Society and Circles

[Rich]

*please note this is two posts - the total length could not fit for one post*



Hey everyone, I would like to get your input, feedback, and opinions about something NEW (and controversial).

There is a guy, Stephane, who teaches "Interdependent Circle" relationships, a dynamic that involves one man, and 2 or 3 'bisexual' women. They live together, are loyal to each other, and they seem to be really happy and in love. I'm very intruiged.

Stephane claims that an Interdependent Circle is the most advanced relationship dynamic possible in the human domain, because everyone involved must be willing to face their own ego programming and learn to let it go, and surrender it to God.

He also states that this is the most humbling relationship experience he's ever had, because living with 2-3 women creates a context in which every relationship/ego "issue" is triggered, and rises to the surface. He says that most of our ego programming is unconscious, and that he has found that Circle relationships tend to trigger a lot of our in-born ego issues.

For example, everyone in the "Circle" will be very prone to feeling jealousy and possessiveness, which is inherent to human ego programming. He says that especially for women, fear of abandonment is built-in biologically, therefore jealousy, etc. can be very difficult (but not impossible) to overcome.

He claims that jealousy, etc. can be transformed into unconditional love if the person is willing to spend time observing their mind in meditation, and ultimately, surrendering it to God.

He says that he doesn't experience jealousy, mostly because there are no men in the Circle, but that his main ego issue was that of Pride, and he had to work hard on becoming humble, and resist the urge to shove it in people's faces that he has several pretty girls. He also had to work on possessiveness issues, because when you have several girlfriends, you tend to REALLY want to keep them in your life. Apparently he worked very hard on surrendering the fear of losing the girls. He says, "The girls don't belong to me, and I do not belong to them. We each belong to God, and only He can ever possess them. One must be willing to surrender the relationship to God at each moment of each day, with every breath one takes. If someone decides it's time to leave a relationship.. you have to be humble about it and be willing to honor their choice to leave. And being needy is probably the biggest turn off for women, so I worked extremely hard on overcoming neediness. It was not easy, but it was worth it. Besides, if I had even one ounce of neediness, it would poison the whole Circle, the women would begin losing trust in me, and everything would fall apart!"

INTERESTING!

Interdependent Circles.. He says he learned about Interdependence primarily from Steven Covey, author of "The 7 Habits".

Interdependence means the following, according to Stephane:

"When one can transcend the lower emotions such as shame, anger, pride, jealousy, envy, fear of abandonment, etc. (i.e. the lower self, or ego) and makes the decision to open the heart, open to unconditional love and compassion, and begin to take full responsibility for one's emotions & behaviors, and replace the lower emotions with the firm decision to be 100% HUMBLE and accountable at all times, the typical issues of co-dependency and insecurity begin to (slowly, slowly) dissolve."

He says, "One then becomes Independent, and opens to God's love. When God's love touches one's heart on a deep level, one no longer feels separate from God, and one no longer feels dependent on others for love.

The first stage is Dependence on "others" for love, joy, happiness. The second stage is Independence, where one turns to God for fulfillment, rather than on other human beings.

Now, when a human being reaches this level, only then are they going to be able to have a happy, integrous, fulfilling relationship with another human being. Only then will they experience 100% drama-free union and join at the heart.

When two (or three or four!) INDEPENDENT human beings decide to join forces and start an intimate relationship, they then move to the next level, INTER-DEPENDENCE. And the wikipedia definition on Interdependence is pretty solid -

Interdependence is a dynamic of being mutually responsible to and sharing a common set of principles with others. This concept differs distinctly from "dependence" in that an interdependent relationship implies that all participants are emotionally, economically, and/or morally "interdependent." Some people advocate freedom or independence as a sort of ultimate good; others do the same with devotion to one's family, community, or society. Interdependence recognizes the truth in each position and weaves them together. Two people in a good relationship are said to be interdependent.It can also be defined as the interconnectedness and the reliance on one another socially, economically, environmentally and politically."


Stephane lives with two 'bisexual' women right now, About ideaGasms | ideaGasms

he has been with his first girlfriend, Ghita, for almost four years, and they have been with a second girl, Greta, for almost one year, in a "Circle" as they call it.

According to Stephane, "The term 'Circle' is just my way of avoiding the word 'triangle', which seems to imply jealousy, and even deception, as well as the assumption that jealousy and insecurity are something we humans are stuck with no matter what we do. The girls and I are not perfect or fully enlightened, we still work on ourselves daily with meditation, intention, prayer, contemplation, and surrendering to God. We've come a long way over the years, and have an extremely close and intimate bond that you would probably have to see to believe."

