Objectivism, marriage, and monogamy

Once again, I'm sure this topic is nothing new. Regurgitation seems to be an innate aspect of forums. So, much thanks to any who put a great deal of effort into their responses.

I've had great trouble deriving monogamy and marriage from Objectivist philosophy, yet Rand seemed to think that monogamous marriage was conducive to our objective happiness. In one interview she says that if Dagny would have married Rearden, she never would have left him for Galt. Yet she abhorred the idea of settling for... well, anything less than your ideal circumstances for happiness. It's statistically absurd to think you've found your best match, and still unlikely that you won't someday meet someone who'll give you more happiness than your current spouse.

If anything it seems the lesson Dagny should have learned is that there could always be a better guy just around the corner, coupled with the fact that she's found 3 men so far that she could have loved for a lifetime (in various degrees). If sex is the ultimate celebration of love, what would stop Dagny from enjoying those three men who worship her? It doesn't seem to immediately follow that hedonism is the only alternative to monogamous marriage. And I can't discount the idea that some people might be more suited to having more than one romantic relationship.

I would rather this discussion not focus on Rand's personal life, but it seems she struggled with this... contradiction herself. Was she on to something but didn't admit it to herself fully? I mention this, at the risk of being disrespectful, just in case someone can say some thing to totally change my impression of Ayn.

I'm sure all of you have given this a great deal of thought, so I'm looking foreword to your responses.

Post 1

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 6:29pm

Is Love a Contest, or an Investment?

My own impression of Rand's theory of sexuality is that only the two "best" (and presumably heterosexual) man and woman in the world could ever have a truly secure and moral romantic relationship, while the rest of us should live in unrequited celibate covetousness, since settling for anything less than best would be immoral. Of course one could say that two people who know of know better available partners might morally settle for each other's company, but there would always be the unsettling threat of being replaced should some better opportunity for one's partner come around. But this is undeniably unfair, And Rand didn't address the topic systematically.

I think that the solution is in thinking of romance not as a contest, but as an investment. Lovers don't just have the moment, they have a history. There is something to be said for the thrill of the chase, but even more to be said for being able to finish each others sentences, to be able to speak in secret code, to sit for hours without the need of verbal communication to break the uncomfortable silence. So long as each partner continues to contribute to a long term relationship, it not only builds principle but bears compound interest.

As for those not in a long term relationship, or in a relationship which has not yet become long term, mutual honesty and a lack of self-delusion are imperative. Sexual release is fine and dandy, but partners should keep their own and each others self-respect in mind. I expect only eunuchs don't have lust at first sight, and only fools don't take advantage of a happy, innocent, willing romp. But if she's cheating on him she'll cheat on you. And if she wants kids and you want casual sex, have the sense to let her know, because if you have any self respect at all, you won't still have it when you're fifty, dressed as a teen, out clubbing and looking the fool with golddiggers half your age. And even if you're half that age, you won't wake up with self respect if you didn't lay down with it the night before.

Ted Keer

Post 2

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 11:18am

Thanks Ted. I liked how you put some of that, but I think you misunderstood the direction was going with this.

I fully agree that long term relationships can be derived from self interest, while a romping life-style doesn't work as well. My problem is not how to avoid drawing hedonism from Objectivism, but strictly monogamous marriages. I'm only concerned with meaningful relationships. Why have just one long term investment? It doesn't strike me as objective for Dagny to loose her sexual attraction to Rearden and Frisco. Neither should we expect to lose our attraction to other suitable companions. And when you are dealing with heroes who are incapable of jealousy or just not limiting yourself because of someone's vice of jealousy, why not "celebrate" Hank's "Rearden Metal II" one day and Galt's new "Earth Maker 2000" the next? I can't think of a self interest argument that says Dagny would lose joy for having 3 meaningful, jealousy-free relationships over 1. Even more so in real life, where you don't usually find a person that gives you all you need.

Perhaps part of my misunderstanding is that Rand's heroes were extremely jealous when they thought they deserved something. Perhaps Rand's conception of relationship=ownership is what I don't understand. But then again, when you invest in something, it doesn't follow that you are the owner...... hmm.

Post 3

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 3:34pm

Good luck finding a woman that will be able to feel romantic towards you when you are actively searching, pursuing, and engaging in romantic relationships with other women.

That sort of stuff is really up to you. If you want kids, a long term monogamous relationship seems better. If you don't want kids, then I don't know. Plenty of people are happy and healthy (over the short and long term) in all sorts of kinds of relationships.

