RoR: Forum

Joe,

This is another great article on love and marriage.

I want to add that many or perhaps most people see their happiness as ultimately dependent upon that particular relationship. When reality disproves that notion, people often blame the other person rather than accepting the basic fact that one's own happiness is ultimately up to oneself, not another person.

Michelle Weiner-Davis explains in DIVORCE BUSTING that "happiness is a do it yourself job" and shares ideas about how to do this.

I think we also need to look at the origins of marriage and its role in reproduction. Until recently, women had a very hard time making it in life without men. Brute force primitivism was the standard way of life. Women and children left alone in the wild would have a very hard time indeed. Marriage served an important genetic survival role for many generations.

Feminists would likely burn me at the stake for saying that, but I see no way to deny it.

With the modern benefits of advanced technology and secularism, women can control their reproductive ability as never previously in history. They can also do most of the same jobs as men. So we have largely evolved away from the survival needs of our ancestors that marriage served to fill. This opens the door to many new ways of conducting our relationships.

Sadly, laws and social mores have a long way to go to catch up with these developments.

Luke Setzer

Post 1

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:21pm

Greetings,

To a significant extent, I agree with Mr. Rowlands that an unsuccessful marriage should be terminated in a divorce. However, the alarming rates of both divorces and bad marriages can be explained by the fact that people marry too rashly, without adequately familiarizing each other with their fundamental value-premises. Divorce, in these cases, is often seen as a "quick fix" which enables people to "try out" relationships that might or might not necessarily work. I am skeptical as to the value of this approach; it expends one's energy on too many uncertain endeavors. Rather, I would advise abstaining from marriage until one is confident that the relationship is of prime compatibility and will not be of detriment to one's material and intellectual state.

I will clarify further, if necessary.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 2

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 2:17pm

Joe makes an important distinction in clarifying the static and dynamic in "marriage." And the simple solution to conflict arising from the latter is to eliminate the former. Get rid of marriage as a legally-preferred status, and let individuals define their relationship with one another on a dynamic basis. A piece of paper (static) is not going to prevent infidelity, or keep an otherwise-unhappy couple together, and it certainly doesn't change the individual destructiveness in maintaining the relationship. So throw out marriage as a legal distinction as evidence of the remnants of religion's influence on government, and move on. If people still want to be 'married' they can do so by agreement and/or, recognized by their religion, if any.

Post 3

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 5:40pm

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I agree with Luke that although the economic commitment associated with marriage might have been a necessity in the past, it no longer is. It's one of many possible alternative arrangements, and I would be surprised to see many new variations.

G., I'm not sure I agree with you. It's not just that people are too quick to get married, but that they start with the basic assumption that they must get married. Even your comments indicate that presumption. You say they shouldn't get married "until" they're confident, but that assumes that getting married is the ultimate goal. It would have been better to say "unless" they're confident. Your term implies that marriage is the unquestioned goal.

Scott's answer is more to my liking, and fits with my article. People should stop naming their relationships and seeking status. There are an infinite number of ways people can choose to interact with each other. People should be trying to figure out what works for them, instead of trying to make themselves fit into an already existing package.

To give just one example, you can talk about living with someone. There are some definite advantages and disadvantages to this. You have less privacy and alone time. You have joint property and all the pain that involves. You have plenty of opportunities for talking, sex, and spontaneous activities. You have to compromise on decorations, music, TV, etc. You may get so used to the other person being around that it no longer feels special to see them. You see them all the time, including when they're at their worst. You argue over who does chores. You can carpool. You save money on rent (maybe).

Given that list, it's not obvious that two people, no matter how much in love they are, should want to live with each other. And yet, if we uphold this magical state called marriage up as an ideal, there is no choice. It's taken as given that you live together.

I think it'll be better when everyone shrugs off these relationship package-deals, and just gets on with living their lives.

Post 4

Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 2:04pm

Greetings.

