User Panel
You both fail..... but since you used the Romanization (if you will) of "Sarah" that I prefer, I'll say that you fail less. The "problem" was that they each lacked faith. It's actually a very "Garden of Eden-ish" story, if you think about it. She may have planted the seed, but he was plenty wrong for watering it. |
|||
|
Then the two are not completely committed to each other swinging works in devoted couples. No one person is benefiting more than another there shouldn't be jealousy. As for the children I would say that this life style would not support them and that people practicing would need to make the decision to do something about the population and not reproduce. But thats my feeling on all modern couples people need to make up for the others that feel the need to have 5-10 children. |
||
|
I used Sarai because Hagar's son(Ismael) came before the name change of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham (Genesis chapter 16 vs Genesis chapter 17) And I only know this because I JUST finished reading those chapters in "Slightly Bad Girls of the Bible" |
||||
|
personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night.
great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy that has had sex with several different women. |
|
Warren Jefferies has as much to do with the modern LDS Church as his brand of polygamy has to do with the polygamy practiced by my ancestors. ETA: Snotty unjustified personal attack edited out in order to prevent the thread from being locked. |
||
|
Three of my mother's four sets of great-grandparents practiced polygamy, and none had any apparent family problems because of it. Plus I have known several modern-day polygamists -- in fact, I used to work with one. As I said before, polygamy today is far different than what was practiced in the past. While it wasn't a perfect system back then, it wasn't the system of quasi-incestuous pedophilia that it is today. |
||
|
An interesting point is that in the historian Quinn's account of the incident Brigham Young was told the young man had committed a sex crime, not that he had interfered with a potential plural marriage. (Another interesting point is that Michael Quinn is a gay excommunicated Mormon who has no love for the current Church heirarchy and has plenty of incentive to discredit the Church). I can imagine that in the rough frontier of 1850's America if the preacher of a local congregation said someone had been castrated for committing a sex crime, there would be unanimous agreement that it was a well-deserved punishment. Heck, if you posted an article on ARFCOM about someone being castrated for molesting kids or raping women most of the replies would be "Fantastic" followed by and "W00t!" |
||
|
Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women. |
|
|
And most women have had sex with several different men as well. |
||
|
The idea of the Line Marriage and polygamy in Heinlein's writings are about the only thing I think is crazy. The rest of his stuff makes good sense, but I believe that human nature in Western society being what it is, it would not work.
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the line marriage makes sense because of the greatly skewed male to female ratio. In Time Enough for Love, it somewhat makes sense as traditional marraige breaks down due to centuries long lifespans. However, in Stranger in a Strange Land, it seems more like a hippy commune. |
|
I may be young and naive, but I am not completely naive. I understand that most people have had sex with several different partners... My personal preference is someone that has not been around the block 20 times.. or whatever. Idon't know maybe i just have higher standards for myself and others. |
||
|
Oh, that sounds sweet. I'll have to pick that up. Thanks for the [intentional or otherwise] book recommendation. |
||
|
Eventually, all relationships become more about intimacy than about sex..... regardless of whether sex is an integral part of the equation. In Heinlein's line marriages, I'm fairly certain there were members of the marriage who were no longer intimate, sexually. It's been so long, I can't remember for sure, though.
All kinds of things that could be controlled for, amongst consenting adults. "All kinds of things could go wrong" if I decided to get a motorcycle, too. If my wife didn't want me to get one, I probably wouldn't. How much more inherent risk, really, is three spouses than two? Four than three? Five than four? Where do *you* draw the line? And is the line that you draw appropriate for everyone? If you want to elimate that risk I mentioned earlier, don't mate at all. Wash your hands thoroughly with antibac soap/etc and elimate the "other human" element entirely. Life is all about risk. And living that life is all about accepting calculated risks and rejecting risks that fall outside one's comfort zone.
