Hey, ladies

[Beckon]

Of course Rand prefers Min...she's the only one who doesn't come at him with the "all men are idiots" BS the rest of the girls do. She's realistic about the differences between men and women, but unlike everyone else her age and younger, she doens't hold it against him.

[Jorik Alarin]

Bah, Zardi and Luckers, you dodge like professional politicians. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't, but don't try to equivocate and avoid it so as to appear sophisticated and altruistic. All human beings are capable of jealousy, i just want to know how the enlightened will react when their own lives are put under the microscope. The fact is Rand did have to tell them, and he was the one that exposed himself to their scorn and disgust, while they stood back and plotted and made decisions, without involving him in them in anyway. And Elayne and Aviendah might have known each other, but Min and Aviendah sure didn't, so Aviendah had to accept a total stranger would love the same person she did, i'm asking how you would react in that situation if you were one of the sharers. If I was Rand and found out these people who were supposed to "love" me, were plotting out my future life without any input from me, i would boot all of 'em and marry Bela.....she the only female in the book thats rational, dependable and doesn't have a personal agenda she would kill you for if you got in its way. :twisted:

[Zardi]

Did you actually read what Luckers and I said? We're not dodging your question. We're pointing out that the situation you presented in your previous post is the reverse of the situation that occurs in the books, so it is irrelevant. Examine your question a little bit more carefully before you tear into people who make legitimate objections.

 

What you asked is, if my boyfriend came up to me and said, "Hey, I'm in love with your best friend, and I want a relationship with both of you. Will you share me?" Would I stand for that? No, probably not, because this says to me that my boyfriend feels some sense of entitlement, and I would have to wonder whether he would cheat on me if I said no. But that is not relevant to this topic since it is the reverse of what happened in the books. Rand did not go to the girls with this "sharing" business. He fully expected to leave Caemlyn with all three women hating him. He did not feel entitled to even one of them, let alone all three.

 

If you want to ask an equivalent question, try something like the following two:

 

1) You and your best friend are both in love with the same person. Would you two be willing to share the person you love, in order to sustain your friendship? You and your friend would talk about it together, see if you can agree with it on your end, then go to the significant other and make your proposal.

 

OR

 

2) You are in love with two people (or more, whatever). You were raised to believe this makes you some sort of monster, and so you fully expect these people to be disgusted with you and want nothing to do with you. But then, miraculously, those people come to you -- of their own volition -- to tell you they love you, and want to share you. What do you say to that?

 

THOSE situations are equivalent to the one in the book: the sharers make a proposal to the shared, NOT the other way around as you initially asked.

 

As for whether I would do it, I don't know if I would or not, and I never said that it's for me. This sort of thing doesn't work for everyone -- especially in our society where the practice is condemned -- and I never said it does. I said that if the people involved are ok with it, then it's perfectly fine with me. Where is the issue? Do you just want someone to say that they are disgusted by this?

 

If I was Rand and found out these people who were supposed to "love" me, were plotting out my future life without any input from me, i would boot all of 'em and marry Bela

Bela can't consent or refuse, because she's a horse. Rand did have a chance to refuse. The girls were not "plotting" anything: this was something they had legitimate need to talk about between themselves, away from Rand. They had to know that the three of them were open to the idea of sharing, before suggesting such a radical thing to Rand. He could have refused to let them bond him, but he didn't want to refuse. As has been said over and over again, all four people in this relationship have consented to it.

 

Don't forget that Rand was prepared to send Min away. She refused to leave.

In addition, Elayne is trying to win the Lion Throne back and Aviendha is training to become a wise one. They have other more pressing issues in their lives. Min has the time and the desire to stick by Rand's side at the moment. Those are the reasons Rand and Min (and not the other two) have been together alone for so long.

Exactly. Elayne left Rand of her own will because she had things to accomplish elsewhere. Surely you (whoever initially complained about this) aren't suggesting that Rand should have tagged along with Elayne and Nynaeve when he also had things to do elsewhere? As for Aviendha, she also left of her own will, because she had toh toward Elayne from sleeping with Rand. After that, Aviendha wanted to remain with Elayne. If she'd wanted to go with Rand to Far Madding, I doubt he could have stopped her (just as he can't stop Min) -- but she didn't want to.

 

Why do people blame this supposed "inequality" on Rand and Min all the time? You really think that Elayne and Aviendha have no free will?

[Luckers]

What Zardi said.

[missinginstereo]

I never got why she had Toh if they had all agreed to share him anyway.

