Kevin's Watch

This guy has three girlfriends. What's the deal with that?-jay (Hehe.)

(Wait a minute..."thor" and "whore" rhyme... I think I'm on to something...)

Exactly, O High Lord by the choice of the Council!

But the fantasy field was still slightly prudish in spots when Jordan published The Eye of the World, and he couldn't talk his editor into letting the character's name stand as Randy ol'Whore.

Awww. He's just a farmboy, be nice to him.

Yeah.. Then he's a stubborn, mule-brained woolhead thinking with the hair on his chest as well.. but.. yeah.. *nods*

*laugh* I can't decide who's more of a wool-head...Rand, for wanting all three, or the women, for sticking with him while he wants all three

Dunno, perhaps this vaguely relates to a thread somewhere else, where we ask what exactly is wrong with the idea. Must someone be forced to choose between more than one "loves"?

Does the fact that he loves one of them automatically mean that he isn't allowed to love somebody else? Or that he should have to break his own heart, and those of the two who aren't chosen by him?

Is it anything other than our own notions of "propriety" that suggests he can't? Do we limit ourselves in this way only becuase of our social conditioning? As long as they are all happy with it, why should we condemn it?

--Avatar

*grin* ever the philosopher, hey Av? I suppose you're right...I don't think I would be up to it, though...if I had three boyfriends exactly like my Tallin, my heart might just explode under the pressure of loving so many that way If it were him that had three women...well...my jealous streak would probably ensure that the other two didn't survive the experience long, either

It's bad enough being asked out by three different women in one week; i have no idea how a guy (or a girl) can be loved or love 3 women (or men).

Iryssa wrote:*grin* ever the philosopher, hey Av?

I do my best

Still, just because I look at it that way doesn't mean I could do it myself. I feel the same way about it as you, going by your post, and probably most others, do. I wouldn't be up to it. But I know that there is no rational basis for our "condemnation". Just emotional ones. The problem lies in our own perceptions. (As is so often the case.)

--Avatar

Well, it is consensual between all of them -- they even have that fourway ceremony...

And isn't there that prophecy (I'm much too lazy and time pressed to look through all of those fat books so this is a paraphrase) about the lion sword (or is it a lion chair?), a dedicated spear, and the woman who sees? I always thought that was about the three girls...

Avatar wrote:

Iryssa wrote:*grin* ever the philosopher, hey Av?

I do my best

Still, just because I look at it that way doesn't mean I could do it myself. I feel the same way about it as you, going by your post, and probably most others, do. I wouldn't be up to it. But I know that there is no rational basis for our "condemnation". Just emotional ones. The problem lies in our own perceptions. (As is so often the case.)

--Avatar

Actually, there is a rational basis for culture-wide monogamy, but it has little to do with the participants in any one union. Rather, it's a question of availability of mates. When the sexes are roughly equal in numbers, a system of general monogamy is by far the best way to ensure that each member of the society has a good chance of securing a partner. It's been observed that one of the causes of decline in polygamous societies (this was seen especially in the decadent phase of the Ottoman Empire) is that while most of the women disappear into the harems of rich men, a huge class of unwilling bachelors arises, poor, dispossessed, and feeling that they have no stake in the survival of society. The Barbary Coast pirates, I believe, were largely men of this type — one reason why they were so keen to enslave European women and traffic in them.

It's true that polygamy implies polyandry as well as polygyny, but in practice, in any given culture, one form will prevail and not the other. Polyandry most often results from an actual shortage of women; polygyny is more likely to arise from issues of status and economics (the rich and powerful hogging the women). One might almost say that monogamy is a pact among men to share the available women fairly. There's a silly verse that touches on this aspect of marital politics:

A man who takes a second wife
Is what we call a bigamist.
But if he takes some three or four,
We think he is a pigamist.

True, but our perceptions are just as important. Regardless that it may be necessary.

Loremaster wrote:True, but our perceptions are just as important. Regardless that it may be necessary.

I'll agree with the importance of perceptions. Of course, it is also important if there is an actual thing being perceived, and not just a hallucination.

Variol Farseer wrote:

Loremaster wrote:True, but our perceptions are just as important. Regardless that it may be necessary.

I'll agree with the importance of perceptions. Of course, it is also important if there is an actual thing being perceived, and not just a hallucination.

LOL Very true, Farseer, very true.

Variol Farseer wrote:...One might almost say that monogamy is a pact among men to share the available women fairly...[/i]

fair enough in days of low population and limited resources (not that they are abundant today), but while it may be a rational basis, (which makes sense), it is also a historical basis, and one which doesn't necessarily exist in today's world. (Although it may in Rand-Land.)

Somewhere else we discuss the question of whether or not "sins" remain "sinful" if the necessity which caused any actions definition as a "sin" is no longer present or necessary. (I think it's in the Think-Tank.)

--Avatar