Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

[Luke]

You've just been misled your entire life that only one person can rule, and it's a false tradition and teaching of man, mingled with scripture.

But you defend the one man doctrine in light of all the evidence that it's not true.

There's a strong disconnect here.

A father ruler rules over his children, not his wife.

This is so contrary to the Temple ceremony revealed through Joseph, although jives nicely with the modern, corrupted, altered, politically correct version.

[FrankOne]

You can't have a patriarchy without a matriarchy. Father and mother are equal partners when ruling over their children. It's not a husbandarchy.

Not even sure what this has to do with men getting women pregnant and then leaving them to fend for themselves.

Stronger men getting weaker women pregnant and leaving them to fend for themselves is the natural order.

It exists all around us.

We pretend not to see it.

Society is breaking down.

You will soon need to have organized family units large enough to defend themselves and take/keep territory.

Or be killed or enslaved.

This is what is coming unless you bend the knee to the Banksters and join them.

Most people will bend the knee.

And be culled.

Only large families tied by blood will be able to survive outside the system.

There is currently no patriarical order operating anywhere in the Western World.

Including in our church.

Women and children rule.

Cucks abound.

Jesus is not coming to save us.

We deserve this for not keeping our individual nation's bloodlines separate from each other.

That is our Sin.

God blesses Nations.

No Nations, no one to bless.

We are attempting to recreate the Tower of Babel.

It won't work this time either.

Good luck.

Sir H

One of the best posts that I've read on this site. That which is the most unpopular and most unpolitically correct is the most true. I used to be speak this pointedly, but people today automatically recoil to such a degree that their ears are stopped up.

^"Women and children rule."

Isaiah 3:12 - As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
(the above scripture is in the context of the time immediately preceding the millennial period)

I could cite the verse about the ratio of 7:1 women to men, but that subject has been debated too many times already.

edit to add: I do not agree with the necessity of keeping "our nations bloodlines pure" . God is the creator of all men and his people are all people with no respect of different bloodlines. I realize this contradicts the OT teachings, but that is my viewpoint.

This scripture is symbolic, and does not mean what you think it means.

and you know this how? The operative word in the interrogatory is "KNOW". You've represented your viewpoint as fact.

[FrankOne]

clips:

"Single motherhood has grown so common in America that today 80 percent of single-parent families are headed by single mothers — nearly a third live in poverty."

"Around half (52.3%) of single mothers have never married, almost a third (29.3%) are divorced, 18.4% are either separated or widowed. Half have one child, 30% have two. About two thirds are White, one third Black."

source: https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

=================

Modern society is balanced on the end of a vertical toothpick. The strength of society rests on the traditional family structure of Patriarchy. Right now, Patriarchy is considered evil and the word itself causes 98% of all women today to cringe. For some, it would be necessary to use the term "male leadership" .

When economic breakdown comes and govt support ends , "the truth on this point will become self evident".

You can't have a patriarchy without a matriarchy. Father and mother are equal partners when ruling over their children. It's not a husbandarchy.

Not even sure what this has to do with men getting women pregnant and then leaving them to fend for themselves.

you can't have both at the same time . The terms:

Patriarchy -
patriarchy (n.)from Latinized form of Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs "male chief or head of a family"

from pater "father" (see father (n.)) + arkhein "to rule"

the root of ark means : "to rule, lead the way, govern, rule over, be leader of,"

matri- means woman. with same definition except the woman rules.

equality does not exist in either one of these forms of organization. There can only be one captain on a ship,otherwise, the ship goes into circles and flounders.

it's obvious.

You can have them both at the same time. You've just been misled your entire life that only one person can rule, and it's a false tradition and teaching of man, mingled with scripture. Nowhere in the scriptures do we even see the phrase "patriarchal order," or the word "patriarchy." People have made up words and applied them to ideas.

A father ruler rules over his children, not his wife. A mother ruler rules over her children and not her husband. They are to be one flesh, have one mind and one heart. That is the doctrine. Why don't you apply your captain idea to the US government, and get rid of the Legislative and Judicial branch of government, just for fun.

from what you've said in several posts, I now realize that it would be impossible to even find a common language which would enable us to communicate. It isn't about being on the same page, it's about not being in the same library.

So, if I don't respond to any certain post of yours, it's because there is no bridge long enough which would span the space between us.

Your posts are interesting, nonetheless. Entertaining.

[ori]

Thou shalt not murder would be the commandment as far as I can tell. Thou shalt not kill is a bad translation.