That's perfectly fine. Doesn't sound like a line marriage would be for you. :shrug: It wouldn't be for my wife, either. As a strong believer in personal liberty and the associated freedom of contract, I don't have an inherent problem with it (e.g. the idea). But it's not for her, so it's not for me. That's probably not the most accurate way to put this. She can't get past the idea of it in practice (i.e. thinking about it in our situation, specifically), so she can't honestly/fairly consider the theory. I, on the other hand, see the notion that this can't (or shouldn't) even be negotiated (by anyone) as firmly rooted in jealousy/insecurity. I also think it ties in with the idea of "owning people," which I associate fairly closely with slavery or indentured servitude. |
|||
|
There's nothing wrong with high standards. I'm sure Astro was just pointing out that modern sexual practices aren't far off from the polygamy issue being discussed. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. |
|
|
Nothing wrong with high standards at all. I have them myself, as a matter of fact. |
|||
|
I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. |
|
|
I actually think it's completely fascinating, from a theoretical perspective. It really sucks; I can't even get my wife interested in the discussion, because she automatically thinks I'm asking for a third. This isn't the only philosophical discussion I can't get her interested in; just one of many. She's actually an incredibly smart individual, just not really one for these types of "what if?" discussions.
So what about now? We're living longer than ever before..... Average lifespan 2,000 years ago? vs. avg lifespan 1,000 years ago vs. avg lifespan 500 years ago vs. avg lifespan 200 years ago vs. avg lifespan 100 years ago vs. avg lifespan today vs. avg lifespan 100 years from now vs. avg lifespan 200 years from now vs. avg lifespan 500 years from now vs. avg lifespan 1,000 years from now vs. avg lifespan 2,000 years from now? At what avg lifespan does it become OK and at which will it remain taboo?
I really need to finish cleaning out the storage bldg and get my boxes of books back. |
|||
|
I think, if handled right, it wouldn't be *much* different than back in the "good old days" when you had a big family living together under one roof (parents, grandparents, etc) and everybody pitched in. We didn't call our parents "communist" because they didn't want to turn Grandma out and decided to let her live with them, did we? This never happened to me, personally, but I know plenty of people who've had so-called "extended family" living with them growing up. I'm sure I'm coming at this from a different perspective because my father died when I was only 8 and my mother wasn't much for child-rearing. Thank GOD my Grandmother lived close by and was able to watch me, somewhat. She was able to help with my raising a good deal. But for my father's memory, my Grandmother's willingness, and the Grace of God, I wasn't far from an orphan. Oh, and who here has "God-parents"? |
||
|
We also weren't banging grandma on days when your father was shagging your wife.. There is a HUGE GIGANTIC MONGO difference between setting up spare rooms for the people who brought you into this world and raised you, and living with other similar aged couples and 'chaning sleeping partners' at a whim.
I've had my MIL living with us over the summer. I get along with my MIL, and she was enthusiastic about helping out with the daily chores. But there were issues (more so with my wife than me) and when the kids hear one thing from Grandma and another from Mommy about what they can do - let's just say things get interesting. Now if instead of Grandma (who my wife 'outranks) what if it was Mommy #2 vs Mommy#3? Wow that would be some fireworks!
