Polygamy- does it work

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

That sounds like more of an incompatibility issue from the woman's perspective, than anything else.

The issue is that people get into relationships with other people who can't meet their needs. And then, they try all kinds of tactics to get the other person to change into the person who can meet their needs... including nagging, criticism, etc.

And the painful thing is going, "This person is incompatible with what I need to feel good in a relationship." And then having to admit there is no way to make it work... and breaking up with a person they're deeply attached to.

That's why it's so important to be very romantically discerning and to ask questions like...

• If nothing about this person ever changed, would I be able to co-exist comfortably with this person for years?
• If I had a child with this person, would I be comfortable with this person operating as they current do?

And if the answer is "No" to either of them... don't get into a relationship with them.

The issues is that women can tend to go for WHO they want rather than WHAT they want because of the hyper-particularized nature of female attraction.

We can get attached to Jonny and only Jonny.... even if Jonny is deeply incompatible with what we want.

And then, when women do this, they try to make WHO they want give them WHAT they want.

And they nag because they want their apple tree to produce them a lifetime supply pears. 

But if a woman knows WHAT she wants and she doesn't let the WHO attractions distract her too much, then she can find a partner that has both the WHO and the WHAT.

The trick for women is to raise her self esteem and level of discernment. 

Really, when a woman is choosing the WHO over the WHAT... she's choosing the relationship with the man over the relationship with herself. 

And the nagging is the result of doing that... as she's getting mad at her partner for just being himself when she was the one who chose to get into a relationship with him.

It's like a bird complaining to the fish it got into a relationship with that the fish never wants to go flying through the trees.

the easy  thing is to stop having weird needs and increase your level of consciousness to god monk.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

You guys find a way for us to be incompatible.   

People generate reality based on their emotions. ( everything is false, but you know this ) 

Womans are living 10 psychedelic states a day.
 

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

People generate reality based on their emotions. ( everything is false, but you know this ) 

Womans are living 10 psychedelic states a day.
 

Unfortunately I know all of it. I wish I didn't.  

[AerisVahnEphelia]

47 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Unfortunately I know all of it. I wish I didn't.  

There is nothing under control anyway. Self-improvement is a joke. It’s just your body talking and inventing more fantasies.

The real miracle is having a stable illusion that you can believe in, even momentarily.

Why I am here, well, why am I alive is the same question basically.

 

[Jordan of the Shire]

My point of view is that it depends on your level of awareness and empathy.

If you have a low awareness and low empathy of how actions affect other people or outcomes, then it might be easy to have multiple partners because then it could be easier to disregard the negative impacts and reject personal accountability. The same is true if you had high awareness and low empathy.

If you have high awareness and high empathy of how actions affect other people or outcomes, then it might be easier to have multiple partners because you would have the wear with all to create an enjoyable experience for yourself, and might even be able to manage everyone expectations.

It could also be true that if you have high awareness and high empathy, you might see that it is not within your capability to manage that type of situation so you would choose to save yourself and other people the trouble. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Jordan of the Shire

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

You guys find a way for us to be incompatible.   

That statement doesn't make any sense... as no one has control over compatibility.

Also, I've had both compatible and incompatible relationships.

And in incompatible relationships, it's very anxiety-inducing.

It's like, "How can I make this relationships work out and maintain this connection to this person that I care about without feeling terrible and starved of my needs?" And then, it's lots of arguments and nagging to try to get it to work... and getting very anxiously attached because I can sense the relationship's days are numbered.

And it's not a good place to be.

But with compatible relationships, that anxiety doesn't exist and I can relax. And I don't feel like I need to spin my wheels to make the unworkable work out. And it feels comfortable having a bit more space.

So, you're either compatible with someone... or you're not compatible.

And if you get into a relationship with someone you're not compatible with, there will be tons of conflict... and lots of criticism and nagging on the part of whoever feels most put out by the incompatibilities... or whoever falls into the anxious side of the relationship dynamic (which is women, more often).

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

the easy  thing is to stop having weird needs and increase your level of consciousness to god monk.

Everyone has needs. We're human.

And being in denial of those needs and trying to "become a god monk" isn't going to work out in relationships with other humans... no matter how much you trick yourself into believing you're beyond your humanity.

The wisest thing you can do is to be aware of what you need to feel content in a relationship. And if the person you're interested in, isn't compatible with that... don't get into a relationship with them.

Plain and simple.

[Jordan of the Shire]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Everyone has needs. We're human.

And being in denial of those needs and trying to "become a god monk" isn't going to work out in relationships with other humans... no matter how much you trick yourself into believing you're beyond your humanity.

The wisest thing you can do is to be aware of what you need to feel content in a relationship. And if the person you're interested in, isn't compatible with that... don't get into a relationship with them.

Plain and simple.