Also, Zardi, the questions you put up only refer to 3 people. In the book it's more of a love square than a love triangle which complicates things a great deal more.

Maybe you and your best friend would share someone with you, but would you, your best friend and a close friend(who your best friend hardly knows) be willing to share a guy or girl?

[Beckon]

I never got why she had Toh if they had all agreed to share him anyway.

Also' date=' Zardi, the questions you put up only refer to 3 people. In the book it's more of a love square than a love triangle which complicates things a great deal more.

Maybe you and your best friend would share someone with you, but would you, your best friend and a close friend(who your best friend hardly knows) be willing to share a guy or girl?[/quote']

 

She has toh because she slept with Rand when she was supposed to be keeping an eye on him for Elayne. That happened before Aviendha knew anything about the sharing business.

 

The point is still that Jorik's question, which supposedly was less pointless than the original, had the guy going to the three women and saying let's have a foursome. That's completely reverse of the books in which it's the three women who know of Min's viewing about sharing and decide amongst themselves that they can all deal with it and expect Rand to deal also, which he agrees to by letting them bond him. Prior to that point Rand was constantly condemning himself for being a lecherous pig, and trying to send them away because he felt he didn't deserve any of them.

[Zardi]

Also, Zardi, the questions you put up only refer to 3 people.

So then add more people. So what? My suggested situations don't prevent the possibility of even 50 people who hate each other sharing one significant other. You are latching on to minor differences between my suggestions and the situation in the books, while completely ignoring the glaring discrepancy between Jorik's question and Rand's situation. My situations and Rand's are not identical -- I never claimed that they are -- but they are comparable. Jorik's and Rand's are not.

 

Maybe you and your best friend would share someone with you, but would you, your best friend and a close friend(who your best friend hardly knows) be willing to share a guy or girl?

If I take the time to write something in a post, you should take the time to read it. To make it easy for you, I will quote myself:

As for whether I would do it, I don't know if I would or not, and I never said that it's for me. This sort of thing doesn't work for everyone -- especially in our society where the practice is condemned -- and I never said it does. I said that if the people involved are ok with it, then it's perfectly fine with me. Where is the issue? Do you just want someone to say that they are disgusted by this?

I didn't say I'd definitely share a man with my best friend. I've never been that close to another woman who liked the same man I did, so I don't have much of a basis for answering this. Our anti-polygamist society is part of the problem, and that would have a great effect on my decision. Even so, I am not completely appalled by the suggestion, in theory. Entering into this sort of arrangement would take a tremendous amount of self-confidence and trust, and I simply don't know if I have that in me.

 

Another very important thing to consider here is that the girls in the book had a viewing to go by, so they had no doubt that all three of them were in love with Rand. AND, most importantly, they have that convenient little bond assuring each of them that Rand is still in love with them. Here in the real world, we have no such assurances, making partner-sharing a much more difficult thing to agree to (but still not impossible, and still not necessarily morally repugnant).

 

I wonder, if I don't even know what I'd do, why are you so obsessed with knowing?

 

I get the impression that you just want me to say, "no, I'd be disgusted by that!!!1" so that you can call me a hypocrite. ;) That's not how it works. I have stated repeatedly that I have no moral objection to polygamy (or multiple partners of any gender) as long as they are well-informed adults, who mutually respect each other, entering into the agreement of their own free will. The girls are not concubines, and Rand is not cheating on any of them because they know about each other and have agreed -- of their own free will -- to share him.

[Jorik Alarin]

My apologies....i reread my post and found the quibble that Zardi and Luckers latched onto like Leonardo DiCaprio did to that door in the end of Titanic...i said rephrase.....my sincere apologies. I should have eliminated that word and just said "a better question would be." Then posed my question. I really don't care if anyone is in fact an internet hypocrite. This is cyberspace; you can be Mary Queen of Scotts here. I just knew that the question as originally posed would produce these tried and trite answers of enlightened and sophisticated people that don't really exist in the modernized western world but seem only to populate the internet. And Beckon in my reread i didnt recall saying that the person....here in your response you inserted male automatically, i presume because of the literary reference...said anything about a "foursome", i.e. sex between all four at once. I said wanted to be involved in a sexual relationship, with all of them. This doesn't necessarily mean group orgies, in fact in cultures where ploygamy is legal there are often separate living quarters for the wives. And the sexual contact is "usually" between the husband and one wife at a time. I say wives because there is no current society where it is ok for a woman to have multiple husbands, but there are several in the Mid and Far East where multiple wives are o.k....now thats hypocrisy. I do of course find it fascinating that the societies where multiple wives are accepted are the societies that offer the most severe restrictions on sexual freedom and womens rights. I would have thought that in the role reversed WoT world that particular custom would have also been reversed, but nope...in R.J.'s world the men still get to have multiple wives. Wait maybe a green sister, with multiple warders with the bond, they are after all probably closer than any husband. And we know that some Aes Sedai sleep with there warders occasionally, i wonder if the bond can force a man to "perform", i'd bet it can, if it can be used to make them "obey"...never thought that WoT was an S&M series.

