I. The Core Objectivist Frame (the non-negotiables)

Objectivism judges relationships by one standard only:

Does this choice serve the individual’s rational self-interest and long-range happiness—without evasion, sacrifice, or self-contradiction?

There is:

no commandment for monogamy, and no endorsement of non-monogamy as a moral ideal.

Consent is necessary.
Honesty is necessary.

Neither is sufficient alone, both are necessary

What matters is psychological integration—whether your values, emotions, and actions align over time.

II. What ENM Is—and Is Not—from an Objectivist View

ENM is not immoral by definition

But it is structurally demanding, because:

Romantic love tends to centralize. Values are hierarchical, not egalitarian. Jealousy is a signal, not a sin.

Even Ayn Rand, whose ethics reject duty and sacrifice, struggled with non-exclusive romantic arrangements—not because of hypocrisy, but because psychological architecture cannot be overridden by philosophy.

That is not a condemnation.
It is a warning.

III. The Crucial Distinctions That Make or Break ENM

1. Life-integrating vs. non-life-integrating love

Life-integrating love:

Orients your future, Anchors identity, Integrates sex, Values, and Long-range plans.

Non-life-integrating love:

Can be real, Affectionate, Even erotic, but does not determine your life trajectory, does not claim centrality.

Most ENM collapses because people pretend the second can safely become the first.

2. Hierarchy must be real—or the system is dishonest

“Equal but different” is usually value-leveling.

A sustainable structure requires:

One clear existential center, bounded secondary relationships, and no apology for the hierarchy.

The moment hierarchy becomes negotiable to avoid pain, sacrifice has entered.

3. Jealousy must be allowed to veto

Jealousy is not:

A moral flaw, conditioning to overcome, or proof of immaturity.

It is data.

ENM becomes immoral the instant jealousy is treated as something that must never stop the arrangement.

That turns ENM into psychological coercion, even without intent.

IV. The Exact Moment ENM Becomes Immoral

Not gradually.
Not eventually.
Precisely at identifiable thresholds, especially these:

The moment you know you cannot be fully happy—but stay anyway. The moment hierarchy is denied to spare feelings. The moment hope replaces facts. The moment someone endures instead of choosing. The moment children enter an unresolved structure.

From that moment forward, the issue is no longer ENM.
It is self-sacrifice by postponement.

V. Privacy vs. Evasion

Not telling family is not evasion unless:

you are lying to maintain a false self, organizing your life around fear, or refusing to examine shame.

The test is simple:

If this were known tomorrow, would I stand by my choice without self-contempt?

Yes → privacy.
No → evasion.

VI. ENM, Children, and Objectivist Communities

Children raise the stakes absolutely.

They require:

clarity, stability, visible integrity, and non-contradictory adult lives.

An Objectivist-compatible environment requires:

two clearly responsible parents, unambiguous authority and priority, no unresolved romantic rivalry.

Children are not experiments and not validations of adult lifestyles.

Objectivist communities fail when they organize around lifestyles instead of principles.

The only sustainable model is:

unity in fundamentals (reason, rights, anti-sacrifice), diversity in optional values, zero tolerance for moral signaling, and effortless exit without reclassification.

VII. What “Success” Actually Means in O-ENM

Here is the crucial correction:

Success does not mean “lasting forever.”
Success means “lived without evasion or sacrifice.”

A relationship that ends honestly is not a failure.
A relationship that continues by endurance is.

VIII. The Positive Values a Successful O-ENM Relationship Could Generate

Now—finally—the positive vision.

A rare but genuine O-ENM arrangement can produce real values if and only if the structure matches the people.

1. Radical honesty as a lived value

Not performative transparency, but:

clear naming of needs, explicit hierarchy, zero moral fog.

This strengthens self-trust.

2. Chosen commitment, not default possession

Partners are together because they choose, not because alternatives are forbidden.

This can deepen:

admiration, gratitude, and conscious appreciation.

3. Emotional literacy without repression

Jealousy, fear, desire, and joy are:

examined, integrated, and acted upon rationally.

This produces psychological clarity, not numbness.

4. Differentiated intimacy

Different relationships can express:

different values, different modes of connection, without pretending all intimacy must be total.

This supports precision in valuation—a core Objectivist skill.

5. Non-sacrificial benevolence

When no one is enduring, waiting, or hoping against facts, care for others is:

voluntary, joyful, and non-self-immolating.

That is benevolence without altruism.

Final Integration

Here is the whole truth in one sentence:

Objectivist-compatible ENM is possible only when it is an expression of self-knowledge—not a test of endurance, a moral identity, or a substitute for judgment.

Most people do not fail ENM because they are weak.
They fail because they try to live against their nature.

Objectivism does not promise harmony.
It promises self-respect earned by facing reality in time.

