The Morality of Monogamy

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

The dictionary I have right now, states that implicit is; complete, unquestioning, absolute, faith (although your dictionary might have something different). To come to my conclusion that there would be a consequence I had to be objective and look at reality. So I know that there are always causes and effects, which translates to their always being consequences. A consequence does not have to be a negative or a loss, it is an effect.

On another note, one can walk away from a relationship knowing it will end without harm or a loss, if one plans accordingly. I have given many examples of this already.

[Inspector 0]

Inspector,

The dictionary I have right now, states that implicit is; complete, unquestioning, absolute, faith (although your dictionary might have something different).  To come to my conclusion that there would be a consequence I had to be objective and look at reality.  So I know that there are always causes and effects, which translates to their always being consequences.  A consequence does not have to be a negative or a loss, it is an effect.

←

What a strange dictionary you have! That is not a use of the word I have even ever heard of! That is not at ALL what I meant!

Here:

im·plic·it Pronunciation Key (m-plst)

adj.

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.

2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).

Implicit, meaning "implied by"

So what I said is (replacing "implicit" with its meaning):

When you say "deal with the consequences," it is implied by what you are saying that there ARE consequences to deal with.

On another note, one can walk away from a relationship knowing it will end without harm or a loss, if one plans accordingly.  I have given many examples of this already.

I don't agree and I don't accept your examples. I don't wish to discuss this with you further.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

I thoroughly agree with your last sentence of your last post, and I am happy to deal with the consequences.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But I don't know why you're asking this, given the quote you've already provided: ...

Alex, you seem to have missed the thrust of what I said, or perhaps I was not clear enough. I am asking that you identify the specific highest values that were part of Dominique and that were actually revealed by Dominique in her words and actions in the quarry Chapter of the book. What you have done is to illustrate certain meanings to Roark, but I am asking for the specific things that Dominique did and said that embody or express the specific highest values from which Roark got his meaning.

[ADS 0]

What I don't understand is this: Is Ayn Rand saying that the proper sexual relationship is one that involves two people who share the same highest values in the highest degree of implementation?

I'm not sure, but I would say "no," if only because Roark chose to have sex with Dominique even though she had substantially flawed premises that she needed to correct. I am, however, open to your contrary position on this question.

But, either way, I find myself delighted to see that someone is disagreeing with me on the grounds that I am attributing too low a standard to Miss Rand with regard to sex!

[ADS 0]

Alex, you seem to have missed the thrust of what I said, or perhaps I was not clear enough. ...

←

Then I'm the one guilty of being unclear, because I understood your question perfectly well, and my point was that I don't see that it has any direct bearing on my position. I regard what I have been arguing for as proved -- both in terms of Miss Rand's view of sex in general, and its relation to the "rape scene" in particular -- so any further amassing of data can only be to the purpose of going up the spiral of knowledge, not trying to establish that what I'm saying is knowledge to begin with. You may agree or disagree, but on these grounds -- and, of course, with all due respect -- I have no particular interest in doing the further research your question requires.

[PhilO 0]

What I don't understand is this: Is Ayn Rand saying that the proper sexual relationship is one that involves two people who share the same highest values in the highest degree of implementation?

In other words, are there two issues here? First is the issue of finding someone -- or several individuals -- who share one's highest values. Second is the issue of finding one of those qualified individuals who puts those values into practice more than any other candidates.

←

When you say "implementation" do you mean strictly psychologically/characterwise, or also existentially? Afterall, one can essentially, in theory, perfect one's one psychology/character, but external success, what one could dub the virtue of productivity, is never assured "at the highest level"; there can be factors beyond one's rational control that would mitigate against it.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Roark to Dominique, in the movie version of "The Fountainhead":

"I loved you from the moment I first saw you ... and you knew it!"

(Or couldn't you tell, from the Max Steiner music playing in the background?)

[Jay P 0]

But isn't the very premise of failure inherant in such relationships? Isn't that what they are all about?...

No.

It is true that the relationships we're talking about (speaking for myself) are ones that are thought, from the outset, to be almost certainly non-permanent. That is, they won't last a whole lifetime.

But that does not mean that the relationship was a failure. It simply means that the relationship was limited, i.e., not as much as a romantic relationship could be. But it still can be a value. Even if it ends some day.

In fact, I know people who have had relationships of this kind, that did not last forever, that the partners do not regard as being failures. They were a source of pleasure (not just physical pleasure) that they are, in retrospect, glad to have experienced.

Non-permanence does not mean failure. (Somebody who considers any non-permanent relationship to be a failure can avoid these kinds of relationships, and probably will. But that's no reason for the rest of us to avoid them.)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I have no particular interest in doing the further research your question requires.

I thought you might be interested in what you may or may not discover. But however you want to deal with it is fine with me.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

Hmmm, that did come out a bit off. Let me try to restate it.

The whole point of a monogamous relationship is that you are making your relationship more special, exclusive, and loving because you are with ONLY your partner. Isn't it better to be able to say "You're the only one for me" than "you're number 54 today, take a number."

