Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 1992 11:32:04 -0400 
From: Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand, Open vs. Closed Polyamory

	Hi everyone!  Figured now would be a good time to de-lurk...("Captain! 
A Romulan warbird has just de-lurked 20,000 km to starboard!" - sorry,
couldn't resist :)
	So it's about Ayn Rand.  To be honest, I don't really think this is an
appropriate bboard to discuss her and/or Objectivism.  Beyond saying
that sex is a "celebration of life among people who respect each other
and their concommitant values", Objectivism doesn't espouse any
particular orientation.  With the above as a guideline, IMO this doesn't
rule out polyamory.
	Since Rand hasn't really spoken directly to the issue of polyamory, I
suspect any continued discussions on this thread would degenerate to the
merits (or not) of her philosophy - discussion which doesn't belong
here.  May I suggest that further discussions of Ayn Rand or Objectivism
be continued in email.  To those who wish to find out more about
Objectivism, I would reccommend reading "Objectivism: The Philosophy of
Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff (I enjoy her fictional novels, but I don't
think they're sufficient to gain a good understanding of Objectivism).

Let's move on:

Jim Baranski@VEAMF1.NUSC... writes:

>Myself, I'm interested in 'poly', but I'm not interested in 'open season
>on anything that moves'.

	I agree.  To me, 'poly' means being open and honest (and safe) with all
of your partners.  It does not mean (to me), someone who is just looking
for casual relationships.  That is just promiscuity.  A poly
relationship exists so that one can express their love to everyone
involved, not so that individual members can 'play the field' and still
have someone to come home to.

Jim Baranski@VEAMF1.NUSC... writes:

>Similiarly, another person complained that giving your partner 'veto'
>over other relationships was 'a polyamorous relationships acting like a
>monogamy'. Again, I don't think so.  I think this is another issue of
>'closed/open'ness. I can imagine a veto arrangement being horrible if it is
>used to control another person. 

	I think the ideal scenario for adding another partner to the
relationship would involve introducing the 'applicant' to the other
members (perhaps all go out to eat, or something like that), but with
everyone of the purpose of the introduction ("Ok, everyone, we're going
to meet Sally tonight at 8 at the restaurant.  Ask lots of questions.").
 After the meeting, all the members would discuss their
feelings/impressions, and they would come to a decision.  If there was
some sort of irreconcilible difference, then 'Sally' would be turned
down (veto power of a sort, I guess), but if they didn't find anything
wrong that couldn't be worked out, 'Sally' would be admitted.  While
some may feel that veto power is unfair/incorrect, it seems to me it is
the only way to be fair to all members of the relationship.  If the
person who originally sponsored Sally's application is determined to
enter into a relationship with her even though she is not admitted, then
he/she is free to leave the group to do so.  (Yeah, I've read a lot of
Heinlein.  Can you tell?)

Comments?



					Gerry - sexy Objectivist

--
******************************************
Today's random quote:
"And another [ingredient for a happy marriage]- In a family argument, if
it turns out you are right - apologize at once!"

					-Lazarus Long

******************************************
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1077 alt.sex:27761 soc.couples:3691