The Morality of Monogamy

[Inspector 0]

Oh, and I almost forgot one more important point:

Dr. Peikoff said that respect for sex "excludes... any form of faking."

That includes the faking involved in thinking one's casual partner is one's romantic love. Faking that such a relationship is true and real, when it is in fact doomed and unreal. Faking that one does not have fundamental, irreconcilable differences with one's sexual partner.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

My reasons can best be summed up by pages 343-349 of OPAR, in the sub-chapter entitled "Sex as Metaphysical." Sex, properly, is the result of romantic love between two people who have EARNED it.

←

I just reread that section and didn't get that from it. It seems he was saying that sex is ideally the result of romantic love.

It is presented as the final reward for the sum of the values achieved by the people involved. "Sex is an end in itself... a function so important must be granted the respect it deserves." What does respect mean in this context? For one thing, it "excludes indiscriminate sexual indulgence and any form of destructiveness or faking, such as, among other examples, the chaser's promiscuity..."

There was certainly no implication that non-exclusive sex was necessarily immoral or improper as long as a person was being honest, seeking values, and not being promiscuous.

To sum:

1) Sex is only proper when it is the result of the feelings of romantic love that were gained in a rational, non-contradictory manner.

ONLY proper? Where does it say that?

2) Romantic love is exclusive and CANNOT be engaged in "casually."

Where does it say that?

3) Sex is profoundly important enough that it qualifies as "an end in itself." That alone should exclude the possibility of being "casual" about it.

How so -- particularly if there is nobody in your life yet you would want to be monogamous with?

Now, to answer your other questions, by profoundly, I mean to a great degree. By the standard of what is good for the live of a rational man. As opposed to a minor act, such as eating too much cake and getting a little bit sick.

What I mean by the idea being immoral is that the very concept itself, casual sex or a casual sexual relationship, is necessarily immoral, improper, damaging to the life of a rational man. Perhaps there is a better way to express this? Have I accidentally implied something intrincist?

I think so, because you are presuming what you are trying to prove and ignoring the position of someone who is seeking, but has not yet found, the love of his life. What is he supposed to do? Be a monk?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Inspector and I have this subject as a long-time running argument. I think that from his perspective, values are somehow fixed and unchangeable, and even if the two women in a hypothetical guy's life are both extremely high on his hierarchy of values, I think Inspector expects the guy to figure out who's higher, and then stick with her. This is an intrincisist position, because as I wrote in another thread (references can be given), values constantly change, and it may be abjectly impossible to determine which woman is higher, because they both may be highest at different points in time.

So instead of trying to figure out the absolute highest, the man should be trying to figure out the 'high enough' to warrant a romantic relationship. Sometimes there may be more than one person that fits the bill. Sometimes it may work out between all three. It's not common, or something I think will always work out, but if the people themselves consent to it, in a context like this, then I don't see any grounds for condemnation.

And also, there seems to be a case here of equating 'having more than one partner' with 'being promiscuous', which is an assumption rather than a necessary correlation. Unless, of course, The Inspector is prepared to say that Ayn Rand was promiscous...

[Guest Dan Edge]

Re: Casual Sex

I don't think casual sexual relationships are the ideal, but I don't think they're immoral, either. Especially when I was younger and didn't even know to define my ideal woman, I had several casual relationships that helped keep me from going insane (and blind). Those relationships helped teach me a lot about what I wanted in a woman, and how to treat a woman properly. Also, learning how to be a good in bed is invaluable when you finally do meet your ideal.

--Dan Edge

[PhilO 0]

I would like to know by what standards that *any* consenting relationship of any kind among productive, rational adults, that is mutually beneficial for all concerned, could be gauged as "immoral", in any way, by a rational ethics. Objectivism is not Christianity, if anybody is confused on that point. A mutually happy relationship consisting of, say, 2 men and 2 women having a polygamous marriage is not inconceivable - and if in fact such a thing exists, it would be incredibly rationalistic and presumptuous for somebody else to sniff at their happiness and the lives that *they* own, to live for *their* happiness, as some kind of immorality.

The proper response to any moralizing busybody who wants to go around making pronouncements of immorality on any happy relationship, whether it is a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple, or any variant of adult individuals in a consenting relationship that is of mutual benefit for all, is: Mind your own damned business and get a life.

[Inspector 0]

I just reread that section and didn't get that from it.  It seems he was saying that sex is ideally the result of romantic love. 