[missinginstereo]

I get the impression that you just want me to say' date=' "no, I'd be disgusted by that!!!1" so that you can call me a hypocrite. ;) That's not how it works. I have stated repeatedly that I have no moral objection to polygamy (or multiple partners of any gender) as long as they are well-informed adults, who mutually respect each other, entering into the agreement of their own free will. The girls are not concubines, and Rand is not cheating on any of them because they know about each other and have agreed -- of their own free will -- to share him.[/quote']

Nay, i am not trying to entrap you and i am not obsessed. I was merely debating your points because 3 women is alot different than 2, especially given the circumstances.

In another point(not directed at anyone in particular). No one has spoken of the fact that each of the girls have felt jealousy at some point during the whole shebang so far. The fact that there is jealousy says to me that perhaps the sharing arrangement is not quite as rosy as it seems.

[Beckon]

I was paraphrasing...I didn't think you meant "foursome" as in sex at the same time. And you're right I realized you said "significant other". The point was you postulated an individual going to 3 others and suggesting the situation, when the situation in the book is the 3 going to an individual and basically saying this is how it is.

 

And honestly for other people I don't care. For me...well...it's certainly not a situation I would seek out but neither did Min, Aviendha and Elayne. Avi in particular fought her feelings for some time, Min is of course resigned because she's seen the viewing, and Elayne is resigned to it for the same reason. You feel what you feel and you can like it or not but you have to take the world as you find it not how you wish it to be.

[Jorik Alarin]

One more observation;

 

It has been referenced throughout this discussion that "they entered the relationship of their own free will"....why would you think that they had any kind of choice in the matter?...when Min has a vision, and she knows what it means, she has NEVER been wrong.....so when she saw three women(including herself)falling head over heels for Rand the die was cast...no free will, no choice, the pattern willed it and so MUST it be...so really there was no coming together of four people who chose freely...they were Predestined for either a polygamous relationship or no relationship. Maybe if Rand had been told the truth by Min, he would have been less wracked with guilt over his feelings and accepted it. But no, the light knows that that might have exposed Min to the possibility of rejection,(she did say it wasn't clear if, or who he would choose) and she couldn't do with that at all...better for Rand to suffer all the guilt and anguish over a condition where he had absolutely no control. All because the "girls" didn't want him to know how crazy they were for him (it might make him get a big head you know)....ain't prophecy and predestination a lark, kind of stomps that free will thing into the dirt.

 

Beckon: That is sort of my point. The real world is how it is, most societies frown upon polygamy, most humans are against it on principle, but somehow miraculously on the internet people spout off things that they really don't consider on a personal level, i.e. saying how it's fine for the rest of the world, and refusing to put a moral standard on anything lest they be thought of as...GASP....unsophisticated or unenlightened. You can judge me and say those things about me, but you cannot say that you are unsure of where i stand. Whereas most people are afraid to stand for anything, and i say thats much worse than appearing unenlightened.

[water_seeker]

Three mother-in-law's? No Thanks.

[Mat is the Boss]

Can`t be more then two mother-in-laws, Min was raised by her aunts, so her mother is probably dead.

[Guest Stefania Sedai]

There might be some advantages to having two fellow wives in the house.

 

"No, dear, I'm not in the mood tonight. Try one of your other wives"

 

"What do you mean my meatloaf is dry? Why don't you have Aviendha make you a meatloaf?!"

 

"Was I supposed to iron that shirt? I think it's Elayne's turn to do your laundry."

 

"Dinner with your parents? I'd love to, but you know, I heard Aviendha just the other day saying how much she enjoys your parents' company."

[HoppyQ]

What about having to meet 3 father-in-laws. One was bad enough. Mine showed me his rather extensive gun collection the first time I met him. Just one wife is enough for me, thanks all the same. I did try living with two girls in my younger days. It worked pretty well to start but after a while tension started to grow and then the little remarks about who spent more time with who starting popping up and I ended up moving out.