I do, as do my children. I am a God-parent to my nephew. As my family has taught me 'God Parents' are responsible for the childs religeous training should something happen to the parents. We don't live with them, and I sure as heck would not sleep with my children's God-mothers (one of who is a family member). |
|||
|
I understand what you're getting at, but most real life examples have a more solid dynamic than the OP's suggestion. I have some ancestors on my mom's side that were polygamists, but only one husband involved with multiple wives. Though the dynamic worked, they faced struggles with it. Mostly tied to jealousy between some of the wives despite efforts to cherish them all equally. Adding multiple men to multiple wives all sharing eachother and I don't believe the dynamic will hold together very well. People are too flawed with jealousy, bitterness, etc. That's why I see the idea of "communal" marriage resulting in more of a swingers club...until even that breaks down and it becomes a hippy-ish sex-with-everyone romp and the concept of "marriage" falls by the wayside. As for God-Parents, grandparents, cousins, etc., having them all live under the same roof is one thing, having them sleep with eachother is something else entirely. |
|||
|
In all seriousness... it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad? Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is? (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?) |
||
|
Given the careers modern women have, it shouldn't be a problem at all. One wife could stay home and take care of the kids, the other three could have high powered careers, and the man could stay at home and clean his guns. |
|
|
Good question. I don't know what the hypothetical answer would be but in real life modern polygamy the first marriage is usually the official one while the other women involved are referred to as "spiritual wives". Even then I've never heard of an actual case were multiple husbands and wives were all married together under the same roof. The "spiritual wife" answer is how they attempt to dodge the legal issue and can still list themselves as single mothers in order to abuse the welfare system. |
|||
|
Did I say we were?
"Not to the kids who are being raised by them" was my point. My wife and I don't have any family where we're at. We also don't have too terribly many non-work friends/acquaintences here. All our real close friends in the area are "Aunt This" or "Uncle That" to our kids. I wouldn't sleep with any of my wife's friends, nor she with mine, but several of us could probably live together.
Maybe decide that like grown-ups? What if your kids hear two different things from Mommy and Daddy? Who 'outranks' whom, then? I'll assume you've had this all worked out in advance. It's not hard. One way would be for "actual parents" to be the final arbiters of stuff for their own kids, but ostensibly you'd trust these other people enough to make on-the-fly decisions and go from there. Oh, it *wasn't* OK to let Jimmy spend the night with Bobby? Well, I know that now and it won't happen again. Was it an honest mistake, or did Jimmy manipulate me into making it? If so, then he's disciplined appropriately. Just like you don't play Mommy off of Daddy (or vice-versa) in my house, I'd imagine you'd set up a situation where the kids were forbidden from playing Mommy #1 off of Mommy #2 and such and such.
So should I tease you that "it takes a village"? Hey, Forest, could I borrow your copy of Hillary's book when you're done with it? No, it's actually quite an honorable thing.
Certainly that was the traditional concept. My point was that it's really not an entirely foreign concept. Extrapolate a little. You're an engineer.
Well, in your particular case.... d'uh. My Godmother was my maternal grandmother. I'd have been fucked if both my parents had been in that car. She died not long after. We don't have Godparents for our kids. But if we did, they'd be close/dear friends, not [biological] family. My best friend from back home is my "brother from another mother". He'd fill the role, if asked. I also wouldn't have a problem with he and my wife marrying, if I died tomorrow. It's not a giant leap. |
|||||||||
|
Wise_Jake, You're a smart person and I respect you, but I must absolutely disagree with the statement that, "it's not hard."Parenting is rarely easy, even with only one kid. Combine that with the fact that we as a country have an attrocious divorce rate and it is safe to say that adults have a hard enough time working out a relationship between two people before making the dynamic even more complicated. Consider the threads we've seen on AR15.com these past few years about single parents getting married and how they have to work through the hurdles of how the parenting of the children will be handled. Not trying to give you a hard time, but I just want to point out that even the most basic traditional family struggles to sort out family rules and enforcement, and we have evidence that many, many couples aren't up to the challenge. I'm not advocating nor condemning the concept of polygamy, but merely pointing out the challenges it poses and how it plays out in real life today. It's far from a simple thing. |
|
|
never heard spiritual wife....always heard sister wife. TLC or something had a show on a family that practiced the more the one wives.....they were a non religious bunch...there were 2 wives and he was trying to introduce a 3rd who the other two did not want |
||||
|
Both terms are frequently used. "Spiritual wife" frequently used by the men referring to the women and "sister wife" being used by the women to refer to eachother. Trying to introduce a 3rd that the other two don't want?! That man is a glutton for punishment. |
|||||
|
Keeping 1 woman happy is already a PITA.