I was thinking exactly this. The Book of Mormon even says:

----------------------------

12 We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do.

13 But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us.

14 Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.

----------------------------

Several stories in the Book of Mormon make it clear that killing is NOT wrong in some limited situations to defend liberty.

[ori]

Nowhere in the scriptures do we even see the phrase "patriarchal order," or the word "patriarchy." People have made up words and applied them to ideas.

"Patriarch" is in the scriptures. "Matriarch" is not. Hm....

[Thinker]

Speaking of entertainment…
Of the many controversial issues of the church, polygamy is by far, the most popular among men. This doesn’t just go for men on this forum - but also in ex-Mormon circles. Whether men are for or against polygamy, how entertaining that they can go on & on & on… about it and never get tired!

And for what? Why?
Are they practicing polygamy? No!
Are they taking steps to begin? No!
Is there a good chance they ever will? No!!

So… this polygamy obsession is
PURE FANTASY!
Like imaginative porn that some men get off on - since discussing it ad nauseam is the closest thing they can get to it. Kinda like porn is the closest some guys get to sex.

Is that better than sleeping around? Sure.
Is that living the higher law of not lusting? Probably not.
Would his wife love to discuss this ad nausea along with him? No!
Is polygamy AS IS - moral? No!
Look at what they do to all the excess boys and men!
So lusting after something immoral is a double or triple no-no.

Will this inspire self reflection or just piss off the polygamy-obsessing men? Will they consider possible truths above, or shoot the messenger yet again?

[Mangus MacLeod]

Speaking of entertainment…
Of the many controversial issues of the church, polygamy is by far, the most popular among men. This doesn’t just go for men on this forum - but also in ex-Mormon circles. Whether men are for or against polygamy, how entertaining that they can go on & on & on… about it and never get tired!

And for what? Why?
Are they practicing polygamy? No!
Are they taking steps to begin? No!
Is there any chance in in this life they will? No!!

So… this polygamy obsession is
PURE FANTASY!
Like imaginative porn that some men get off on - since discussing it ad nauseam is the closest thing they can get to it. Kinda like porn is the closest some guys get to sex.

Is that better than sleeping around? Sure.
Is that living the higher law of not lusting? Probably not.
Would his wife love to discuss this ad nausea along with him? No!
Is polygamy AS IS - moral? No!
Look at what they do to all the excess boys and men!
So lusting after something immoral is a double or triple no-no.

Will this inspire self reflection or just piss off the polygamy-obsessing men? Will they consider possible truths above, or shoot the messenger yet again?

Good point. Talk is cheap — all the way around!

I used to have a sign in my office that said: “Talk is cheap — until you hire a lawyer.”

Here it could be “Polygamy talk is cheap — until you get a second wife.”

Yes, that measuring stick will separate the talkers from the walkers.

In the meantime, there’s no room for anything but talk among the nay-sayers. Their world doesn’t include any room or potential for anything but talk — negative, dissing, nay-saying talk — so there is that difference.

[FrankOne]

Speaking of entertainment…
Of the many controversial issues of the church, polygamy is by far, the most popular among men. This doesn’t just go for men on this forum - but also in ex-Mormon circles. Whether men are for or against polygamy, how entertaining that they can go on & on & on… about it and never get tired!

And for what? Why?
Are they practicing polygamy? No!
Are they taking steps to begin? No!
Is there a good chance they ever will? No!!

So… this polygamy obsession is
PURE FANTASY!
Like imaginative porn that some men get off on - since discussing it ad nauseam is the closest thing they can get to it. Kinda like porn is the closest some guys get to sex.

Is that better than sleeping around? Sure.
Is that living the higher law of not lusting? Probably not.
Would his wife love to discuss this ad nausea along with him? No!
Is polygamy AS IS - moral? No!
Look at what they do to all the excess boys and men!
So lusting after something immoral is a double or triple no-no.

Will this inspire self reflection or just piss off the polygamy-obsessing men? Will they consider possible truths above, or shoot the messenger yet again?

Lots of fixed conclusions there . A bucket of them.
Are we to observe your conclusions as facts even if they contradict reality?

[Sarah]

Stronger men getting weaker women pregnant and leaving them to fend for themselves is the natural order.

It exists all around us.

We pretend not to see it.

Society is breaking down.

You will soon need to have organized family units large enough to defend themselves and take/keep territory.

Or be killed or enslaved.

