Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
elmindreda

Aiel and Rand

Who is most likely to switch sides in the war?  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is most likely to switch sides in the war?

    • Perin
      4
    • Matt
      1
    • Nyneve
      0
    • Mogidein
      4
    • Mordin
      1
    • Moraine
      0
    • Samuel
      0
    • Fain
      3
    • Rand
      1
    • Min
      0
    • Elyane
      0
    • Egwene
      1
    • Tuon
      1


Recommended Posts

I dont know if this has been discussed previously and if it has i am sorry but i had a thought.

 

Does anyone else find shaing a husband gross?

 

men would you really like two wives or in rands case three girlfriends. I mean its ok for the purposes of the book but i do still wonder about its necessity.

 

i find that i dont gree with this the more i read about it. I mean i believing in spending your life with one person at one time not having to share them.

 

But i also considered that sometimes love is strong enough to let someone be with one person but min elayne and aviendha are all so greedy and selfish that neither will reliquish there love for rand.

 

does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with "it's ok for the purposes of the boook." I've always felt confeident that Rand loves all of his women equally, and that they all love him. Heck they even get along. I believe that a certain amount of greed between the ladies is realistic. I mean look at poor Aviendha, Rand takes her in Seanchan, and afterwards hardly talks to her for the rest of the series. It would be horrible wanting that attention, but knowing others were taking it from you, so I've always sympathized with there "greed" for Rand.

 

As for a discussion about monagomy, yeah I would say I disagree with it in a real life situation. I think it's unfair to have to spend your life fighting for the attention of the one you love. Hell, I went through a relationship just like that, and it really sucked. Spending your life with one person is more meaningful to me, and then there can never be (hopefully) a question of who you truely love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to whether or not having three girlfriends is "cool", would say sure, in bed, maybe. I love the budlight commercial where Cedric the Entertainer is asked what he would wish to have with him on a desert island, and he says bud light and two fine ladies, he then fantasises about the experience and the women in the fantasy nag him about building them a raft to leave. So he comes back to reality and changes his wish to having bud light, a grill, and a dog. Yeah, I think anyone who wants a relationship with three people, is in for a world of nag. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea of a single mate is foolish. The connection is what matters, and as long as it is consistantly strong between all three then there is nothing at all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i vote nothing wrong with it, i personally wouldnt care for it, dont like the idea od another woman touching my husband, however it has gone on for eons in harems, the church of latter day saints and all sorts of cultures, even in the bible many men had more than one wife or concubine, i have heard women from poligamous marriages say it eases the strain of housework, child raising, and sexual demands, (low drive for that woman apparantly) so why not? go rand get down with your bad self :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Winespring Brother

If the society has a larger number of men than women, like the Aiel might, it makes sense for a man to have two wives in order to keep up the breeding numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would not be willing to share a husband, anyone who is willing should be left alone. It's their business and no one else's. :P That goes both for Randland and for the real world too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the participants in the relationship are in love with each other and are ok with everything, then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

I have been married for just shy of ten years. I have only met one woman that I could share my life with, and I married her. It would be nice to have one or two more incomes added, the lack of child care costs would be great, and the idea of have at least one of the women wanting sex when I do is awesome.

 

But three women means three personalities, three converging pms cycles, three women griping about the things women gripe about. And God help me if I made one of them mad! three times as many cold shoulders and sniffs, and three women not putting out. I'd end up living in the garage with the dog.

 

One wife is much better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One wife is much better...

 

As Abel Cauthon said...

One pretty woman means fun at the dance. Two pretty women mean trouble in the house. Three pretty women mean run for the hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was asked if i could share my bf once.. i said no :D but thats up to the persons ofcourse.. if they wanna share, why not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, wouldn't it be loverly to live in a society that wasn't so conformist as to only allow me to marry one woman...

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Just so long as all of the people involved truly love one another I don't understand how anyone can see anything gross in it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...

 

I think it's important to the story, but would speculate that anyone who describes monogamy as an act of social conformity has never been in a relationship, let alone one of substance.

 

In my experience, and undeniably the experience of most people in the developed world (or at the very least where apparent female servility or social/domestic pragmatism is removed from the equation), monogamy forms a major foundation of the relationship; reflecting the importance of an exclusive nature; i.e being the One.

 

And who would use hareems/concubines as an example of a WORKING RELATIONSHIP. "Concubine refers to a woman or youth in an ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status." Where the women posses limited rights and exist to serve and gratify a single man. This kind of thinking undermines the idea of equality in any society, and perpetuates attitudes that condemn and enslave women.

 

luckers, open relationships and Rand's relationship with Min, Elayne and Aviendha are two different things. Rand can't go and do anyone. Imagine if he had of succumbed to Isendre's advances. He wouldn't have been very popular amongst the three. While the relationship is more inclusive than a normal partnership, it is restricted to that.