I promise I could deal with the bitching x N (N>1). I don't want to get in a swordfight in my own bedroom either. F THAT Heinlein, bless his heart, was crazy as a bedbug in his later years with all that free love BS. Still love his books though, even some of the ones in that phase of his writing. |
|
In my family that so rarely happens it's not a big issue. The kids know mommy & daddy back each other - it's easier to do with only 2 parents.
Yes it is. We had given the kids certain instructions that their grandmother was trying to countermand. That set up confusion in the kids and caused problems. In a couple of these incidents we (my wife and I ) were away from home so we could not immediate fix the problem. Now you want to add in more parents? Ever try to get a comittee to decide on anything - esepcially when 2 of the member have different ideas and there is not 'chairman'? It's like trying to herd cats - a total charlie foxtrot.
Who is the 'actual parent'? Can you tell if the adults are busy playing musical bedrooms? Even if you could - what happens when one 'actual' parents tells their kid they can do something - and another 'actual' parents tells their kid (of the same age and responsibility) they can't? I SURE AS HECK would not want to live in that situation. And it will happen, time and time again. , but ostensibly you'd trust these other people enough to make on-the-fly decisions and go from there.
Sorry things don't work that easy. Countermand a decision can not only screw up other people's plans - but it causes anguish all around.
So should I tease you that "it takes a village"? Hey, Forest, could I borrow your copy of Hillary's book when you're done with it? Sorry I don't get it. What does having or being a God-Parent have to do with Hillary's moronic book? A God-Parent is more a 'backup' than a 'supplement'. Extrapolate a little. You're an engineer. I am extrapolaing, based on my experience as a father and husband, and seeing how people react. [Richard Dawson]Survey Says "Does Not End Well ...........99%"[/Richard Dawson] We don't have Godparents for our kids. But if we did, they'd be close/dear friends, not [biological] family. My wife's best friend (they grew up together in NYC) is my son's God-Mother. A good dear person - who in no way would I ever share my bed. I also wouldn't have a problem with he and my wife marrying, if I died tomorrow. It's not a giant leap.Umm if you don't have a problem with your best friend shaggin your wife, then who am I to stop you. It's one thing for 2 families to share a home, and say some living expenses (food, energy, housing). But in that case the kids know who their parents are. It's quite another to extend that so Mommy occsasionaly sleeps in 'Uncle Freds room' while Daddy plays with Aunt Matilda. Heather has Two Mommies was bad enough - but Heather has Three Momies and Two Daddies would be an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of the mess things would be (especially for the Children) should there be a divorce.. |
||||||
|
Oh, my apologies, Shane. I actually agree with you totally. I should have been more clear in my original post. I was saying the logic in question was "not hard".... not the act of parenting, itself. I came up with the rough model I used as an example in about two seconds. I'm sure some people with an actual vested interest in the outcome of a situation like that could come up with something better if they thought about it for a little while.* * and maybe prayed about it, if they happened to be praying folk. |
||
|
This is actually of a less concern than you would think. We're not talking of the hippie of the 60's and their free love. We're talking about a group of 4 to 12, maybe more, indiviuals that are committed to one another. I'd imagine if I were in such a situation I would require any new members into the marriage be tested for STD's. In regards to your last statement, good luck in these days and times. |
|
|
I agree on all points here. Human nature of Western society can't handle it. I'm just saying that if by some overnight change in culture I think it could be of some benefit. Stranger in a Strange Land was real popular with the hippe movement and I don't think Heinlein really thought much about them. I wonder if the "free love" of the 60's affected is writting in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love. ...and you want to talk about some taboo topics! Time Enough for Love is full of them! Gives "self love" a whole new meaning! |
|
|
Hold your head high and be proud. |
|||
|
Swinger'sClub is about sex. Polygamy is about not only sex, but intimacy and economics. |
||
|
not again for sure |
|
|
They should just allow it for low-life mormons, where it belongs.
|
|
A heirom isn't degrading? It is devaluaing (degrading) to give 5 women each 20 % of your love and affection, but expecting 100% from each of them. 1) There was indeed strife in the home between Haagar and Sarah.