People gotta deal with what they got. A monk is going to have aspirations that an average worldly person might not have, and the capacity for transformation will be different. So if someone has a need which they don't have the capacity to alchemize or transmute, than they may just live with it. For people working on their character. They may have a need which they need to accept, but it doesn't have to rule them, and can be met with consciousness. Then transformation can happen.

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

People gotta deal with what they got. A monk is going to have aspirations that an average worldly person might not have, and the capacity for transformation will be different. So if someone has a need which they don't have the capacity to alchemize or transmute, than they may just live with it. For people working on their character. They may have a need which they need to accept, but it doesn't have to rule them, and can be met with consciousness. Then transformation can happen.

A monk is going through a hard-core process of renouncing all elements of worldly life.

So, they won't be engaging in romantic relationships, and therefore they do not need to consider compatibility.

Of course, they may be deeply repressing their own needs in the process of trying to transcend the Maya. But that's for the monk to work through.

But I'm NOT talking about monks. I'm talking about householders who want to have romantic and filial relationships but who are lying to themselves that they are in "monk mode". 

It's honestly unrealistic for a householder to think they're just going to choose to transcend their needs... and simply go beyond their own humanity whilst engaging fully in human life.

Instead, they will almost certainty be repressing their needs to maintain their identity of "the super-human person who has no needs" or "the stoic monk-mode guy"... and then get resentful at their partner or distant from them when the partner doesn't meet their needs.

I just don't take householders seriously when they make the claim that they're operating like a monk does. 

And even highly dedicated monks will struggle tremendously to transcend their attachment to their humanity without going into denial and repressing their humanity.

[Basman]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do you need the state to tell you you have a wife?

Do you need the state to tell you you have a dog?

Nobody thinks of it like that. It's the ritual that counts.

[Basman]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Women are great, but they are pretty demanding. They will nag you to death if you don't do as they expect. A woman expects you to work for her. Now multiply that x5.

You probably have a bias though. Seemingly narrow interests, dismissive of things you don't find worth your time and a lack of energy due to chronic illness. Am I wrong?

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Basman said:

Nobody thinks of it like that. It's the ritual that counts.

You can do a non-legal ritual.

10 minutes ago, Basman said:

You probably have a bias though. Seemingly narrow interests, dismissive of things you don't find worth your time and a lack of energy due to chronic illness. Am I wrong?

Of course I am not saying marriage is wrong for everyone.

This is a thread about polygamy. Don't forget.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

That statement doesn't make any sense... as no one has control over compatibility.

Also, I've had both compatible and incompatible relationships.

And in incompatible relationships, it's very anxiety-inducing.

It's like, "How can I make this relationships work out and maintain this connection to this person that I care about without feeling terrible and starved of my needs?" And then, it's lots of arguments and nagging to try to get it to work... and getting very anxiously attached because I can sense the relationship's days are numbered.

And it's not a good place to be.

But with compatible relationships, that anxiety doesn't exist and I can relax. And I don't feel like I need to spin my wheels to make the unworkable work out. And it feels comfortable having a bit more space.

So, you're either compatible with someone... or you're not compatible.

And if you get into a relationship with someone you're not compatible with, there will be tons of conflict... and lots of criticism and nagging on the part of whoever feels most put out by the incompatibilities... or whoever falls into the anxious side of the relationship dynamic (which is women, more often).

So what makes him compatible? Is it is calmness? You mentioned anxiety.  So..with the incompatible guy it sounds like tension is in the air. But with the compatible guy it's just smooth.  No tension.  Is that the difference?  Sounds like the guy trying too hard loses.

Edited 15 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

So what makes him compatible? Is it is calmness? You mentioned anxiety.  So..with the incompatible guy it sounds like tension is in the air. But with the compatible guy it's just smooth.  No tension.  Is that the difference?  Sounds like the guy trying too hard loses.

Incompatibility doesn't have anything to do with that, as it has nothing to do with performance what-so-ever.

I'll give some examples of what an incompatibility is...

 

Example #1: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. 

But Partner A is a home-body who likes to settle down in one place and build a life-long community grounded in on location.

And Partner B is a thrill-seeker and traveler who wants to go on adventures and move around all the time.

And let's say that Partner A and Partner B, settle down in one location like Partner A wants. But Partner B starts nagging them about going on adventure... which Partner A doesn't want to do. 

This is an incompatibility. And it won't work out in a long-term relationships... without Partner A OR Partner B being miserable.

 

Example #2: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. 

But Partner A is a deeply social person who wants to spend a lot of time with Partner B... and to constantly invite people over for get-togethers and parties.

And Partner B is an introvert who prefers occasional small get-togethers... but mostly wants to stay in and either hang out with Partner A or have some free time by themselves.

And let's say that Partner A's lifestyle wins out... Partner B is going to feel exhausted and annoyed at having their quiet introverted lifestyle up-ended.