I strongly disagree with Mr. DeSalvo's proposal to eliminate marriage as a legal distinction. Marriage is primarily an economic contract; it involves, among other things, joint ownership of property, joint custody of any children that arise from the relationship, and legal protection for one's property in the event that one's spouse commits adultery, demands a divorce, and desires to claim the possessions of the innocent. "Fluidity" in relationships is not desirable; a relationship must, like all other things, be based on the trader principle; value is exchanged for value, and it is necessary to know at all times what the values being exchanged are. The identification of these values must be explicit, objective, and delimited. It must also be permanent and not variable with the times-- a marriage in itself presumes lifetime validity and duration unless unforeseen circumstances or unforeseen incompatibility intervene to sever it. It is folly to engage in romantic affections for multiple individuals, and a marriage must provide an inherent safeguard against this. I give the reason for this in "The Public-Private Ethical Distinction: " http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/The_Public-Private_Ethical_Distinction.shtml:

The nature of romantic love as a strictly private undertaking can be derived from its exclusivity; this relationship is both the most proximate possible between two individuals, and a function possessing entirely its own psychological "plane," which is not shared by any other emotions, attractions, or interests. To grant such a consideration to two or more people (as in the case of adultery or polygamy) would be to dilute its effect on each and thus turn a profound appreciation into flimsy, superficial promiscuity. Any such love that is "shared" is thereby corrupted, not amplified (in absolute refutation to the collectivists' seemingly contradictory, but in fact perfectly consistent proclamations of "free love" and "socially planned breeding").

Given that romantic love is the highest possible personal relationship, it must also involve the greatest possible degree of personal commitment and responsibility. The responsibilities of such a relationship must be carried out diligently and to the letter, of course, necessitating that such a letter, or contract, exist. Marriage without a contract (or a romantic relationship without a contract) is like a business deal without a contract. One never knows whether the other will deliver that much-needed shipment of a thousand rivets for the new skyscraper, or whether the other will default on a mere verbal promise the next day and bring one thousand ribbons instead, or, worse, fail to deliver anything at all! People's memories are not perfect, and individuals may often forget obligations that have only been told to them, and that have not been stored, word for word, in some permanent medium, written, electronic, or otherwise.

Expecting the intellectual/emotional/psychological comforts of a romantic relationship without the steady and explicit foundation of a marriage is like expecting the apex of a skyscraper to somehow endure without its foundation. I write of this in my "Fashionable Fallacies" http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Fashionable_Fallacies1318.html:

#15

Persons of lust will claim with inflamed zeal

That romance out of marriage poses great appeal.

To comprehend their blunder, plainly let me state:

They crave a salad having not a plate!

Yes, not all marriages are perfect. Yes, many do not work out at all. Yes, divorce should be an option, but it should not be expected. Nor should a split in a romantic relationship be expected or anticipated. If it is, then it is best not to embark on the relationship in the first place. If one is not certain that one would wish to eventually marry the individual to whom one is attracted, the attraction is misplaced and based on faulty value-premises.

It is the job of the government to ensure that contracts are not breached and to provide a forum (the court system) in which such breaches are remedied by affording proper penalties and compensations to the applicable parties. To deny marriage the status of a contractual agreement is to deny any wronged party in a marriage the opportunity to state its grievances in a legal forum and obtain a just response to any instance in which that party had been defrauded (i.e. adultery, child neglect, substantial damage to joint property, or even fundamental incompatibility, in which case the court should grant a divorce).

The lack of a marriage should not, of course, exclude some type of relationship contract. (Most prudently, all couples should sign contracts voluntarily before entering any sort of relationship, so as to be aware of the specific bilateral expectations involved.) I do not object to experimenting with exactly what values are to be traded in a relationship. It could be possible for a couple to draft a contract in which each individual lives apart, meets the other every Sunday, and goes with the other to a movie theater. (The contract could also stipulate consequences of non-compliance.) Even informal contracts, that have no legal validity but bring forth severance of the relationship if they are not followed are better than the "fluidity" that Mr. DeSalvo suggests. But if such unique contracts should come to be, their nature will still be distinct from the nature of marriage, which is a specific type of contract. Thus, the agreements could be given their own names and their own legal status, without violating the legal protections that numerous couples willingly extract from the status of marriage.

I agree, by the way, that marriage is not an unquestionable goal for an individual. I am only stating that if an individual does wish to pursue a relationship, it would serve him best to seek one that will certainly culminate in a successful marriage.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 5/20, 2:53pm)

Post 5

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 1:02am

To Mr Stolyrov: You said that marriage is primarily an economic contract, that relationships are based on the trader's principle which calls for the marriage contract, that romantic love requires responsibilities diligently carried out which again calls for the marriage contract, and that the terms of the marriage contract should be permanent and unvarying in time unless the marriage goes sour due to unforseen circumstances in which case a divorce is acceptable.

I disagree.

Marriage is not primarily an economic contract. Economically, for two people with similar earning power, the terms would be much more fair if they formed a real trade contract(for joint ownership of properties and such) with everything spelled out, than if they entered a marriage contract. And for those with significant differences in earning power, a marriage contract is grossly unjust because there is no trade of values specified(except "till death do you part"), not enforcable ones.