And, here we see that Leah was degraded (unloved)
|
||||
|
In Robert Heinlein's worlds, they always knew who the fathers were because they kept extensive records. However, in Heinlien's novels, women chose to get pregnant when they wanted. So, if a woman wanted to get pregnant by a certian man in the marriage she only had sex with him. Also, in Heinlein's novels, it was normal the women that introduced new members to the marraige, wether they were male or female. If the new member was male, the women that introduced him would normally be the one to become pregnant by him first, unless she was introducing him because she knew that another wife was found of him then they would make sure the first child was between those two. |
|||
|
Same here. And I actually *agree* that it's easier with only two parents (or at least that only seems logical to me). Look at guns or cars. Some have simple systems; some complex. With few exceptions, I'll choose the more simple system. Usually less can go wrong. KISS and all that. But that's not to say that families can't be extensible systems. Or at least I don't think so.
Again, sorry. I was talking about the logic at play, not the actual parenting in practice.
Ah, the ol' meddlin' mother-in-law routine. Seen it. So has my wife. We mitigate that by keeping them at arm's length. Usually.
Without a doubt.
IMO, that's actually more likely to happen with blood relations like mother-in-laws. They've got an agenda wrt those kids. I would think the "other parents" would be more like a hybrid babysitter and distant family member (like a cousin or uncle or aunt or something). You would also live with these ppl 24/7, so you know them better, and you'd damn sure better trust them in this capacity, or you [no 'probably' here] shouldn't be living with them in the first place.
I work in academia. Committees left and friggin' right. I've chaired committees (and teams, and task forces, etc, etc, etc). I've been a member of aforementioned groups serving a chair. I've even been on a couple glorious "chair-less" committees. You can still get things done. I've led committees I've not chaired and I've allowed others to lead committees I've chaired. Every organization with an "official hierarchy" will also have an unofficial hierarchy. They're rarely the same.
It certainly can be.
We run into something similar when some of our daughter's school friends are allowed to talk back to their parents. Even at four, she realizes and knows that different parents have different rules. She's smart enough to know that shit doesn't fly with her parents.
When we left our kids with the MIL a couple months ago so that we could go on a date, we told our daughter (the one who's old enough to understand) that "Mi-Mi" was in charge while Mommy and Daddy were gone. The same as I'd do with a babysitter (we've never used one, however). I didn't feel it was fair to ask Mi-Mi to watch our cretins and expect her to mind-read and know everything we wanted, how we'd act/react in every situation. She's a grown-up and we trust her with our kids, or we wouldn't leave them with her.
Again, that's the traditional role. I was just bringing the concept up because it's familiar to many people and not an incredible leap from one to the other. Did you ever go stay with your God-parents for a week? For the summer? Etc? They're not your parents, but when you're with them, they're running the show.
I have no qualms with admitting that 99% is probably about right.
My wife's best friend where we're at has big ol' boobies. But I wouldn't ever share my bed w/ her, either. Even if she was hot (she's not, though she is "sweet"). She's an anti-gun, anti-self defense modern liberal. She "could never take someone else's life," even if it meant giving up her own. Not only would I never share a bed with her, she'll never baby-sit our kids, either. Even if we're desperate, and even if she offers. I can't trust her to protect them. And it also makes me question her judgement wrt a litany of other things.
Yeah, I want her to be a widow forever after I'm dead and try to raise the kids alone. Like my mother "tried" to do (chuckle). Obviously, she'd be much better at it than my mom was, but it's a hard life that I wouldn't wish on her for anything. My best friend is a *great* dad. FWIW, I also wouldn't have a problem if they were just good platonic friends and decided to move in together to be "roommates" and raise the three kids together. I'm dead. What do I care except that my kids are taken care of? Anything else is selfish with one foot left in the world of the living, IMO. "Head for the light," and all that.
