Aiel and Rand

[Alarwyn Liande]

I've never thought there's something wrong in polygamy. :/

 

One thing you havent yet discussed is that in the books the women love each other just as much as they love their man, if not more. And that doesn't mean they fancy each other in bed, but like in the Aiel culture, the sister-wifes are bonded to each other as first-sisters. The whole concept of polygamy in the books is about sharing, not about tossing the poor man between the girls. ;)

[Luckers]

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

 

Especially in light of the fact that increasingly its money and other such things that women look for in a mate and vice versa... a genetic disintegration is at work!!!

 

Ok... im being dramtic, just so we are clear. It's still an interesting point though.

 

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.

 

I study sociology, and the nature of modern family and relationship structures was convered quite extensively. Specifically my information comes from...

 

1. "Family" - Chapter 4 in A. Giddons (1999). Runaway World. London - University Press pg51-66

2. "Family" - Chapter 6 in B Wearing (1996) Gender, the Pain and Pleasure of Difference. Melbourne Longman - University Press pg117-141

3. Australian Sociology by David Holmes.

4. Sociology by Richard Van Kriekan (i think).

 

These are fairly generic sources, quite introductory. If your interested PM me and i can supply some others, my particular speciality is in masculine construction in modern family situations, but i did quite a bit on monogamy as part of that.

 

As for what you've said on polygamous relationships. There a quite a number of successful polygamous relationships at work in modern times... not merely those sexual and romantic relationships (of which there are substantially more then you would expect) but also situations like men or women starting new families but remaining connected to their old family in a manner that is, for all intents and purposes and co-joined polygamous relationship sans the sex. For all financial and practical senses it works. Then there are familial situations in which, for instance a couple of gay men and lesbian women procreate resulting in a four-way family... this too has grown quite substantial in more recent times. - Admitedly these latter do not involve sexuality or romance, yet they are also not technically monogamous.

 

Of course, that being said my statement was that monogamous relationships were a minority, not that polygamous relationships are successful (though, in my own personal experience, ive had quite a number of polygamous relationships that i reguard to be completely successful). The existence of one man, one woman family structures is declining... i found the actual numbers just then, at the moment it is 39%.

[Hoop Snake]

This thread is too serious. Does anybody else like pieces of parsely in their sausages?

[Genesis_XVI]

Thanks for the upbraiding Luckers, it tells me I need to better articulate myself.

 

Firstly, I'm not condemning any sort of willing relationship that works. If all parties are equal and aware, everything is cool beans if you ask me. So sorry if I came off preachy, but I just didn't agree with a lot of the previous assertions that monogamy isn't an extremely important value in most relationships, and I stand by this.

 

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 never said most realationships conform to the archetypical social norm of a wife and two kids, or even married to the one partner for life. I'm well aware that divorce rates are extremely high in the western world, with close to 1 in 2 (that's 50%) of marriages in Australia [curious example by the way] ending in divorce. But none of this, NONE, suggests that monogamy/loyalty is now a defunct value. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as cheating. According to statistics, infidelity was blamed as a major factor for divorce in the majority of cases in Australia. That translates into a single fact: a long term relationship ended when one or more of the partners was unfaithful!!! If monogamy was such an antiquated phenomenon as you suggest, this wouldn't be the case.

 

Speculate away... you'd be wrong, but feel free to go for it.

 

Why thanks for the permission Luckers.

 

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.

 

Wow, that's some really persuasive rhetoric, but I would question it. But for clarity's sake let me get this straight. You state; fact, history (when looking in a social context) reflects modern attempts to adapt to the needs of society in the way we structure our relationships, where monogamous relationships are under represented/ a minority.

 

Monogomous relationships aren't the minority Luckers. While most relationships end well beofre the death do us part use-by-date, and many relationships are littered with indiscretions and betrayals, this doesn't remove the fact that they were, at the very least supposed to be, monogamous relationships.

 

You then conclude, that "yes, it is an act of social conformity." HOW!!! According to you, one would be conforming to a social value that doesn't exist, and your bull$hit rhetoric about adapting needs doesn't change this. You contradict yourself. But I'm not trying to inflame you, or insult you. I always read your posts Luckers, and value your insight. All I'm trying to say is that I was just disagreeing with Leafburner's

wouldn't it be loverly to live in a society that wasn't so conformist

. I don't think monogamy is about conforming, just like I don't think open relationships are about spitefully refusing to conform. I think in both instances it's about choices. Choices about what's best for you and your partner/s at the time.

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.