Legality makes a relationship harder to break up which is hardly an issue for happy relationships. Whereas for an unhappy one, is there really value in keeping it going?

Personal commitment and responsibility come naturally when people have intense positive feelings for each other, regardless of the legal status. It's only those who no longer value their relationships find it necessary to constantly remind themselves of how they should behave, because they don't naturally want to. Again, it's only an issue for those who are unhappy together. And those who don't value their relationships will find ways to sneak around anyway even if they are married(or especially if they are married, as it is harder for their other half to leave).

People grow and change with time in different ways, even when exposed to the same environment. Most people get married because they think they are compatible and have every intention of having a great life together. But what holds in the future is by definition unforeseeable. Once a couple no longer finds joy in each other's presence, it is only beneficial for both parties to break the chains and set themselves free.

And lastly the last line in your post,

I am only stating that if an individual does wish to pursue a relationship, it would serve him best to seek one that will certainly culminate in a successful marriage.

indicates that you still think the most successful relationship must result in marriage which misses the point of Joe's article: that marriage is just a label attached to a relationship. It does not enhance the relationship itself at all. A rotten relationship is just as rotten by any other name. And it is to one's benefit to seek a successful relationship(the dynamic meaning), rather than a successful marriage(equivocation of the dynamic and static meaning).

To Joe and Scott: I agree completely that the focus should be on the actual relationship. Nowadays women grow up with packaged ideas ingrained in us so much that it's easy to get confused by the conventional equivocations and lose sight of what we really want instead of what we are told will make us happy(notably the marriage status). That's why there are grown women who want a beautiful house with beautiful children and a husband to complete the picture, without giving much importance to how that "husband" should be exactly, or women who obsess over being "happily ever after" by clinging on to the "ever after"(static meaning) part while forgetting the more important word "happily"(dynamic meaning). Even more scary, women are told that marriage(static meaning)is important and therefore they must marry someone, anyone, when they are of age, whatever the cost.

To Luther: I'm sorry that feminists have such a bad name. And I agree that the times have changed. Yet it is still common to see a man thinking that he's doing a woman a huge favor by offering her marriage, when in fact, it is no longer the appealing long-term, free meal ticket that it once was. On the contrary, to independent women who do well on their own both career-wise and household-wise, marriage has noticable downsides. It's going to take something a lot more life-enhancing than a promise of marriage now.

(Edited by JJ Tuan on 5/21, 1:07am)

(Edited by JJ Tuan on 5/21, 1:27am)

(Edited by JJ Tuan on 5/21, 2:01am)

Post 6

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 3:27pm

Thank you for the support, JJ and Joe. In response to Mr. Stolyarov, I'll just mention that the term 'fluidity' in his reponse, as well as the idea that my post somehow supports polygamy or multiple simultaneous relationships, are whole cloth creations of his, not mine. Witness:

""Fluidity" in relationships is not desirable; a relationship must, like all other things, be based on the trader principle; value is exchanged for value, and it is necessary to know at all times what the values being exchanged are. The identification of these values must be explicit, objective, and delimited. It must also be permanent and not variable with the times-- a marriage in itself presumes lifetime validity and duration unless unforeseen circumstances or unforeseen incompatibility intervene to sever it. It is folly to engage in romantic affections for multiple individuals..."

I think Joe made it quite clear why 'fluidity' in relationships is quite desirable: because otherwise, you are trapped in a sacrificial relationship, rather than focusing on fulfillment and progress. And precisely ~why~ must values be 'permanent and not variable with the times?' Jesus, I might have ended up with my first girlfriend if that were the case. (as it turns out, she was and is a wonderful person) But life and our role in it is not static--our decisions for ourselves aren't either, nor should they be. Should we require all 18-year-olds to identify their values and their relationships to them and others, and then compel compliance? Or should we allow for the mistake and minimize the social and emotional costs of a mistake? Joe and JJ support the latter, and I think they are correct.

Ultimately, if the individual is the unit of value and the life of the individual is the standard of value, why create artificial impediments to growth and happiness for the decisions of the individual? No one is saying two people cannot commit and spend the rest of their lives together--just that if they decide they ~dont~ want to, they ought to be able to go their own way easily. Broken hearts and shattered hopes are cost enough, no?

Post 7

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 3:35pm

I wrote:

"If people still want to be 'married' they can do so by agreement and/or, recognized by their religion, if any."