When asked, "Why only women? Is it fair? Do you allow MEN to join your Circle?" he says that he will never allow men to be in his Circle, not because of jealousy, but simply because he isn't gay or bisexual.

He states, "Bisexual women (typically) do not want to be with gay men, which usually implies feminine men. Bisexual women seem to be very yin/yang balanced themselves, and so they will attract men that are also balanced.

Now, once we "balanced ones" join as a 'Circle', I take on a more masculine role (active, decisions, leadership, providing, etc. just like in the good 'ol days) and they then feel safe and protected enough to relax into their feminine side (dancing, playing, emotions, passivity, etc.).

This is called Sexual Polarity. Of course, we all are *equals* and I always take their feelings into account when I lead and make decisions and so on, but we seem have much more fun when I take on a 'Daddy' role, and they play a more feminine, 'mommy' role.

Simply put, we have learned from our own experiences that when a man acts like a man, and women act like women (as long is there is real honesty, trust, and respect!) this helps to keep the attraction and sexual tension alive. I have been with Ghita almost 4 years now, and we're still very sexually attracted to each other. And one year with Greta, and the attraction is also still very high. I suspect that I will be attracted to them for the rest of my life, as long as we maintain the polarity.

We don't take the "man/woman mommy and daddy" roles very seriously, we just *play* these roles and it's a lot of fun. We are spiritual equals, but we are not equals on a physical, biological level. We are complimentary opposites. We honor the bodies God gave us. I'm a man, so I'm not going to start asking the women to lead me and protect me. And they don't try to act like men, they want to feel like women."

When asked, "Why 2 or 3 girls, is not one woman ENOUGH to satisfy you?" he replies, "Why would I have two cats, or three children, or four cars? You see, one human or 100 humans cannot satisfy someone, they must learn to satisfy themselves. A woman's heart is so immense that the whole world couldn't fulfill it. True fulfillment comes from God, and only God. True Love is a blessing from Divinity, and must be respected as such. Again, people must become Independent before they can claim Interdependence. Your question comes from a dependent or "co-dependent" paradigm, you see.

Now, naturally when you ask a woman if she would like to bring you another woman or two, you're going to have problems! You will be sleeping on the couch tonight!

Not only does she first need to be VERY 'bisexual', but she will need to understand that a Circle... although the sex is awesome... there is much more to it than just your desire for the american dream of having a threesome.

[Rich]

Sex is just one aspect to human relationships. There is also an emotional/intellectual aspect (someone to listen to you, someone to lean on, someone to laugh and learn with, etc.) and there is also a spiritual aspect to relationships.

To me, I'm not just into relationships because I need to get laid and kill the loneliness. I have relationships because they teach me about myself in a most humbling and spiritual way. My current spiritual goals are to embody unconditional love and compassion, and to open to God. So there is a spiritual aspect to relationsips as well, assuming one has spiritual aspirations like we do.

If a woman is very 'bisexual', and wants to learn everything she can about the three aspects of relationships (physical, emotional/intellectual, and spiritual), only then should one suggest an Interdependent Circle.

To qualify as a man, you have to be able to help blossom open the heart of ONE girl before you attempt this with three! Your relationship has to be "almost perfect" before you bring in more women. I tell couples that their relationship has to be soooo good that they feel almost selfish for not sharing what they have with other women. How many couples can say THAT with a straight face?

Now, in the context of Interdependent Circles, you better believe that all parties involved are going to learn learn learn. It is like an accellerated learning program. I have learned more in this context about women, about myself, about ego, emotions, spirituality, and so on than I would have in a regular two-person couple relationship."

He also states that Circles are the highest level of relationship possible in the known world.

"Look - I'm not saying that Circles are better, or more valued in the eyes of God than say, getting married is. Married couples serve God just as much as we do. A plumber serves God just as much as the Saint does.

What I am saying is that Circles are higher-consciousness than regular relationships. Why? Simply because this type of relationship is exponentially more challenging and difficult to manage, because it triggers more of the ego than normal relationships do. It took me over fifteen years to figure out how Circles can be built and maintained, and I'm still learning new things, daily.

By analogy, parenting one child is difficult and challenging, but parenting two or three kids will present many more challenges, exponentially. This doesn't mean that having more kids is "better", it's just different.

Since this is more challenging, this means that there is more to learn, and therefore higher-consciousness. Simple mathematics! And again, the number 50 is not "better" than the number 25."


So, what do you guys think? Please post your comments, opinions, and questions. He asked me and a few others to do this. He says, "I want opinions from Christians, Muslims, Jews... Feminists, the gay community, even the seduction community, hypnosis groups, self-help junkies, and spiritual leaders like Deepak and Dyer... I want to know what Dr. Phil and Oprah think. I want to get people's first, gut-level reactions to the idea of Circles. Perhaps they will have a (negative or positive or neutral) opinion or two that I can learn from. I only recently went public with this and started to share, and I'm extremely curious to see how others will react."