This is what is coming unless you bend the knee to the Banksters and join them.

Most people will bend the knee.

And be culled.

Only large families tied by blood will be able to survive outside the system.

There is currently no patriarical order operating anywhere in the Western World.

Including in our church.

Women and children rule.

Cucks abound.

Jesus is not coming to save us.

We deserve this for not keeping our individual nation's bloodlines separate from each other.

That is our Sin.

God blesses Nations.

No Nations, no one to bless.

We are attempting to recreate the Tower of Babel.

It won't work this time either.

Good luck.

Sir H

One of the best posts that I've read on this site. That which is the most unpopular and most unpolitically correct is the most true. I used to be speak this pointedly, but people today automatically recoil to such a degree that their ears are stopped up.

^"Women and children rule."

Isaiah 3:12 - As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
(the above scripture is in the context of the time immediately preceding the millennial period)

I could cite the verse about the ratio of 7:1 women to men, but that subject has been debated too many times already.

edit to add: I do not agree with the necessity of keeping "our nations bloodlines pure" . God is the creator of all men and his people are all people with no respect of different bloodlines. I realize this contradicts the OT teachings, but that is my viewpoint.

This scripture is symbolic, and does not mean what you think it means.

and you know this how? The operative word in the interrogatory is "KNOW". You've represented your viewpoint as fact.

Sorry, I guess I should have said, "this is how I believe it should be interpreted."

[Sarah]

You've just been misled your entire life that only one person can rule, and it's a false tradition and teaching of man, mingled with scripture.

But you defend the one man doctrine in light of all the evidence that it's not true.

There's a strong disconnect here.

A father ruler rules over his children, not his wife.

This is so contrary to the Temple ceremony revealed through Joseph, although jives nicely with the modern, corrupted, altered, politically correct version.

One person presiding over the body or quorum which all hold keys is to make sure they are acting as one and are united. But the belief that anyone who has the Priesthood can exercise all the keys any way they want to, is not acting unitedly as one, and wouldn't be of the Lord not acting unitedly.

In my statement above, I believe that the man and wife relationship is equal and one, just as two members of the quorum of the apostles would be equal and one. It's not exactly the same of course, but hopefully you see the point of having a presiding authority to direct the united quorum members in using those keys so everyone is on the same page with the united decisions that have been made. In a marriage what are the Priesthood keys? They both hold the "keys" equally in having authority to procreate, and their ability to direct and bless their family as an anointed King and Queen, Priest and Priestess

[Sarah]

You've just been misled your entire life that only one person can rule, and it's a false tradition and teaching of man, mingled with scripture.

But you defend the one man doctrine in light of all the evidence that it's not true.

There's a strong disconnect here.

A father ruler rules over his children, not his wife.

This is so contrary to the Temple ceremony revealed through Joseph, although jives nicely with the modern, corrupted, altered, politically correct version.

In regards to the temple ceremony, no one was there when it was revealed to Joseph, so who knows what stuff was pure revelation and what was added in. Or maybe that's what the men wanted, to rule over their wives, and so he let them interpret the obedience covenant that way, otherwise it would all be equal. Who knows. To me it makes no sense to place the husband between God and the woman when she essentially covenants to obey God at baptism and has the privilege of having the Holy Ghost (God) tell her what she should do. We see also that the past covenant was made because she was the first to eat, so it's part of her punishment and curse, not part of the marriage ceremony. Those curses will be lifted, right? Sounds like you're counting on woman's curses being with her through eternity.

[Mangus MacLeod]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It has nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It has nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are viewed as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything, and I can say with assurance that this is not an uncommon theme.

In addition, I also have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all of her entitlements as a modern Mormon woman.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue, and becoming bigger all the time — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything their husbands own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

[FrankOne]

The following is a post I made earlier in the thread but I'm not sure that it was viewed much because it simply posted as a 'quote' instead of new post. I removed the quote command so it reads better. I'm posting it again because some parts are relative to "productivity" which now applies to the current trend of the thread. I've made a few additions from my last post.

McLeod's words are in black and mine are in blue.
========================================

There is so, so very much more to this whole equation than meets the eye, but I don't really see the point of going too much farther with it. I do appreciate those who have added their perspectives, especially when they have been fresh perspectives.

---- Your approach to this subject brings the subject into a more sensible and practical view which is misunderstood by most due to predispositions caused by biased preferences. As you've said, there isn't much more that can be iterated, but it could be discussed by those of like mind.