Mr. Stolyarov responded:

"It is the job of the government to ensure that contracts are not breached and to provide a forum (the court system) in which such breaches are remedied by affording proper penalties and compensations to the applicable parties. To deny marriage the status of a contractual agreement is to deny any wronged party in a marriage the opportunity to state its grievances in a legal forum and obtain a just response to any instance in which that party had been defrauded (i.e. adultery, child neglect, substantial damage to joint property, or even fundamental incompatibility, in which case the court should grant a divorce)."

I reply:

When 2 corporations make a deal (contract), oral or written, the Courts interpret the contract and rule. The same can and should happen when folks enter into an agreement to be married. But the agreement is not State sanction--it is a private agreement between private individuals. Just like if Joe and I agreed that I would mow his lawn for $10 per week. If I mowed and he didn't pay, we would try to work it out, and if not, I could sue him. If a woman breaches her agreement with her husband, they would work it out, or he could sue her. And this would work out much better than pre-defined requirements and unspoken expectations in marrriage--the whole agreement between the individuals could be explicitly spelled out and agreed upon while both parties were digging each other's scene. Explicit, voluntary, enforceable. But still no State sanction.

Post 8

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 7:52pm

Greetings.

Interesting feedback, Ms. Tuan and Mr. DeSalvo. At the rate this discussion is developing, I think I will need to furnish a treatise on "The Filosofical Status of Marriage" in the near future. In the meantime, I will address some of your statements directly.

Ms. Tuan: Marriage is not primarily an economic contract. Economically, for two people with similar earning power, the terms would be much more fair if they formed a real trade contract(for joint ownership of properties and such) with everything spelled out, than if they entered a marriage contract. And for those with significant differences in earning power, a marriage contract is grossly unjust because there is no trade of values specified(except "till death do you part"), not enforcable ones.

Mr. Stolyarov: I do not deny that, in some situations, it would be more financially prudent for a couple to sign contracts in addition to marriage that could more definitively specify conditions of joint property ownership. However, the marriage contract also offers certain benefits (which can be called economic) that no conventional contract can. For example, it confers upon the couple joint legal guardianship of any children that are born, a condition noticeably lacking in "wedlock" and resulting in an enormous rate of parental neglect in families where marriage did not take place. Moreover, marriage creates a much-needed distinction between acts of fysical intercourse within it and outside it. Outside it, these acts are repugnant; they are termed adultery, casual promiscuity, decadence, lasciviousness, sensuality, a health hazard, what have you. Within it, on the other hand, they gain entire moral propriety as an expression of one's highest possible valuation for one's spouse. Can other contracts accomplish this? I would like to see you suggest some "alternative" to marriage that makes this distinction just as well or better.

Perhaps this is why, in every society from the Neolithic Revolution onward, marriage was a firmly established institution. No matter what the political outlook of the society, the need for marriage to exist was seen as vital as the need for food or air to exist. I know of no sedentary culture where marriage was not an option, and a much-respected one. The attack on marriage, by the way, has come primarily from the socialist left, beginning with Rousseau and his primitivist preachings of "free love." If we, on the other hand, embrace selectivity in relationships and scorn the "sharing" of our affections with the entire world, we need to create well-defined and immutable distinctions between those we value highly and the remainder of the planet, distinctions that are not subject to the spur of the moment or attitudes that change whimsically over time. Marriage exists to establish permanence for those who desire it, who experience such a potent attraction to another that no slight turbulence should pose an obstacle to enjoying the value-trade with that person for an entire lifetime.

More thoughts and responses are to come.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 9

Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 3:24pm

Greetings again.

My treatise on marriage is in the making. In the meantime, here are further responses.

Ms. Tuan: Legality makes a relationship harder to break up which is hardly an issue for happy relationships. Whereas for an unhappy one, is there really value in keeping it going?

Mr. Stolyarov: Alas, if it only were so. Consider the following case: two individuals are in a generally happy relationship, but without legal safeguards. Though they are greatly compatible in terms of value-premises, they enter a fight over a trifle (say, over whose turn it is to pick the kids up from school). Then, to make up for the confrontation, the male invites the female over for a date at a fancy restaurant, immediately after work. The male prepares extensively for the event, but, due to the sordid weather and the rush hour, gets held back in traffic. The woman, in the meantime, arrives at the restaurant and waits for a futile hour, not knowing her �non-husband�s� situation. She returns home filled with spite, thinking, from the precedent of the previous fight, that her non-legally bound companion has deliberately staged his non-appearance. She leaves immediately and takes half of her �non-husband�s� property. She has no reason, so she thinks, to stay, even though she has fallen victim to a misunderstanding that could have been clarified had the couple had the guarantee of possessing the time to sort it out, time that a marriage would allow precisely by means of the inherent difficulty in severing the relationship.