You inadvertently agree with me here. That the nature of a relationship is not determined by pre-existing social values, but by the feelings of those involved. Hence my assertion "one of substance". So no leafburner, I'm not suggesting you've never had a meaningful relationship, just that if you have, you would know that the decision regarding how it works is a product not of social conformity, but of mature agreement.

 

I also stand by my judgement, or was it: little rules, about concubines. I think they are a terrible example of any working relationship. Luckers' relationship with his partner is a far better testament to a working open relationship than enslaved women kept in a harem. So I wasn't attacking Rand or the Aiel, I was attacking the use of concubines as an example.

 

I also maintain that while the relationship between Min, Elayne and Avi works, both Min and Elayne reflect a desire to have Rand for themselves, but resign themselves to sharing. (I don't have quotes, Maj seems to have an almost encylopaedic recollection of the text, maybe he/she can recall them, they're defintiely there).

 

Lastly, I'd like to apologise if my previous comments seemed like

an incredibly arrogant stance to take

, I think you've misunderstood the contentions I was making. 1) monogamy is out there, prevalent, and important in most relationships. 2), the choice to be in a monogamous relationship or not isn't the result of social conformity/rebellion, but choices. 3) Concubineage equates to the enslavement of women.

 

If it works, then it works. I'm cool with that. I was just questioning the validity of posts before mine that suggested that monogamy was defunct, concubines are an example of a helathy relationship, and monogamy was an act of social conformity.

 

With respect,

 

- Genesis_XVI

[Luckers]

The upbraiding came from your blanket statement that all relationships but the type you endorse are not in fact relationships, nor meaningful or substantive. And I stand by it.

 

But none of this, NONE, suggests that monogamy/loyalty is now a defunct value.

 

Values are socialized in their nature... they exist for no reason, and we arn't aware of passing them on... but im not here to get into postmodern theory. The fact is that whatever the value you care to place on monogamy, its still a dying concept. It's like world peace, or god. Cute in theory.

 

And im not even sure it is that. We tend to ascribe by the social view, which still suggests that monogamy is a good thing... and i think this is what leaf was getting into. The idea that monogamy is a VALUABLE thing is something that we just have... seriously, try and trace the ideological basis... it ends in 'god said so'. Take a look at your own post with your own acknowledgements. You state that most marriages end in divorce, with the citing of infidelity as the most common reason. Does this nto tell you anything about the damage inherent to the insistance of monogamy? My relationships survive things that would destroy a monogamous relationship because i can be open, as can my partner. I don't see the act of sex as being a particularily significant signifier of an emotional state, and without the insistance of monogamy you can move past that.

 

This is what is meant, by and large, when people speak of the socialized significance of monogamy. Its the same as the socialized expectation of heterosexuality, or fulfillment of gender roles. Those that want monogamy can find it their ownself without suggesting it to be a set, required, social value... as i believe you did (inciting the backlash).

 

Wow, that's some really persuasive rhetoric, but I would question it. But for clarity's sake let me get this straight. You state; fact, history (when looking in a social context) reflects modern attempts to adapt to the needs of society in the way we structure our relationships, where monogamous relationships are under represented/ a minority.

 

Wow, that was a nice attempt to imply i was covering for a lack of factual backing with big words. I especially like the use of the word rhetoric, though next time you might like to use sophistic--just to mix things up. If you have a problem with my facts address them, dont play word games.

 

As for the rest, no, that most certainly is not what im saying. I am saying the historically human beings have more frequently not valued monogamy then valued it. Please, feel free to challange me on that. I can speak with reasonable factuality about Aboriginal, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Tibetan (pre and post-buddhism) English and Franch historical societies (to a lesser degree admittedly). I find the last two in particular fun because its a direct contradiction of the influence of christianity that was supposedly wide-spread.

 

The point of all this being that if this social value of yours is not prevelent in all human society then it is not an inherent aspect of human nature... and is therefore socialized.

 

Now that doesn't make it a bad thing, it just means we have to be honest about its nature. We can be socialized into believing a lie, or into overvalueing something that is flawd.

 

Monogomous relationships aren't the minority Luckers. While most relationships end well beofre the death do us part use-by-date, and many relationships are littered with indiscretions and betrayals, this doesn't remove the fact that they were, at the very least supposed to be, monogamous relationships.

 

I've already supplied sources on this, and im sure you know my opinion. Frankly i think your confusing what people present with what actually is. And as my sources show, whilst the image of wide-scale monogamy is presented, it isn't actually acted upon. Indeed your own post admitting that they are littered with 'indiscretions' proves that.

