Polyamory - a rational approach to love and lust


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

In the discussion on "Evil Ideas" both Mike82ARP and whYNOT fell to philosophizing about something with which they had no experience. Mike82ARP said that Ayn Rand was irrational in her romance with Nathaniel Branden and that her jealousy in response to his affair with Patrecia Scott was the natural, expected, and rational reply. whYNOT chimed in that you might start with a love triangle, but pretty soon you have six-way relationships and then you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. In that thread, I said that over the past 40 years, I have known and do know Objectivists who are polyamorous. No one asked me any questions about it. They just went on philosophizing in the vacuums of their imaginations. Allow me to suggest some paths for thinking about this.

  • People are not property. You do not own any other person.
  • Jealousy stems from a lack of self esteem.
  • It is mathematically difficult to prove that of the billions of humans on Earth that the one person right for you happened to fall into your life accidentally.
  • Different people relate to each other differently in different contexts.

Polyamory is not polygamy and it is not polyandry. Those two words refer to specific one-to-many relationships, usually very formal, typically a marriage by the customs of the community. Marriage is all about property rights: who owns it; who inherits it.

Polyamory is simply the engagement of more than one sexual liaison through the course of your life. It does not preclude a committed relationship with one person above all others, but allows others.

Yes, it is difficult.

Given the deep, unremitting bombardment of monogamous messaging, thinking this through can be even more difficult than thinking about laissez-faire capitalism. "But what about... But what would... But what if..." And yes, like the robber barons (and swindlers) of the past polyamory knows many failures - moral failures. Just as the actions of Jim Fisk and Jay Gould or Cornelius Vanderbilt at his worst do not define laissez-faire capitalism, neither do the errors of others who denied the validity of monogamy invalidate the benefits of (rational) polyamory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Polyamory is not polygamy and it is not polyandry. Those two words refer to specific one-to-many relationships, usually very formal, typically a marriage by the customs of the community. Marriage is all about property rights: who owns it; who inherits it.

Polyamory is simply the engagement of more than one sexual liaison through the course of your life. It does not preclude a committed relationship with one person above all others, but allows others.

Yes, it is difficult.

But no, it's not difficult - what's the big deal? Are you contrasting polyamory with marrying one's

high school sweetheart and being true for life? Which is harder. How is more than one partner in

a lifetime so unusual, anyway?

You failed to notice - but why ruin a good intro - that I specifically used "polyandry", as in a consensual and simultaneous multi-way relationship, which I think is bound to fail.

(Michael - you make the point often enough I'm fully agreed with: Objectivism is not neo-conservative.

It is also not hedonistic. Is that where you're going with this?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the discussion on "Evil Ideas" both Mike82ARP and whYNOT fell to philosophizing about something with which they had no experience. Mike82ARP said that Ayn Rand was irrational in her romance with Nathaniel Branden and that her jealousy in response to his affair with Patrecia Scott was the natural, expected, and rational reply.

Michael, you misunderstood me. What I meant is that Rand’s response on her discovering the Branden/Scott affair was irrational on her own part given her philosophy which rationalized her affair with Branden. I think her response was natural from a human emotional perspective.

If I may ask, are you married? If so, how many times?

Also, am I not permitted to philosophize about something I have no experience with? Could I philosophize about pedophilia even though I haven’t had any experience with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • People are not property. You do not own any other person.
  • Jealousy stems from a lack of self esteem.
  • It is mathematically difficult to prove that of the billions of humans on Earth that the one person right for you happened to fall into your life accidentally.
  • Different people relate to each other differently in different contexts.

You’re being a bit preachy here, aren’t you? Here’s my response to your recommended “paths for thinking” given the "vacuum of my imagination"

#1 NSS* (key below)

#2 NSS*

#3 So what? I’ve been happily married for 33 years.