[Alarwyn Liande]

I don't think I would mind the situation that much... Of course it would be awfully complicated and the relationship(s) would need a lot of work, but I have no moral objections to it as such... The most important point being that my sister-wives really were as close to me as sisters and best friends.

Elayne and Aviendha are first-sisters and I think they value their friendship more that let a man they both love come between them. Why not love him together? :D

[Zardi]

Nay, i am not trying to entrap you and i am not obsessed. I was merely debating your points because 3 women is alot different than 2, especially given the circumstances.

Not really. My suggested corrections to Jorik's question leave open the idea of having 3 instead of 2, or 10 instead of 2, or whatever. I said that already.

 

In another point(not directed at anyone in particular). No one has spoken of the fact that each of the girls have felt jealousy at some point during the whole shebang so far. The fact that there is jealousy says to me that perhaps the sharing arrangement is not quite as rosy as it seems.

Sure, they felt some jealousy. So what? They still decided that sharing was better than the other options, and they'll get over their jealousy as they get to know each other better (Min and Aviendha, specifically). Anyway, no one claimed that it was completely rosy -- few things in life are -- and there will be a lot of logistical things for these four to work out if Rand survives TG. That doesn't mean their agreement is a bad thing, however. What we've been saying is that, since the four people actually involved in this agree to it, then we are not against it.

 

It has been referenced throughout this discussion that "they entered the relationship of their own free will"....why would you think that they had any kind of choice in the matter?

Of course they have choice. They couldn't help falling in love with Rand, true, but if one of them couldn't stand sharing him, then she could have declined to enter into the arrangement. Rand would then have to choose between the one who didn't want to share, the two who did, or none of them. So yes, they did have a choice, because each of the girls thought it was better to share Rand than to risk not having him at all. It's a sticky situation, but not an immoral one. No one did anything wrong.

 

But no, the light knows that that might have exposed Min to the possibility of rejection,(she did say it wasn't clear if, or who he would choose) and she couldn't do with that at all...better for Rand to suffer all the guilt and anguish over a condition where he had absolutely no control.

Whether or not Rand had "control" or not depends on whether you believe that we can decide who to love and who not to love. Notice that Min's vision did NOT say that Rand would fall in love with three women, it said that three women would fall in love with Rand. Nothing was predestined about his return feelings. Furthermore, Min knew that Elayne loved Rand, and Min told him that. She urged Rand to go to Elayne after she tore down the Dragon banners from the palace, because Rand was so hurt about it. It's not Min's fault that he sulked instead of going to talk to her.

 

Min was ALWAYS at risk of rejection, in theory, at least. How would this have changed if she'd told Rand about her vision? I don't understand what point you're trying to make with that.

most humans are against it on principle, but somehow miraculously on the internet people spout off things that they really don't consider on a personal level, i.e. saying how it's fine for the rest of the world, and refusing to put a moral standard on anything lest they be thought of as...GASP....unsophisticated or unenlightened

Are you sure that "most" humans are against it on principle? I have no problem with polygamy in principle, and I have no problem with it in practice as long as the people involved are well-informed, consenting adults. I can see now that I am right about what you're trying to accomplish here: you're against polygamy (which is fine...you're entitled to your opinion), but you can't stand -- or can't believe -- that other people could possibly not be against it, so you try to claim that if we wouldn't do it in our own lives, then we must find it morally repugnant and we just can't admit it. Sorry to disappoint you, but that just isn't true. I don't know what your age is, but if you're old enough to be posting in full sentences on the internet, then you're old enough to learn that opinions other than yours exist and are valid.

 

Maybe this will help make the point. There are a number of things that I don't want to do in my life (or even things that I'd rather not do, but would if necessary) that I don't find immoral. I'd rather not ever give birth, but I don't care if other women do. I wouldn't have sex with someone I don't care about, but I don't care of other people do. I wouldn't have sex with another woman (since I am not attracted to them), but I don't care if other women do. I would not own a dog, but I don't care if other people do. I would not spend thousands of dollars on tickets to a sporting event, but I don't care if other people do.

 

The common theme among all these examples is that, while none of them are immoral, none of them fit into my life. That's why I would rather avoid them, but I don't condemn others for participating in them.

[Jorik Alarin]

They couldn't help falling in love with Rand, true

 

This acknowledgement totally negates your hypothesis that they have "free will" If you "can't" help something you don't have a "choice". And i for one would put up with a lot of things for a person i loved, and KNEW loved me.