Even the best relationships have their unhappy moments, as even the case of Ayn Rand and Frank O�Connor demonstrated. Nevertheless, the standard of perfection is not one that many human beings ever manage to actualize. Some bitterness will result between the most compatible of people, and the question becomes, �How can it be prevented?� Prudent individuals who can foresee this for themselves, but still observe significant compatibility between each other can quite voluntarily enter into a marriage agreement in order to provide a mechanism that will cause the relationship to prevail, even if arguments over trifles exist. No government should have the option or the right to deny these individuals the opportunity to enter into such a contract, but should rather dutifully enforce the will of these persons to perpetuate their bond through acceptable degrees of turbulence.

Ms. Tuan: It's only those who no longer value their relationships find it necessary to constantly remind themselves of how they should behave, because they don't naturally want to.

Mr. Stolyarov: I emfasize once again: people�s memories are not perfect! There may be the fullest intent on the part of both individuals to preserve the relationship�s integrity, but they may at times forget the proper means toward such an end. Thus, it is entirely possible for either party to commit an honest mistake once in a while. So long as the mistake is not deliberate (like adultery) or devastating in caliber, referring to the marriage contract and any other contracts pertaining to the relationship could assist the erring party in correcting it and returning its behavior onto the proper path.

Ms. Tuan: People grow and change with time in different ways, even when exposed to the same environment. Most people get married because they think they are compatible and have every intention of having a great life together. But what holds in the future is by definition unforeseeable. Once a couple no longer finds joy in each other's presence, it is only beneficial for both parties to break the chains and set themselves free.

Mr. Stolyarov: This almost seems to be a statement that the breakup of any relationship, even the best, is inevitable. Not so. In any culture that has embraced marriage, most relationships have lasted successfully for life, even under the worst of circumstances, like a totalitarian dictatorship. As an example of this, I bring forth observations of my own childhood in a crumbling Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union cannot be put forth as a model for just about anything, but one of its hallmarks (and the reason for its survival for 74 years) was a class of bourgeoisie intellectuals forced into service to the government and the Communist Party (and treated despicably, I must add). These were the best of Russians, tremendously educated, well-intentioned, and, in a land of proletarianism, refined and �culturally conservative.� I grew up surrounded by adults of this order, and one of its hallmarks was an extremely stable family structure. Though divorce was accessible, almost everyone was married only once and stayed married for a lifetime! There were occasional feuds and disagreements, but the very permanence of the relationships seemed to deflect them so that, on the next day, matters would proceed as usual, as if no interference had occurred. As a matter of fact, until my teens, I had thought of this as the sole possible arrangement, only then having been exposed to the post-hippie-era epidemic of careless relationships and divorces that had been seeping into the former Soviet Union from the West. Until very recently, I used to pay occasional visits to Minsk, my home city, and have heard disturbing stories about youths engaging in relationships outside of marriage that are replete with rape, teen pregnancy, abandonment, alcoholism, and hosts of other irresponsibilities. The one-time cultural elite has mostly emigrated, and a new line of dictators has emerged which keeps the masses appeased by tacitly sanctioning easy beer, easy fysical intercourse (the former USSR has the highest AIDS rate in Europe), and, of course, by bludgeoning Neo-Communist, Slavic Chauvinist doctrines into teens in the schools. Having fewer stable family structures to act as a counterweight against state indoctrination (as the divorce rates have soared, since relationships among the new generations are not intended to be permanent; they are a mere hedonistic indulgence), the new generation has continued to elect dictators like Lukashenko (Belarus), Kuchma (Ukraine), and Putin (Russia) into office.

Is it any wonder that leftists of all colors are seeking to abolish marriage?

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 10

Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:02pm

Stolyarov, I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. It's hard to form a response when there's so many points of disagreement. Instead, we have no common ground to start with.

The biggest difference is that you still think a relationship's "success" is if it lasts forever. For instance you say "In any culture that has embraced marriage, most relationships have lasted successfully for life". You aim for stability and life-long ties, whereas I think happiness is the goal. The two are fundamentally opposed.

For instance, you give an example of a relationship ending over some trifling matter. You see this as bad, because the relationship is ending. I consider it positive, because if a relationship can end over something so petty, it deserves to end.