#4 NSS*

*- No $#!t, Sherlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinlein deals with the issue of jealosy and a polyamous family in Time Enough For Love... Boondock

At the beginning of this story, Lazarus has regained his enthusiasm for life, and the remainder of the book is told in a conventional linear manner. Accompanied by some of his descendants, Lazarus has now moved to a new planet and established a polyamorous family consisting of three men, three women, and a larger number of children, two of whom are female clones of Lazarus himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no, it's not difficult - what's the big deal? Are you contrasting polyamory with marrying one's high school sweetheart and being true for life? Which is harder. How is more than one partner in a lifetime so unusual, anyway? You failed to notice - but why ruin a good intro - that I specifically used "polyandry", as in a consensual and simultaneous multi-way relationship, which I think is bound to fail

It is not bound to fail. Like any relationship - being on a bowling team, or bringing a family member into a business - it just takes a proper understanding and application. Objectivism is only 50 years old. Not everything has been thought through and tested.

Whether committed monogamy is harder than maintaining a committed relationship in a polyamorous context depends on much. And certainly bed-hopping might seem like fun, yet it takes a toll that ultimately makes it the most difficult choice of the three... or four, or five, I guess: serial monogamy is an option, as is celibacy. Whether one lifestyle or another is more work or more risky requires more facts and analysis of the individual situation. I believe that prescribing how other people should live or can live happily can only be valid at the most basic strata of human action. Once you look at how different cultures solve similar problems - and once you look at individuals - much of this becomes subjective. (In fact, in some cultures, marrying a girl from your cohort would be incest; they are strongly exogamous.) My point specifically referred to what MSK later identified as the reptile brain over the prefrontal cortex.

Now all we have to do is find a way for love and lust to become rational enough for a rational approach to work. The Lizard Brain takes no prisoners when it clashes with the prefrontal neocortex. [Later] It hit me like opinion trying on the clothes of fact, like a little girl walking around in her father's houeshoes...

You mean, she's practicing cross-dressing? Hmmm....

To address the main point, though, with some people that does actually obtain. I said (now for the third time) that I have known and do know Objectivists who maintain committed relationships within a polyamorous context. You are right, MSK, statistically speaking, for the billions of non-rational, irrational, quasi- and semi-rational, yes, the likely outcome for the majority is that either the primary relationship will fail or else the polyamory will stop. Again, though, realize that even if that is true of some large number, it is not true for all. And those are for your average repto-mammalians, not for committed Objectivists who engage introspection within a rational framework.

Do you have proof that jealosy necessarily "stems from" lack of self esteem?

That is interesting... No. Not really in the sense that we gather control groups and subjects, test their self-esteem, and then put them in relationships that are subjected to triangles, and then administer an instrument (questionnaire; survey) to see how they respond. That would be scientific proof.

What we do have is explanatory models from Freud, through Adler and Jung, to Maslow and the Americans, Gestalt and TA, and so on, up to Branden. Jealousy is when someone takes something from you that you thought was yours - paramour or job opportunity or whatever. Envy is when someone has something that is not yours but that you want - trophy spouse or new car or whatever. I stand by the statement. If you have self-esteem, whatever you feel for the loss of opportunity, it will not be jealousy or envy. Think of making an error in sports, short stop missing the grasscutter, or scratching at billiards. Drat! I hate it when that happens. But my disappointment at my error does not stem from a lack of self-esteem.

Adam:

"Oh give me a clone

of my own flesh and bone

with the Y chromosome

changed to X

And when we're alone

since her mind is my own

she'll be thinking of nothing but sex."

Filk Song.

#3 So what? I’ve been happily married for 33 years.

Lack of imagination? I have been married for 35 years. It is my second. (We have different "seven happy years.") My first wife and I dated for three years and were married for five. Without children and with different goals for careers, we divorced. We are still friends and have done business together. (Dagny still lays Readen Metal rails, though, she no longer lays Rearden.) "Friends and lovers are all very fine / But I don't like yours and you don't like mine.' - Eric Clapton, "Promises".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the discussion on "Evil Ideas" both Mike82ARP and whYNOT fell to philosophizing about something with which they had no experience. Mike82ARP said that Ayn Rand was irrational in her romance with Nathaniel Branden and that her jealousy in response to his affair with Patrecia Scott was the natural, expected, and rational reply.