Why not extend this across a lifetime?

←

You understand that this is not even related to what I responded to.

By waiting for your "one," you can give him or her a bigger/better gift. That's the whole idea behind an exclusive sexual relationship anyway, so why not extend it that next step to its logical conclusion?

Mind you I have nothing against monogamy, I have been for the almost thirteen years of my marriage.

But, waiting for the "one" is a different issue from monogamy and cannot be fused into one concept.

[Ed from OC 0]

No one here whom I can recall -- least of all me -- ever attributed a "one night stand" to Roark and Dominique.

←

The key point, though, is that their first time together is distinctly not in the context of a serious, long-term relationship. That it eventually develops into such is not the point. At this time, neither of them had a relationship in mind.

Secondly, each had only limited knowledge about the other. Dominique didn't even know his name!

This is why their first night is such a good example. Ayn Rand certainly endorses their behavior (by including it in her fiction), yet some people insist that her view of sex makes such improper. I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to this apparent contradiction.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I'm not quite sure. I would be inclined to say "Yes, and that's just one more thing that sucks about breaking up. One more reason to regret that first relationship. One more reason to be careful and seek not to engage in doomed relationships."

Speaking strictly in advice terms, in normal circumstances it doesn't serve your self-interest to engage in such temporary relationships. What you get isn't greater than what you lose.

←

I have a slew of questions on this one.

Does breaking up suck? Every instance?

What is lost?

How is the "gift" less, now that the man has deflowered himself?

Is it a moral loss, a loss of stature of the person (psychologically, self-esteem, sexual potency, will to live, moral integrity) that renders his gift less than if he had somehow had the clairvoyance to see that the first "one" was (now in 20/20 hindsight) not afterall his true "ONE", now that his has slept with the false "one"?

Why does the first relationship have to be regretted?

Are all things that pass to be regretted when they are gone?

How was this man supposed to know that the relationship was doomed if he thought she was the "one"?

Would it always be the case that what you get isn't as great as what you lose? (Remember the nature of Ed from OC's example was not of any sort of depraved nature.)

Why is there necessarily something to be lost? What is lost? And how does this carry over to one's subsequent tries at love?

Can there be no such thing as a part of one's life shared (though not the whole of it) with another in love, sex, respect and values, that ends not only amiably, but as a plus that adds to ones "reserves" of positive experiences in one's life?

I suggest you reread Ed's example before answering any of this.

[Ed from OC 0]

If it okay to have sex with someone whom you share high values with, but isn't necessarily your ideal, where do you draw the line?

Do you decide whether to have sex with them or not, based on WHICH values they share with you? And if they are high on your hierarchy?

I can admit that there may be some instances where you are in a relationship with someone, and you may think that they are your ideal, but then, as the relationship progresses, you part ways for whatever reason.  With this, you couldn't have known.

Should the situation be decided contextually? (As long as it is being made based on values and honestly?)

←

I think your last question answers the others: context is crucial. Not everyone is in the same concrete circumstances, with the same options available. Above all, sex should be enjoyed. If two good people are attracted to each other, but know that a relationship is not in the cards for some (good) reason, I don't see why sex should be immoral. I would think it highly immoral to waste a good opportunity between two good people because they would rather sit around debating the issue to death.

Likewise, the issue of "drawing a line" is contextual. Moral principles can guide your decisions at a broad level, but the exact implementation is a personal matter. For instance, the virtue of production means a moral man has a purpose in life, a career; it doesn't tell him the details of what path to take, where to go to college, etc. Likewise, justice guides you in selecting a partner, to the point of being rational in one's judgement and in having a rational moral code by which to judge people. But it doesn't say for those people who meet that standard, sleep with any of them, sleep with all of them, or even "Thou shalt not have sex outside a serious relationship." What counts is the personal aspect: what is sexy to you? What excites you? What aspects of people do you find attractive -- not Objectivists in general, but you in particular.

Caution and highly valuing sex are one thing; needlessly denying one great pleasures in life is another, and I consider that immoral. That's why it is important to me to be clear on this issue. Despite the many posts on this thread, I'm still not convinced that sex outside the context of a serious relationship with one's ideal partner is wrong. I think it would be immoral to put one's sex life on hold for the sake of an omniscient standard of certainty (in knowing enough about one's partner and one's self to know that both are ideal for each other) and for dropping context (by assuming that only sex within the context of a serious relationship is proper).

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

When you say "implementation" do you mean strictly psychologically/characterwise, or also existentially?

←

Good question. At this point I would say implementation of one's highest values includes developing one's character (one's virtues, as actually practiced), but neither one's psychology (which may include problems left over from childhood that are extremely difficult to solve even by an honest person), nor one's achievements "existentially" in terms of concrete results (which can be a matter partly of needing time to learn skills and partly a matter of acceptance by others in society).

For example, a man may be virtuous but a beginning fiction writer who neither has the skills he needs, yet, nor acceptance by publishers. All other factors being equal, he should be a candidate for a sexual relationship based on "highest values" of reason, purpose, and self-esteem. Of course, there should be many other factors a woman would consider: primarily sense of life, but also his physical attractiveness, and his personal habits.

