HELP!

[Victor Pross]

Would a person staying with a non-monogamous partner while they are monogamous be in their rational self-interest? Sex is physically an act that involves mind and body, strong feelings, and ownership of both. Is this not disrupted by non-monogamous relationships? Can a person have meaningful sex in that way? If it is meaningful is it as meaningful as it should be?

Edit: And in your case Victor, I would suggest asking Angie about whether or not you should include monogamity amongst the axioms.

Jeff,

you ask: Would a person staying with a non-monogamous partner while they are monogamous be in their rational self-interest?

That depends on the choices and values of the parties involved. I don’t see where it had to be a case of tit-for-tat when it came to Rand’s marriage. I’m merely saying that the questions of monogamy have more of a place in sexual taboo than a rational ethic. At one time, the taboo was particularly enforced because husbands wanted to insure that their off-spring was indeed their own—just to give you a brief indication.

You ask: Sex is physically an act that involves mind and body, strong feelings, and ownership of both. Is this not disrupted by non-monogamous relationships? Can a person have meaningful sex in that way? If it is meaningful is it as meaningful as it should be?

Yes, it can be. In this case, we have all been “socialized” here. I certainly wouldn’t care for my love to be intimate with another man. But I would argue that there is noting inherent in this code that must necessitate jealousy or trouble—regardless of my own personal feelings. I am speaking of convention here, and conventions are man-made.

-Victor

Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Edit: And in your case Victor, I would suggest asking Angie about whether or not you should include monogamity amongst the axioms.

Jeff, I don’t want to feel like I’m high jacking your thread here, but if you wish to discuss the question of monogamy and sexual ethics, I would be more than happy. I find it a very interesting subject. If you know anything about my views regarding love and sex, you will know that I don’t take either flippantly.

-Victor

Edited January 28, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

No problem you're not jacking the thread at all. The thing about Angie was a joke by the way.

[Victor Pross]

No problem you're not jacking the thread at all. The thing about Angie was a joke by the way.

Still, you have a point for my case. Angie is the only women for me. But I had to wait a long time and kiss a lot of toads before I found my princess.

[studiodekadent]

Im going to give advice that somewhat goes against the grain of what has been offered here.

For one, Michael is correct that your mother intends well (to protect you from something she considers dangerous). But we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions: people tend to take their good intentions as a permit to do anything at all. Call me a cynic but I find it difficult to trust good intentions.

Now, your mother seems to think that monogamy is 'natural law' (and that consensual polyamory is somehow against this law). Present this conundrum to her: If human nature is wired for monogamy, why is there so much infidelity? So much divorce? She will probably end up saying that the naturalness of monogamy has nothing to do with human nature, but that its the will of god.

Your mother's equation of Rand with Objectivism (or; the philosopher with the philosophy) is very common: that attitude is held widely amongst members of the Ayn Rand Institute. Just like Christians equate Christ with Christianity, the more cult-like members of the Objectivist movement equate Rand with Objectivism. If I were to perform reductio ad epistemologicum on their argument, I would say they are being anti-conceptual, taking the concrete embodiment of the ideas (the persons, the books, the symbols) as the ideas. However, that is one possible cause, there are many other potential factors (philosophically and psychologically).

Many people do genuinely think that without Christianity, there can be no morality. If you can get her to calm down and discuss these issues openly and without anger, then simply explain to her that morality does not need to come as a list of orders from some sadist in heaven. I find the following formulation of the argument to be the best:

1) Moral concepts, like 'good' and 'bad' arise from a context. For example, the concept of 'birds' arises from the context of seeing a number of creatures that, unlike any other creatures, have feathers, wings and lay eggs. Under what set of circumstances do the concepts of good and bad arise?

2) Morality is connected with choices. We only evaluate things when we have to choose between them.

3) Humans face these choices constantly in their lives. This life, since it requires active sustenance (food, water etc) is in itself a choice: you have to choose to sustain it. If you just sit down and make no choices (and hence do not act) you will die and hence be rendered incapable of choices.

4) Hence, moral concepts arise out of the context of human beings that have chosen to live. The causal order is life -> choices -> evaluating these choices (values, morals). That which promotes and sustains human life (qua human) is good. That which damages and ends it, on the other hand, is bad.

5) Therefore, the good for each human individual is that which promotes their life on a level conducive to their nature. It is proper for each human to act to sustain their life. To say that the good requires one does not sustain their life is hence a logical error: its a moral code that terminates the reason morality exists.