Post 4

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 7:52pm

Pay the Price Willingly

I think that using the romantic subplots of Atlas Shrugged as a practical guide to romance is a mistake, and I doubt Rand herself would have endorsed the story as explicit philosophy. I have one problem with the novel itself in that while Rearden is a fully fleshed out character, and one can truly empathize with Readen and Dagny in their affair, Galt is a bit of a cipher and except for what we are told about him, we don't see him in action until the last part of the book. As the author, Rand must have had a concrete vision of Galt in her mind during the entire time she wrote the novel, and Galt must have been quite real to her. But he is the most two-dimensional of the characters to me as a reader.

That being said, reading the book, I have always felt that had I been Dagny I would have most likely stayed with Rearden. I felt that Dagny's having the attentions of three perfect men and her progressing through them was more an expression of Rand's own fantasies than of a real-life scenario. I am not denying the possibility, but Rand herself emphasized over and over that her art was not naturalistic, but a projection of the ideal.

I certainly don't think that Francisco, Rearden and Galt would have to be enemies if they were real-life people. And in real life, people do sometimes have affairs, yet return to their original partners. Some people do have open relationships. Some people cheat and get away with it, and some people kill over such matters.

One can't treat such matters as economic principles where arguments for hard currency and laissez-faire (no pun intended!) are self-evident principles that apply in all cases. Individuals differ. People change with age and experience. You simply have to know yourself, communicate with your partner or partners, harbour no illusions, and realize that you and your lovers are rational animals as much as you are rational animals. Philosophy can't tell you whether to prefer vanilla or chocolate, whether to become a dentist or a truck-driver, whether to wear paisley or plaid - just that you must eat, work, and clothe yourself against the weather, and that poison, theft, and wandering naked in a blizzard are incompatible with your long-term happiness.

Finally, if you're young, and looking for a philosophical excuse to cheat, tell her, or do it without rubbing her face in it. Be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions. And don't use a novel to rationalize your actions - be a man and take what you are willing to pay for.

Ted Keer

Post 5

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 7:55pm

Let me clarify.

I'm not looking for relationship advice. Nor what your opinions are on the matter. If you are not attempting an argument something like "Rand (or Objectivism or Branden or Leonard or Galt) would say this is how you derive monogamous marriage from the axioms of Objectivism" than you aren't answering my question. Also worth repeating: I'm not interested in hedonism, Objectivism attacks hedonism well enough. I'm wondering what would stop rational (and therefore non-jealous) people from having multiple meaningful relationships.

Many Objectivists seem to have evolved past Rand's opinion on homosexuality. She found homosexuality a metaphysical nightmare a priori to investigating the subject. As of now I think monogamous marriage was another personal bias of Rand. She didn't connect these dots satisfactorily and just assumed it followed.

Your personal thoughts are greatly appreciated if they are supplementing your answer to my actual question. Am I being clear?

Post 6

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 8:03pm

Ted, I read your post just after submitting my last one. Your attempt is closer to answering my question. And it seems that you agree that there doesn't seem to be much hope for the connection between the axioms and Rand's conclusion.

I didn't think I'd have to say this. My purpose isn't to use philosophy to cheat or treat someone poorly. I am questioning/challenging Rand's conclusions.

Post 7

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 8:25pm

I'm wondering what would stop rational (and therefore non-jealous) people from having multiple meaningful relationships.

As long as its mutually consensual, nothing need stop it-- so long as its promoting one's life.

Its justified to be resentful towards one's partner or the person they did something with when such actions were not agreed upon first. If it was agreed on, and then one didn't end up liking it, then it seems unjustified to be angry at the other person. But other circumstances might justify.

If you are not attempting an argument something like "Rand (or Objectivism or Branden or Leonard or Galt) would say this is how you derive monogamous marriage from the axioms of Objectivism" than you aren't answering my question

Boo hoo.

Post 8

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 8:35pm

There are plenty of reasons why a person may choose to or not to have a romantic or sexual relationship with a person or persons. As to how to what Objectivism the philosophy has to say about it (not from Rand or Branden or Leonard or Galt, but what I think), its off topic. Its almost like asking whether its more moral to ride your bike tonight or go swimming.

Or go to a bar or something like normal non-Dean Michael Gores people.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 11/15, 8:38pm)

Post 9

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 9:23pm

Doug,

My use of "you" was plural, and could also be taken as a "we inclusive."

I have had three long term relationships, none of which has ended acrimoniously, and plenty of the old in-out in-out. As I have gotten older (40 next year) I have had less of a desire for anything but monogamy.

I have never had a relationship with a self-identified Objectivist, but they have always been Rand admirers.

