+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: A Philosophy of Romance (/showthread.php?tid=11537)
A Philosophy of Romance - Adonai One - 08-10-2015
A Philosophy of Romance
By: Adonai One & The Non-Profit, Educational Foundation for Successful Sexual Relationships of Texas
----
Upon the entrance of any third person in any couple, the following catalysts may occur:
Largely, decorum followed by the couple for only the couple disintegrated in the name of the third individual; Temporarily or permanently, although the former soon leads to the latter in time.
A large request of the third person and her associates for one member of the couple to spend less time with the other, so that the third person may compensate with the lack of time shared with the couple as a whole, and incorporate the most compatible member with herself, consciously or unconsciously. This will surely lead to turmoil and what is perceived as infidelity.
All remaining catalyst will follow from the above.
Solution? Attempt to ensure time of all members is spread evenly amoung all members. Even if the time is scheduled between each member as seperate pairs of the trio, an entire integration of the trio is sure to follow as all members will inevitably see each other in one member of the trio; However, if there is resistance to even this, the catalyst will resolve just as evenly: The pairings fully together as a trio or not at all. This is the choice we make in every pairing, macro and micro.
Upon the entrance of any fourth person in any fully integrated or transistive trio of people, the following may and, we strongly emphasize, may occur:
A great flourishment of emotional energy not fully incorporated by the reliance of every member upon every member to make catalyst intelligible; Rather, the individual member may be unable to process all that is processed and professed by the group, so they will delegate their ability to understand to the entirety of the group, without due consideration of the inherent, true, unified leadership embodied in every living member of the group.
A great amount of time to convey a single concept to every member just so there may even be a similar vocabulary, schedule, diet and behavior governing the group.
All remaining catalyst will follow from the above. To our knowledge, the human race has failed even at the most foremost, unmentioned, romantic couple much less three or four people.
Beyond four people is a shadow land of mystery and much significance brought by the unique blending of every member considering its unique identity and being forced to bring it into the mass group identity, that is often wholly undefined, so that all voices may be heard equally; This challenge the human race has yet to, shall we say, conquer and conform to a unified standard.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - tamaryn - 08-10-2015
Group catalyst is the divine romance we record into space. Think about the waves of souls sent as messengers/wanderers in war. Or any group catalyst where great suffering is in the potential of experience. The souls sent to teach / learn under such adverse conditions have completed their mission, to teach / learn. Even there we have found true romance with others (Love) and have created Understanding from our conditions.
I cannot remember where I heard this, but a great avatar once said something along the lines of "Brotherhood is one of the purest forms of love"
So group love and group wisdom may be extended to the evolution and elevation of group mind (social memory complex, group romance). Expressing their imaginings of unity / separation concretely in 3D.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-10-2015
So has anyone actually pulled this off successfully? (here in 3D)
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - outerheaven - 08-10-2015
I'm sure one can gain very valuable experience in attempting to be so honest and open in their communication. And learning to listen to a loved one's thoughts without judgment or becoming hurt.
Best of luck to you and yours.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Turtle - 08-10-2015
A sexual/romantic grouping of multiple partners is not MORE or LESS difficult than a pairing of only 2. It only requires persons who openly and honestly talk about their desires and fears.
Finding compatible partners is not difficult if one does enough inner work first, and acts from a positive state of being in general throughout their life second...outer challenges become fun and exciting with that prep.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-11-2015
(08-10-2015, 10:17 PM)Turtle Wrote: A sexual/romantic grouping of multiple partners is not MORE or LESS difficult than a pairing of only 2. It only requires persons who openly and honestly talk about their desires and fears.
I'm very skeptical. Maybe I'm wrong and just haven't met anyone who has done it. I had some friends who tried the 'open marriage' thing and ended up splitting up because of jealousy. That's only 1 case that I knew of, granted, but it seems to me that it's difficult enough for 2 people to open up all their chakras together and experience true intimacy and trust on all levels...I wonder if more than 2 could really pull that off. Could there possibly be a reason our plumbing was designed the way it is? :idea:
But hey, as long as everyone is honest and no one is hurt, to each his own. Please let us know how it works out! I'm curious.
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - The_Tired_Philosopher - 08-11-2015
I've seen numerous three-way relationships fail.