[Vasilisa]

Very wise guy!! It's not enough for him to have several girls at his command he has to build philosphical basis for it and become a guru for other men.

[kboleski]

I might be a very unpopular poster on this particular thread. How did that kind of life, the need to live that kind of life develop? He sounds like a selfish, master manipulator. He may be correct in what type of bi-sexual woman it takes to partake in that lifestyle, but why do you care? Do you want to live that kind of lifestyle? Is that what it is going to take to make you feel like a man? Be the best man, best mate, best friend, best supporter, best nurturer, best lover and you won't need more than one woman!

[Brutha]

For me the word God appear a bit to much in the article.
But in general there is nothing that should keep three persons from having a relationship together if they want to.

[kboleski]

I am not sure why the reference to God either. This isn't a lifestyle that God would approve of, so why discuss it as if it is? Take God out of the equation, and put Satan there maybe.

[Rockchick26]

UGH this guy is a jerk! He claims this is all about LOVE,and only true fullfillment comes from GOD,if that is true then why would anyone need more than one lover? If both people get everything they need from God (or within themselves) they shouldn't need more than one lover anyway! And how can he compare human beings to cars and pets!? I have more than one lamp in my livingroom,so that means i can have 5 lovers too,what the hell!

And by not allowing men into his circle,he is being unfair,cuz these women only have one man to have sex with yet he has more than one woman. I could only see this being a good thing for all involved if there were 2 men and 2 women. An "interdependent square"

[Fullcrum]

Yea! Let's all judge the man because he can have endless threesomes! That's a win for higher consciousness! At least he chose his lifestyle. Really, I can't help but think some of you are being bitter for not having that ability. He's right, even thinking about this stuff awakens egoic issues.

He doesn't allow men into his circle because he's not bisexual. It's quite simple really.

I react positively to this because one, it's something I would eventually want and do. And second, he has consciously chosen his lifestyle, and that is quite admirable and something that we all strive towards. So really, judging this is just silly, unless it's from experience.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by kboleski

I am not sure why the reference to God either. This isn't a lifestyle that God would approve of, so why discuss it as if it is? Take God out of the equation, and put Satan there maybe.

Maybe not your God, but let's not bring specific religions into this. God may or may not care, but I doubt it.

In general, I don't care, as long as it is working for him and those who are participating in such a relationship. I see nothing wrong, especially if the women have no problem with it, either. Who are we to say it is wrong if they all enjoy it?

However, I wouldn't do it, but I don't care if someone else does.

[solsticefall]

Having the ability to impregnate several women gives him an evolutionary advantage which is justified by rationalizing it in some soapy, philosophical manner. All in all it's just self-serving behavior typical of a man who wants to satisfy his Id's deepest desire: to reproduce with as many women as possible.

The women stay in the relationship because, as typical for many women, they create social networks in order to tap a few resources from each person - summed over many people - as their method of survival. Sex is exchanged as a token of trust and commitment to their "circle" of shared resources.

The point of any relationship is to get more out than you put in. In this particular scenario, many people are getting what they value most - but this is only temporary. Values tend to change over time.

Personally, I couldn't imagine the psychological impact induced on children who would grow up in that kind of environment. But then again, humans are animals and animals tend to behave this way in nature - indeed humans probably behaved this way in the distant past.

Even so, it's not for me. I value being considered normal - even if my behavior results in *only* impregnating one woman in the span of my life.

[Fullcrum]

That certainly is one way to look at it, solstice.

Are you sure you're not just rationalizing in your own way? Do you honestly think it's one giant rationalization? What is the best way to look at a situation like this? How do we determine the best way?

Some definitions for what makes something the "best" perspective are how close it is to an accurate truth in an objective reality or what will lead to a self-determined most fulfilling life. Both are somewhat different. But maybe they lead to the same place.

Things to consider.

[Brutha]

I value being considered normal

If you value being considered normal, why are you on this forum in the first place?
Isn't being normal boring?

Personally, I couldn't imagine the psychological impact induced on children who would grow up in that kind of environment.

Why should have it a negative impact on the children?

[solsticefall]

All actions and choices are the result of rationalization. The choices which lead someone to "self-determined most fulfilling life" are only ones of rational self-interest. Selfishness / rational self-interest is what drives all behavior, all action. It is the very foundation of each thought we think. The best way to live is one in which ourselves and as many other people as possible may benefit by our decisions. Excessively selfish behavior (defined as benefiting oneself to the detriment of others) threatens the community.