Kids are smart. I think they can remember who their Mommy and Daddy are.
Divorces are messy anyway. :shrug: These sort of things *could* actually be easier in group marriages. They could also be harder. Since I'm coming at this largely from a contract (e.g. freedom of contract) perspective anyway, I see it kind of like this:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's a whole other topic but I see where you're coming from. I never noticed before but this issue wasn't really addressed in Heinlein's novels due to the fact of how long people lived and normally if an indivual came into a marriage that already had children they were already grown and out on their own. I know for certain that a single parent coming into a marriage such as this would be trouble brewing unless the kids were at a very young age and wouldn't really know what's going on. |
|
|
Classy. Very classy. |
|
|
Yeah, I'm not too happy about that either. Thanks to everyone else that didn't slide down the slippery slope of ignorance. |
||
|
Hypothetically, yes it is possible to have such an arrangement without STD's being introduced. In real life finding 4 people interested in this lifestyle without any of them bringing STD's into the equation would be a challenge unless they all come from an extremely conservative lifestyle in terms of sex. Finding 12 people with no STD's would be an exponentially greater challenge. Not impossible, but difficult to say the least. |
||
|
In the polygamy you describe, with multiple husbands and multiple wives all living married to eachother, I predict that intimacy and economics would be early casualties. Just my personal view. |
|||
|
Hmmm, I don't know. I highly suspect that a lot of the couples I know don't have any STD's. I know my wife and I don't so I can only assume that there are several other couples out there that don't also. I know one thing. If I were to be involved in any such arrangement it would be a death nail to any individual that acquired a STD. |
|||
|
As wise_jake mentioned earlier, more than likely the older members of the marriage would be more into the intimacy than the sex and the younger more into the sex. I know in my relationships, in the beginning, sex was very important then the frequency dropped after a while. Heck, these days at my age, it's more like work than anything else. However, there are those nights, mornings, days that I almost rape the wife! (figuratively of course). Best way I can describe it is the beans in a jar for the newly weds. Put a bean in the jar for everytime you have sex during the first year of marraige. After the first year, you start taking the beans out of the jar every time you have sex...the jar never gets emptied during the rest of the marraige. I don't see why it'd be any different except to say there would be a little more sex going on every time a new member was introduced. |
||||
|
I have a number of friends in the Pagan/Wiccan community, including several "open relationships" and at least one "partnership" of two married couples living together and swapping around. And I've never seen one last. Watching the aftermath of one now, friend got testing just to be sure he was actually the father of his son, ex-wife gets all kinds of child-support claiming she has no other income, while she's advertising on swinger's sites that she's in a triad relationship with the other married couple and handles the housework, child care, and household finances. And she's pulling all the control games over the kid, trying to deny visitation, only allowing the minimum the court mandates, etc...
As for Heinlein, as the husband of a science fiction author, I'll let you in on a little secret - it works because the author wants it to. Heinlein set up a plausible explanation for the stability (that the women were in charge of introducing potential new spouses), so the readers would buy it. |
|
I think most of us realize that and as stated before, I think we all agree that our culture of today can not handle this idea. However, it could be possible in future times with a different culture and beliefs. |
|
|
i don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do. if a guy wants to have 2, 4, 10 wives, who cares? if some chick wants to have 3 or 4 husbands, who cares? if two couples want to get married to eachother, who cares? if 3 or 4 gay guys want to get married, who cares?
.gov (whether state, local, or fed) has its hand in way too much stuff and should not be enforcing rules of morality. prostitution should not be illegal either UNLESS a particular pimp/business/whatever is using underage prostitutes or is abusing the women. if you don't agree with something, just don't do it and leave everyone else alone. |
|
Howdy, fellow Texan. I also want the government "out of our bedrooms," because -- while I won't state anything definitively -- there's a high likelihood that "our bedroom" is where I keep the gun cabinet. Link to a related thread, if anyone's interested. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.