But I have seen one work out and to this day they're still together, they have some special term for that type of relationship and I don't recall it off the top of my head, but it's essentially like a normal relationship, only they all three love each other. Don't let anyone else into their relationship, share everything with each other, would probably marry each other, but held off on it since they can't marry each other in the fashion they want.
UHHHH, what is the term?? It's like right there, like a faded memory I'm trying to pull back up and it's slippery...
UHH UMMM URRRRGGHHH GRUUHhhhnnn nope. No idea. The way it works out for them is two guys and one girl, both guys are bisexual, girl is straight, she didn't want to at first but then opened up to it, and then after getting to know the other guy fell in love with him too, and he already liked her but she was with his friend who had a small crush on him that blossomed after he decided to let him into the relationship once they had a small break up and choose to stay together, and in the process she slept with him, he admitted to the friend who wasn't too bothered cause he knew she loved him, then she admitted to still loving the first guy, and the second guy had no issue with his friend as they had already been together at an earlier time. And it all just kind of ended up falling into place and they are crazy happy together. Have an apartment, all got jobs, they've two vehicles and have things pretty much under lock and key financially.
So it is possible for a three-way relationship to exist, though I've never seen one with two girls and a guy, only two guys and a girl. Some tv channel also had a documentary on that style of relationship that my Mom was watching a few months ago, though I didn't watch it at all beyond a few minutes. Was interesting.
I don't talk to them much anymore, we kind of lost contact during my graveyard shift days, haven't rekindled things. But when I was with my last ex and we all hung out I asked them about everything and they are pretty straight-forward. If you can't get over the jealousy, it won't work. If you can't forgive, it won't work. If you can't be honest, it won't work.
...
I should really introduce them to the Law of One ._.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-11-2015
Hmmm...interesting!
Well there are lots with multiple girls and 1 guy, but those don't seem healthy, looking at them on the surface. You know, the religious polygamists who have a patriarch and all the women are submissive to him.
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - tamaryn - 08-11-2015
Is this really about three way sexual romances, or platonic three way group catalyst?
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-11-2015
(08-11-2015, 03:48 AM)tamaryn Wrote: Is this really about three way sexual romances, or platonic three way group catalyst?
Oh wow good question. I assumed the former, from the word 'romance.'
Adonai?
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Aion - 08-11-2015
(08-11-2015, 12:55 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: I've seen numerous three-way relationships fail.
But I have seen one work out and to this day they're still together, they have some special term for that type of relationship and I don't recall it off the top of my head, but it's essentially like a normal relationship, only they all three love each other. Don't let anyone else into their relationship, share everything with each other, would probably marry each other, but held off on it since they can't marry each other in the fashion they want.
UHHHH, what is the term?? It's like right there, like a faded memory I'm trying to pull back up and it's slippery...
UHH UMMM URRRRGGHHH GRUUHhhhnnn nope. No idea. The way it works out for them is two guys and one girl, both guys are bisexual, girl is straight, she didn't want to at first but then opened up to it, and then after getting to know the other guy fell in love with him too, and he already liked her but she was with his friend who had a small crush on him that blossomed after he decided to let him into the relationship once they had a small break up and choose to stay together, and in the process she slept with him, he admitted to the friend who wasn't too bothered cause he knew she loved him, then she admitted to still loving the first guy, and the second guy had no issue with his friend as they had already been together at an earlier time. And it all just kind of ended up falling into place and they are crazy happy together. Have an apartment, all got jobs, they've two vehicles and have things pretty much under lock and key financially.
So it is possible for a three-way relationship to exist, though I've never seen one with two girls and a guy, only two guys and a girl. Some tv channel also had a documentary on that style of relationship that my Mom was watching a few months ago, though I didn't watch it at all beyond a few minutes. Was interesting.
I don't talk to them much anymore, we kind of lost contact during my graveyard shift days, haven't rekindled things. But when I was with my last ex and we all hung out I asked them about everything and they are pretty straight-forward. If you can't get over the jealousy, it won't work. If you can't forgive, it won't work. If you can't be honest, it won't work.
...
I should really introduce them to the Law of One ._.
Polyamory.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Diana - 08-11-2015
It's a triad. At least, that's what a threesome I knew called themselves. They even had children and both "husbands" went into the delivery room. Eventually, jealousy caused one of the men to leave. The other two remained together.