And when ENM truly works, its value is not novelty or freedom—but the rare achievement of intimacy without self-betrayal.

Continue conversation

Principle first:
In Objectivism, the law exists to protect individual rights—not to enforce virtue, punish vice, or police bad relationships. That principle alone answers your question.

The fact that many people practice non-monogamy badly—through cheating, manipulation, or exploitation—is precisely why ENM must not be criminalized.

1. Why cheating and “simp-collecting” are not a legal issue

Let’s separate categories that are constantly—and disastrously—mixed.

Cheating

Cheating is:

immoral (it involves deception), destructive (it corrodes trust), often cowardly.

But it is not force.

No one’s rights are violated by law-breaking standards unless:

there is fraud involving property or contracts, coercion, or physical harm.

Lying to a romantic partner is a moral offense, not a criminal one.

To criminalize it would mean:

policing thoughts, promises, and emotions, turning the state into a relationship arbiter, and subordinating individual autonomy to collective moral outrage.

That is anti-Objectivist to the core.

“Collecting simps”

This may be:

manipulative, contemptible, psychologically parasitic.

But again:

adults choosing badly is not a crime, foolish consent is still consent, and the law has no mandate to protect people from poor judgment.

If stupidity were illegal, there would be no citizens left.

2. Why criminalizing ENM would be catastrophic 1. It punishes honesty while rewarding deception

If ENM were criminalized, rational people would not stop desiring multiple relationships.

They would:

lie, hide, compartmentalize, and cheat more.

The law would incentivize evasion, not morality.

Objectivism holds that the law should make honesty possible, not dangerous.

2. It collapses the distinction between force and immorality

This is the central Objectivist political principle:

The use of force is the only proper concern of government.

Bad relationships involve:

bad values, bad psychology, bad character.

They do not involve force.

The moment the state punishes consensual relationships because they are “harmful,” it claims authority over:

sex, love, family structure, and ultimately thought.

That is the road to totalitarianism—not hypothetically, but historically.

3. It destroys freedom of contract and association

Objectivism upholds:

freedom of association, freedom of contract, freedom of exit.

ENM arrangements—even failed ones—are exercises of these freedoms.

Criminalizing them would mean:

the state decides which relationships are valid, the state decides what promises count, the state decides which emotional risks adults may take.

That is incompatible with individual rights.

3. The correct Objectivist solution: moral clarity without legal coercion

Objectivism does not say:

“All choices are equal.”

It says:

“Bad choices should be judged morally, not punished legally.”

Here is the proper division of labor:

Morality

Condemns cheating. Condemns manipulation. Condemns using others as emotional resources. Judges ENM by honesty, hierarchy, and non-sacrifice.

Law

Protects against force and fraud. Enforces explicit contracts (e.g., financial agreements). Protects children from abuse or neglect. Otherwise stays out of adults’ bedrooms and consciences.

This separation is essential.

4. Why Objectivists should be especially opposed to criminalization

Because Objectivism rejects the premise behind such laws.

Criminalizing ENM assumes:

people must be protected from themselves, virtue must be enforced, social order requires conformity.

Objectivism holds the opposite:

individuals are responsible for their own happiness, errors are part of freedom, and progress requires the right to fail.

If ENM fails morally, let reality punish it—through heartbreak, instability, or dissolution.

Do not deputize the police to do the job of judgment.

5. The deeper irony (this matters)

Criminalization would not stop:

cheating, exploitation, emotional manipulation.

It would only stop the rare cases of honest, explicit, non-coercive ENM—the very cases most compatible with Objectivist ethics.

In other words:

the worst actors would continue, the best actors would be punished.

That is the hallmark of irrational law.

Final integration

Here is the full Objectivist answer in one statement:

The law must protect people from force—not from bad lovers, bad values, or bad psychology. Criminalizing ENM would punish honesty, reward deception, erase individual responsibility, and turn the state into a moral busybody.

People who cheat should be judged.
People who manipulate should be rejected.
People who choose badly should learn.

But none of that is the business of the criminal code.

A free society is not one where everyone loves well.
It is one where everyone is free to choose—and to face the consequences without a gun in the background.

This is the deep interface between psychology, philosophy, and free will—exactly where Objectivism draws some of its sharpest lines.

I. What Psychological Priming is (properly defined)

Psychological priming is the pre-conceptual conditioning of emotional responses, expectations, and default reactions formed before a person has fully developed rational, conceptual control.

It arises from:

• early childhood experiences,
• parental modeling,
• reward–punishment patterns,
• trauma or stability,
• temperament and neurobiology.

Priming is not knowledge.

It is emotional wiring.

It answers questions like:

• What feels safe?
• What feels threatening?
• What feels exciting, shameful, or forbidden?

