The Morality of Monogamy

[RayK 0]

Ayn Rand, from "The Fountainhead, writing about Gail Wynand.

[Guest danielshrugged]

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."

←

Actually, I was thinking this might be Ayn Rand, from her journals, writing about Roark's meeting with Dominique.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Ayn Rand, from "The Fountainhead, writing about Gail Wynand.

←

Ten points to Ray for Ayn Rand as the author. The rest is not correct.

[Ed from OC 0]

"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."

←

Dang. Beat me to my example. I was planning to use it in a new thread on the proper foundations of a sexual relationship, which is what I believe Alex was interested in discussing.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Actually, I was thinking this might be Ayn Rand, from her journals, writing about Roark's meeting with Dominique.

←

5 points to danielshrugged for the Journals reference, 3 points for Dominique as "X," and 8 points for Howard Roark as the subject of the quote. 16 points total.

However, in that quote (and the surrounding text) Miss Rand was writing about Howard Roark's view of, attitude towards, and experiences with sex.

So, 16,845,831 points remains to properly connect this with this thread.

[Ed from OC 0]

Dang.  Beat me to my example.  I was planning to use it in a new thread on the proper foundations of a sexual relationship, which is what I believe Alex was interested in discussing.

←

To be precise, I wasn't thinking of a discussion from her journals, but rather the first time Roark and Dominique sleep together. Surely there's no "relationship" to speak of at that point. And remember when Roark is leaving Connecticut? He's shocked to see that he's not done with Dominique, that she still has a presence in his consciousness.

Was Roark being immoral? Was he out of line sleeping with her?

[Free Capitalist 0]

If I remember correctly, this was part of the original description of Roark, i.e. someone who had these cold, detached sexual liasons until meeting Dominique and consummating that first real relationship. However, again from memory, she dropped this bit of promiscuity from his description for obvious reasons -- that he'd have to compromise his values to be with all those women.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

To be precise, I wasn't thinking of a discussion from her journals, but rather the first time Roark and Dominique sleep together.  Surely there's no "relationship" to speak of at that point.  And remember when Roark is leaving Connecticut?  He's shocked to see that he's not done with Dominique, that she still has a presence in his consciousness.

Was Roark being immoral?  Was he out of line sleeping with her?

←

And note Miss Rand's words in The Fountainhead (p. 217) right after Roark takes Dominique at the quarry.

"It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

... she dropped this bit of promiscuity from his description for obvious reasons

←

Sorry, we do not award 16,845,831 points for unsubstantiated assertions. But, please do comment on the quote I just provided from The Fountainhead, in which Miss Rand describes the nature of the act performed. Especially this part: "He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement."

[Free Capitalist 0]

Wait which part was the unsubstantiated assertion? I remember that there was a part of Roark's sexuality that AR described in her journals, specifically his earlier detached promiscuiity, but that she later chose to drop it from the final draft because it was not appropriate or consistent with the rest of his character. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Now as to Roark taking Dominique with scorn, I am really surprised by the quote and don't have an answer ready. Two sentences later Ayn Rand also describes his action as "shameful" so I am really at a loss as to how to explain it; I haven't read TF in two or so years, and some memories faded but this excerpt took me completely by surprise, as I didn't think such a description would be there.

[ADS 0]

...please do comment on the quote I just provided from The Fountainhead, in which Miss Rand describes the nature of the act performed. Especially this part: "He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement."

←

I'm having trouble seeing what your intent is in raising this case. Are you saying that this stylized, fictional example, involving a woman with a serious case of the malevolent universe outlook, can or should be understood to supersede Miss Rand's clearly stated view that "a sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being"? Or that "sex must not be anything other than a response to values"? (Both quotes from the Playboy Interview.)

Once I see where you're going with this example, I'll be happy to comment further.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Wait which part was the unsubstantiated assertion? I remember that there was a part of Roark's sexuality that AR described in her journals, specifically his earlier detached promiscuiity, but that she later chose to drop it from the final draft because it was not appropriate or consistent with the rest of his character. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

How can I correct an unsubstantiated assertion? Substantiate what you say above, especially "she later chose to drop it from the final draft because ..."

Now as to Roark taking Dominique with scorn, I am really surprised by the quote and don't have an answer ready. Two sentences later Ayn Rand also describes his action as "shameful" so I am really at a loss as to how to explain it; I haven't read TF in two or so years, and some memories faded but this excerpt took me completely by surprise, as I didn't think such a description would be there.