 

Whether or not Rand had "control" or not depends on whether you believe that we can decide who to love and who not to love.

In the real world that particular question is up for debate, but in a world where prophecies come true regularly and the whole world is caught up in a "pattern", i think the answer is a lot easier to deduce. Rand has never had "control", even his birth was a given. The caveat of true prophecy provides no chance for human freedom, at least for players that are important to the pattern.

Notice that Min's vision did NOT say that Rand would fall in love with three women, it said that three women would fall in love with Rand. Nothing was predestined about his return feelings. Furthermore, Min knew that Elayne loved Rand, and Min told him that. She urged Rand to go to Elayne after she tore down the Dragon banners from the palace, because Rand was so hurt about it.

Yet another example of a time when she could have come clean and saved all of them some headaches, but no, that wasn't to be. My point was that, Min KNEW how these other women would feel about Rand, and apparently she knew how Rand felt about them but chose not to be open and honest about her abilities with him. In the real world we dont have the luxury of prophecy and visions....well some people think they do, but seriously where are all the psychic lottery winners? In WoT there are things like precognition, so Min KNEW, without a chance of being wrong, KNEW. And thats where choice goes bye bye, and proves that her actions were just selfish. RJ even says somewhere in the book why she wouldnt tell Rand, something about crooking fingers i recall off hand, and not trusting Rand to not abuse this knowledge. A lot of trust she displays for a person she Knows she loves.

Are you sure that "most" humans are against it on principle?

Yes im sure, if the thousands of years of society weren't there to back me up, or there were huge countries filled with polygamists...then i might have a "doubt", but since there are only few examples of polygamist societies...i think i can be confident about my statement.

I have no problem with polygamy in principle, and I have no problem with it in practice as long as the people involved are well-informed, consenting adults. I can see now that I am right about what you're trying to accomplish here: you're against polygamy (which is fine...you're entitled to your opinion), but you can't stand -- or can't believe -- that other people could possibly not be against it, so you try to claim that if we wouldn't do it in our own lives, then we must find it morally repugnant and we just can't admit it. Sorry to disappoint you, but that just isn't true. I don't know what your age is, but if you're old enough to be posting in full sentences on the internet, then you're old enough to learn that opinions other than yours exist and are valid.

 

There are a number of things that I don't want to do in my life (or even things that I'd rather not do, but would if necessary) that I don't find immoral. I'd rather not ever give birth, but I don't care if other women do. I wouldn't have sex with someone I don't care about, but I don't care of other people do. I wouldn't have sex with another woman (since I am not attracted to them), but I don't care if other women do. I would not own a dog, but I don't care if other people do. I would not spend thousands of dollars on tickets to a sporting event, but I don't care if other people do.

The common theme among all these examples is that, while none of them are immoral, none of them fit into my life. That's why I would rather avoid them, but I don't condemn others for participating in them.

This is a prime example of internet sophistication that i was talking about......because people wouldn't practice it in their own lives. That right there says you DO have some issue with it, after all you "aren't sure" you would practice it in your own life. And that naturally leads to the question "why not?", no need to reply, i've read your earlier answers.

And after reareading my question over and over again i failed to see where i said being for polygamy was immoral, in fact the question was merely; if your significant other said they shared equally romantic feelings for you and two other people, how would you react? And then i answered for myself, perhaps this is where the immorality thing comes in, obviously you think the "reasons given by society" in my answer must mean immoral, so you do agree that society thinks that polygamy is immoral. The only problem i have is with people who refuse to make a judgement call for or against anything, it was a very simple question that you can't even answer still...do you seriously not know yourself well enough to answer it? Or do you just want to appear sophisticated? In reality i don't care about your answer, i just like arguing, and the internet is the best place to do it. Its free of the problems of face to face interaction, its free of pre-concieved notions, and because hurt internet egos are soothed once one logs off, it is the best place for contention. After all its easy to convince yourself that the other poster has no valid observations, they must just be an idiot. And i do not excuse myself from this assumption either, i too log off thinking "what an idiot" sometimes. Usually when it involves Luckers and RAW, two of my favorite posters, but i can admit that sometimes......maybe once in a purple green chartreuse moon...they might have a point.

[Beckon]

This acknowledgement totally negates your hypothesis that they have "free will" If you "can't" help something you don't have a "choice".

 

Nuh-uh. You may not be able to help that you love someone but you can certainly decide to not proceed with the situation if you feel no good can come of it.