Michael, you misunderstood me. What I meant is that Rand’s response on her discovering the Branden/Scott affair was irrational on her own part given her philosophy which rationalized her affair with Branden. I think her response was natural from a human emotional perspective. .

I doubt if Rand's reaction to Patrecia was "irrational" from her own point of view, since Rand regarded her affair with NB as an exception to the general rule. The four-sided agreement that authorized the affair was not a general agreement for an open-relationship by everyone. Barbara and Frank were not permitted to engage in their own extra-marital relationships, for example.

The odd thing about Rand's reaction was that it led to Mistress #1 complaining about Mistress #2.

I have been involved in a number of open and nontraditional relationships. I know from experience that they are not easy to maintain; they require a lot of trust and good will between the primary partners, for one thing --far more than in most monogamous relationships. And only certain types of people are suited for such relationships. In short, I think it is impossible to generalize in this area.

The Rand-Branden affair had disaster written all over it from the beginning. If you are going to have an open-relationship (of whatever kind), then the freedom to fool around needs to apply to everyone.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, George.

Also, it is possible and known for one partner to remain uninterested in others and have the commitment be in one direction... Just adding another alternative to the complicated array of alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the discussion on "Evil Ideas" both Mike82ARP and whYNOT fell to philosophizing about something with which they had no experience. Mike82ARP said that Ayn Rand was irrational in her romance with Nathaniel Branden and that her jealousy in response to his affair with Patrecia Scott was the natural, expected, and rational reply.

Michael, you misunderstood me. What I meant is that Rand’s response on her discovering the Branden/Scott affair was irrational on her own part given her philosophy which rationalized her affair with Branden. I think her response was natural from a human emotional perspective. .

I doubt if Rand's reaction to Patrecia was "irrational" from her own point of view, since Rand regarded her affair with NB as an exception to the general rule. The four-sided agreement that authorized the affair was not a general agreement for an open-relationship by everyone. Barbara and Frank were not permitted to engage in their own extra-marital relationships, for example.

The odd thing about Rand's reaction was that it led to Mistress #1 complaining about Mistress #2.

I have been involved in a number of open and nontraditional relationships. I know from experience that they are not easy to maintain; they require a lot of trust and good will between the primary partners, for one thing --far more than in most monogamous relationships. And only certain types of people are suited for such relationships. In short, I think it is impossible to generalize in this area.

The Rand-Branden affair had disaster written all over it from the beginning. If you are going to have an open-relationship (of whatever kind), then the freedom to fool around needs to apply to everyone.

Ghs

George:

As usual, you are "spot" on.

What sometimes surprises me, is, that our generation believes, at some levels, that we are unique in the infinite couplings that have existed throghout history.

There is a recent "survey" by one of the Ivy League schools concerning sexuality and experiences where, either three percent (3%), or, nine percent (9%) state that they have had sexual experiences with animals.

OK, other than PETA's annoying positions, it does not affect/effect me at all.

There is nothing new under the sexual sun.

Polyandry relationships are quite unique and involve the open consent of all partie.

As you noted George, the two (2) power players in the "agreement" were in control.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, George.

Also, it is possible and known for one partner to remain uninterested in others and have the commitment be in one direction... Just adding another alternative to the complicated array of alternatives.

I understand your point, but I think an open relationship (normally) has to apply to all parties in principle, even if one of the parties doesn't have any interest in other relationships.

A crucial factor is whether we are merely talking about sexual relationships or about relationships that involve significant emotional attachments. I have my doubts about the viability of the latter, though some people might be able to handle it. I suspect a lot of this has to do with cultural conditioning but I wouldn't know how to go about proving such a claim.

My basic point is that we shouldn't take our personal preferences and responses and universalize them, as if they apply to everyone else. Rand tended to do this in a number of areas.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt if Rand's reaction to Patrecia was "irrational" from her own point of view, since Rand regarded her affair with NB as an exception to the general rule.

I think Rand would have called "rational" every decision she made. Imo admitting that she had been irrational was out of the question for her.

At the beginning of her affair with NB, she was good deal more rational in her assessment though, pointing out that this was of course only going to be of limited duration because she was many years older than NB.