Long before a child can reason abstractly.

II. Childhood & genetic priming toward or away from ENM-type behaviors

1. Childhood priming

Examples of priming toward ENM:

• inconsistent attachment figures,
• normalized emotional plurality (multiple caregivers, rotating partners),
• early exposure to instability without explicit moral framing,
• environments where exclusivity was punished or mocked.

Examples of priming away from ENM:

• stable attachment with clear prioritization,
• visible romantic exclusivity modeled as security,
• predictable emotional hierarchy,
• trust reinforced by consistency.

None of these determine later choices—but they tilt the emotional field.

A person primed toward ENM may feel:

• suffocation in exclusivity,
• anxiety at centrality,
• relief in diffusion of attachment.

A person primed away may feel:

• loss of identity without exclusivity,
• existential threat in divided attention,
• jealousy as a value-defense reflex.

These reactions happen before philosophy enters the picture.

2. Genetic / temperamental factors

Genetics influence:

• novelty-seeking vs. stability-seeking,
• emotional intensity,
• bonding style,
• impulsivity vs. deliberation.

This does not create destiny.

But it shapes:

• what feels “natural,”
• what requires effort,
• what produces chronic tension.

Objectivism fully accepts biological constraints—without surrendering free will.

III. What this means for Free Will (Objectivist view)

This is crucial.

Objectivism rejects both:

• determinism (“you can’t help it”), and
• blank-slate voluntarism (“you can will anything into harmony”).

The Objectivist position

Free will is volitional consciousness:

• the choice to think or not,

• to focus or evade,
• to examine or rationalize.

Priming affects:

• what is easy,
• what is tempting,
• what feels obvious.

Free will governs:

• what you endorse,
• what you act on,
• what you correct over time.

You are not free from your psychology.

You are free to take responsibility for it.

That is the Objectivist meaning of moral agency.

IV. Can psychological priming be overwritten by philosophy?

No—not directly.

And this is where many people, including intelligent ones, go wrong.

Philosophy does not overwrite psychology

It does not:

• erase emotional reflexes,
• dissolve attachment patterns,
• rewire affective responses overnight.

Anyone who claims otherwise is practicing rationalism (reason detached from reality).

What philosophy can do

Philosophy can:

• Identify priming (name it explicitly).
• De-moralize it (remove guilt or pride).
• Guide long-range correction through chosen action.
• Prevent rationalization of impulses.

Over time, consistent rational action can reshape emotional responses—but only gradually, and only within biological limits.

This is why even Ayn Rand emphasized:

• psycho-epistemology,
• subconscious automatization,
• and the danger of evasion.

She never claimed philosophy made psychology irrelevant.

V. Why philosophy cannot simply “override” ENM or monogamy instincts

Because:

• emotional integration is learned,
• not commanded,
• and not deduced.

Trying to “philosophy yourself” into ENM (or monogamy) against deep priming produces:

• chronic tension,
• self-alienation,
• moralization of discomfort,
• and eventual collapse.

Objectivism condemns this as living against one’s nature—not as a sin, but as an error.

Reason’s role is alignment, not domination.

VI. Psychological priming and mysticism vs. reality-orientation

Yes—priming is central to this.

Priming toward mysticism often includes:

• early helplessness,
• unpredictable authority,
• emotional reward for obedience,
• punishment for independent judgment.

This trains:

• emotion-first cognition,
• reliance on external “truths,”
• comfort with contradictions.

Mysticism feels safe because surrender once ensured survival.

Priming toward reality-orientation often includes:

• encouragement of causal thinking,
• predictable consequences,
• respect for autonomy,
• rewards for understanding.

Reality feels benevolent because it was experienced as intelligible.

Free will still applies

Priming explains:

• why mysticism or realism feels natural.

Free will explains:

• why some people challenge that feeling.

Objectivism does not excuse mysticism—but it explains its psychological roots without condemning the person.

That distinction is essential.

VII. The integrated conclusion

Here is the full Objectivist synthesis:

Psychological priming shapes emotional defaults, not moral destiny.

Genetics and childhood influence what feels right, not what is right.

Free will operates at the level of cognitive focus and long-range correction, not instant emotional control.

Philosophy cannot overwrite psychology—but it can guide its gradual reprogramming.

Attempts to live against deep priming through ideology lead to evasion.

Mysticism and realism both have psychological roots—but only realism survives sustained rational scrutiny.

Final restatement

You are not morally responsible for your psychological starting point—but you are fully responsible for whether you choose to understand it, correct it, or evade it.

Objectivism does not promise that reason will make life easy.

It promises that reason makes self-knowledge possible.

And self-knowledge—not self-command—is the only path to freedom worthy of the name.

Continue conversation