You suggest that having barriers to prevent you from acting too quickly is good, but I disagree. Life is about removing obstacles, not intentionally creating them. These barriers only work if the participants are unable to see value in the relationship. And if that's the case, what's so great about continuing it?

The obstacles are bad for many reasons. You want the obstacles so people don't leave when they get angry, but that has another effect. It kills the incentive for both people in a relationship to deal with each other in a positive manner. Instead of trying to create value in the relationship so the other person would want to stay in it, you instead focus on not pissing them off too bad. And even then, you can be as big of a jerk as you want and only apologize when they start talking about divorce. Many people want to get married in order to force the other person to stay with them. As soon as the ring goes on the finger, they can stop giving the other person a reason to stay. A notorious idea is how women stop watching their weight and looking good as soon as they get married. The man is trapped, so who cares? And it's no different from men. They stop taking the girl out, stop buying them gifts, and otherwise end the romance. They can watch football and tell her to shut-up and bring them a beer.

Contrast this to a normal, healthy relationship that doesn't have obstacles for leaving. If the two like each other, they stay together. They focus on the value they each gain from the relationship, because that's the reason for staying. They may have a fight, and they may feel like ending it during the fight. But if the value gained is worth staying together, they will try. And more than that, they'll try to avoid fights. Adding obstacles to leaving just kills the incentive to keep the relationship happy in the first place. It's a response to bad relationships, but it just encourages them.

You said one thing about right. "Marriage exists to establish permanence for those who desire it". It's for those people who want security at any cost, including happiness. Marriage is not a relationship designed to make people happy. It's a relationship designed to be effortless and safe. You never have to worry about pleasing the other person, or upsetting them, or anything else. No more trying to be romantic. No more thinking about their feelings. No more offering them value. Marriage was created with only one purpose; to chain the other person to you forever, whether they like it or not.

Notice that normally it is considered impossible to sell yourself into slavery. When there are contracts, they are trades of property or services over time. Contracting a "relationship" is a form of slavery. Even if it's just "we agree to go to movies every week", either party can quit at any time. There's a huge difference between identifying (or defining) the kind of relationship you have with someone, and trying to use force in order to maintain it. Personally, I find the whole idea repugnant. I would never try to use force to keep someone I loved stuck with me. Same applies to friends.

Now you added some other arguments for marriage. For instance, the left likes to attack marriage, in order to dissolve the family structure. That's true, but it's not an argument for marriage. In fact, it's just a typical conservative's argument. You're just promoting a different kind of collectivism in order to fight against the first. That's no argument for enslaving yourself or your loved one! You may as well jump on the rest of the conservative bandwagon and outlaw homosexuality, gay marriages, and oral sex.

And just to add to my overall disagreement, I have to personally object to the idea that Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor can be considered in "Even the best relationships". I don't think openly cheating on your spouse can be properly labelled as one of the "best relationships." It makes sense only from the perspective that stability and life-long togetherness is the ultimate goal. I reject this.

There's no way we can ever agree on this topic as long as you assume that a stability, not happiness, is the primary goal. In fact, I argue that anyone who takes that view will always sacrifice happiness. That's the point of this article.

I am Joe

Post 11

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:01am

Greetings.

This will be a brief post, but it will continue some of my responses.

Mr. DeSalvo: In response to Mr. Stolyarov, I'll just mention that the term 'fluidity' in his reponse, as well as the idea that my post somehow supports polygamy or multiple simultaneous relationships, are whole cloth creations of his, not mine.

Mr. Stolyarov: I used the term "fluidity" to characterize the general essence of Mr. DeSalvo's first posting, though it is true that he did not explicitly mention it in that statement. Perhaps my placing it in quotes indicated otherwise, and for this I apologize. Nevertheless, Mr. DeSalvo later wrote: "I think Joe made it quite clear why 'fluidity' in relationships is quite desirable..." This indicates that fluidity is indeed what he was arguing in favor of and that I did not misconstrue his argument; I merely used a different name for it that, in my estimation, concisely encapsulated it in a single term.