←

But, putting this aside, what about Ed's comment. What was the nature of the relationship between Roark and Dominique when he first took her? What was the basis for Roark's desire for her? It certainly wasn't arbitrary, but in what way does it fit in with all that has been said by several in this thread?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'm having trouble seeing what your intent is in raising this case.  Are you saying that this stylized, fictional example, involving a woman with a serious case of the malevolent universe outlook, can or should be understood to supersede Miss Rand's clearly stated view that "a sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being"?  Or that "sex must not be anything other than a response to values"?  (Both quotes from the Playboy Interview.)

Do you consider Roark to be immoral for acting on the basis for his desire for Dominique at the quarry?

[ADS 0]

Do you consider Roark to be immoral for acting on the basis for his desire for Dominique at the quarry?

←

While I do not in the end consider this question relevant, I will answer it. No, I do not consider it immoral in the context of the novel. As Dr. Peikoff explains in the "Love, Sex, and Romance" tape, the basis for their initial attraction was that they were projecting the nature of the other person's soul on the basis of their body and demeanor. And, they did speak multiple times of course before they had sex.

Now, would this be something that would happen outside of a stylized world? I don't know, but in the context of the novel it was not immoral and nor does it usurp Miss Rand's view that sex must proceed from an affinity, the basis of which is one's highest values. Are you denying this, Stephen? I'm honestly interested to know.

While I think analyzing this case of Roark and Dominique is fascinating, one can only understand it in the light of Miss Rand's clearly stated views on the nature of sex, not as being something that somehow supercedes them. Hence my saying that I don't see this as relevant to the question at hand.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Now, would this be something that would happen outside of a stylized world?  I don't know, but in the context of the novel it was not immoral and nor does it usurp Miss Rand's view that sex must proceed from an affinity, the basis of which is one's highest values.  Are you denying this, Stephen? 

As a man who has been married for thirty-eight years to the same woman -- a woman who reflects my sense of life, my highest values, my soul -- of course I am not denying Miss Rand's view of sex, Alex. What I am responding to is a somewhat Puritan attitude towards sex that has been expressed here. Promiscuity seems to have been equated here with having a sexual relationship with anyone who does not embody one's highest values. I think it moralistic to condemn someone who has not yet found his one great love for having sex with a lesser one, even one for which there is no expectation of a long-term relationship. Helen was condemned for this right here. I would hate to see young people feeling guilty for indulging in something that can give them such pleasure.

I am not suggesting that single people jump into bed with whatever moves first. But they are mind and body, and the pleasure that can be derived from exercising both need not be denied unless they consider their partner as their soul mate. I brought up the Roark and Dominique encounter because they did not date for months and have long philosophical discussions; they each had a physical attraction and the extent of their conversations was mostly sexual innuendo. I do not deny that there was a basis for that physical attraction, but the attraction was acted on before it was fully confirmed. I certainly would not suggest that single people in real life take that approach, but I offered it as an example to contrast with what I read from some posters as a Puritan and moralistic approach to sex.

I wish all can find the ideal that I have found, but I'll be damned if I am going to go around and morally condemn single people for finding pleasure in life while they are waiting for that ideal. (In addition, I want to note that I see a certain parallel here with the condemnation of homosexuality by some.)

[Ed from OC 0]

I wish all can find the ideal that I have found, but I'll be damned if I am going to go around and morally condemn single people for finding pleasure in life while they are waiting for that ideal.

←

I strongly agree with you, Stephen. Of course the ideal is a long-term relationship with one's soulmate. Who has argued otherwise? The problem is, finding such a person is not a given, nor is it easy. It really is great to see people find such a mate in their early adult years, and it is terrific when such a relationship can last a lifetime.

But what about those who keep looking and looking, and come up empty? Are we supposed to be celibate until we find "the One"? And if not, then where should the line be drawn? At what point does sleeping with people one knows are not one's ideal become immoral?

At what point, too, does this stop being a philosophical issue, and become one of personal preference? For example, some people have a lower threshold for entering into a relationship with someone than for sleeping with them; that is, there exist some people who one would date without being sure of whether they would sleep with them. And there are other people for whom the contrary is true: they meet some people they would enjoy sleeping with, but would clearly not enter into a relationship with. So, is sex or the relationship the higher value, and is the issue of ranking them a philosophical issue, or an issue of one's personal value hierarchy?