 

Lastly, would it still be cool if instead of Min, Elayne and Avi with Rand, it had been Rand, Mat and Perrin with Egwene... or Elayne... or Moiraine... or any other one women. While I repsect the if it works for them I would ask, truly how well is it working. None of them want to share. Any of them would claim him as hers alone. Instead we see three women who want a monogamous relationship with a man, but are forced to resign themselves to a one third share.

 

- Genesis_XVI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience, and undeniably the experience of most people in the developed world (or at the very least where apparent female servility or social/domestic pragmatism is removed from the equation), monogamy forms a major foundation of the relationship; reflecting the importance of an exclusive nature; i.e being the One.

 

I deny it. Sociological evidence shows that male/female set state marriages are out (i believe in australia they are at 40% and declining), especially in the developed world. The old idea of the nuclear family has been replaced--if not in the minds of the people, then in the actuality of life.

 

I think it's important to the story, but would speculate that anyone who describes monogamy as an act of social conformity has never been in a relationship, let alone one of substance.

 

Speculate away... you'd be wrong, but feel free to go for it. The fact of the matter is monogomous male/female relationships are the minority in a socio-historical setting, which indicates a level of modern sociolization in the way we set up our relationships. So yes, it is an act of social conformity.

 

More troubling is your assertion about the nature of people that dont obey your little rules. That they havn't had a relationship at all just because they dont interact with others in the way you yourself has found fulfilling is an incredibly arrogant stance to take.

 

And who would use hareems/concubines as an example of a WORKING RELATIONSHIP. "Concubine refers to a woman or youth in an ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status." Where the women posses limited rights and exist to serve and gratify a single man. This kind of thinking undermines the idea of equality in any society, and perpetuates attitudes that condemn and enslave women.

 

Do you really think anyone is suggesting that Rand or the Aiel have enslaved their women in this way?

 

luckers, open relationships and Rand's relationship with Min, Elayne and Aviendha are two different things. Rand can't go and do anyone. Imagine if he had of succumbed to Isendre's advances. He wouldn't have been very popular amongst the three. While the relationship is more inclusive than a normal partnership, it is restricted to that.

 

My current relationship is why a guy named Micheal, he is also dating a girl currently. I have no problem with this at all because i dont judge love to be a finite thing--as long as our connection is strong, and true, then who cares. That is what a true relationship is, and anyone who can't find that connection without the trappings of a heteronormative familial state have my sympathy.

 

Lastly, would it still be cool if instead of Min, Elayne and Avi with Rand, it had been Rand, Mat and Perrin with Egwene... or Elayne... or Moiraine... or any other one women. While I repsect the if it works for them I would ask, truly how well is it working. None of them want to share. Any of them would claim him as hers alone. Instead we see three women who want a monogamous relationship with a man, but are forced to resign themselves to a one third share.

 

I would have no problem with that situation. Of course since RJ is a heterosexual male we are more likely to encounter three women to one man then three men to one woman, which has more to do with his personal taste then any ascribed value judgement.

 

As for wether its working... you made that up. We have every indication that these women do want to share... as Aviendha said, why let a man come between their friendship. We have no indication that these women want a monogamous relationship, and finally we definately have evidence that they were forced into nothing... Rand never asked them to accept each other... never even broached it. Quite the contrary he frankly expected them all to walk away and leave him. They came up with the idea. They acted upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think it's important to the story, but would speculate that anyone who describes monogamy as an act of social conformity has never been in a relationship, let alone one of substance." - Genesis_XVI

 

I know that my imagination sometimes runs away with me and I know that this isn't the Debates and Discussions forum so I am going to do something very unlike me and ask before I react.

 

Are you meaning to imply with your speculation that I have never been in a relationship, let alone one of substance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, would you rather be Rhuarc's second wife or Couladin's one and only? Share Abel or have Cenn Buie all to yourself?

 

Women are tougher...share Birgitte or monogamy with practically any other Jordan woman ;) Nah, some of the Aiel seem ok...though we haven't seen too much of them lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Majsju

As long as everyone involved is fine with it, why the heck not. I agree 100% with Luckers take on monogamy.

 

The funny thing is that RJ based Rand's relationship with three women on his own experiences, and he always describes that as a relation that worked very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking over my first post and i wish to make a statement:

 

I do not think that a multi relationship is gross anymore i belive that it is ok if all people in the relationship are treated fairly and equally however i do not believe that it could do much for your self esteem. I do not know if this is just because i am insecure but i would always be worrying if they preffered others in the relationship more than me.