I also know those who are into polyamory (if that's how it's spelled). So that is sleeping with whomever ad infinitum—basically open relationship. But it's qualified by having relationships rather than just sex. It seems to me that it would be more difficult to trust, since humans just aren't that honest or transparent yet in general. You would have to be able to trust all involved, not just your original partner I imagine.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Aion - 08-11-2015
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-11-2015
It's definitely Not something I'd want to do, so this is speculation only:
I suspect that some people remember such configurations on their home planet, and are surprised when biology and emotional tendencies (like jealousy) get in the way of an ideal they hold in their mind. This is the most idealistic cases...Not talking about patriarchs controlling harems or situations of dominance over an emotionally unstable, weak person.
A good example coming to mind is that unusual dynamic that our friends Carla, Don and Jim had. It was certainly a 3-way relationship, even if not sexually. (Or, at least, Carla had a relationship with both men. Not sure if that qualifies though. I guess there are many variations, apparently.) Carla did share that she had a very open and trusting relationship with both Don and Jim, and was surprised to learn later that Don had issues regarding her relationship with Jim. (She shared this openly so I'm not saying anything that isn't public knowledge.) So I'm wondering if maybe she was remembering a different configuration between the 3 of them in a past life, or maybe they all did, but found it challenging to pull it off here in 3D. Yet they did succeed enough, obviously, to bring us the Ra Material!
Look at how even such dedicated beings as Carla, Don and Jim, even in the midst of such important work, still had challenges with such a dynamic.
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - APeacefulWarrior - 08-12-2015
I think Monica may be onto something here. Most of the reports we have on how the incarnation process works suggests that clusters of entities do tend to stick together from life to life - but that doesn't mean they'd necessarily have the same interpersonal relationships in each life. I could easily see there being a lot of conflicting emotions arising, especially when combined with the various social distortions of 3D life.
And on the original topic, I've also witnessed multiple poly relationships and they rarely seem to work out well, at least from the human perspective. It's not impossible, of course, but it's far harder for humans to maintain stable 3+ person relationships because of the added complexity of the interpersonal interactions. Three is the number of complexity, after all. We really don't have the language to properly describe or model the interactions between ANY three (or more) bodies, whether we're talking planets or people, so it's not terribly surprising that folks have difficulty stabilizing such relationships.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Matt1 - 08-12-2015
So basically this was all about a three way?
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Spaced - 08-12-2015
I have a hard time understanding the OPs language, but does this mean that Vervex isn't OK with him having a girlfriend on the side?
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-12-2015
(08-12-2015, 11:34 AM)Spaced Wrote: I have a hard time understanding the OPs language, but does this mean that Vervex isn't OK with him having a girlfriend on the side?
Me too. Not sure what the point is. Who's Vervex?
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Monica - 08-12-2015
(08-12-2015, 11:13 AM)Matt1 Wrote: So basically this was all about a three way?
Big difference between a '3-way' 1-night-stand (lower chakras only) and attempting to pull off a long-term relationship among 3 people!
It's hard enough for just 2 people to connect on the higher chakras, and clear their issues/blockages enough to really get intimate (on an emotional and spiritual level, Not just physical) and truly develop trust. In praise of monogamy, this process can take many years (or many lifetimes!). Adding a 3rd person would surely compound the issue greatly. Not saying it can't be done, but gosh, they sure are taking on a lot!
...and then there's the plumbing!
...
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Aion - 08-12-2015
Vervex is his wife.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Turtle - 08-12-2015
If you believe it must be difficult, then it will. This is not a dismissive statement...I have had practice and am learning...and enjoying the process
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Bring4th_Austin - 08-14-2015
Just to throw my own anecdotal testimony into what has already been shared, since my experience varies somewhat - while I have known polyamorous fail due to jealousy, I have seen some succeed. But I could say the exact same thing about monogomous relationships. Some last, some fail, sometimes it's due to jealousy, sometimes it's due to simple incompatibility or evolution of individual personalities.
Not to say that jealousy isn't probably a bigger catalyst for people within polyamorous relationships, but I essentially agree with Turtle in that so long as there is open and honest communication and a dedication to working through catalyst together, it can be a successful relationship. Which is basically the same thing required for two people in a monogamous relationship.