I am curious, have you personally known people older than their twenties who have had more than just two relationships who have held out for what you see as orthodox Randian monogamosity as an imperative? That is, are you reading this or are people telling it to you?

I have always found that people use philosophical arguments in regard to relationships when those relationships are on the skids. "She should feel this way because X" usually means I want her to feel X.

Can you give any more concrete examples or questions?

Ted

Post 10

Friday, November 16, 2007 - 9:05am

Dagny's three romantic relationships seem to have progressed very naturally.
Her love of Francisco might never have worked because they were young and he was about to take the stage as a playboy.
Her becoming Rearden's mistress could have worked if he had a more consistent philosophy and were not already married.
And Galt, well, I have to agree with Ted here. I was very disappointed when Dagny began a relationship with Galt, however, I am sure that is because I knew Rearden and had no idea who this Galt guy was.

The Fountainhead may present a better or more complete view of relationships. Dominique and Roark loved each other from the start. Her marriage to Keating was, of course, an abortion. Her marriage to Wynand was more complex; she wanted to live out her view of the malevolent world and so chose Wynand as the 'best' person for that. That she wound up liking him and responding to his love for her complicated the trick.

What she did not do was sleep with Roark during her marriages. She did love him (how could she not) but they were separated and remained so until it became clear that Dominique had conquered her fear.

I suppose it would be hard to say how one should respond to someone they value while they are in a committed relationship. The romantic in me says go for it. If a man is presented with a true heroine he should react to that in a romantic way. The gentleman in me says be honest with yourself and others.
(Edited by Steve on 11/16, 11:58am)

Post 11

Friday, November 16, 2007 - 7:04pm

The way I see it, Rand's personal experience can be seen as an experiment (a failed one). I even noticed a few references in "Ayn Rand Answers" to polyamory that seemed to take the tone of "it might be nice if it works, but it probably won't." But on that note, she had the affair in the 60's and the marriage lasted more than a good ten years afterwords so I don't think there were too many issues on her end.

As to the characters for the most part I see the relationships of Atlas Shrugged as the best example. Francisco was Dagny's first love so it's likely it wouldn't have lasted regardless, at least not to the extent of being life-long. Beyond that, there are specific reasons that it was a good decision to not continue with Frisco and Reardon. Frisco didn't trust Dagny enough to tell her the whole truth right from the start, really shakey foundation to build a future on, even if you both recover once you get older. Reardon's was more subtle, he bought into the premise that it was right for Dagny to remain his mistress and for him to continue sacrificing himself to the wife he didn't love, and by the time he'd lost her, he knew he earned it.

But honestly it makes more sense to view the Objectivist standard of love and or monogamy rationally. If a relationship can withstand without jealousy either or both partners persuing romantic entanglements outside each other, more power to them. But here comes my personal argument against it.

I've honestly never had a situation where I had multiple partners to choose from at once or where I had the option of keeping multiple relationships active at the same time. In fact it's always been a lot of work to start a romantic entanglement, and it's a very time consuming thing. The idea of taking time away from a relationship which exists in the here and now makes me very happy to attempt to start a new one just disgusts me. I'd be going through the process seeking out new romantic partners, all the while shortchanging the person and the relationship I value above almost all else.

I think it comes down to what you want in life, do you value the idea of multiple different situations that each have all kinds of different aspects from each other that may never develop as fully as possible or that you would like, or do you value developing a single connection as far and as deeply as you can.

---Landon

Post 12

Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 4:20pm

Dean,
I'm familiar with some of your contributions to similar threads where the question is specifically about Rand or Objectivism. Your inability to distinguish the philosophy of Objectivism from your own Objectivist-inspired, subjectivism is sometimes stupifying. Please, unless you feel the tinges of brilliance on the tip of your tongue one very fine day, don't bother including yourself on one of my threads that is explicitly concerning the philosophy of Objectivism. You'll only ruin the logical flow of discussion.
Looking forward to that very fine day, Dean.

Ted,
The background to my curiosity is due partly to my Mormon upbringing. Some Mormons have a sympathy for the idea of polygamy even though it hasn't been practiced for some time (well, there are those other factions....). Couple this with a visiblely rising divorce rate, and one comes to question the legitimacy of the typical family format.

I saw "The Passion of Ayn Rand" after reading Atlas, and not only did I feel empathy for Ayn, but I couldn't think of a reason that her experiment wasn't a natural consequence of Objectivist thought. Yet I didn't see this idea in her writings. Instead I saw her heroes acting in ways that I couldn't quite account for (this is why I used Dagny as an example).