 

i would also like to say that i think it is a good idea for the puposes of the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say: Live and let live. I wouldn't mind having a couple of husbands thats for sure! Humans were not made for monogomous relationships, it is quite possible to have a strong connection/love with more than one person, well thats been my experience anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans were not made for monogomous relationships' date=' it is quite possible to have a strong connection/love with more than one person, well thats been my experience anyway.[/quote']

 

I definitely have to disagree with this statement. I agree with the fact that you can have a strong connection or love with more than one person (I love my family hope you all do too) but I think it's not possible to have a ummm shall we say 'Romantic' love with more than one person (that might cause a stir). A person might believe that they 'love' more than one person, but it is many times just lust. As for your initial statement of humans not being made for monogomous relationships, that is where I disagree. As a Christian I beleive that God's intent was for humans to have monogomous relationships. I sincerely hope I don't offend anyone by my interpretation of what God would want, when I get to heaven and God says otherwise then my mind will be made up :).

 

Also, Luckers you said something about monogomous relationships being in the minority (I may be mistaken, if so I apologize), if this is so I would like to know where you got that information (website?). Maybe I live a very sheltered life, but I have yet to see relationship that has passed the 'Test of Time' involving 2 or more females and a male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think humans were not made for monogomous relationships.relationships envolvin more than two these days don't survive due to the fact that one is almost enevitably kept secret...and also due to the state of present society,where peer pressure is always constant.i mean where have u heard of some1 admitting to 2 women that he loved them both and could they accept that?in the aiel socieyt it is not frowned upon and therefore is common place.

 

and they are perfectly acceptable and workable if they are treated equally,as min said.and i think in god's view its love that matters,but there is no point startin to debate that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think humans were not made for monogomous relationships. relationships envolvin more than two these days don't survive due to the fact that one is almost enevitably kept secret...

 

:?: These two statements confused me. If you do NOT beleive that humans were made for monogomous relationships (monogomous meaning 1 man and 1 woman) then why do you proceed to say that relationships involving more than two don't survive (which, as I posted earlier, I agree with, if for different reasons). If you truly beleive both those statements, then you would imply that humans were not made for lasting relationships. If we aren't created for monogomous relationships, and polygomous relationships don't survive then there are no lasting relationships.

 

Now I am NOT bashing on RJ for his writings with Rand, and his ladies. I believe that there is a HUGE diffenence in Fiction, and Non-Fiction (just like I don't beleive Harry Potter is evil because he prectices wizardry).

 

I forgot to mention that I voted for the third option "ok for the purposes of the book".

 

Sorry, if I just created a debate I promise I won't post any more on this subject...even if I get a hernia from gritting my teeth :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that from a purely biological point of view, monogamous relationships are harmful to the survival of the species. Mind you, I'm not making that argument, but it is plausble.

 

Among lower primates and the great majority of other animal species, the successful (read: strongest) males mate with as many females as they can, thereby passing on their genes and strengthening the species as a whole. Limiting the strongest and most successful males to one procreating partner is in some ways counter-productive.

 

That said, these are people we're talking about and not lower animals and so emotional and social pressures become involved and that's where it gets messy.

 

Personally, I know that I couldn't and wouldn't ever share my girlfriend/wife with another man. There is just too many posibilities for pain and nasty emotional baggage involved for me to even try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dice makes a good point about the potential for monogomy to be detramental to the species as a whole.

 

But I do disagree with the implication that because we are humans we are superior to other animals. We may be more intelligent than other animals, but I personally don't see how that makes us in any way different in a biological sense. We are all creatures of this Earth who are born, eat, poo, and die together. i don't see any evidence that we are in any way different other than our level of intelligence.

 

As for the theory that God said we should be monogomists, I'm afraid you will first have to convince me why I should believe in God before I accept that statement as proof of anything. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that you have a faith and beliefs you are willing to stand up for, but I do find that the influence of religious individuals on society is in a large part to blame for the current stigma attached to the very notion of love existing between multiple partners. Again, I am not Christian bashing here. Just making a point.

 

Having said that, I don't think I personally could ever be in a relationship with multiple partners. Not multiple men anyway. I'm a LEO and I need the attention for myself. :wink: But I don't think anyone should be thought of as strange or odd because they choose to share romantic love with more than one individual. It's a personal preference.

 

I would also like to say that those people who would attack individuals like myself and claim that because I hold the views that I hold that I must be in some way ignorant of what love is or have never experienced a relationship of substance are displaying nothing more than a closed, narrow-minded, ignorant and oppressive point of view.

 

I think Athena said it best with "live and let live." What business is it of anyones what people decide to do in the privacy of their own bedroom? We as a society have become far too involved in what everyone else is doing with their personal lives.

 

They can't have a child because they are two women - that's wrong!

 

He can't be in love with another woman, he already has a wife!

 

If you marry more than one woman you're going to jail!

 

Hardly a society that accepts people for who they are and a very sad state of affairs as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...