Tell her that, give her time to genuinely look at the arguments and analyze them. If she does not concede their rational validity, or if she does but takes faith instead, then you might have to start, well, simply ignoring her concerns about you regarding Objectivism and refuse to discuss the issues with her. She will probably worry about you more but in the end she will probably judge your philosophy by your character and some day she will stop worrying. If she ramps up the hostilities further ('god forbid'), then let her have it with both barrels and obliterate the intellectual legitimacy of her faith and every argument she throws at you. As last resort, you may have to deploy the Condemnatron 4000 and play the "Thou Moral Cannibal" card. But again that is a last resort.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Polyamory was the standard for Rand and NB during the affair. Monogamy was what was expected of BB and Frank during that "honest" situation. That might be something else your mother disagrees with.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jeff,

I had a similar problem growing up and having read Atlas Shrugged at 16. You seem to have a much better grasp of Objectivism than I did back then. What I did was to explore topics that were tangentially related to Objectivism that I could talk to my mother about. As a junior in high school, I read Darwin's Origin of Species and had fascinating discussions with my mom about evolution. I also was fascinated with Richard Feynman at the time and talked a lot about heroes I admired and why I admired them.

In any case, I think the best approach is to think about all the things you like about your mom and try to interact with her in ways that will bring that out.

Jim

[Charles R. Anderson]

Loving a second good person, while loving a first good person does not strike me as anti-life. Perhaps a really good second person is sufficiently rare in the sphere of your personal life that one will not likely be so fortunate as to be in love with two people at once, but being in love with two people need not be immoral. In fact, one could argue that not giving one's love to a really good person is an injustice.

Jealous gods and jealous people are both demeaning. The wish that another cannot enjoy or love someone other than oneself is small-minded. Observing that most people are small-minded does little to justify joining their ranks. If one loves someone who loves you and another, that need not diminish your love for them. Their character may well be as sterling as ever it was when you first came to love them. With love, as with friendship, one should focus on the larger context of a person's life and character.

If Dagny spent one night every two weeks with Francisco, I'll be darned if I can see why John should love her any the less for it.

[Dragonfly]

Well, unless the "Journals of Frank O'Connor" come to light some time, we'll never know. I would just say that it was an unusual situation, and that they were unusual people. He did stay married to her, and I would think if he was terribly hurt he would have left her.

The only unusual here is that it was an unusual stupid thing to do. The very idea that they were "giants" and therefore could do what with "ordinary" people inevitably would lead to disaster is absurd. And that Frank didn't leave didn't mean that he wasn't terribly hurt (which any person with some pride and feeling left would have been). Rand was so dominating that all his protests would have been to no avail. Just as he didn't protest when Rand assured people that Frank hated California, which is highly unlikely. And from Barbara's biography it's clear that he was hurt. Anyway, how could he leave? What kind of work could he do? Would he have to live on a separation allowance from Rand? No wonder that he sought refuge in alcohol.

[studiodekadent]

I agree with Charles. There is certainly a case for 'rational poly-relationships.' Rand seemed to think that sex was to be reserved for one person at a time, but if you had a number of friends, each of which embodied high values, it seems rational to desire each, possibly in different degrees/ways, but at the same time.

Oh dear, looks like we have a justification for Objective Orgies now. :thumbsup:

[Laure]

Dragonfly, I just don't buy into this idea that Frank was too helpless to support himself. You seem to think he'd have been a bum on the streets without Rand, and I just don't buy it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly, I just don't buy into this idea that Frank was too helpless to support himself. You seem to think he'd have been a bum on the streets without Rand, and I just don't buy it.

By the time I met him, which was in spring 1970, he wouldn't have been able to support himself. He showed signs of obvious mental deterioration -- a vacantness, a non-tracking of what was happening, and not in an abstracted way, not like someone deep in thought and not paying attention, instead like someone who was having trouble tracking. At what point earlier his health had progressed to the place at which he wouldn't have been able to function on a job I don't know.

Ellen

___

[John Dailey]

Jeff:

~ What I'm finding interesting about this thread, right from the beginning (apart from its sliding into the pros/cons of polyamory/polygamy) is that you've not yet hinted at the 'sources' of your mother's ideas/evaluations. She read some books or just some articles/op-eds (or...is Rand being slandered in the pulpits?)

~ Not, whatever her source(s), that I'd advise anything more than what Michael and Kat (and a couple others) already have...other than avoid un-necessary discussion of Philosophy (of any kind) around your mother, for a while.