I do not accuse Mr. DeSalvo of explicitly supporting adultery or polygamy. I merely claim that fluidity is undesirable for very similar reasons as polygamy and adultery are undesirable. All three types of misdemeanor prevent an individual from devoting the entirety of the energy he is capable of wielding in the romantic sfere toward the single individual whom he values most. Fluidity presumes that a relationship is meant or at least likely to be dissolved in the future, because no precautions or safeguards are established against this occurrence. This by definition excludes firm and unwavering devotion to the individual toward whom one seeks to demonstrate romantic love, the highest possible and most exclusive emotion. The man who practices fluidity is like a spendthrift who does "whatever" with his money today and does not wish to establish a long-term plan for its management and amplification. The man who establishes a marriage contract is, on the contrary, like a frugal investor: he spends his money/energy moderately and invests it bit by bit to amplify the amount present and defend himself against possible turbulence in the future. A modicum of effort invested in a stable relationship can pay far greater interest in "emotional capital" with the other person than a gigantic one-day spending spree that leaves one with no money, stock seed, devotion, what have you. This is why couples who have remained together for many decades (I have met many who have coexisted for fifty years or more) have almost no major quarrels and seem almost perfectly compatible, in a manner that the epitomes of the "live-for-today" generation can never, due to their own volition, match.

Mr. Rowlands:
Mr. Stolyarov: Very clever. Would it not be more accurate to say that, by the old Atlas Point system, you have almost reached four icons? (My placement of the Atlas Icons indicates the level which I had reached; for me, a fifth one is yet undeserved.)

Post 12

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:03am

Joe, Mr. Stolyarov,

I've been thinking about a new signature and would like to get your opinion.

I Am

The other atlas looks so humble. Yuck!

Compare, Mr. Stolyarov's

Mr. Rowland's

and my triumphant Atlas

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/24, 11:28am)

Post 13

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 8:46am

Joe's response is absolutely spot on.

Post 14

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:49pm

Scott remarks: >>Joe's response is absolutely spot on.<<

Yes, as an argument for the antinomian sexuality that the West has embraced over the past few decades.

If the overwhelming evidence of the Sexual Revolution's human wreckage can't be seen for what it is by those who claim to view reality with clear-eyed objectivity, then Mr. Stolyarov may as well talk to the walls. That's a shame, because he makes a good case for why Objectivist sexual morality can be a secular pathway out of the libertine morass in which so many people have traded their dignity for license.

Regards,
Bill

Post 15

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:26pm

Mr Stolyarov,

You wrote:

However, the marriage contract also offers certain benefits (which can be called economic) that no conventional contract can. For example, it confers upon the couple joint legal guardianship of any children that are born, a condition noticeably lacking in "wedlock" and resulting in an enormous rate of parental neglect in families where marriage did not take place. Moreover, marriage creates a much-needed distinction between acts of fysical (sic)intercourse within it and outside it. Outside it, these acts are repugnant; they are termed adultery, casual promiscuity, decadence, lasciviousness, sensuality, a health hazard, what have you. Within it, on the other hand, they gain entire moral propriety as an expression of one's highest possible valuation for one's spouse (emphasis added). Can other contracts accomplish this? I would like to see you suggest some "alternative" to marriage that makes this distinction just as well or better.

I do not understand your assertion that sexual intercourse not in the context of marriage is immoral, or "repugnant" to use your words. I also do not understand how that same act all of a sudden gains "moral propriety" if performed within the context of marriage. I further do not understand how you support your assertion by citing how society respects marriage as an institution (a rather appropriate term if you ask me, seeing how it drives people nuts). Can you explain these assertions? From what I know, Objectivist ethics are not based on the consensus of a collective but on the happiness of a rational individual. If an individual can find happiness making love to another (or even more than one other) out of wedlock, than more power to him. If the individual prefers the "security" they believe is inherent in a marriage contract, more power to him too. In either case, there is no fraud or coercion involved as far as I am concerned. Sex is the most pleasurable celebration of life I can think of and, if done between consenting adults, I can never find anything repugnant about it.

I hate to do this (since it is not an argument in and of itself) but I will cite examples from Ayn Rand's novels. Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, Dagny Taggart, and Henry Rearden all committed adultery in the classic sense. Heck, Dagny and Francisco had pre-martial sex (which I am guessing you object to) when they were teenagers!

As for the stuff before and after regarding legal contracts, Ms. Elizabeth Kanabe in her "Marriage Alternatives" thread, wrote about a site she came across called the "Alternatives to Marriage Project". It speaks of legal recourses available to individuals as an alternative to marriage. For the sake of convenience, the address is: http://www.unmarried.org/index.html

Byron

Note: Edited for spelling.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 5/24, 1:34pm)

Post 16

Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:35pm

Greetings, Mr. Stolyarov.