[ADS 0]

As a man who has been married for thirty-eight years to the same woman -- a woman who reflects my sense of life, my highest values, my soul -- of course I am not denying Miss Rand's view of sex, Alex. What I am responding to is a somewhat Puritan attitude towards sex that has been expressed here.

In light of what I say below, do you mean by that attitude anything more than Miss Rand's statement that "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being"? For, that one sentence encapsulates the whole view I have been putting forth in this thread.

Promiscuity seems to have been equated here with having a sexual relationship with anyone who does not embody one's highest values.

I wouldn't put it that way, at least with regard to my own view. Not all improper sexual relationships are promiscuous. I would simply say that if one has no good reason to believe that one's sexual partner embodies the highest kind of person that one an find, then said sexual relationship is improper.

In this vein, I'm still very interested to see someone attempt to answer the questions I asked earlier, which I reproduce below:

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?

I think it moralistic to condemn someone who has not yet found his one great love for having sex with a lesser one, even one for which there is no expectation of a long-term relationship.  Helen was condemned for this right here. I would hate to see young people feeling guilty for indulging in something that can give them such pleasure.

But I'm questioning the basis of that very pleasure. For, it is far from obvious to me why that pleasure is valid. After I got seriously into Objectivism, I did not so much as date or touch a girl for three years, until I found the woman that I now love. During that three year span, I felt no desire to accept anything less than what I honestly thought I could achieve. There was no repression, no strain. I was perfectly happy taking care of my sexual desires by myself, and I do not see what I would have gained by sharing such an intimate aspect of myself with another person whom I knew I could do substantially better than. Again, the supposed value that one gets from this kind of relationship must be validated, for I myself am aware of no such validation. What I am aware of, though, is many cogent things Miss Rand has said that argues against this idea that you (and others) are putting forth.

(In addition, I want to note that I see a certain parallel here with the condemnation of homosexuality by some.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then I should say that I do not see any such parallel, but I understand why you would, given that you hold my views to be moralistic.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

Let me pose a hypothetical.

Suppose one has an idea of his "One" (am I in the Matrix?), but try as he might, he does not meet her until he is thirty-seven. Should he be devoid of sex during all of that time of his life? Alex said he did 3, what about 15? What about 20 or more? If this be the line, it is not part of any philosophy I would come near.

This is the same tripe I heard in summer church camp my parents sent me to. This is not an application of Objectivism, but a crystllized principle into a dogma. There is no context taken into account, not of changing values, growth, human needs, specification of concrete values, sense of life issues nothing-just an injunction. A grand goal has been made a standing order.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

In light of what I say below, do you mean by that attitude anything more than Miss Rand's statement that "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being"?  For, that one sentence encapsulates the whole view I have been putting forth in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[bold added for emphasis.]

I have tried to read every post in this sometimes fast-moving thread. I have not seen answers to two questions that arise for me:

1. What are those "highest values"? First, are they uniquely personal values, such as valuing a particular form of work (for example, architecture)? Or are they fundamental values (such as one's own life, most of all, but also reason, purpose, and self-esteem) that should be everyone's highest values -- in other words, philosophical values? I notice that so far no one has given any examples of "highest values." Doing so might help the discussion.

2. What does "finding" mean here? Does it mean simply becoming aware of another person who has those highest values -- and who pursues them on a larger scale than anyone else known at the time? Or does it mean knowing of someone who has those highest values and would consider me the best embodiment she could achieve given her own level of attractiveness?

Let's take an "concrete" (but fictional) example: Eddie Willers. He "found" Dagny Taggart, a woman with whom he shared his highest philosophical and personal values. If she was not available to him -- because his level of accomplishment was far below hers -- should he spend his life as a celibate? Or should he have sought another woman who shared his philosophical values, if not his uniquely personal values, but accomplished them (as he did) at a lesser level of achievement than Dagny Taggart had?

[piz 0]

...I wish all can find the ideal that I have found, but I'll be damned if I am going to go around and morally condemn single people for finding pleasure in life while they are waiting for that ideal.

←

Amen.

No one here has justified this supposed moral prohibition on my taking part in an extremely important aspect of romantic relationships, namely sex.