We - as a society comprised of selfish individuals - decide what the "best" situation is from how it impacts our collective lives. For instance, if this behavior results in (or is conceived to result in) abnormal, ill-behaved children that tend to grow up to threaten the peace of the community - and they in turn multiply into more that do the same - then it's in our collective best interest to refute the behavior and wall them off from enjoying the benefits of the inner social network of the community (this ranges from snubbing them to putting them in jail, depending on the 'crime' committed).

Selfishness is the foundation of morals and values summed over the trials and errors carried out over many centuries and passed down from one generation to the next. It rules the animal world and so, by extension, it rules us.

[solsticefall]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you value being considered normal, why are you on this forum in the first place?
Isn't being normal boring?
Why should have it a negative impact on the children?

How can being normal be boring when there are so many abnormal people to laugh at?

I didn't necessarily say that it would have a negative impact on the children. However, it's not difficult to imagine that if this kind of thing gets out of hand then there may be many men in the world with multiple baby-mommas and no emotional/financial/role-model support structure in which to raise them well - and years later you have many maladjusted adults who continue making excessively selfish 'mistakes' that tend to threaten the community.

[Fullcrum]

Interesting that you find it "not hard to imagine" the kids having no stable role model and being screwed for life.

But I also find it "not hard to imagine" that with such a philosophy ("rationalization" in your words) as shown in Sean's reasoning, the kids will actually be raised with all the love and support they need, if they ever have kids. Which I doubt.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Vasilisa

Very wise guy!! It's not enough for him to have several girls at his command he has to build philosphical basis for it and become a guru for other men.

Hahahaha that's the same thing I thought. And I can't help but feel impressed.

[solsticefall]

I suppose we all speak from our own personal experiences.

I was raised by a single-parent household by my mother. I watched her go from one bad relationship to another while she dragged me through all the drama that went with it. While growing up I was jealous of the other kids who lived in a stable household whose parents were dedicated, respectable, good, decent people. When I became a bit older I learned to respect those types of people (as few as there seems to be anymore) because that was the only real moral ground that I experienced.

I know this is anecdotal and that it doesn't prove or disprove anything. My point is only that "traditional values" seems (to me) to be a stable platform on which to live life, if not for any other reason than because the evolution of our species selected over many, many years for two, monogamous parents to raise their young amongst a community of others. Alternative lifestyles aren't for me. After being raised in a dysfunctional family, it's more psychologically beneficial (selfish trait) that I don't impart the same struggles I had on my children (when I have them).

[lasti]

For me there's only one man with who I want to live in a relationship. But if he had a billion women - it just wouldn't bother me. But that's not something I learned in a relationship, I learned it "in" myself.

And why should I prove this "ability" in a relationship with two other women? I'm kind of bisexual but what should I do with these other woman if I don't love them?
How probable is it that all these people love each other? I think it's amazing and rare when two people love each other!

And why should you try to find God in a relationship when you can find God in yourself?

"because the evolution of our species selected over many, many years for two, monogamous parents to raise their young amongst a community of others."

Evolution didn't do that. The people invented rules like values. What part in nature claims that there should be two monogamous people?

[solsticefall]

Originally Posted by lasti

Evolution didn't do that. The people invented rules like values. What part in nature claims that there should be two monogamous people?

Off the top of my head I can name some animals that exhibit life-long monogamous behavior: ducks, geese, swans, and macaws.

Evolution plays an integral part in animal behavior. Developing Couvades Syndrome (sympathy pains) isn't something we were socialized to do but yet there are thousands of men in the world who inexplicably exhibit this behavior (and it's quite amusing to observe, btw).

I feel this discussion is heading toward the Nature vs. Nurture argument, which normally reduces down to opinion. And since I've got homework to do tonight, I'll leave it at that.

Good discussion though.

[Fullcrum]

Evolution...hahaha.

Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, regularly have multiple partners and have sex only for pleasure and not for reproduction value. In fact, I don't recall a single primate that has monogamous relationships.

I guess it works for some birds, though, so hey.

[Brutha]

How can being normal be boring when there are so many abnormal people to laugh at?

Then I bet you have a lot to laugh in this forum. Most people here aren't exactly normal.
Steve is probably one of the more abnormelst people.

Alternative lifestyles aren't for me.

Most people would judge the idea of selfhelp or personal development as an alternative lifestyle. Most people aren't interested in it. Why are you here so much outside of the mainstream?
Isn't it more normal to just spend your time on some TV show?

I know this is anecdotal and that it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

They only thing that it could prove is that you had a bad upbringing.
I'm very sorry for you, but it doesn't mean that Stephane family is disfuntional.