And if Partner B's lifestyle wins out... Partner A is going to feel trapped and stifled. And they may nag Partner A to connect more or be more extraverted.

These are incompatibilities. And it doesn't mean that anyone was doing anything wrong.

It's just an "oil and water" situation.

 

For me, my incompatibilities in past relationships came from being a very roots-oriented/connection-oriented person. And I like to have very clear definitions on what the nature of that relationships is, and I don't feel good in a relationship where there's ambiguity.

And a major part of how I feel loved and secure in relationships, is to feel like that person is very clear about their commitment to the relationship.

Like, I once was in a relationship with a guy who didn't like the idea of labels and had this whole philosophy against it (he was raised very traditionally in a religious community and eventually deconstructing from it, so he saw things like marriage as being controlled by the religion).

And his thing was, "I love you. So, why would I try to fit that into a social construct?"

And I cared about him a lot. So, I tried to make that work for a while. But I never felt secure... and I sensed that there was no room to go any deeper than things already were. So, it created a limit at how deep our roots could come to grow intertwined.

So, I would feel this strong driver to go deeper... but would be met with a door.

And I would start trying to get closer by asking questions and nagging... which just pushed him away more.

And then, as he pulled away more and get more avoidant... that would cause me to go more and more into anxious mode and to try to get closer and not lose him.

Eventually, I had to stop seeing him and just be his friend, as there was a fundamental incompatibility about our views on relationships and labels.

Contrast that with a relationship where the guy is clearly on the same page about what he wants in a relationship and wants to lock me down for his and only his, I feel very secure.

So, I don't have to try a bunch of naggy tactics to try to get closer or establish a deeper connection to try to keep an incompatible relationship together.

In fact, because he's compatible, he'll do all that legwork without my needing to ask very much.

And it's not to say that my friend is wrong in how he was looking at it. It's that labels are incompatible with his ethos. And relationships without labels are incompatible with me.

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Incompatibility doesn't have anything to do with that, as it has nothing to do with performance what-so-ever.

I'll give some examples of what an incompatibility is...

 

Example #1: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. 

But Partner A is a home-body who likes to settle down in one place and build a life-long community grounded in on location.

And Partner B is a thrill-seeker and traveler who wants to go on adventures and move around all the time.

And let's say that Partner A and Partner B, settle down in one location like Partner A wants. But Partner B starts nagging them about going on adventure... which Partner A doesn't want to do. 

This is an incompatibility. And it won't work out in a long-term relationships... without Partner A OR Partner B being miserable.

 

Example #2: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. 

But Partner A is a deeply social person who wants to spend a lot of time with Partner B... and to constantly invite people over for get-togethers and parties.

And Partner B is an introvert who prefers occasional small get-togethers... but mostly wants to stay in and either hang out with Partner A or have some free time by themselves.

And let's say that Partner A's lifestyle wins out... Partner B is going to feel exhausted and annoyed at having their quiet introverted lifestyle up-ended.

And if Partner B's lifestyle wins out... Partner A is going to feel trapped and stifled. And they may nag Partner A to connect more or be more extraverted.

These are incompatibilities. And it doesn't mean that anyone was doing anything wrong.

It's just an "oil and water" situation.

 

For me, my incompatibilities in past relationships came from being a very roots-oriented/connection-oriented person. And I like to have very clear definitions on what the nature of that relationships is, and I don't feel good in a relationship where there's ambiguity.

And a major part of how I feel loved and secure in relationships, is to feel like that person is very clear about their commitment to the relationship.

Like, I once was in a relationship with a guy who didn't like the idea of labels and had this whole philosophy against it (he was raised very traditionally in a religious community and eventually deconstructing from it, so he saw things like marriage as being controlled by the religion).

And his thing was, "I love you. So, why would I try to fit that into a social construct?"

And I cared about him a lot. So, I tried to make that work for a while. But I never felt secure... and I sensed that there was no room to go any deeper than things already were. So, it created a limit at how deep our roots could come to grow intertwined.

So, I would feel this strong driver to go deeper... but would be met with a door.

And I would start trying to get closer by asking questions and nagging... which just pushed him away more.

And then, as he pulled away more and get more avoidant... that would cause me to go more and more into anxious mode and to try to get closer and not lose him.

Eventually, I had to stop seeing him and just be his friend, as there was a fundamental incompatibility about our views on relationships and labels.

Contrast that with a relationship where the guy is clearly on the same page about what he wants in a relationship and wants to lock me down for his and only his, I feel very secure.

So, I don't have to try a bunch of naggy tactics to try to get closer or establish a deeper connection to try to keep an incompatible relationship together.

In fact, because he's compatible, he'll do all that legwork without my needing to ask very much.