In other words, many women have some fascination and/or interest in a reproductive orientation, especially if they can continue to maintain a fully consumptive orientation,

---What I see you describing is a woman, having the drive for reproduction, but lacking the sense of responsibility after the fact. One that lives for entertainment, not productivity.

but very, very few are interested in say, an Agrarian lifestyle, where children are actually considered to be both a blessing and an asset, and women maintain both productive and reproductive roles (as is the case in most Anabaptist communities), just like men do, but to a lesser degree. The husband/father may be fully responsible for providing full financial support, for example, but in addition to bearing children, women might reasonably be expected to help tend a large garden, help do chores, possibly milk a cow, make cheese and butter, "put-up" (bottle) food, bake bread, cook, etc., and play a productive role in the whole equation.

----In basics, this ^ is a description of what we are taught today as "old fashioned thinking". This way has been assaulted by every faction of every media form as well as now... even all organized religions . The "what about me, and what I want'?" generation has, in general, taken over the world. Has anyone observed the condition of today? The culture? It has failed due to this pernicious teaching which has completely destroyed the fabric of the nation. The idea of "self freedom" and "overbearing patriarchy" has decimated the family. How did families do 50 yrs ago? What type of life did people enjoy 50 yrs ago? I recall a father that worked and my mother stayed home to tend to the house and us kids. I recall carefree living and going on trips in a station wagon while singing and playing games in the car. I recall unity. .

This unity existed because each knew there part in the equation of a functional family. Now...in this 'new think' generation, what do we have? We have disassociation. Separation. Each one glued to a separate life of engaging in phones and social media. Each insulated from the other. If this "new way" is so good and patriarchy is so evil, why has everything gone to hell after patriarchy was abandoned? The core to this problem is the simple truth that emotion now over-rides reason. Men have failed to lead and women have taken up the role. ...all...by ...design...of the adversary. Families are destroyed.

In my experience and observation, it is that side of the equation that very, very few young American women (or young Americans of either gender) are interested in. Finding any young people with any production-orientation these days is like trying to find a needle in a haystack That is part of the dilemma for an old-fashioned agrarian like me.

----Applies to my response above.

.
One of the fundamental Laws of Nature is that eventually all truth becomes self-evident. As an example, for centuries the earth was believed to be flat, but eventually the truth became self-evident. This has been the case throughout history and will continue to be so as all truth slowly reveals itself. Although neither the Laws of Nature nor truth evolve, our understanding of them does, and truth will always be truth whether we recognize it or not. Historically, virtually all ground-breaking truth—including actual scientific truth—goes through three basic phases: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, and finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.

----What is about to happen in this world will be the sorting out of the Laws of Nature. These laws will become self evident and there will no longer be any debate.

Although it is true that not all men (or women) are wired exactly the same, or have exactly the same needs, but subject to obvious exceptions, there are some general rules that apply, as follows:

To that end, what nature (the Natural Man -- a man’s pea-sized brain and bowling ball sized testicles) tells a man is that he should spread his seed as far and wide, and mate as often as possible, with as many partners as possible. That is, by nature, how he is instinctively wired, and that is a natural reality as real as the law of gravity. But what civilized human nurture (including religion, etc.) tells a man is that he should settle down with one woman and her children, and protect and provide for them. There is a huge natural conflict, clash and tug-of-war between these competing forces of nature vs. nurture -- especially as men and women mature, and their natural sex drive runs in opposite directions.

----As you likely intended---- An evolved man disciplines his instinctive drive to inseminate every woman and instead responsibly procreates only with those within his own scope of responsibility. Structure of family is absolutely necessary to create a productive and joyful organization. When women or children become unproductive, they are always miserable even though they pretend otherwise. Men, of course experience the same misery when the shirk responsibility or work

And, the reality is, as general rule, and obviously speaking in generalities, one of the reality-based keys (not the only one, but an important one) to satisfying these two competing forces and keeping everything within some semblance of balance — is the man’s ability and opportunity to have and maintain an adequate/satisfying sexual outlet. If that is not part of the equation, basic human nature, just like the law of gravity, will have its due, take its course, and exact its toll. I completely understand that a woman/wife will not want to "make love" (have sex) with a man who is not meeting her emotional needs.

----The great work of any man is to understand the difference between leadership and tyranny. A man that doesn't make the conscious effort to understand his wife(s) is doomed. Also, a man that becomes entangled in trying to placate and appease rather than teach might as well be one of the wives....he has become a eunic. Castrated. (the average modern man)



How many can really grasp the reality-based implications for plural marriage? Think about it.