[Jorik Alarin]

I would then of course argue Beckon, that denying oneself real "love" especially if it is returned is just as harmful and can cause just as many problems as continuing the situation. Whether those problems would be repressed feelings, like Rand displays when he recites his list of names, he feels the pain and the responsibility of their deaths, but he chooses not to accept them as unavoidable consequences of the battle with the shadow, and therefore torments himself over and over again weakening his already tenuous grasp on reality. Or physical ones like avoiding the one(s) you love and possibly missing out on an important piece for Tarmon Gai'don. That kind of repression can't benefit anyone.

[Beckon]

You can love someone who is self-destructive or violent, emotionally abusive etc. It's not healthy to stay in such a situation, however much you may care about that person. People do it every day.

 

Example: A close friend of mine got divorced a couple years ago. Her husband was verbally abusive, emotionally distant, gambled, did drugs and generally made a huge mess out of their lives. But she loved him...at the time she married him anyway. She thought about backing out because she suspected what she had to look forward to, but she loved the guy so she went through with it. She spent 13 miserable years with him before she finally kicked him out. He loved her too in his way, was extremely apologetic after she kicked him out but it was too late.

 

Besides your statement wasn't that it wouldn't be a good idea in the context of the book, it was that, if you can't help who you love, you have no choice. That simply isn't true.

[Zardi]

In WoT there are things like precognition, so Min KNEW, without a chance of being wrong, KNEW. And thats where choice goes bye bye, and proves that her actions were just selfish.

And she told Rand that Elayne loved him, and urged him to go to her. How is that selfish?

 

This is a prime example of internet sophistication that i was talking about......because people wouldn't practice it in their own lives. That right there says you DO have some issue with it, after all you "aren't sure" you would practice it in your own life. And that naturally leads to the question "why not?", no need to reply, i've read your earlier answers.

If you've read my answers, then why do you keep asking? Didn't you read the examples I gave? There are lots of things I would not (or may not) do in my life that I don't consider immoral. Why is it so difficult to understand the concept that something that isn't a good fit for you can be perfect for someone else?

 

And after reareading my question over and over again i failed to see where i said being for polygamy was immoral

The reason I get this from your posts is that you simply cannot accept the fact that I am not morally against polygamy. You keep throwing around this so-called "internet sophistication" that you made up, trying to make me look as if I'm not being honest by saying I don't consider polygamy immoral.

 

 

The only problem i have is with people who refuse to make a judgement call for or against anything, it was a very simple question that you can't even answer still...do you seriously not know yourself well enough to answer it? Or do you just want to appear sophisticated?

But I have made a judgment call, and that call is that polygamy -- between well-informed, consenting adults -- is not immoral. And I have answered your question as well; you just don't like my answer. You want me to answer either yes or no. If I say no, then you get to bring up your "internet sophistication" thing again to try to discredit me. If I say yes, then you would get your assurance that I'm not just trying to be "sophisticated." (I must ask, why do you keep calling it "sophistication" to say polygamy is not immoral? What's sophisticated about moral values?)

 

I've already said that -- IF the man came to me and the other woman and asked us to share him -- I wouldn't say yes. I've already said that that would tell me the man feels entitled to more than one spouse, that he considers at the outset that one of us is not enough, and that if I said no I would either lose him, or risk him cheating on me. However, I believe I have also said that if the situation were more like the one in the book -- where me and the other woman discuss sharing the man and then ask him afterwards -- I would be open to the arrangement from a moral perspective. In our world, however, there are legal issues to navigate (some states in the US criminalize polygamy, others do not recognize it) which complicates the situation. And what about this other woman? Do I like her? What if I really care about her, but think that she would be a bad influence on my children? Things like this make it difficult for me to say, "yes, I would definitely enter into a polygamous relationship if the opportunity arose, no matter what the circumstances," which is apparently what you want to hear. But if someone else doesn't give a rat's ass about these complications -- or finds a way to work through them, like the WoT characters -- then who am I to say they're wrong? Fact is, no one is getting hurt, so it is not immoral.

 

In reality i don't care about your answer, i just like arguing, and the internet is the best place to do it.

You even like arguing when your arguments are completely illogical?