And it's not to say that my friend is wrong in how he was looking at it. It's that labels are incompatible with his ethos. And relationships without labels are incompatible with me.

Well, labels don't make much sense to me either. Why would you try to label anything.  That doesn't sound like a relationship breaker.  There is something you're not telling me.  But it's OK.  It sounds like like you needed to move on from him and did.  It sounds like you were more developed than he was and he couldn't adapt or rise to your level.  That's not about being better or smarter, its about being connected. 

And you're right, I have actually had failed relationships due to both scenarios you mentioned.  I tend to be more of the homebody.

Edited 14 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well, labels don't make much sense to me either. Why would you try to label anything.  That doesn't sound like a relationship breaker.  There is something you're not telling me.  But it's OK.  It sounds like like you needed to move on from him and did.  It sounds like you were more developed than he was and he couldn't adapt or rise to your level.  That's not about being better or smarter, its about being connected. 

And you're right, I have actually had failed relationships due to both scenarios you mentioned.  I tend to be more of the homebody.

The lack of labels is definitely a relationship dealbreaker for me. 

Labels and clear definition, enable me to feel secure enough in the relationship to open up and go deeper. 

And his value around not having labels, left me in a state of ambiguity where I didn't feel like the relationship could progress to a deeper level... and gave me the fundamental feeling of unsafely in the relationship.

So, it honestly was the main issue we had irreconcilable incompatibilities with.

It wasn't "Something I'm not telling you." It was an issue with labels.

The reality is that labels have a lot of meaning to me.

Like, a man I'm with being very clear that, "I want you be your partner." or "Will you marry me? I want to be your husband." holds a lot of meaning for me.

And if a guy doesn't want that because labels feel too confining or arbitrary, I'm going to feel anxious and blocked the entirety of the relationships until I have not other choice but to end it.

But I tried to operate his way for about a year, because I didn't realize how much of a deal breaker it was for me.

And I never could get clear or comfortable regarding how he felt about me or what we were or where the relationship was going... or even where the relationship could go.

That's not as to say that he's wrong or that you're wrong for not wanting labels. I'm sure there are some women out there that feel the same way.

But to me, labels equal devotion... and have a lot of meaning. And anyone who's anti-labels just isn't for me.

[LordFall]

@Emerald Curious what your thoughts on private marriages are in this case. If a man wanted to marry you and do the whole ring ritual and ceremony with family and friends thing but not have it officially registered through the government; would that be a dealbreaker for you or fine? 

[Emerald]

Just now, LordFall said:

@Emerald Curious what your thoughts on private marriages are in this case. If a man wanted to marry you and do the whole ring ritual and ceremony with family and friends thing but not have it officially registered through the government; would that be a dealbreaker for you or fine? 

That would be a dealbreaker for me because it's not going all in... and reads to me as a lack of seriousness and devotion.

It would definitely sew seeds of doubt in me about how open he is to actually growing deep roots with me.

[Inliytened1]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The lack of labels is definitely a relationship dealbreaker for me. 

Labels and clear definition, enable me to feel secure enough in the relationship to open up and go deeper. 

And his value around not having labels, left me in a state of ambiguity where I didn't feel like the relationship could progress to a deeper level... and gave me the fundamental feeling of unsafely in the relationship.

So, it honestly was the main issue we had irreconcilable incompatibilities with.

It wasn't "Something I'm not telling you." It was an issue with labels.

The reality is that labels have a lot of meaning to me.

Like, a man I'm with being very clear that, "I want you be your partner." or "Will you marry me? I want to be your husband." holds a lot of meaning for me.

And if a guy doesn't want that because labels feel too confining or arbitrary, I'm going to feel anxious and blocked the entirety of the relationships until I have not other choice but to end it.

But I tried to operate his way for about a year, because I didn't realize how much of a deal breaker it was for me.

And I never could get clear or comfortable regarding how he felt about me or what we were or where the relationship was going... or even where the relationship could go.

That's not as to say that he's wrong or that you're wrong for not wanting labels. I'm sure there are some women out there that feel the same way.

But to me, labels equal devotion... and have a lot of meaning. And anyone who's anti-labels just isn't for me.

Was it the lack of him using labels or the lack of him being able to distinguish distinctions.  Because that's all you really need.  You don't need to put labels on things if you already have them separated in your mind.

Edited 13 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Was it the lack of him using labels or the lack of him being able to distinguish distinctions.  Because that's all you really need.  

It was the lack of labels and clear distinctions... and him having a belief that labels are unnecessary and are purely unimportant bits of social construction that shouldn't mean anything to anyone.

But for me, if a guy doesn't want to put a label on the relationship and move towards marriage, it's just not a good fit for me. 

And I will never feel comfortable and satisfied with the relationship, as it feels like the level of depth has been permanently capped in a meaningful way.