[HereWeGo]

I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

Marriage should be a two way street. If one person doesn't contribute to a marriage, it isn't a real marriage. Your son will be much happier finding a spouse who is willing to contribute. I know this from personal experience. Being an enabler to a spouse will not end well.

[hyloglyph]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a modern issue.

BUT. Maybe it isn’t.

There is a very old and very ancient tradition that ties in to this school of thought.


This is something that someone once wrote:


“It is at the very foundation of all Abrahamic religions. It’s at the base of many other ancient holy traditions too.

It predates the flood.

It’s so universal that it stretches back almost into another reality.

It is a common idea that is shared by almost all faiths that:

In the beginning, when man first became conscious and self aware— right when he first started to grapple with the heavy concepts of Right and Wrong, before that having been innocent and childlike— it is said that right at that very moment when his eyes were opened and the realities of life crashed onto him— the story goes that the very first thought had by the very first man was something like “oh sh¡t my wife has got us into a bad situation”

Traditionally, that is believed to be the very first conscious thought.

And all religions are based on this— the man and woman resolving to work together to make things right between themselves and their Creator.

And so,

Should you find yourselves overleveraged, paying a mortgage and bills and running against the wind just to be able to live and raise a family in a spot where your water, food, power, and all necessities are dispensed by large government agencies and large faceless corporations, and your wives and kids friends and neighbors and teachers and the whole culture are all heading down a consumptive and unrealistic path— and you are only in this position because you were young and dumb and fairly innocent as far as wisdom goes and just went along with the type of thing has been considered normal and respectable— don’t worry. All is not lost. You just have to man up and lead your family into a safer and more wholesome situation. It’s a tale as old as time. It is the man’s duty to provide and protect and receive inspiration from the creator and to make sure that his family is living in a way where the blessings of heaven can be enjoyed. And then it’s the wife’s gift to be able to make the situation that the husband puts the family into a beautiful thing.

But in most cases, if you have been living in a modern way for a while, then the first obstacle you encounter will be a big nasty clash with your own wife. But don’t worry! That clash is not unrighteous. It is normal. Remember Lehi. Remember Adam. Remember Abraham and Lot. You aren’t supposed to give your wife everything she wants. It is okay to disagree with her. It is okay to be firm minded in some things. Especially things that pertain to your familys physical and spiritual health. Your wife might put up a fight about it for a while, something about standard of living and comforts and etc but eventually she will come around and will respect you for manning up. She won’t leave you, especially if you have kids together. In the end she will love you for doing it and your kids and posterity will respect it.

Remember our ancestors, filled with faith and courage loaded their loved ones onto ships and crossed oceans knowing that nothing but untamed wilderness awaited them on the distant shore. And then a few generations later their posterity did the same thing again except their paths lead them across vast plains with nothing but untamed wilderness waiting for them on the other side. Their blood is still in us. We have it much more comfortable than them. It will be easy for us to get out of the cycle of worldly consumption. Just need to find a few MEN willing to gamble on Providence.

Almost every single Christian marriage and family I know of is in this type of unholy situation to one degree or another. But it’s okay! There is hope.

The oldest idea in the world is to wake up and realize that you are in a tight spot because female sensibilities weren’t fully aware of all the devils cunning snares but there is time and there are ways to sort everything out. Wives can’t be expected to make all the decisions and have a good outcome. They need input and leadership from their husbands! Such is the lot of man and has been since the beginning.“


I do not know if that is relevant or not but I think it is.

[Sarah]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

That's cool that you used to be an attorney and judge. I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

In regards to your DIL, sounds like she is avoiding anything hard and taking advantage of your husband. This doesn't mean that most women are like this, or that it is just a women problem. We are raising kids with the easy life who want to keep it that way.
If I were your son I would talk to her and explain calmly and lovingly that he'd like some boundaries on what she is spending on, or a budget they can agree on, and explain to her that if she is going to not get a job or do any housework, then he will get to decide how the money is spent. If for example she is buying food and preparing it somewhat, then that is some work, so the husband can provide money for her to spend on food and other things they both use. He needs to set boundaries with her and counsel with her on her spending and habits. Maybe he wants more healthy food and that is going to mean less money for her to spend on herself. So the boundary for her needs to be restricting the money he's giving her. Husbands need to not be afraid of upsetting their wife, and her potential back-lash, if she's acting like a spoiled child. But he can't act entitled to sex or he'd be acting the same way as she was, just expecting to be taken care of sexually, in the same way she's expecting to be taken care of physically.