But when years later the moment had come, she would hear nothing of it.

Barbara and Frank were not permitted to engage in their own extra-marital relationships, for example.

Wouldn't this contradict the idea of individualism where people are free to decide for themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A rational approach to love and lust?"

Heh.

Now all we have to do is find a way for love and lust to become rational enough for a rational approach to work.

The Lizard Brain takes no prisoners when it clashes with the prefrontal neocortex.

:smile:

Not even Ayn Rand won that battle.

Michael

Quite right - it (the lizard brain) doesn't; and she (AR) couldn't.

Lust and jealousy were evidently our animal-selves' essential survival mechanism,

along with sexual competition. Nature 'created' these, in order for the male to claim ownership of his mate, to stick around long enough to protect her and their offspring while vulnerable.

Sure, to us, there is the conscious, self-directing and correcting component called reason which is in charge. But to squelch those base instincts through rationalization, is only to deny a part of ourselves: a mind/body split.

I don't believe to evade one's complete nature is rational or objective.

When jealousy hits unexpectedly, it hits hard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romantic love is a response for values. But what if one person responds to different values in different people? I think that this what happened to Ayn Rand. She was in deep love with her husband and Nataniel Branden. Frank O'Connor didn't possessed values of Branden and vice versa. One cannot be jealous of something which one doesn't possesses. They both weren't competing on the same thing. Ayn Rand understood that well. Others apparently not. Emotional response which is not guided by mind always hit hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank O'Connor didn't possessed values of Branden and vice versa. One cannot be jealous of something which one doesn't possesses.

But can't Jim be jealous of Joe if Jim's wife is attracted to Joe because he has qualities which Jim lacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romantic love is a response for values. One cannot be jealous of something which one doesn't possesses. They both weren't competing on the same thing. Ayn Rand understood that well. Others apparently not. Emotional response which is not guided by mind always hit hard.

That's what could have been, should have been, but not what was, I believe.

She was jealous - I don't think otherwise for a moment, and really why does that disappoint people

so much?

Don't forget her rage, or her subsequent re-direction of the blame with rationalized reasons, and her lifelong silence.

NB went outside the arrangement - very possibly, that he loved her admiringly, though unromantically, is why he at all consented to it at all - and admittedly was deceitful about it for a while. (For obvious reasons.)

It even could be argued that she was hoist on her own petard in initiating that one-sided arrangement. As bravely non-conformist as it was, could it be that she

recognized far later that its romantic - rationalist - motive could only have had one result in reality?

Guessing further (which is all we can do, largely) it may be her innocent lack of experience with such powerful emotions meant her jealousy caught her by surprise.

Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB went outside the arrangement - very possibly, that he loved her admiringly, though unromantically, is why he at all consented to it at all - and admittedly was deceitful about it for a while. (For obvious reasons.)

NB went outside the arrangement? It sounds as if you're saying that the arrangement explicitly included the promise of exclusivity between Rand and Branden. My understanding was that they had no agreement which stated that Branden could not see other women.

Additionally, by Peikoff's theory of privacy lies, Branden was perfectly moral to lie to Rand about his affair with Patrecia, since it was none of her business, and she was just being a "snooper" in asking him about it.

It even could be argued that she was hoist on her own petard in initiating that one-sided arrangement. As bravely non-conformist as it was, could it be that she

recognized far later that its romantic - rationalist - motive could only have had one result in reality?

Guessing further (which is all we can do, largely) it may be her innocent lack of experience with such powerful emotions meant her jealousy caught her by surprise.

Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode.