[Jorik Alarin]

As far as the Min selfish thing, yeah she urged him to go to Elayne, after his guilt and after he thought he was scum and after they had hooked up and after he felt like he had "raped" her (she did at least set him straight about that quick enough) and after she had played girly games with his head to make him "see her as a woman". If she had come to him in the first place and said "Rand you know how i have the power of precognition, well i saw that three women, including myself, will fall completely in love with you but i didn't see how you would feel about us. But don't you start thinking that you can crook your finger and i'll come running sheep herder, because that ain't gonna happen." Or something much more RJ eloquent with about four hundred more words. At the time she came to him,in book five, Rand had already been exposed to the customs of multiple wives from the Aiel, so while it would probably have sounded nucking futs at first he could have arranged a sit down between them all and they could have discussed it openly as grownups... instead we got the roundabout drama queen route, and thats what i mean by selfish. My way would have been much more adult,but i guess its not dramatic enough for high fantasy.

 

But I have made a judgment call, and that call is that polygamy -- between well-informed, consenting adults -- is not immoral. And I have answered your question as well; you just don't like my answer. You want me to answer either yes or no. If I say no, then you get to bring up your "internet sophistication" thing again to try to discredit me. If I say yes, then you would get your assurance that I'm not just trying to be "sophisticated." (I must ask, why do you keep calling it "sophistication" to say polygamy is not immoral? What's sophisticated about moral values?)

But you haven't made a judgement call, for yourself, answering my direct question. It is because of this lack of a moral judgement (in your own life) that i apply the negatively connotated "internet sophistication"to, and the many grey area angles that you added to the question are prime examples. None of the complications you brought up were part of the initial question...you added them for your own purposes, the purpose to appear wordly wise and non-judgemental, but appears as merely coy. The question wasn't a dissertation on world societal values, it was a question on personal values. A question that time and time again you answered with...depends...the most non-commital answer possible to give for a direct question.

 

I've already said that -- IF the man came to me and the other woman and asked us to share him -- I wouldn't say yes. I've already said that that would tell me the man feels entitled to more than one spouse, that he considers at the outset that one of us is not enough, and that if I said no I would either lose him, or risk him cheating on me. However, I believe I have also said that if the situation were more like the one in the book -- where me and the other woman discuss sharing the man and then ask him afterwards -- I would be open to the arrangement from a moral perspective.

So here really its all about who initiates the idea, if you and your girlfriend (either platonic or sexual)approach the man, well then you've already decided to share, and he just has to say yes or no, (fairly straight forward, kinda like my initial question) but if he thinks he loves more than just you he is some how acting "entitled", because why? What if he had discussed it with the other woman or women(like Elayne and Co.) Then they came to you? Which is almost the exact same situation as the book. Is it not possible that he does in fact love you completely as well as the other person? And wants to have a relationship with both, or all three or forty or a million. The numbers really don't matter after two persons now do they.

In our world, however, there are legal issues to navigate (some states in the US criminalize polygamy, others do not recognize it) which complicates the situation. And what about this other woman? Do I like her? What if I really care about her, but think that she would be a bad influence on my children? Things like this make it difficult for me to say, "yes, I would definitely enter into a polygamous relationship if the opportunity arose, no matter what the circumstances," which is apparently what you want to hear. But if someone else doesn't give a rat's bunny about these complications -- or finds a way to work through them, like the WoT characters -- then who am I to say they're wrong? Fact is, no one is getting hurt, so it is not immoral.

Here you are again adding layers upon layers of complications. Yes im aware of all the complications arising in the real world but the question isn't loaded with all these real world complications. This layering and politicing is what i argue about. And by the way the question i posed had nothing to do with whether you thought "other people" were immoral for being polygamists. Which you don't even know my answer too, because it wasn't part of MY question. But i didn't ask about other people i asked about us DM'ers and you answered ambiguously, thats why i'm arguing. And i didn't even ask if you would enter into a polygamous relationship at all i merely asked for your immediate "reaction" to being approached by a significant other who was entertaining the possibility of polygamy.

 

You even like arguing when your arguments are completely illogical?

Thats funny i was thinking the same thing about yours.

[Zardi]

As far as the Min selfish thing, yeah she urged him to go to Elayne, after his guilt and after he thought he was scum and after they had hooked up and after he felt like he had "raped" her (she did at least set him straight about that quick enough) and after she had played girly games with his head to make him "see her as a woman".

As for the "girly games," Min was flirting. People do that. And she told Rand in LoC that Elayne loved him, well before he thought that he'd raped her. Min is human who has no confidence in her ability to attract a man who is in love with a queen, and you are being rather harsh on her. Remember that Elayne herself confused the situation immensely by sending Rand contradicting letters before he left for the Waste.

 

But you haven't made a judgement call, for yourself, answering my direct question.

