Unfortunately, I find myself largely in agreement
with you on that. If I married, I would be faithful. I
would also absolutely demand that the husband be
faithful, and if he were not, I would divorce him.--
In extenuation of Rearden, I think maybe he would not have been able to get a divorce in Pennsyl-
vania at the time the book was written (though I
don't know, I don't know all that much about
Pennsylvania); there are a few things in the mar-
riage vows besides fidelity, such as "love, honor,
and cherish", which Lillian was not doing when
she traded away his bracelet. But he still could
have given her a sort of notice, for instance,"Since
tha's what you think of me and my efforts, I div-
orce you, I divorce you, I divorce you, and from
now on, I'm going to do what I d--- please!"--And
does it affect your orpinion of Dagny for allowing
him to mess with her when she knew he was
still under that contract?

What is the Coolidge effect? "I do not choose to
run" or "The business of government is to let busi-
ness alone"? I don't recall ever hearing of a "Cool-
idge effect" before.

No, we are Alex and Donna Stone.

Far too few. As a young girl, I resented the notion
that I should try to get married whether I was in love
or not.--But I never did any of that stuff.

Is your real name Ralph Kramden and is your
wife's name Alice?

eww- I have to disagree. Henry and Dagny's affair was a very significant feature in Atlas. It is also common knowledge that Rand likely had an affair with Nathaniel Branden. Yes I said likely, but it is a very common belief even amongst her supporters. Apparently they were fairly brazen about the relationship.

If you and your partner are truly an Objectivists there should be no concern about marriage or divorce. You should be able to rationally determine who owns properties and how any jointly owned property should be split if either party decided to end the relationship. From a rational view, you would acknowledge that human children are dependent for a relatively long time and your decision to create them carries the responsibility of tending to their needs during their dependency.

Objectivists base all decisions using reason which eliminates most of the causes of the poor selection of partners and divorce. If you choose a partner because you like and respect their mind and their character, you will be disappointed far less than if you select them based on their physical characteristics.

I married my wife because I thought she was a good person, intelligent and I liked being with her. I decided that she would be the best mother to our children and friend to me. We are not religious and are strong advocates of individual rights. We married when she was 20 and I was 21 which was soon to be 55 years ago. We have 4 children and 6 grandchildren. I claim that everything we own is hers and she says, no it is mine. I base my claim on the fact that I want to dispose of it all and bum around the world together and she won't let it go.

Whoever took a point please explain...the right of either side of the issue should be respected, no? As for my using the word deviant, look it up. Its not a slight just an accurate adjective.

Ayn Rand's novels do not "feature cheating" and she did not "cheat" in her own life.

We are talking about an institution of normal marriage and its purpose.

I agree, we are on the same page and you seem to have come to the same conclusions as have I.

I agree with the term civil union for anything aside from a religious spiritual bond. Then no people should force the matter on institutions that do not support deviant forms of marriage and conversely no institutions should prevent others from their form of binding.

As far as stuff, no amount of stuff would keep me where I didn't want to be.

He is very confused. Marriage is not religious. Religion took it over politically and ideologically to the extent that religion became dominant. It did not create the concept of marriage and marriage does not "derive from mysticism".

Actually I think we are on the same page here. I thought I got your point and responded as such. Yes, I believe humans are subject to the instinctual inclinations of the Coolidge effect. That is pretty clear to me biologically and psychologically. As an objectivist, I am not concerned with morality in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense. I don't see monogamy as a moral issue at all. The central Capitalistic theme of Objectivism is based around ethical, rational selfishness. The ethical, rational portion is where contracts become the backbone of this philosophy. Without honoring contracts, then things turn into irrational selfishness. Bottom line, choosing the number of partners is an Objectivist's prerogative, responsibility in fact, to pursue self interest. However, all parties involved should be subject to any existing marital or partnership agreement, whether it be formally written (marriage certificate) or simply spoken. If a person has made no commitment to anyone, then all is fair in love and war.

I am not aware of any articles though...

how true

Actually, that was not my point, but I can see how you might think so. Too often I understand Objectivists to say things to effect that humans have no instincts, etc., yet the Coolidge effect is pretty well established in mammals and we are mammals. I am aware of few writings in which the issue of monogamy is addressed as a moral issue. Rand seems to say in her Playboy interview that it is okay if all agree. Will Thomas a number of years ago wrote a short piece on it, but in the article he made a number of assumptions that I do not consider to be valid. If you know of an article on the subject, I would like to read it.