It wasn't Rand's only "self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason." Like all other people, she had many "very human episodes" in which her passions thwarted her rationality.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many, not all, students of Objectivism in the NBI days were Randian heroes' role playing. If you didn't have the substance you could put up a facade. (Where is the individualism and critical thinking in that?) Rand thought Branden was practically John Galt. (Consider that all Randian characters--heroes--were and had to be inferior in critical respects to their creator and no more intelligent. Branden once said, BTW, post-break to one of his clients in one of his therapy groups, that he had never had the "privilege" of meeting someone smarter than himself.) He crashed that world when he stopped pretending or projecting he was. I have yet to figure out how NBI and teaching Objectivism wasn't a huge mistake for everyone caught up in its vortex created by these two principals going around and around with each other. It was glamorous, though, especially in New York City and going to Boston for "the Objectivist Easter." I loved it. Even after the Break I loved driving up to Boston year after year. Rand had an incredible charisma that flowed from her intelligence and sincerity and by saying things others didn't. It was all anchored by that Russian accent. If you have a passion for human ability like I do, it's hard not to have a passion for Ayn Rand. Intelligence--misplaced as it was therefore greatly stymied--was all over the place NBI represented.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB went outside the arrangement - very possibly, that he loved her admiringly, though unromantically, is why he at all consented to it at all - and admittedly was deceitful about it for a while. (For obvious reasons.)

NB went outside the arrangement? It sounds as if you're saying that the arrangement explicitly included the promise of exclusivity between Rand and Branden. My understanding was that they had no agreement which stated that Branden could not see other women.

Additionally, by Peikoff's theory of privacy lies, Branden was perfectly moral to lie to Rand about his affair with Patrecia, since it was none of her business, and she was just being a "snooper" in asking him about it.

It even could be argued that she was hoist on her own petard in initiating that one-sided arrangement. As bravely non-conformist as it was, could it be that she

recognized far later that its romantic - rationalist - motive could only have had one result in reality?

Guessing further (which is all we can do, largely) it may be her innocent lack of experience with such powerful emotions meant her jealousy caught her by surprise.

Hell, who wouldn't allow her one self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason? She was a passionate woman, too - and this was a very human episode.

It wasn't Rand's only "self-contradictory bout in a lifetime of sane reason." Like all other people, she had many "very human episodes" in which her passions thwarted her rationality.

J

I can't figure how a person's life and career can be measured by the exceptions to their excellence. Take any great, historical figure and observe all details of his life as closely as Rand's commonly is, and you'll see him become...ordinary.

This is fashionable skepticism, essentially stating "If you aren't perfect,

then you must be like the rest of us." It is a revealing indictment of the skeptics, hardly the person targeted.

When some Objectivists, too, appear to fall into the dichotomy of Perfection - or nothing, then Rand is given a heavy responsibility, still. They'll learn

hopefully, that there is no instant gratification in merely learning the philosophy, as it's only then that the real thinking begins.

But set Branden as 'demon', against Rand as 'saint'- or vice versa; or Rand as thinker, against Rand as woman; or set instant Revelation against "nothing can be known with certainty": and the false dichotomies pile up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank O'Connor didn't possessed values of Branden and vice versa. One cannot be jealous of something which one doesn't possesses.

But can't Jim be jealous of Joe if Jim's wife is attracted to Joe because he has qualities which Jim lacks?

This may go to what was said about jealousy stemming , perhaps, from one's level of (amount, recognition?) of self esteem.

Is Jim jealous of the qualities that Joe has or the fact that his wife is attracted to Joe, or attracted to those missing qualities or both? Does Jim harbor ill intentions in Joe's direction just because of Joe's qualities, a hatred of the good for being good kinda thing ? Or is jealousy something else, maybe defining 'jealousy' would be useful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or is jealousy something else, maybe defining 'jealousy' would be useful

Good idea:

1. jealousy

1. n- the feeling of wanting something someone else has.

2. n- the feeling of being angry at someone because they are better off then you or they have what you want.

JEALOUSY-JEALOUS

synonyms: envy, covet

Many people are jealous of wealthy or famous people and pretend like they hate them.

2. jealousy

The real or perceived threat of the loss of a valued relationship to a rival.
Maria's feelings of jealousy were making her see signs of an affair between her best friend and boyfriend that weren't actually happening.

3. jealousy

The feeling people get when they cant be like you! They wish they had your looks, talent and material possessions but they don't.. so they badmouth you instead to level the playing field. When they do this they usually don't tell the truth about anything either. Theres a difference between plain jealousy and constructive criticism.
When Bob saw his new car he was experiencing jealousy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now