Not only did I answer your question, but I speculated on what I'd do in other related situations (what you term "gray area angles"). Here is your initial question, for my own reference:

 

Q: How would you react if your significant other came to you and said that they were equally in love with two other people, but they still loved you too, and wanted to try and make a sexual relationship work out between the four of you?

Here is my answer, again. I will try to make it more clear for you: If my boyfriend (or husband) came to me and said that he was in love with another woman (or women, or men), my immediate reaction would be that I'm not enough for him, and that the fact he's even asking me this means that he finds it necessary to have supplemental relationships. I am an untrusting and paranoid person by nature, slow to warm up to people, and that is why I would react that way, initially.

 

So, there is my immediate reaction for you, stated yet again.

 

Now, I will expand on that answer. Is it possible that he loves me and the others equally? Of course it is. So with time, I'm sure I could get used to the idea, assuming I could build loving (if platonic) relationships with the other people, and assuming I trusted my SO enough. Yes, I do have to insert those "complications" of my relationships with the other spouses and the issue of trust, because that would have an effect on my decision. However, since I already gave you my immediate reaction with no gray areas (more than once), you should have no objection to me expanding on my long-term reaction and trying to make my answer realistic. After all, my doing so does not change my answer to your question.

 

Want a really concise answer? Then here it is: under the right circumstances, I would be open to sharing a spouse, or spouses. I cannot say "under every circumstance," because that simply isn't true; I doubt that would be true for anybody.

 

What if he had discussed it with the other woman or women(like Elayne and Co.) Then they came to you?

If he really is my SO (whether long-term boyfriend or husband), then he owes it to me to come to me first. Doing otherwise is a serious breach of trust, which I already don't have much of, as I've said.

 

and the many grey area angles that you added to the question are prime examples. None of the complications you brought up were part of the initial question...you added them for your own purposes, the purpose to appear wordly wise and non-judgemental, but appears as merely coy.

No, they were not part of your initial question. That is why I first answered your question, and then expanded on my answer to include other related scenarios (which inevitably include gray areas...you can't avoid those in the real world, and they were added for realism, not to appear "worldly." I am not worldly and have no particular need to appear so.) As you read earlier in this post, I have separated my answers for you, into "immediate" reaction (which is what you asked for), and long-term reaction. If there is still confusion on your part, then you're going to have to be very specific as to what is causing it, because I think I answered you very clearly.

 

Thats funny i was thinking the same thing about yours.

I expected no less.

 

I have a question for you, then. Why did you even ask your initial question? First of all, it was the reverse of what happened in the books, so it was not as comparable as you claimed it to be (though I believe you said you realized this). Why do you want to know about initial reactions, versus long-term ones? Min and Elayne both reacted with a sense of "I would never do that!" when they first found out about Min's vision (even though they knew it to be truth). And yet, in the long term, they both made a completely different decision. Why do you insist on knowing our initial reactions and then name-call when I try to also explain my long-term reaction? You seemed to be implying that those of us who didn't have a problem with Rand's polygamous relationship were simply trying to appear liberated, that we don't really approve of polygamy in any situation, and that not wanting to share a spouse personally is somehow a contradiction to previous approval (or indifference) of the WoT foursome. Am I right? If not, where are you going with this?

[Jorik Alarin]

Besides your statement wasn't that it wouldn't be a good idea in the context of the book, it was that, if you can't help who you love, you have no choice. That simply isn't true.

 

Beckon: I'm not 100% sure that i can apply this example to the current situation, but Rand and Elayne and Min and Aviendha were destined to be together. And who is to say that if Rand had tried harder to avoid it things wouldn't have forced it. Remember Matt trying to avoid battles in FoH and ending up killing Couladin? Thats what i mean; Rand even told him he had to stop trying to avoid fate, or bad things would happen to him. So, Rand knew that the more he tried to avoid destiny the more the pattern pushed him into it. Like i said im not 100% sure that the pattern would force Rand into a relationship with each woman, but if you look at the need, all the ties are there....the tie to Min for her abilities, the tie to Aviendha for being Aiel, and him needing a connection more tangible than his mother, whom he didn't know. And Elaidas foretelling about the ruling house of Andor being the Key in the last battle, while Rand is sort of a member of the House, Elayne is Daughter Heir and a tie to her is pretty important. So, theoretically there was no choice for him he was absolutely going to have a relationship with all those women. Now wether that relationship had to be sexual...well even Min couldn't tell that for sure.