I do think that polyamory is much more popular (and possibly successful) with newer generations. When I discuss the topic with a person who has had successful polyamorous relationships within my age-group (let's say 25-35), they address the relationship in a mature and understanding way, highlighting the fact that it has emotions, challenges, and experiences that are different from monogamous relationships, but approaching these things with honest maturity is just as much of a factor. And this honest maturity involves a person being aware and truthful about what they are comfortable with and what they are not. Just like faithful monogamous relationships, polyamorous ones rely on a sort of agreement between individuals that their relationship will exist in a certain fashion, that everyone abstains from certain behaviors, that certain things are shared and certain things may not be shared, etc. and deviating from this agreement is a violation of the relationship.
I know plenty of people in monogamous relationships that can't communicate their needs and desires, can't understand their partners needs or desires, and are constantly deviating from implicit or explicit agreements in the relationship. One reason polyamorous relationships might seem to fail more is because you're adding a complete other entity into the mix, with their own distortions and catalyst. You're requiring yet another person to be self-aware and honest and blending three individuals is bound to be more difficult than blending two individuals.
And perhaps some of our cultural perception of monogamy vs. polyamory is because of some sort of ingrained principle. Ra indicates such in 99.10. But I think a lot more comes from cultural perpetuation of a specific relationship. For a long time, we have been told by our societies what a successful and normal romantic relationship looks like, and just like a lot of social norms, much of it is arbitrary limitations, even some of which have sexist and repressive origins.
Ra also says in 99.10 that "[t]he free will of third-density entities is far stronger than the rather mild carryover from second-density DNA encoding and it is not part of the conscious nature of many of your mind/body/spirit complexes to be monogamous due to the exercise of free will." And I think that so long as there is a will for successful non-monogamous relationships to succeed, it is possible, but has its difficulties just like everything else in life.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Turtle - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 11:29 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Ra also says in 99.10 that "[t]he free will of third-density entities is far stronger than the rather mild carryover from second-density DNA encoding and it is not part of the conscious nature of many of your mind/body/spirit complexes to be monogamous due to the exercise of free will." And I think that so long as there is a will for successful non-monogamous relationships to succeed, it is possible, but has its difficulties just like everything else in life.
The difficulties are no more or less challenging than in a traditional set up...in fact, they are more exciting and therefore engaging to me.
Much of what this world holds on to in terms of perception and beliefs is quite simply put, rubbish
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Diana - 08-14-2015
I always thought humankind did not align well with monogamy. Humans carry millennia of conditioning for survival: the males to inseminate as many as possible and the females to find protectors (among other survival prompts). Until humankind evolves far enough away from animal behavior, there will be possessiveness and jealousy. In this regard, monogamy, polyamory—it doesn't matter. The people involved are still dealing with the same issues as has been pointed out.
People go into relationships for infinite reasons. But at this time, I think most humans are still operating for the most part from these survival behaviors (which are embedded in our physiology as well), and the desire to be loved (which derives from separateness). Put another way, survival behaviors derive from fear. If one is operating from love, behaviors such as possessiveness and jealousy wouldn't even exist. Of course, infinite shades of gray are possible between love and fear.
I like the setup in 2150 AD regarding relationships and sexual behavior. To me, that is the ideal. The souls you are connected with energetically just are, no matter where they are. To search in life for a perfect soul mate is wishful thinking in my opinion. I think, considering where we are at regarding evolution, the task is to see, interact with, and love people for who they are. And this must derive from loving and accepting ourselves.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Aion - 08-14-2015
I don't think survival is purely based in fear... I also don't understand the idea that humans are 'suited' one way or the other. I always believed in freedom of choice and relationships are the same. I don't understand the purpose of trying to put different relationship styles against eachother.
I also don't think monogamy is purely survival or conditioning and that a lot of people really just lack commitment or the ability make a choice. People want to have their cake and to eat it too.
I also don't get how the desire to be loved is only derived from separateness, as though one in unity has no desire or need for love. This topic is so convoluted it really makes me frustrated to see.
I think everyone has some ideal and everyone will create some justification for why it is more appropriate.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Diana - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 05:14 PM)Aion Wrote: I don't think survival is purely based in fear... I also don't understand the idea that humans are 'suited' one way or the other. I always believed in freedom of choice and relationships are the same. I don't understand the purpose of trying to put different relationship styles against eachother.
I also don't think monogamy is purely survival or conditioning and that a lot of people really just lack commitment or the ability make a choice. People want to have their cake and to eat it too.