I think that Alex drops some context with "sex must not be anything other than a response to values," implying that this means sex is only proper with (to use a phrase from other posts) The One. Note that in the Playboy interview, AR goes on to say:

[sex should] involve...a very serious relationship...I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives--a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain....[T]his does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values. [taken from The Ayn Rand Lexicon, bold added]

I have had way more relationships than average (most before my marriage, some since my divorce, the vast majority before finding Objectivism). I've had everything from relationships with no sex at all, to one-hour stands , to, um, some unusual arrangements , to, of course, a marriage. On occasion, to be sure, sex was the wrong thing to do, an error of knowledge or even a breach of morality. But, looking back, in every single case where sex was a part of a meaningful relationship, it certainly met the criterion of being "based on values," even when I knew it wasn't [reverb-on]THE RELATIONSHIP[reverb-off]. I've read nothing in the Objectivist corpus, and I've certainly seen nothing posted here, to make me think otherwise.

[RayK 0]

"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." Ayn Rand

"Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation." Leonard Peikoff

Sex can be a value all by itself, so enjoy it, when it does not contradict your other values.

[Inspector 0]

Almost too much to respond to, here.

...[T]his does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper

Now, here is the kicker: I am not comdemning relationships based on less than total certainty. I am condeming relationships that a person KNOWS to be doomed due to a conflict of fundamental values, and I am condemning relationships that are based on total UNcertainty. (i.e. people one knows nothing about, or next to nothing)

I am against two things here: casual sex and sex with a person that one knows is not a possibile candidate for their long-time life partnership on the basis of values. (as opposed to, on the basis that they are, say, going to go to war and possibly die)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Of course the ideal is a long-term relationship with one's soulmate.  Who has argued otherwise?  The problem is, finding such a person is not a given, nor is it easy.  It really is great to see people find such a mate in their early adult years, and it is terrific when such a relationship can last a lifetime.     

But what about those who keep looking and looking, and come up empty?  Are we supposed to be celibate until we find "the One"?

I would say it is optional. If one has found and gained one's ideal, monogamy is the best way to go for many, many reasons. Until then, casual sex and non-exclusivity are possible and proper if (1) one is honest and upfront about it and (2) it is based on some values one finds in a partner. NOTE: I am neither advocating polygamy nor promiscuity.

And if not, then where should the line be drawn?  At what point does sleeping with people one knows are not one's ideal become immoral? 

I draw the line at faking interest or love one doesn't feel or sex not based on SOME values.

To address points made by others:

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

No, that is a false alternative. What Ayn Rand said about sex -- and Peikoff repeated -- is "Sex is good."

Wouldn't such a person seek sex only as a corollary to romantic love? Isn't romantic love necessarily exclusive?

Ideally, yes, but many people don't have their ideal romantic partner. Why should their only option be celibacy?

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."

How about, a man who, not yet finding a woman he can love, has sex with women he likes? If "sex with love" is not currently possible, what's wrong with "sex with like?"

As to the first part: are you saying that it is appropriate to treat the profoundly important in a "casual" manner?

I am saying that it is appropriate to treat the profoundly important and GOOD -- and to experience it -- in the best way one is able. I think a person should seek a long-term monogamous relationship because it is the best context for sex but, until they find it, having the next-best sex they can find is perfectly reasonable.

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.

At worst, it has the same value as masturbation: the satisfaction of a physical need. It often has more depending the the values shared with the sexual partner.

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

I agree. Observe that she says "the highest values one can find" -- not just "the highest values."

[Inspector 0]

Stephen, I could answer every one of your quiz questions, but it looks like it's been mostly handled.

Instead, I will ask you a question: was Howard Roark on Objectivist? Do you think that every one of his actions conformed to the philosophy of Objectivism? Was he created before or after Objectivism?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

←

Observe that Dagny was a "woman of self-esteem" and that she did have a sexual affair with Rearden knowing he was married and not knowing if he were still sleeping with Lillian. Also observe that she knew, while having the affair, that Rearden was not her highest value:

To find a feeling that would hold, as their sum, as their final expression, the purpose of all the things she loved on earth… To find a consciousness like her own, who would be the meaning of her world, as she would be of his… No, not Francisco d'Anconia, not Hank Rearden, not any man she had ever met or admired … A man who existed only in her knowledge of her capacity for an emotion she had never felt, but would have given her life to experience…

Was Dagny's affair with Rearden "improper?"