact words, with those in brackets only changing grammar or removing "ums."

From this and the rest of the lecture, which at $11 I highly recommend, I am now certain that my view on this is the same as his and Ayn Rand's.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa, I like your post about the economics of being polygamy ,

however, the issue raised is one of ethics, and not one of

practicability. Just because its not particle for someone to have 6

lovers, it may be particle for someone to have two lovers. Just

because someone is unable to have six lovers at once does not change

the ethics of having two lovers at once.

First, the practical is the moral. Ethics is how men ought to behave to achieve values in this universe.

My mention of 4 as my personal limit was meant to be humerous. My point was that relationships don't exist in the abstract. They are connnected to actualities and those actualities have consequences in the relationship(s). If you enter into a second relationship it will detract from the value of the first in concrete measuable ways. The only way it would not, would be if the first relationship was not a significant part of your life in the first place.

If you have a job that you love, say engineering, which required dedication and effort, your work with it would necessarily suffer if you took on another job. Even if the hours didn't interfere directly, you show up at (engineering)work after spending the 8 previous hours digging ditches and your attention, interest, energy, and focus will be lessened. You can have two or more relationships and make them work, but the value will never be the same as one you put your whole soul into.

For me it's this simple. You get out of things what you put into them. You put a little bit into 3 relationships and you have 3 little relationships. You put everything you got into one, and then, you have something worth fighting for.

[RationalBiker]

My point was that relationships don't exist in the abstract. They are connnected to actualities and those actualities have consequences in the relationship(s). If you enter into a second relationship it will detract from the value of the first in concrete measuable ways.

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

[Time_Maker]

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

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

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

Inspector: I will respond to your post at a later time, after I have time to understand it.

[Ifat Glassman]

You can have two or more relationships and make them work, but the value will never be the same as one you put your whole soul into.

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

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

sNerd: I've been thinking about your question for me. The answer is that being directly involved with some of the romantic aspects of their relationship would bother me: because I would feel like I am sticking my nose where it doesn't belong: relationships need privacy (but not necessarily exclusivity - it's not the same).

If I am romantically involved with someone I would not want to express that in public. I would rather express it when we are alone, where there is no other consciousness neither of us has to think about or perceive except for each others. Full enjoyment from one another is enabled when our focus is capable of being directed at each other. If we are on a busy street, for example, with people pushing us from each side, looking each other in the eyes and having a conversation would be seriously disrupted: the flow of information will be disrupted, and the enjoyment diminished.

But if I know he just came back home from a date with her... I guess that would be okay. (I told you already, I don't know how I would feel, I get a blank when I try to think about it).

It is easier for me to think of polygamy when thinking about it from my point of view: Suppose I have a lover. And suppose I know another man, which I admire and love as well: and one day the other man shows me some achievement he has accomplished: would I want him sexually, or not? Well the answer is: yes I will. So why not have it? Can't think of a darn good reason why not. So there is my answer.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Suppose I have a lover. And suppose I know another man, which I admire and love as well: and one day the other man shows me some achievement he has accomplished: would I want him sexually, or not? Well the answer is: yes I will. So why not have it? Can't think of a darn good reason why not. So there is my answer.

I think this is an important point. Those of us that support polygamous relationships do not support promiscuity, nor mindless, indiscriminate sex. Sexual attraction is a response to the value in someone else. The expression which is sex, is the celebration of those values through the experience of physical pleasure. Sex is an ecstatic "yes" exclaimed into the air, as an echo of one's appreciation for the fact of existing, existing with a body capable of experiencing pleasure. The fact that we can orgasm is one of the most beautiful aspects about our bodies, and the experience of one's partner of having an orgasm without you, should not take away from the orgasms they or you have with each other. (Note: orgasm is not the only goal of sex, I know).

[Inspector]

But if I know he just came back home from a date with her... I guess that would be okay. (I told you already, I don't know how I would feel, I get a blank when I try to think about it).

It is easier for me to think of polygamy when thinking about it from my point of view: Suppose I have a lover. And suppose I know another man, which I admire and love as well: and one day the other man shows me some achievement he has accomplished: would I want him sexually, or not? Well the answer is: yes I will. So why not have it? Can't think of a darn good reason why not. So there is my answer.

But that is the most important point; the point that you must focus on. Suppose this man is the absolute love of your life; he is absolutely everything to you. Now think of him with another woman or women, making love to them and how that would make you feel. (Yes, I know you said you got a blank, but try again)

[Time_Maker]

Inspector. I know this question was raised to Ifatart, but because you posted it on the forum, I believe I am allowed to respond to it without being rude or intruding on a private conversation.

I do not know how Ifatart would respond, however, if that question was posted to me, my response would be "invalid statement". What it appears to me you are describing is a type of co-dependency relationship, where I require that person, as a psychological addiction, and that my own life and the other person's life becomes one.

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

Also, why should an individual's feelings be based on what a third person does with a second person? In face, why should feelings even come "into play" when we are talking about issues of the intellect? Regardless of what a person feels, facts, and reason should be the deciding factor, not emotions.

[Inspector]

SPOILER WARNINGS FOR ATLAS SHRUGGED

What it appears to me you are describing is a type of co-dependency relationship, where I require that person, as a psychological addiction, and that my own life and the other person's life becomes one.

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

Also, why should an individual's feelings be based on what a third person does with a second person? In face, why should feelings even come "into play" when we are talking about issues of the intellect? Regardless of what a person feels, facts, and reason should be the deciding factor, not emotions.

I really don't have the time or patience to give you a full response. But your idea of what you call "emotional enslavement" is completely and totally wrong. Are you an Objectivist? Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Was Galt "emotionally enslaved" to Dagny?

But if they get the slightest suspicion of what we are to each other, they will have you on a torture rack—I mean, physical torture—before my eyes, in less than a week. I am not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I will kill myself and stop them right there."

(That's Galt to Dagny)

I know you think "Husband" and "Wife" are "religious concepts," but you couldn't be more wrong. Why did Ayn Rand have a husband, then (whom she referred to as her "top value" and being married to him as her greatest achievement)? And why does Leonard Peikoff have a wife?

You need to check a lot of premises and do a LOT more reading of Objectivism.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Inspector