 

As for the pretense of monogamy that you suggest should be acknowledged (you insistance that they are monogamous relationships despite these 'indiscretions') that is exactly what people mean when they say social conformity. There is nothing monogamous about a relationship that has a cheater in it. The fact that that can be hidden by the adherence to the trappings of monogamy... marriage and the like, is proof of no more then socialization at work.

 

You then conclude, that "yes, it is an act of social conformity." HOW!!! According to you, one would be conforming to a social value that doesn't exist, and your bull$hit rhetoric about adapting needs doesn't change this. You contradict yourself. But I'm not trying to inflame you, or insult you. I always read your posts Luckers, and value your insight. All I'm trying to say is that I was just disagreeing with Leafburner's

 

I believe you did flame me when you called my... ahem... rhetoric, bull$hit. Not that i mind... if you feel the need to lash out in anger, go for it... just keep in mind that it lends nothing to your argument.

 

I never claimed monogamy doesn't exist. I claimed that it is a socialized value... something constructed, and therefore not a natural state. As for how it is an act of social conformity... that is directly.

 

I don't think monogamy is about conforming, just like I don't think open relationships are about spitefully refusing to conform. I think in both instances it's about choices. Choices about what's best for you and your partner/s at the time.

 

This i most certainly agree with. That doesn't mean, however, that people fall into monogamy as a result of the presure to conform to societies norms. Indeed, i suspect that is what Leaf himself was objecting to, the instances in which that presure results in people choosing monogamy when it was not the best choice for them and their partner at the time.

 

You inadvertently agree with me here. That the nature of a relationship is not determined by pre-existing social values, but by the feelings of those involved.

 

Not inadvertantly. At least not entirely. You see the problem here is that you make assumptions when you see the social trappings of romance, that that romance is substantive. I'm speaking of marriage and the other symbols we understand as being ideas of love... symbols that usually involve the monogamous relationship between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman.

 

What we are saying, i think (and Leaf, i am sorry if ive spoken for you on something you disagree with, just trying to get your back... feel free to slap me if im wrong.) is that far to frequently relationships result from conformity to the idea of monogamy, rather then a mature agreement--and that your original assertion about relationships that dont conform in such a way (which, i will admit, you seemed to have changed your stance on) is in fact missing the issue.

 

In point of fact, i suspect we are now agreeing on this particular issue--i.e. that a relationship should be judged on the merit of the connection, not the shiny way it fits into our preconceptions of what a relationship should be.

 

I also stand by my judgement, or was it: little rules, about concubines. I think they are a terrible example of any working relationship. Luckers' relationship with his partner is a far better testament to a working open relationship than enslaved women kept in a harem. So I wasn't attacking Rand or the Aiel, I was attacking the use of concubines as an example.

 

My 'little rules' comment was not about your position on concubines and the like... as you can see, in my original post i too decried that practice.

 

I also maintain that while the relationship between Min, Elayne and Avi works, both Min and Elayne reflect a desire to have Rand for themselves, but resign themselves to sharing. (I don't have quotes, Maj seems to have an almost encylopaedic recollection of the text, maybe he/she can recall them, they're defintiely there).

 

I'm aware of what you are talking of... in point of fact it is more frequently "I never thought to share my husband." Not that they wish they didn't have to. It does point to a lean in that direction, but it also suggests the realisation that they were acting under a social drive they had never thought about, and now that they do they found it to be unsatisfactory and adapted.

 

Also, concider that as consenting adults who were not presured, nor even asked to act in the way they did, are you not making assumptions about them aligning to a supposed normality. Its easy to see women as victimized, because they have been so frequently in the past, but i do not think that this is even remotely the case. Indeed, you are assuming that because they are forced away from the normal path, that they are in some way... injured by this?

 

As for the nature of your comments... i believe it was the use of generalities such as 'undeniably' that irked people.

[rochaid]

quote (chel vanin):These two statements confused me.

 

i was saying humans were not made for monogomous relationships,but they can be sustained,but it dosn't have to be that way,humans are more adept to

polygomous relationships but they don't last these days because of secrecy involved and the practices and current stances in modern society

[Jedimuppet]

Just to throw a fly in the ointment, I wanted to mention that I read a biology book (called "The Red Queen"; very good), and there is actually a multi tiered approach to reproduction that our species takes.

 

A monogamous relationship is typical, because of the amount of time it takes for a human to mature into adulthood. This relationship lasts to provide that young with all the support he/she will need.