I also don't get how the desire to be loved is only derived from separateness, as though one in unity has no desire or need for love. This topic is so convoluted it really makes me frustrated to see.
I think everyone has some ideal and everyone will create some justification for why it is more appropriate.
We're just discussing ideas here. There's no reason to be frustrated. Perhaps I come across too rigidly or narrowly. I'm openminded. I like exploring ideas and want to hear what others think. I agree people want to have their cake and eat it too. But actually, what's wrong with that? The only thing I can see that would not be good (or efficacious, or evolved, or whatever term works) about it is if there wasn't honesty.
Commitment to a person or relationship cannot be forced. You can see the results of this all over. Of course, it's not black and white. I like the idea of choice. I think it's important to address the idea of commitment with a partner periodically, and not take it for granted.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Minyatur - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 05:14 PM)Aion Wrote: I also don't get how the desire to be loved is only derived from separateness, as though one in unity has no desire or need for love. This topic is so convoluted it really makes me frustrated to see.
The one in unity might just be the loneliest thing ever.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Aion - 08-14-2015
(08-14-2015, 05:34 PM)Diana Wrote:(08-14-2015, 05:14 PM)Aion Wrote: I don't think survival is purely based in fear... I also don't understand the idea that humans are 'suited' one way or the other. I always believed in freedom of choice and relationships are the same. I don't understand the purpose of trying to put different relationship styles against eachother.
I also don't think monogamy is purely survival or conditioning and that a lot of people really just lack commitment or the ability make a choice. People want to have their cake and to eat it too.
I also don't get how the desire to be loved is only derived from separateness, as though one in unity has no desire or need for love. This topic is so convoluted it really makes me frustrated to see.
I think everyone has some ideal and everyone will create some justification for why it is more appropriate.
We're just discussing ideas here. There's no reason to be frustrated. Perhaps I come across too rigidly or narrowly. I'm openminded. I like exploring ideas and want to hear what others think. I agree people want to have their cake and eat it too. But actually, what's wrong with that? The only thing I can see that would not be good (or efficacious, or evolved, or whatever term works) about it is if there wasn't honesty.
Commitment to a person or relationship cannot be forced. You can see the results of this all over. Of course, it's not black and white. I like the idea of choice. I think it's important to address the idea of commitment with a partner periodically, and not take it for granted.
I'm always frustrated, don't take that personally. It is seeing conflict that springs me in to action so when it appeared to me there was a competition between monogamy and non-monogamy it makes me want to settle things in to unity and equality because to me the perceived differences are merely a matter of preference.
Where I will make the distinction is more as you say, in regards to honesty and health. I think more in terms of healthy or unhealthy relationships rather than in terms of 'type' so the argument of an ideal type of relationship to me appears to just convolute and in some way inhibits the examination of relationship health because bias will create justifications for the ideal, even if it isn't healthy.
That is why I get frustrated by any blanket statements regarding relationships because there is no objective 'best', there is only dynamics between individuals and their interactions. Certainly there may be a 'best' for an individual, usually of their choosing, but I am very careful to be distinct between what is individual and what is collective in my mind.
RE: A Philosophy of Romance - Diana - 08-14-2015
I don't take much personally, certainly not what you said. I was just trying to take responsibility for what and how I communicate.
I agree that expectations are in conflict with healthy relationship. That's what I was referring to when I said that commitments can't be forced. But it's all important in the bigger scheme of things, as entities seek catalyst. Everyone is where they are at. And they will draw to them what they need, whether or not they know it, or see it, or even learn anything from it.
In my own case, my idea of what a relationship is has changed much over the years, and how I handle the dynamics of one. Where I am now is allowing the other person to be who they are with me not interjecting (consciously or unconsciously) what I want them to be. I've achieved this some years ago (though there are times when I become aware that I am projecting, at which point I look at it). But with this comes the willingness to be hurt and the honesty to face truth. I have to be open to the truth whatever that is, and be open to the pain I might feel because of that truth. I consider this my privilege—to receive the truth, and to feel the pain.
I will add to the above that the willingness to feel pain, for me, is purely me feeling the pain and not blaming. No revenge, blame, wanting to negotiate, beg, or otherwise control what is going on. Face the truth, honor the other person, and accept and process the pain that may result from it. And even while doing that, be aware of the great unconditional love I have for the person I may have spent years with, because that is always there underneath everything—the bottom line so to speak. It's really what matters, for me.