[hyloglyph]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

That's cool that you used to be an attorney and judge. I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

In regards to your DIL, sounds like she is avoiding anything hard and taking advantage of your husband. This doesn't mean that most women are like this, or that it is just a women problem. We are raising kids with the easy life who want to keep it that way.
If I were your son I would talk to her and explain calmly and lovingly that he'd like some boundaries on what she is spending on, or a budget they can agree on, and explain to her that if she is going to not get a job or do any housework, then he will get to decide how the money is spent. If for example she is buying food and preparing it somewhat, then that is some work, so the husband can provide money for her to spend on food and other things they both use. He needs to set boundaries with her and counsel with her on her spending and habits. Maybe he wants more healthy food and that is going to mean less money for her to spend on herself. So the boundary for her needs to be restricting the money he's giving her. Husbands need to not be afraid of upsetting their wife, and her potential back-lash, if she's acting like a spoiled child. But he can't act entitled to sex or he'd be acting the same way as she was, just expecting to be taken care of sexually, in the same way she's expecting to be taken care of physically.

I’m not super comfortable talking about these type of subjects but I would just say that it is my personal opinion and understanding that:

Sex should not be a transactional thing in a marriage. Even just framing it like that will sink you.

A sexual relationship inside marriage is just a given. It’s not the wife doing the husband a favor. It’s not something the husband buys with good behavior. It just is a given. A marriage isn’t a marriage without it. Literally.

That is where you keep going off the rails. Turning sex into something normal and good and special— into something transactional.

If you as a woman are exchanging sex for labor/chores/help/money/whatever— then that degrades you. You have now gone from being a loving wife to being a ______, well you fill in the blank with the word you use to describe women who trade sex for something of value.

Where I’m from women like that are usually called hookers I guess.

[FrankOne]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a modern issue.

BUT. Maybe it isn’t.

There is a very old and very ancient tradition that ties in to this school of thought.


This is something that someone once wrote:


“It is at the very foundation of all Abrahamic religions. It’s at the base of many other ancient holy traditions too.

It predates the flood.

It’s so universal that it stretches back almost into another reality.

It is a common idea that is shared by almost all faiths that:

In the beginning, when man first became conscious and self aware— right when he first started to grapple with the heavy concepts of Right and Wrong, before that having been innocent and childlike— it is said that right at that very moment when his eyes were opened and the realities of life crashed onto him— the story goes that the very first thought had by the very first man was something like “oh sh¡t my wife has got us into a bad situation”

Traditionally, that is believed to be the very first conscious thought.

And all religions are based on this— the man and woman resolving to work together to make things right between themselves and their Creator.

And so,

Should you find yourselves overleveraged, paying a mortgage and bills and running against the wind just to be able to live and raise a family in a spot where your water, food, power, and all necessities are dispensed by large government agencies and large faceless corporations, and your wives and kids friends and neighbors and teachers and the whole culture are all heading down a consumptive and unrealistic path— and you are only in this position because you were young and dumb and fairly innocent as far as wisdom goes and just went along with the type of thing has been considered normal and respectable— don’t worry. All is not lost. You just have to man up and lead your family into a safer and more wholesome situation. It’s a tale as old as time. It is the man’s duty to provide and protect and receive inspiration from the creator and to make sure that his family is living in a way where the blessings of heaven can be enjoyed. And then it’s the wife’s gift to be able to make the situation that the husband puts the family into a beautiful thing.

But in most cases, if you have been living in a modern way for a while, then the first obstacle you encounter will be a big nasty clash with your own wife. But don’t worry! That clash is not unrighteous. It is normal. Remember Lehi. Remember Adam. Remember Abraham and Lot. You aren’t supposed to give your wife everything she wants. It is okay to disagree with her. It is okay to be firm minded in some things. Especially things that pertain to your familys physical and spiritual health. Your wife might put up a fight about it for a while, something about standard of living and comforts and etc but eventually she will come around and will respect you for manning up. She won’t leave you, especially if you have kids together. In the end she will love you for doing it and your kids and posterity will respect it.