 

What's interesting is that adultery also seems to have been built into our evolutionary structure, and it makes sense, because that's how we throw in the odd bit of genetic variety. If that's not enough, did you know that women are more likely to conceive while having an affair?

 

Let's face it, there are a lot of mysteries to sexual reproduction, like why do we do it in the first place? Wouldn't asexual reproduction be faster/easier for us? The answer is no, for a variety of reasons, and it's those reasons that most often form our attitudes about sex. Since we don't like responding to strong feelings without reasons, we usually overlay some sort of religious or ethical

structure to explain it.

 

If you think this is an interesting topic, I strongly encourage you to read the book.

J

[Luckers]

Yeah i've encountered that idea before... i.e. that marriage served the function of insuring two parents for a child... but in the modern world that goes out the window, because polygamous relationships provide the better financial and care base within a capitalist society.

[Genesis_XVI]

I make no apologies for irking people. They don't have to like, or accept what I say.

 

I appreciate Luckers stance that any relationship where there is a cheater is not in fact a monogamous one, but I think there is a lot more to it.

 

Monogamy is out there, and strong. Having said this, I DON'T believe this is the only way a relationship can be successful. My earlier comments that used words like undeniable addressed posts that suggested monogamy was extinct. I think it is undeniable that monogamy is the basis of most western relationships, and the FACT that relationships fall apart when someone cheats - or the relationships ceases to be monogamous - is a testament to this. Luckers, you've used these stats to make your argument, and I'm saying that if anything, they prove the importance of monogamy/loyalty(as in no cheating allowed).

 

And no, I wasn't inflaming you Luckers by labbelling your rhetoric as bull$hit. I called it bull$hit, because it was bull$hit. A spade's a spade, mate.

 

But I'm gonna leave it at that. We disagree on some points, and I'm cool with that. I think relationships can take on many forms, just that monogamy tends to be the dominant one currently. I'm an atheist, so I don't follow God said rules, but I respect that many people do. And you've done me an injustice by assuming that I myself practice monogamy, or my little rules. If it helps; I don't - or perhaps I'm not, is a better description. I'm young and carefree: numerous, respectful, casual relationships suit me better at the moment. But I'm not making gerandoise statements about the irrelevance about a well defined social institution now am I? If it works, then cool.

 

With respect, and best wishes to all, in everything.

 

- Genesis_XVI

 

and if you don't like it, you can kiss my @ss

 

:)

[Leafburner]

Ahh, the old, You're thoughts are bull$hit and that's all I'm prepared to say on the topic approach to discussion.

 

You don't happen to go to the GQ school of how to appear totally inept do you?

 

And I'm kissing nothing of yours.

[Genesis_XVI]

Lol, Leafburner. Nope, and I don't think Luckers thoughts are bull$hit, especially not re: the above topic. I thought one phrase of his was, I stand by it, and you don't have to like it my friend. I'd appreciate it if you respected that, but you don't have to. I visit this site to have discussions/share thoughts with intelligent people. We don't have to agree. If I didn't want to be challenged on my opinions, I'd create my own site and censor opinions so they conformed completely with my own. Then launch a bid to take over the world, crushing individuality and enslaving the human race. But I don't, so I won't.

 

And the kiss my @ss wasn't a literal invitation, but a metaphor. Basically, I don't care what you think about me or my thoughts - and if you want, you can retort: no one cares about you or your thoughts; but that'd be childish. I don't understand why we couldn't get along or respect each other just because we disagree in this instance.

 

So, you can dislike me Leaf, but I don't dislike either you or Luckers, nor do I respect your opinions any less.

 

- Genesis_XVI

 

Memento amicitia, adamo ab acta

[Colmana]

well the episode of boston legal on right now deals with issue.

 

look, i am not to concerned with this in the story. if it is in RL well thats a bit different i think, but it is part of the story and seems to work i guess

 

its aiel custom right, and well rand is aiel

 

(i sorta hadn't read all of this thread, but in a nutshell thats it i think, they are supposedly fine with it so why not)

 

well as to any disagrement, discussion is a good thing

[girl_in_the_army]

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 have to both agree and disagree.....

here is why

physiologically the human was not designed for monogomy as is evidenced by little known physical facts like the last of a mans ejaculate contains a spermicide in order to ensure their seed inpregnates a woman.

Spiritually how many men in the bible were instructed by god to take a second wife? i know it's in there the commandments say not to covet another's wife not not to have more than one yourself,

however since it is currently against the law where i live at least, the bible also says to follow the laws of man as well as those of the bible....so there i am stuck with only 1 husband again...