[Inspector 0]

No.

It is true that the relationships we're talking about (speaking for myself) are ones that are thought, from the outset, to be almost certainly non-permanent.  That is, they won't last a whole lifetime.

But that does not mean that the relationship was a failure.

←

To be clear, the kind of relationship I am talking about is one that is known from the beginning to be doomed to failure on the basis of an irreconcilable difference of values between the people involved. If you're talking about something else, my advice may not apply.

[Inspector 0]

But, waiting for the "one" is a different issue from monogamy and cannot be fused into one concept.

←

I don't think I'm presenting it that way. It's an extension of the same basic premise into a differant application.

[Inspector 0]

I suggest you reread Ed's example before answering any of this.

←

It would help if I knew which example you meant. This thread is HUGE! What is the post number?

[Free Capitalist 0]

If it okay to have sex with someone whom you share high values with, but isn't necessarily your ideal, where do you draw the line?

Do you decide whether to have sex with them or not, based on WHICH values they share with you? And if they are high on your hierarchy?

I can admit that there may be some instances where you are in a relationship with someone, and you may think that they are your ideal, but then, as the relationship progresses, you part ways for whatever reason. With this, you couldn't have known.

Should the situation be decided contextually? (As long as it is being made based on values and honestly?)

~C~

The line is drawn, as you said, contextually and honestly. That's it, there is no other way. From what you said here, it seems to me that you've been arguing from a position where there are some Rules, given to you, which you don't have to actually apply yourself contextually, but just obey. Given that position, in a "slippery slope" situation where you admit it may be possible to be involved with someone less than your completely utter ideal, of course you will feel like you won't know where to draw the line. But if you approach the whole subject right away from the perspective of context, then both the "ideal" case and the "almost ideal" case will both equally require ability to understand context and rely on your honesty to make the right decision. As many people have said here, Objectivism is not about "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s.

[Jay P 0]

To be clear, the kind of relationship I am talking about is one that is known from the beginning to be doomed to failure on the basis of an irreconcilable difference of values between the people involved. If you're talking about something else, my advice may not apply.

←

The kind of relationship that I am talking about is one that does not last forever, and that was expected to likely not last forever, before it started. I don't regard such a relationship as having failed, however, and so I don't agree with your characterizing it as "doomed to failure".

In fact, I'm arguing that having been in such a non-permanent relationship it is likely a net gain to the partners. I.e., they're better off than if they had not been romantically involved with each other at all.

[Inspector 0]

The kind of relationship that I am talking about is one that does not last forever, and that was expected to likely not last forever, before it started.  I don't regard such a relationship as having failed, however, and so I don't agree with your characterizing it as "doomed to failure".

In fact, I'm arguing that having been in such a non-permanent relationship it is likely a net gain to the partners.  I.e., they're better off than if they had not been romantically involved with each other at all.

←

Then we are talking past each other.

...So if there is no irreconcilable difference of values in what you are talking of, then why do they break up?

[Jay P 0]

Then we are talking past each other.

...So if there is no irreconcilable difference of values in what you are talking of, then why do they break up?

←

No, I don't think we are talking past each other. I think our disagreement is that I don't think a non-permanent relationship like we're talking about should be considered to have been a failure, and you apparently do.

Why do they break up? Well, they're not soulmates. They probably don't have enough significant values in common for the relationship to last forever. (Which is something they knew before they started their romantic relationship.) That's probably the same thing you mean by "irreconcilable value differences".

[Inspector 0]

No, I don't think we are talking past each other.  I think our disagreement is that I don't think a non-permanent relationship like we're talking about should be considered to have been a failure, and you apparently do.

Why do they break up?  Well, they're not soulmates.  They probably don't have enough significant values in common for the relationship to last forever.  (Which is something they knew before they started their romantic relationship.)  That's probably the same thing you mean by "irreconcilable value differences".

←

...so they ARE breaking up because of irreconcilable value differences? Make up your mind, please.

[Jay P 0]

...so they ARE breaking up because of irreconcilable value differences? Make up your mind, please.

←

I haven't changed my position, so there is no need for me to "make up my mind".

I just say that the two people do not have enough values in common for the relationship to last forever. I don't however like the term "irreconcilable" in this context, because it's quite possible they made no effort to "reconcile" their differences.

Rather, they just recognized from the start that they had enough values in common for a romantic relationship of some value, but not enough for one that would last forever. In that situation, I can well imagine that they would just eventually decide to part ways as lovers (perhaps remaining friends; I have seen this happen before), rather than try to reconcile differences that they knew were there from the beginning.

In other words, they did not enter into the relatioinship with the intent of trying to change one another.

That's the same kind of relationship I (and I believe others in this thread) have meant all along, as you can see if you go and read my earlier posts.

"Irreconcilable value differences" are your words; I've just explained why they are not mine.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

It would help if I knew which example you meant. This thread is HUGE! What is the post number?

←

The one you responded to of course that I quoted in my post. Number 239.