Remember our ancestors, filled with faith and courage loaded their loved ones onto ships and crossed oceans knowing that nothing but untamed wilderness awaited them on the distant shore. And then a few generations later their posterity did the same thing again except their paths lead them across vast plains with nothing but untamed wilderness waiting for them on the other side. Their blood is still in us. We have it much more comfortable than them. It will be easy for us to get out of the cycle of worldly consumption. Just need to find a few MEN willing to gamble on Providence.

Almost every single Christian marriage and family I know of is in this type of unholy situation to one degree or another. But it’s okay! There is hope.

The oldest idea in the world is to wake up and realize that you are in a tight spot because female sensibilities weren’t fully aware of all the devils cunning snares but there is time and there are ways to sort everything out. Wives can’t be expected to make all the decisions and have a good outcome. They need input and leadership from their husbands! Such is the lot of man and has been since the beginning.“


I do not know if that is relevant or not but I think it is.

I read your post above, and at first, I didn't catch that it was a quote. I was thinking..."This is brilliant writing". Since I thought that you wrote it, I was going to ask if you had ever read "The way of the Superior Man, A Man's guide to mastering the challenges of work, women, and sexual desire " because the style and level of comprehension is similar. Anyone interested in a very deep treatise on how to live a superior life, I highly recommend it. You may find yourself yelling at the book ...NO WAY! If you can keep reading anyway, you will find priceless pearls of wisdom. There are a few keys in that book that are hinted at by a few writers, but this guy gives workable details. They could be called "hidden higher teachings".

You'll be tempted to put the book down due to things which you may not like. If you keep reading, I guarantee that you'll find astonishing truths that you've never considered before.

If you're an average dude, you won't like this book.

A few of the chapters in regards to women:

"Women are not liars" . "What she wants is not what she says". "Her complaint is content free". "Know what is important in your woman". "Don't suggest that your woman fixes her own emotional problem". "She really doesn't want to be number one".


you said:
"This is something that someone once wrote:"

hm

I've used a similar sentence myself.

[hyloglyph]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a modern issue.

BUT. Maybe it isn’t.

There is a very old and very ancient tradition that ties in to this school of thought.


This is something that someone once wrote:


“It is at the very foundation of all Abrahamic religions. It’s at the base of many other ancient holy traditions too.

It predates the flood.

It’s so universal that it stretches back almost into another reality.

It is a common idea that is shared by almost all faiths that:

In the beginning, when man first became conscious and self aware— right when he first started to grapple with the heavy concepts of Right and Wrong, before that having been innocent and childlike— it is said that right at that very moment when his eyes were opened and the realities of life crashed onto him— the story goes that the very first thought had by the very first man was something like “oh sh¡t my wife has got us into a bad situation”

Traditionally, that is believed to be the very first conscious thought.

And all religions are based on this— the man and woman resolving to work together to make things right between themselves and their Creator.

And so,

Should you find yourselves overleveraged, paying a mortgage and bills and running against the wind just to be able to live and raise a family in a spot where your water, food, power, and all necessities are dispensed by large government agencies and large faceless corporations, and your wives and kids friends and neighbors and teachers and the whole culture are all heading down a consumptive and unrealistic path— and you are only in this position because you were young and dumb and fairly innocent as far as wisdom goes and just went along with the type of thing has been considered normal and respectable— don’t worry. All is not lost. You just have to man up and lead your family into a safer and more wholesome situation. It’s a tale as old as time. It is the man’s duty to provide and protect and receive inspiration from the creator and to make sure that his family is living in a way where the blessings of heaven can be enjoyed. And then it’s the wife’s gift to be able to make the situation that the husband puts the family into a beautiful thing.

But in most cases, if you have been living in a modern way for a while, then the first obstacle you encounter will be a big nasty clash with your own wife. But don’t worry! That clash is not unrighteous. It is normal. Remember Lehi. Remember Adam. Remember Abraham and Lot. You aren’t supposed to give your wife everything she wants. It is okay to disagree with her. It is okay to be firm minded in some things. Especially things that pertain to your familys physical and spiritual health. Your wife might put up a fight about it for a while, something about standard of living and comforts and etc but eventually she will come around and will respect you for manning up. She won’t leave you, especially if you have kids together. In the end she will love you for doing it and your kids and posterity will respect it.

Remember our ancestors, filled with faith and courage loaded their loved ones onto ships and crossed oceans knowing that nothing but untamed wilderness awaited them on the distant shore. And then a few generations later their posterity did the same thing again except their paths lead them across vast plains with nothing but untamed wilderness waiting for them on the other side. Their blood is still in us. We have it much more comfortable than them. It will be easy for us to get out of the cycle of worldly consumption. Just need to find a few MEN willing to gamble on Providence.