LLAP

G-L!

J:D

Edited January 28, 2007 by John Dailey

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly, I just don't buy into this idea that Frank was too helpless to support himself. You seem to think he'd have been a bum on the streets without Rand, and I just don't buy it.

Frank could have divorced Rand on many grounds—if he so chose to. Of course, he didn’t. He would not have been destitute. As Rand was the primary bread winner, an alimony would have come into the picture. I’m not absolutely sure of this, but I don’t believe Frank would have had only the alternative of staying with Rand or out on the streets with a tin cup. In fact, I would count this marriage as one of the great romances of the century. They clearly loved eachother.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

Jeff --

My ideas tend to track with Wolf's. He said it very well.

I wouldn't try to convince your mother of anything. Her mind is made up and nothing you say is going to change it. One of the hardest things to accept is that you are not going to get what you may want from her. You will have to find it elsewhere, from friends, present and future. It may sound like a simple thing, but it can be one of the hardest things in the world to refrain from arguing and debating with and imploring your mother. It's an exercise in futility, and it will only make things worse.

You said that you rushed downstairs to prevent her from giving an incorrect explanation of Objectivism. In such a situation, I'd suggest that you keep your mouth shut. It's not your job to "protect Objectivism" everywhere, and it's certainly not your job to keep your mother from making an idiot of herself. Here's where growing up entails separating from your parents. If she does something stupid, it's not a bad reflection on you. She is she and you are you. If she looks bad, it's no skin off your nose.

I don't have any of the warm, touchy-feely sentiments that many of the others expressed here. As far as I'm concerned, you're living in enemy territory for the next few years, and you'll have to manage to survive and prosper until you're free. It will happen soon enough. Be patient, bide your time, keep a low profile, don't provoke her, keep your mouth shut. Your time is coming. For now, you're essentially a prisoner of war. Just remember that no one can control what happens inside your head, and no one can control what happens inside your heart. It can be so tempting to try to convince her to see your point of view. Be strong; it ain't going to happen, and your attempts will very likely make things worse. Accepting the disappointment is part of growing up.

I wish you the very best. I've been there.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

In a general spirit, I agree with Judith’s estimate of the situation. I, too, don’t agree with all the touchy-feely soppiness when it comes to somebody—anybody--who systematically attacks my values or who attempts to thwart my autonomy. Sure, you can afford to extend a benefit-of-the-doubt and good will to keep the peace. Why shouldn’t you? Nobody likes conflict. But how much should one extend this "good will" in the face of adversary? You have to define and draw a line in the sand.

I am not of the mush mouth guck that parent’s are people for whom we "automatically love"—as if it were some instinct divorced from the mind and chosen values—and that it is such that can withstand any obstacle placed in its path. As if love should be bestowed upon those who (because of biological accident) systematically toss irrational bullshit on us making our lives a complete hell, but where everybody else is to earn it. Bullshit.

Without going in details, there is a friend of mine who suffered much worse than you are now, but who nevertheless came out on top. She relates part of her story here:

“What I went through with my parents and trying to be ‘gracious’ in my parent's home because by law and only law, I wasn't an adult yet. Bullshit. You're an adult long before the age of 18 and when a child is capable of taking care of themselves which quite honestly is quite young. I took care of myself for a very long time as a kid, cooked for myself as young as 3rd grade because my parents weren't around, got a job at about 15 and was then paying bills, paying for school clothing, supplies, razors, shampoo and conditioner, soap, food, etc. Speak your mind and let them know what you really think and let them know you are an individual with your own thoughts, own beliefs, tell them in detail why you have a problem with their beliefs, actions, etc.”

And this from a person who was yet to discover Ayn Rand.

I don’t know your mother, and so my remarks are not targeted at her. I am speaking very generally here. And I do say that there are parents out there who should have NEVER been parents—and many of them are people to be avoided like the fucking plague. If you have some kind of longing for a family solidarity, don’t worry. One day you can start your own—and the biggest “fuck you” we can offer messed up parents is doing the parental thing right!

-Victor

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Well, my mom and I talked a little bit on the way to my friend's house yesterday. She thought I was retreating from Christianity because I had a bad (hated everyone there, finally got pulled out after getting in a yelling match with the vice principle) experience at my old private school. She wanted me to understand that I should not reject Christianity because of the people. I made it clear to her that if I was looking to find a philosophy with perfect people I wouldn't look at Objectivism (sorry guys, youre so close too. Actually it's the randroids that are imperfect, we are the pinnacle of the human mind here ). In any case, she seems a lot better with it now, at least enough to where she won't be completely closed-minded and enough so that I can continue on in whatever direction I please without too much harassment.