←

Does he tell us what the status is of sex that is not a result of romantic love? Isn't that merely the wriggling of meat?

There was certainly no implication that non-exclusive sex was necessarily immoral or improper as long as a person was being honest, seeking values, and not being promiscuous.

Why would a person doing all of those things engage in non-exclusive sex? Wouldn't such a person seek sex only as a corollary to romantic love? Isn't romantic love necessarily exclusive?

ONLY proper?  Where does it say that?

The way I read it, on page 347, first full paragraph, it describes the subjectivist position and the status of sex without love. I assume that in the quote, Miss Rand is refering to romantic love when she says "love."

Where does it say that [romantic love is exclusive]?

That is not addressed either way in the passage, you are right. Do you have a passage that deals with the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of romantic love?

How so -- particularly if there is nobody in your life yet you would want to be monogamous with?

First, I will answer the second part: if there is nobody worthy of a monogamous relationship in one's life, then there is nobody worth of sex in one's life. As to the first part: are you saying that it is appropriate to treat the profoundly important in a "casual" manner?

I think so, because you are presuming what you are trying to prove and ignoring the position of someone who is seeking, but has not yet found, the love of his life.  What is he supposed to do?  Be a monk?

What do you mean by that? That the only two alternatives are monasticism and having sex with a person or persons with whom one is NOT in love with?

I would say that refraining from sex on the basis that one is not in love is not being a monk!

[Inspector 0]

Inspector and I have this subject as a long-time running argument.

←

FC, instead of getting angry at you, I am going to ask you this:

Could you grant me the respect of

1) Not putting words into my mouth?

2) Not speaking as if I were not here.

I have a good deal of respect for you and I don't want this to turn into a fight. If you want to discuss this, then let's; but let's also keep it civil.

[Inspector 0]

I would like to know by what standards that *any* consenting relationship of any kind among productive, rational adults, that is mutually beneficial for all concerned, could be gauged as "immoral", in any way, by a rational ethics.

←

1) Mutual consent is not a proper criteria for judging whether a relationship is rational.

2) Where did you get the idea that I was guaging as immoral any relationships between rational adults? My evaluation was that it was NOT rational to engage in casual sex and that, by extension, it could not be "beneficial for all concerned."

[Inspector 0]

I don't think casual sexual relationships are the ideal, but I don't think they're immoral, either.

←

As you well know, I disagree. You say that your past involved casual relationships because you had not defined your ideal woman and it was not, therefore immoral. I don't think that is a very strong argument. I could well say that when I stole things as a child, I wasn't being immoral because I hadn't defined my ethical code either.

The issue is not whether the person has defined their ideal or not.

[ADS 0]

Since Inspector is so far alone here, I feel obligated to say that I am very much in agreement with the general idea he is putting forth. (I.e., that sex apart from any relation to romantic love is a split between mind and body, and therefore improper.)

However, I am still trying to discern the position of the other side, and I do not want to come down too harshly on any of the views that people are putting forth until I feel I have understood them. So, in order to facilitate discussion, I wanted to ask two questions to whoever would like to tackle them:

1) Are those who oppose Inspector saying that it is proper to have sex with someone that they have no substantially good reason to believe is the best kind of man/woman that they can find? By "the best kind of man/woman," I mean that person who (among other things) most closely mirrors your top values.

2) If the answer to the above is "yes," how is this decision to have sex differentiated from promiscuity? I.e., what objective, life-based standard does one use to decide whom to have sex with?

[Inspector 0]

1) Are those who oppose Inspector saying that it is proper to have sex with someone that they have no substantially good reason to believe is the best kind of man/woman that they can find?  By "the best kind of man/woman," I mean that person who (among other things) most closely mirrors your top values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a very good question, because that is essentially what I am opposing here.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Could you grant me the respect of

1) Not putting words into my mouth?

←

That is a point well-taken. Speaking as moderator, the general point is that it is proper to judge and evaluate what another says, and even to speculate about implications thereof, but we should all refrain from telling another what he thinks. The value in providing the original quotes to which we respond lies not only in giving the context, but also as a specific check against any conclusions we draw.

[Free Capitalist 0]

FC, instead of getting angry at you, I am going to ask you this:

Could you grant me the respect of

1) Not putting words into my mouth?

2) Not speaking as if I were not here.

I have a good deal of respect for you and I don't want this to turn into a fight. If you want to discuss this, then let's; but let's also keep it civil.