This question is not a matter of taste. It is most certainly an ethical one, tugging along important metaphysical estimations of the nature of man. If a person were to accuse Objectivism of leading to hedonism by saying there's nothing stopping it from undermining monogamy, I'd have little to say beyond distinguishing hedonism from some sort of polyamory (thanks Landon, I was looking for this word). But I'm unconvinced of the efficacy of either system to produce the greatest amount of joy. Often people are so convinced of marriages sanctity, that my uncertainty would naturaly lead them to think that they were right. I think this is an important question

Damn. I've got to run off. Thank you all for your posts. It seems I was right to expect a response of the flavor, "if you can make it work, more power to you." Glad that I'm not alone in this conclusion. I'll respond more later. Sorry, no time to even spell check =)

Post 13

Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 9:37pm

There seems to be a huge difference between having affairs and a polygamous marriage whether of the Mormon or the Heinlein type, although perhaps no less potential complexity!

I will say that I disagree about this being an ethical matter as opposed to one of taste. It is both. Human nature cannot be so generalized as to treat individual lives as matters things to be governed by universal principals alone without regard to the uniqueness of the individual. Marxists might see the individual as plastic. Rand sometimes seemed to see her own desires as rational (and often universalizable) by default. Human nature is not so simple. If it were, we would long ago have found a formula that fits all.

Ted Keer

Post 14

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 8:17am

See my review of Cathouse in the Movies archives of this site for more.

Post 15

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 6:18pm

Back in the 70's when I lived in San Francisco, there was a group called "Kerista Village," which was pushing a lifestyle called "polyfidelity." The group was kind of an outgrowth of the hippie communes popular in the Haight-Ashbury District, as it advocated a communal marriage in which four men were married to four women, all of whom were faithful to each other. Hence the name polyFIDELITY. They saw this concept as combining the best of both worlds -- variety plus fidelity. Marriages failed, they said, because it wasn't natural for people to remain the exclusive partner of one person for life. But true love also required commitment and remaining faithful to one's partner. So, the better alternative was to have several partners whom you were faithful to.

A marriage of four men and four women was considered ideal. Everyone would have sex with a different partner on successive nights. There were to be no favorites within the marriage, and everything, including their finances, was to be shared equally. They called their family a "Best Friend Identity Cluster" (or "BFIC", for short). I would see them with their kids in tow -- the men with big beards, the women looking very much like 60's hippies. They had made-up names like "Fir Tree," "Even Eve" and "Geo Logical." Of course, none of the children knew who their father was, but since it was a communal arrangement, that wasn't supposed to matter.

They thought they were going to revolutionize the world with this alternative to traditional monogamy, but their little group never grew beyond 30 people. It turned out that those who liked the "poly" part didn't like the "fidelity" part, and would want to have friends and relationships outside the marriage, which was forbidden. So, the group declined to just a few people, as most of the new recruits wound up leaving.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/22, 8:39pm)

Post 16

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 8:51pm

Sounds a bit like that of Robert Rimmer's writings...... except that in those, the participants were more educated and thoughtful than hippies.....

Post 17

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 8:57pm

Robert,

Actually, these people were pretty well educated too. They weren't your drug-taking hippies -- you know, the kind who "tune in, turn on and drop out" a la Timothy Leary. They were just counter-culture types -- in some cases, people with professional occupations -- who fancied themselves as vanguards of a sexual and cultural revolution. They published a magazine with a fairly sizable circulation and conducted "rap sessions" in which they sought to popularize their ideas.

- Bill

Post 18

Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 2:52pm

Great responses. Thanks all.

Luke,
Thanks for the reference. Very good article and discussion afterward. I find myself in complete agreement and join you in expecting a little more friction than applause.

Ted,
Using Luke's reference I read some of your other posts on the matter. I agree that Objectivism simplifies human nature beyond rational bounds. Thanks for shedding some light on the fact that Ayn admitted knowing little about Evolution. I can sort of agree about this being a matter of taste.... although, I have to say if we had a better idea about objective human natures and you and I could identify which we were naturally prone to, it would likely be better to adjust our tastes to our natures. In this case taste seems to be how we compensate for our ignorance of biology/psychology. Or is that breaching on a naturalistic fallacy?

William,
Excellent. I was hoping that there was some recent historical material to look into. It seems that group may have been hindered by hippy ideals. No favorites? Yeah, right. I was talking to a friend that lives in New York City (where this Kerista thing was started). He's been to support groups for couples trying this out. Fascinating. Don't know much more.

Post 19

Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 8:50pm