[Victor Pross]

Oh, Jeff, I agree with you. Don’t judge Christianity by the people who announce themselves as "Christians." No, judge it solely on the ideas it preaches. Take Rand’s advice: When judging a philosophy, ask yourself what it would mean if you applied it to a human life—starting with your own. B) (yeah, that's what I thought).

Anyway, there are no Christians. Oh yeah, there are plenty of hypocrites who don’t live the type of life their church or the doctrines of the church would have them live. No sir, not by a long shot. It is their hypocrisy that preserves whatever sanity and life they have.

-Victor

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Actually my sister manages some pretty far out interpretations of the Bible that allow her to not be a hypocrite when not put under extreme scrutiny.

[Danneskjold]

Then again I suppose if you interpret anything enough then you can make it say what you want it to.

Edit: Like global climate models.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

Then again I suppose if you interpret anything enough then you can make it say what you want it to.

Edit: Like global climate models.

Hell, have you ever seen a catholic rationalize their way around on the birth control or divorce issue? Oh, what a treat to behold!

[CNA]

Jeff,

There are just a few things I wanted to say. This is coming from my own experience and my childhood. But first, when you say "I am finally fed up," you've truly had enough. You're tired of it. There is no more toleration. This is when all hell breaks loose and final judgment so to speak is passed; ie, your judgment. So you may not quite be to the point of being fed up just yet but you are getting tired of it as is obvious. Trust me, when you've had enough, you will definitely let people know.

You may very well find that if you speak your mind and confront your parents that your parents will treat you with a bit more respect, treat you as an individual with your own mind and opinions and not just as "their" son who is 16 years old who still has a lot to learn. Meaning if you speak up and do not back down and uphold your convictions, you are NOT a PUSHOVER, easily used as a door mat, can't control you, manipulate you. You are not an individual where force can be used. But of course, there are parents that do not take kindly to the idea that they can't "control" their kids and they will fight it tooth and nail, anything to get their way. Anything to silence a voice. Force in any way should not be used on you in order to silence it. Your voice should be heard. How can you love a child, truly love the child, when all you want to do is stifle their growth and happiness by control , abuse, manipulation? How can you love a parent that only wants to stifle your growth and happiness through control, manipulation, etc, and ultimately sentencing you to misery? I have a hard time putting these ideas together as being the correct one and that a parent truly loves their child or vice versa when this is what is motivating them.

This is another area I could go into and keep going into and that is most people know full well what they are doing and why they are doing it, the outcome they ultimately want; such as, my father and why he did what he did when I was younger. It was interesting that after supporting him for so long and everything that I gave up, watching him all the time, trying to figure out why, it dawned on me that this man knew full well what he was doing and why he was doing it but he did not care, just as long as my hard work and so called love and guilt and pity benefited him. He knew it but I didn't. Well, one day, I was watching him and it hit me like a ton of bricks, "Jesus Christ, he knows what he is doing and why and he's doing it to me his daughter. He doesn't care."

Jeff, when speaking with your parents, let them know that you are just having a calm, investigatory type conversation. There is truly no need to get so upset, fearful, and so forth as it seems your mother has done. Emotions are outweighing evidence and objectivity. Tell them you want to talk about it reasonably or rationally. If things start to get heated, remind them again of that fact. That you're curious and are wanting to understand. You want to find the truth. That's all. You'll find that your mom may keep herself in check when you say this to her.

Also she is making judgments without having the full story, all the evidence. If she is at all curious and wanting to understand you, she will do a bit more reading and will hear you out more. As for grown ups being set in their ways and nothing will change their views, I definitely have to disagree with this. Yes, some people are this way but definitely not all. With what I went through in my childhood and ultimately ousting my entire family at the age of 18, I ultimately got back in touch. At the time we had a very crucial talk, I hadn't spoken to my father in quite a few years. It was truly the best conversation I've had with him even up to this date. He was a man set in his ways so long ago BUT he personally had to do his own growing, had to come to grips with his own choices before he could be open to such a conversation. Sometimes reality is definitely NOT an easy thing to deal with. The ones that are more closely grounded to reality are more open to someone speaking rationally; whereas, others will do whatever they can to protect that value system, even if it means fighting to the death or full blown knock out brawls and arguments. It seems your father is more grounded and is open to new evidence, new way of thinking; whereas, your mother is not.