I apologize if what I said appeared disrespectful. My intention was provide a shortcut, of sorts, because you and I have had this discussion before, and I simply wanted to get the discussion to a point that I expect it to go to anyway. If what I said misrepresented your point of view, or was otherwise not appropriate, as I said, you have my apologies.

[ADS 0]

Sex is only proper when it is the result of the feelings of romantic love that were gained in a rational, non-contradictory manner.

ONLY proper?  Where does it say that?

Good question. For one, consider this statement that Francisco made in his "sex speech" in Atlas (emphasis added):

The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement...

I grant you that it does not literally say that sex is improper under these circumstances, but it does pretty clearly say that sex with a person that is not the "highest" one can find gives one no "sense of an achievement." And, I think it is a real question what value sex has if this sense of achievement is wholly absent.

[Free Capitalist 0]

1) Are those who oppose Inspector saying that it is proper to have sex with someone that they have no substantially good reason to believe is the best kind of man/woman that they can find? By "the best kind of man/woman," I mean that person who (among other things) most closely mirrors your top values.

Well the discussion is not so much about the nature of sex and promiscuity, but is set in the context of monogamy/polygamy, i.e. being in intimate relations with more than one person at a time. So in this discussion, it's not about the one side of the issue where you don't have a person worthy of being in a relationship with, but on the opposite side where you have too many (more than one) people who are worthy of being in a relationship. That is a fundamental aspect of this issue. Or to be even more concrete, taking from Francisco's speech that was quoted, it's not about only being close with a heroine, but about what to do if you have two heroines in your life. Conversely in Ayn Rand's life, regarding men.

So what would you suggest to a person who has two unbelievably beautiful, talented, driven women who both touch his heart on the deepest level. Will you tell him to make a choice between them, because one of them necessarily mirrors his top values a little less than the other? As I said in an earlier post, such a choice may be literally impossible in certain situations, if both potential women are high enough on your hierarchy of values. It's like if you're on the ground, looking at the World Trade Center skyscrapers -- can you determine which one is higher (they were not of equal height)? The difficulty you'll have is similar in both cases, which is why sometimes making such a determination, and a choice based on it, may be too much to ask for.

[ADS 0]

Well the discussion is not so much about the nature of sex and promiscuity, but is set in the context of monogamy/polygamy, i.e. being in intimate relations with more than one person at a time.

Sorry, but I do not glean this from the nature of the recent exchange that Inspector and Betsy were having. The questions I asked are very relevant to tbe debate. (Inspector has essentially confirmed this above, in Post #36.) However, if Betsy agrees with you, FC, that I have misconstrued the nature of the debate, then I will reconsider.

So what would you suggest to a person who has two unbelievably beautiful, talented, driven women who both touch his heart on the deepest level. Will you tell him to make a choice between them, because one of them necessarily mirrors his top values a little less than the other?

Even though I do not think this is the essential question we are debating anymore: yes, I will them that. I'm with Dr. Peikoff on this point. As he says explicitly in his "Love, Sex, and Romance" tape, no two people are interchangeable, and if you literally cannot decide between two people then you need to define what you're looking for better. He flat-out denies the idea that two people are exactly equal in every possible way, and I agree with him. (Whether he intended to allow for any contextual exceptions to this principle, such as the case of AR's affair, I do not know; but either way, he was quite effusive that, as a very strong general rule, you must choose.)

[Inspector 0]

Sorry, but I do not glean this from the nature of the recent exchange that Inspector and Betsy were having.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, it's my turn to apologize. I kind of steered the discussion away from the original context. You aren't mistaken that I was making a different point; more focused on promiscuity than monogamy.

[Inspector 0]

I apologize if what I said appeared disrespectful. My intention was provide a shortcut, of sorts...

←

Apology accepted. I am glad that we can continue this discussion in a civilized fashion. If you want to raise a specific point about what we have already discussed, please do feel free to ask a question of me.

As to your example, I would say that I agree with what Alex said in response.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I agree that no two people can be of exact same value to a person; however, this doesn't go against what I said previously in this thread. The first difficulty is seen in my example with with the Twin Towers and determining their relative heights, which could be exceedingly problematic/erroneous. The second difficulty lies in what I mentioned in post #28 -- our values are not somehow fixed, but are constantly changing either up or down our hierarchy.

