>>i mean, it's one thing at 10 yrs old. > >It's cute at this age. Though they,imo, have a great solution >to their situation, they will be socialized by others that >this is "wrong".
>let's see how that >>might go at, like, 14-16. > >The standard will always be one on one relations. Yet, >because of the misunderstanding/education of polygamous >relations, these same 2 girls have eliminated a possible >successful 3 way and will now have the potential to fight over >a guy they want, possibly ending their friendship. There's an >even greater chance of this if they are both attractive and >one is having trouble finding a mate....at this age, hormones >and insecurity is in full effect anyway, problems and drama >will result no matter what.
>Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Each person/couple >decides the nature of the commitment. I think the desire to >control how another person shares their energy and who they >share it with, is rooted in the desire for ego preservation. >The other person is your source of energy(emotion, physical, >etc.) and the thought of someone else receiving that energy as >well is threatening. 'Will he/she leave me?', is the thinking. > >I am in the view, that it's much better to be committed to >principles that allow growth between individuals and it's >these principles that unite and hold the bond and not just the >physical/emotional/financial attraction. When 2 people KNOW >that their combo allows for a consistent forward progression >on all levels, whether or not i/she spends the night with that >woman/man has absolutely no effect on the status of their >relationship. In this type of relationship a "one night stand" >could be openly discussed. This DOES take a high level of ego >checking though.
ok. i see what you're saying, but....
i guess my thing is this: if he can bring in other "wives", then i ought to be able to have other "hubands". see how many men go for that.
bottom line: in a situation/culture where i am not dependent on a man for my material well-being, what's the purpose?
i hear what you're saying about energy and all that...and that's cool, but there are very few ppl who "get" that angle of things.
i've been w/ men where i could consider an "open" relationship. but most likely that would only come after *years* of knowing him.
i've been with others with whom that would not be an option.
aside from all of that, i've never met a man in this day & age (personally) who didn't see polygamy simply as an opportunity to simply have as many babies as he wants by as many women as he wants.
it seems to me that the women & children are always the ones who get the short end of the stick. you're describing an ideal, but....
>Polygamy is effective only if you got mature individuals >involved. It's definitely not dating. It's about harmony and >what energy combos allow for the growth of all involved. I've >known quite a few involved in these type of relations and >children are involved in all of them and they have been going >for many years with some of them.
you live in another country, though, correct?
i don't know...on an emotional/financial level in this country, i can't see it working. for many reasons.
like, even in the open relationship i described above: i wouldn't have kids. if he got another woman pregnant, i'd probably leave. my decisions as a single woman (married or no) differ from the ones i'd make as a mother.
i value the "extended family" model. but i would have to consider the "norms" where i'm living in raising that kid.
i don't have a problem w/ people *doing* it. none of this is any kind of "moral" judgement.
i just don't see it working for me.
>Men generally do not have a >problem "spreading love" and will always do so,
neither do a lot of women.
>so being in a >relationship with 2 women would not be difficult if the man >and women were mature enough not to get caught up in energy >competition games.
again, you're describing an ideal, imo. which is fine.