I admire you for fighting this uphill battle on your naysayers' secular turf. Its on secular terms where this fight needs to be fought in light of the left's astounding success in flogging sexual license to society at large by delegitimizing religious authority over sexual morality. (Of course I understand you are fighting on this turf, because it is YOUR turf too. Although that hasn't stopped the insinuation that you are Trojan horse for those evil conservatives and their religious agenda.)

The trivialization of marriage in the West as a relationship of convenience rather than commitment has seriously wounded our society. I suspect my generation and the next who have grown up with the unhappy results of this "progressive" experiment with our most fundamental social institution will be re-thinking it. Meanwhile, the devolution of marriage into nothing more than a fleeting declaration of romantic love will continue.

How well such suits the left's agenda to deracinate man and put him at the mercy of its hyper-rationalist projects. Thus, the left must continue its assault upon marriage and strip society of all those meddlesome institutions that shelter the individual from the raw power of the state. Those who speak of marriage as slavery are profound in their ignorance of that institution as a bulwark of individuality against the state. It is a shame that those who rightly perceive the menace of the state, do not also perceive how the trivialization of marriage empowers the state.

Regards,
Bill

Post 17

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:06am

Hi Byron, Mr. Stolyrov,

I do not wish to step on Mr. Stolyrov's lines (and I'm sure he will respond), so I will settle for asking you a question and making a comment.

You said, If an individual can find happiness making love to another (or even more than one other) out of wedlock, than more power to him.

That, of course is the question. You have assumed that promiscuous sex is capable of making a human being "happy." What is the basis of that assumption?

You use the examples from Ayn Rand's novels, but, in real life, Ayn Rand practiced her own views, and I am not convinced her practices made her or any other individuals happy. In fact, the results were the exact opposite.

I think you may be conflating pleasure and happiness. Certainly those who engage in sex without commitment have pleasure in the act, why else would they do it? But since when does an Objectivist conclude that pleasure, alone, is the basis for objective choices--that is hedonism and subjectivism.

I cannot speak for Mr. Stolyrov, but I think he would agree, the reason indiscriminate sex is wrong is because it does not produce happiness at all. It cannot, because it is contrary to the requirements of human nature, requirements which must be discovered, rationally, and in the total context of what a human being is. However much pleasure it produces, in the end and at best, it is disappointing, and usually the cause of endless trouble.

Now, Byron, I do not mean to pick on you, because most of the posters on this thread agree with you. You just happen to have asked the clearest question, which makes it the easiest to answer.

I will tell you something you ought to have been able to figure out for yourself, though most never do. If you ever find the woman you cannot live without, one whose very existence, once you find her, makes life worth living, one with whom all your goals and aspiration are either shared or mean nothing to you, one that is your happiness, and without whom you could never know happiness again, then you will know why, sex with anyone else is both a waste (however pleasurable) and a source of unhappiness.

All that I've read about marriage on this thread tells me most Objectivists do not understand what true romantic love is, that integration of value and emotion embodied in the existence of another that makes that one both the fulfillment and purpose of one's own existence. When one's values are both satisfied and realized in another, that one becomes the purpose of one's own existence, because the one loved becomes necessary to the accomplishment of one's own values, aspirations, and happiness. One's lover is both the source of the power that enables one's own achievement, and the reward for that achievement.

Do most find that? Never; but most never look for that in the first place. They do not believe it is possible. Their tawdry souls do not believe one's highest values are achievable in this world, they settle for the squalid and commonplace.

They should not get married; but if the do, she should be honest with him, that she has no intention of doing anything hard and if things become the least bit difficult, she will drop him like a hot potato and look for another temporary means to her immediate ends; he must be honest with her that she is important to him only has an object for satisfying his present desires and he is offering her nothing with any long-term purpose or value. There is nothing wrong with that because they are then dealing with one another as honest traders seeking from the other what they desire, and if that is all they desire, it is all they will get, but whatever they get, it will not be happiness, and will ultimately not be worth having.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/25, 5:11am)

Post 18

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:33am

Regi,

Do most find that? Never; but most never look for that in the first place. They do not believe it is possible. Their tawdry souls do not believe one's highest values are achievable in this world, they settle for the squalid and commonplace.

I don't wish to step on anyone else's toes here, but I personally think it highly unlikely (not impossible) that the majority of people will find that special person, even if they do look for them. Do you really think that in the absence of that person their is no alternative but no romance at all or what you refer to as "the squalid and commonplace"?

MH

Edited due to misreading of Regi's previous post. Sorry.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/25, 7:47am)

Post 19

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:35am