I think personal feelings on this one count more as i can recall no limitation on spouces listed in the bible, it says a man and woman will become 1, but not that they cannot become one with more than one, semantics i know but it's there

[Jedimuppet]

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 have to both agree and disagree.....

here is why

physiologically the human was not designed for monogomy as is evidenced by little known physical facts like the last of a mans ejaculate contains a spermicide in order to ensure their seed inpregnates a woman.

Spiritually how many men in the bible were instructed by god to take a second wife? i know it's in there the commandments say not to covet another's wife not not to have more than one yourself,

however since it is currently against the law where i live at least, the bible also says to follow the laws of man as well as those of the bible....so there i am stuck with only 1 husband again...

I think personal feelings on this one count more as i can recall no limitation on spouces listed in the bible, it says a man and woman will become 1, but not that they cannot become one with more than one,

semantics i know but it's there

 

The only thing I would say to these points is that to believe that, you have to believe that the Judeo-Christian interpretation is right, and most others are wrong, since it's primarily the Christians and Jews who get hung up on sex issues.

 

Since I can point to thousands of gods who have all had earnest followers, I must conclude that an idea or image of a god is a temporary, changing, and nebulous thing, and thus shouldn't be too closely intertwined with how we construct our laws, esepcially, since many of us don't believe in any type of god at all. I'd go farther and say that our current social mores should not be determined by a several thousand year old book that purports to be written by god. The groups of people that would have us believe that are the same people who support banning stem cell research because all those embryos are human, and actually support throwing them away rather than do good for people here right now.

 

In fact, politically, I wish there could be a law against people proposing legislation because that's how they interpret the bible. The bible contains the most backwards wierd precepts (don't believe me? check Leviticus) that I've ever seen. I will not stone my sister if she divorces her husband, or stone my friend for touching a pig skin football on the sabbath, for example.

 

What is the sabbath anyway? Is it Friday, Saturday, or Sunday? It seems all the major monotheists disagree.

 

Anyway, sex is lots of fun, and if we didn't worry at it, we probably wouldn't be so repressed and angry. I think religion has contributed a great deal to our selfconsciousness and that in turn has led to a lot of the anger, frustration, and violence we see today.

 

I wish our species would grow up, and become more comfortable with the fact that it reproduces sexually.

J

[Luckers]

Here here Jedi.

[Morgwein]

I think it works for the books. I'm not an expert on relationships in RL. I've had one true monogomous relationship...we've been together for 11 years.

I am open to understanding other relationships. I also have a romantic notion of Beltane bonfires, and fairy festivals, by which your 'partner' was found by firelight to celebrate the fertility of the land. Any child born of those festivals, were the villages children, loved, and thought to bring luck.

I believe that sometimes we are too rigid in our thinking, about relationships. What works for me, does not work for everyone.

I love my husband enough that I could share him with another woman, as an equal. He, however, would not share me.

[gaishain]

I personally do not find anything wrong with polygamy. What business is it of mine so long as no one is being hurt and all the members of the group are of age and agree with the lifestyle. I am not a polygamist myself, but I do not feel the need to persecute others for there beliefs, and in the case of most polygamists it is a religious belief. Polygamy is not wrong, the judgment that so many of you are passing is what is wrong.

Also I would like to agree with one of the ealier posts. They mentioned that in polygamy the relationship between ALL members is strong, and not just between the man and the women. The women adapt to each other and see each other as sisters. Not just in the books but this is a reality of many polygamists. They are sister wives and in most cases love each other the same as there husbands. They see each other as a big family, not divided. Which even though I am too selfish to be a polygamist there is a part of me to find the polygamist lifestyle sweet.

I mean have any of you ever had a best friend you were so close with that you could marry them even though you had no desire of a sexual relationship with them? If not I feel sorry for you. I have had friends where I considered them a soul mate, even though it was not sexual at all. I think that is a special type of relationship and for the most part is how polygamists see their sister wives.

[Asmodean]

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.

 

Actually, we see similar relationships, though not covered in such depth in the story, between some of the Green Ajah and their Warders.

 

It's mostly a matter of culture (the Aiel, in this case). There are cultures in our world that are polygamous and it is not always forced as people not coming from those cultures seem to think.

 

Also, if you look to the story itself, it is the women who choose to take this approach with Rand, not the other way around. I think it is a testament to the self-confidence and personal security of each of them. Jealousy stems from self-doubt and love is something that can be boundless if one is strong enough to allow it to be.