Agreed, and this is where the philosophical aspect comes into play: what are the values one should choose? Short term/long-term, religious/non-religious, save/spend (just FYI, but most divorces are on differences in monetary values - not religion - up to 57% according to one source).

In the bigger picture, the question is the general values society adopts as a whole toward marriage and children, as that is where the whole debate around marriage licenses originated in the first place.


(Just FYI, but government control and intervention in marriage didn't happen until after the Civil War. Whites were still bitter towards blacks and wanted to prevent inter-racial marriages, so they dreamed up the notion of having to apply for a marriage certificate in order to prove one was married. The government of course liked the control and extra revenue so they were happy to oblige.)

I think divorce is made to be too easy to get. Yes, there are situations (see unitedic comments) but if you don’t get along, get a divorce. I have been married for over 45 years. Did we agree on everything, no but we always worked to come up with a solution that we could both live with. Before we go married we had long discussions on philosophy. This was our common bond, and for us meant that we cold get over anything else. How many people ensure that before marriage they truly have a common philosophy to ensure compatibility for the longer term?

It applies to the point of "yes the biology exists" in Objectivists. I guess you are getting at whether Objectivists should take action from those biological tendencies. My answer would be, if you want to let biology control you to propagate with multiple baby makers, then by all means. If you willingly enter into a contract of marriage that includes monogamy, then absolutely not. I don't see the act of having sex (and even producing offspring) with many partners as any sort of moral defect at all. I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the parties you are having sex with understand your intentions. To add to that, I don't see anything wrong with consensual polygamy either. I personally think it is weird, but nothing about it goes against my view of Objectivism.

I think the real issue are the values people use to make the "contract in the first place". What is it they we each value... The better a choice matches ones true values the better the match long term. I agree that worst aspect of many divorces are the effects it has on the children.

But, Does the Coolidge effect apply to Objectivists?

Divorce isn't the problem. Marriage is. The institution is an unnecessary intrusion into private lives by government.

Yes, there are 2 sides to every story, but sometimes it is pretty cut and clear. My ex wife had completely lied to me about her background while we were dating and into the marriage. The amount of sexual promiscuity she had prior to our dating was seriously off the charts including prostitution, but she led me to believe she had barely lost her virginity... There is not a man on the planet this woman would not cheat on.

Since I did not get married for any religious reason, the only reason I married was to contract the idea that my wife and I would be exclusive. Exclusivity gives me many benefits, including stability and the knowledge that I cannot contract an STD. Humans have the ability to control their sexual urges, unlike most other species.

Rand's personal cheating is the only thing I know of her that causes me to lessen my respect for her. I am one of the few people I know that thinks that Readon's cheating in Shrugged was not only unnecessary, but it distracted me from having the respect for Hank that the book intended us to have for him. I have no problem with Hank leaving his wife, but he should have done it before he hooked up with Dagny. I don't see marriage as a permanent trap, but while you are under that contract, you had better damned respect that contract. Control your damned urges until you end the contract. Objectivists are supposed to be abide by contracts, that is a major part of our philosophy. If people choose not to abide by contracts, then Objectivism can never work.

She was a "homemaker" while I worked throughout our marriage, however we had a maid come once a week and ate out a lot. Her homemaking consisted of laundry and picking the kids up from school for the most part, oh yeah, and shopping.

The problem with our divorce laws is that they are antiquated. When these laws were written, a traditional divorce consisted of a man leaving his "kept woman" who all but wasn't allowed to go to school or work. She would end up with the kids full time with little help from the father. While that still often happens, many scenarios have changed dramatically. Women can easily take advantage of the laws the way they are written, with no worry of recourse.

Funny thing about my ex wife is that she always claimed (and still does claim) to be very much against entitlements. She had no problem taking as much from me as she could get her hands on every month for years. Even though she is remarried to a fairly successful realtor, she still has no problem taking plenty of child support and not paying any of the kids expenses, even though they are only with her half of the time. The laws are pretty messed up.

Can you tell I'm a little bitter about the laws? ;)