Now, true, normally a value such as one's lover does not shift much every day either up or down, in overall hierarchy. But if you have two people that are both that way, just as with determining the height of WTC from the ground, you will literally have to take out a telescope, a measuring tape (or more like a computer), and take note of every milimeter of difference, because the difference between the two, from your vantage point, may not be much more than that. Now although the big values remain relatively non-moving in the overall hierarchy, if you "zoom in" their movement will become a lot more apparent. And if you have two women who constitute two extremely high values, they will appear to be identical from afar, but when you zoom in you will see how they minutely change their relative positions to one another. Today, woman A may be a tiny bit more desirable because she wore a dress that reminded you of home and childhood memories; tomorrow, woman B may be a tiny bit more desirable because she wore perfume that reminded you of your favorite flowers. I don't see how making such a choice would be possible, if today woman A is your "highest value" compared to the two, and tomorrow woman B is.

But furthermore, why would you have to make that choice? There's no hint of promiscuity, or compromise, anywhere in the scenario I described with these two women.

Would such a relationship be weird? Absolutely, I'd be a bit weirded out having a friend with two girlfriends, yes. But I do grant that there may exist situations where this could be possible and not improper.

[ADS 0]

I agree that no two people can be of exact same value to a person; however, this doesn't go against what I said previously in this thread.

Okay, then we can agree to disagree; I'll let this post of yours serve as the last word (at least in terms of you and I debating this issue here and now). In doing this, I don't mean to ignore your arguments, but just to (re)affirm that this is not the issue that I personally am especially interested in discussing.

What I am very interested in discussing is the issue that Betsy and Inspector were having an exchange about, which centers around the question of what type of relationship between two human beings is necessary for sex to properly follow.

[ADS 0]

Okay, here is the quote from Miss Rand I have been looking for:

A sexual relatioinship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.

This is what Inspector and I have been arguing for.

[Inspector 0]

But furthermore, why would you have to make that choice? There's no hint of promiscuity, or compromise, anywhere in the scenario I described with these two women.

←

I do see a compromise; a big one in fact. If I put myself in the shoes of one of those women (and that's the only time you'll catch me in women's shoes! ), I have to ask myself: why am I settling for being one of several? Why would a woman of self-esteem consent to being put into such a position? How painful would it be to know that your lover can't bring himself to say "I love you, exclusively." I'd go crazy when my love was with that other person. I'd rather have all or nothing.

That's the nature of romantic love. It's exclusive. Three's a crowd.

Oh, and I don't see what the dilemma is with choosing between the two women who are so close. BE A MAN! Make the choice and live by it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the women are as close as you say, then what will you have to regret if you choose the wrong one? That TINY little bit of difference? It will disappear as you grow closer to the one you chose; as you said, heirarchies change with time. I just don't see what the big deal is.

[Inspector 0]

Okay, here is the quote from Miss Rand I have been looking for:

This is what Inspector and I have been arguing for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THANK YOU! That's exactly where I'm coming from!

[Ed from OC 0]

What I am very interested in discussing is the issue that Betsy and Inspector were having an exchange about, which centers around the question of what type of relationship between two human beings is necessary for sex to properly follow.

That sounds like an invitation to start a new thread.

On the current topic of polygamy: I can't imagine sharing my highest value with someone else, or putting my highest value in the same position. Furthermore, if you listen in to some of the relationship talk shows, you'll repeatedly hear how attempts at adding a third person end up hurting the initial relationship (or at least are symptomatic of deeper underlying issues). If I was deeply in love with someone, then I think it would be wrong to "expand" the relationship.

Now if the concept of "polygamy" denotes a type of serious relationship, and is limited to that context, I would say there is a problem. If two partners are deeply in love, what's gained by bringing in a third person? Even assuming three moral equals, the level of intimacy precludes interchangability. The object of one's love is not an abstraction, but the concrete person, quirks and all. A third person in a relationship amounts to saying to one of the partners: "You are my highest value -- except when I'm with this other person."

That said, what if you aren't deeply in love? Some here argue that sex is out of the question outside of the context of a serious relationship, but I disagree. (That's a separate issue that would be interesting to discuss in another thread.) For the sake of argument, let's grant that sex can be proper outside of a serious relationship. In that context, I don't think there's a necessary problem with more than two people. I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to condemn such behavior, and I haven't seen such a proof.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

10 points for the author of these words, 5 points for the title of the source, 3 points for the identity of "X," 8 points for the name of the person these words were written about, and 16,845,831 points to the first person to properly connect these words to the recent posts in this thread. (NO COMPUTER SEARCHES PLEASE.)

"Until his meeting with X, he has had affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such."