If you speak your mind and are not passive and a pushover just because you live in your parents home and that you are to be a gracious guest because of this, you may very well find that they will have a bit more respect for you as an individual, your ideas, and so forth. When people are door mats, pushovers, subservients, and biting their tongue, there is very little respect for them. They can be easily controlled, manipulated, abused, and so forth. Speak your mind, Jeff.

But when you've had enough, you'll know when it happens because this is when all hell will break loose. Quite honestly, it IS amazingly liberating. It will give you a whole new sense of being FREE and seriously happy. It is an absolutely amazing feeling. There is no more toleration. There is no more passivity. Your family is the hardest obstacle to overcome in this regard but it can be done. It's not easy by any means but is possible. Sometimes you have to go through a lot before you finally get tired of it, before you lose toleration, get tired of being subjected to irrational bullshit, get tired of being used, etc. Some people never tire of it. Others take a bit longer. And others see it for what it is quickly and put a stop to it before it gets out of hand. I can tell that you are of the latter. Impressive that you're so young and are already getting tired of it. The same as I did.

Angie

Edited January 29, 2007 by CNA

[sjw]

If you speak your mind and are not passive and a pushover just because you live in your parents home and that you are to be a gracious guest because of this, you may very well find that they will have a bit more respect for you as an individual, your ideas, and so forth. When people are door mats, pushovers, subservients, and biting their tongue, there is very little respect for them. They can be easily controlled, manipulated, abused, and so forth. Speak your mind, Jeff.

Yeah, that was my point, that kids should be submissive, easily controlled, manipulated, abused, and subservient, and that parents should have little respect for them. I'm being sarcastic of course.

The thrust of what CNA is saying is horrible. A parent is financially and legally responsible for their kids. And the parents, at the point of a gun held by the State, will hold the parents responsible for the child's actions. What CNA is calling for is making the parents a slave to the child's whim--he can do what he wants to express that he's not a "door mat"--and the parent must bear the burden, fork over subsistence, and become the real "door mat".

This is what happens when you ignore the true relationships in reality: in reality the child is, in fact, dependent on the parent, and therefore the child properly should recognize this fact, be grateful for being supported, and abide by the rules of the house. If the parents are unjust, then they'll get their due in the long run when their kids refuse to visit them as adults, but the child has no right to violate the house rules while the parent pays the bills.

Of course, CNA will interpret this as saying that the parents can do anything short of illegal abuse and that should be fine. Which of course I am not saying. Parents should be good parents. But when they are not perfect, that doesn't give the child a right to violate the fundamental and implicit terms of the relationship. It's wrong for a child to demand support while slapping his supporters in the face.

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

I think you may find my position bias in defending Angie as she is my girlfriend, but I think you misunderstand the spirit of what she is saying. She is, in essence, speaking from a stand-point of her own specific context. As she has set her specific scenario up, we learn that it was she—as a child or young woman—who was not only being emotionally molested (how could what she has endured be seen as anything else?) but financially exploited as well! Plus, she is not speaking of parents “becoming a slave to the child’s whims”—she is speaking of a child groping to identify their values, develop their minds, and do so in the face of irrationality and opposition. Do you recall when Rand spoke in AS -by way of comparison- of birds who plucked their babes' wings and then tossing them from the nest? Well, it’s all well and good to say that the child will eventually go out on his own - after having had his mind plucked. That Angie survived her own brand of "plucking" makes her nothing less than a heroine to me.

-Victor

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Victor--it was not my intention to judge Angie. Just as it wasn't my intention to whitewash the behavior bad parents. Speaking of that--I think the child who heeds what I'm saying would better survive bad parents (to a certain limit--I'm not talking about true abuse that should be taken to the police) than the one constantly at war with parents who just won't listen. The fact is, they don't have to listen or do what the child wants, THEY ARE THE PARENTS. That doesn't make them right, it's simply a fact that the kid is much better of recognizing than trying to rewrite reality. Not that I am saying one shouldn't try to convince one's parents if they are open to it. There's no hard rules here about what any particular kid should do, just some basic ground rules, the paramount one being: It's properly the parent's house and they ultimately set the terms. If Angie interprets this fact as some kind of insult to the kid, then there's something wrong with how she reads.