Almost every single Christian marriage and family I know of is in this type of unholy situation to one degree or another. But it’s okay! There is hope.

The oldest idea in the world is to wake up and realize that you are in a tight spot because female sensibilities weren’t fully aware of all the devils cunning snares but there is time and there are ways to sort everything out. Wives can’t be expected to make all the decisions and have a good outcome. They need input and leadership from their husbands! Such is the lot of man and has been since the beginning.“


I do not know if that is relevant or not but I think it is.

I read your post above, and at first, I didn't catch that it was a quote. I was thinking..."This is brilliant writing". Since I thought that you wrote it, I was going to ask if you had ever read "The way of the Superior Man, A Man's guide to mastering the challenges of work, women, and sexual desire " because the style and level of comprehension is similar. Anyone interested in a very deep treatise on how to live a superior life, I highly recommend it. You may find yourself yelling at the book ...NO WAY! If you can keep reading anyway, you will find priceless pearls of wisdom. There are a few keys in that book that are hinted at by a few writers, but this guy gives workable details. They could be called "hidden higher teachings".

You'll be tempted to put the book down due to things which you may not like. If you keep reading, I guarantee that you'll find astonishing truths that you've never considered before.

If you're an average dude, you won't like this book.

A few of the chapters in regards to women:

"Women are not liars" . "What she wants is not what she says". "Her complaint is content free". "Know what is important in your woman". "Don't suggest that your woman fixes her own emotional problem". "She really doesn't want to be number one".


you said:
"This is something that someone once wrote:"

hm

I've used a similar sentence myself.

“Men! Don’t cower in front of your wives any longer. They are in a daze dazzled by big government, evil corporations, and the traditions of their culture. Wake them up! Shake them and convert them to the side of TRADITIONAL American values! They will thank you for it. Be leaders. That’s what you are for. Don’t push your duty onto your wives! They shouldn’t be bearing the burden of making all the decisions. Even if they think they should— they shouldn’t. It’s not right. That is too much to ask of them. Look at your current situations honestly. How much of your present circumstances are a result of your wife’s preferences? 90%? 95%? If it were totally up to you what would change?

It is true, that to try and change things now will cause conflict. It may be painful. It may suck. There may be knock down drag out fighting. But you have time and life ahead of you. Fight it out while you can! She will come around. Everything will get resolved in the end.

Or don’t. Don’t fight. Don’t fight and just waste away the rest of your life… and die as a woman with a weiner. But when that last day comes… will you not want to trade back all those days? Will you not want to trade back all those days spent being a sissy for just one chance ONE CHANCE to go back to when your kids were young and STAND UP as a father and a man!?”



Yeah. Not a very famous guy. But he wrote that and a lot of other things. His theory is basically that chapter in Isaiah that was also quoted by nephi is now upon us.

[Mangus MacLeod]

I will note that in the most fundamental Divine pattern, God gave Eve to Adam as a help mate, and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (be reproductive), to work and earn their keep by the sweat of their brow (be productive), and to pray and worship God. What can we learn from that most fundamental pattern?

[Sarah]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

That's cool that you used to be an attorney and judge. I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

In regards to your DIL, sounds like she is avoiding anything hard and taking advantage of your husband. This doesn't mean that most women are like this, or that it is just a women problem. We are raising kids with the easy life who want to keep it that way.
If I were your son I would talk to her and explain calmly and lovingly that he'd like some boundaries on what she is spending on, or a budget they can agree on, and explain to her that if she is going to not get a job or do any housework, then he will get to decide how the money is spent. If for example she is buying food and preparing it somewhat, then that is some work, so the husband can provide money for her to spend on food and other things they both use. He needs to set boundaries with her and counsel with her on her spending and habits. Maybe he wants more healthy food and that is going to mean less money for her to spend on herself. So the boundary for her needs to be restricting the money he's giving her. Husbands need to not be afraid of upsetting their wife, and her potential back-lash, if she's acting like a spoiled child. But he can't act entitled to sex or he'd be acting the same way as she was, just expecting to be taken care of sexually, in the same way she's expecting to be taken care of physically.

I’m not super comfortable talking about these type of subjects but I would just say that it is my personal opinion and understanding that:

Sex should not be a transactional thing in a marriage. Even just framing it like that will sink you.

A sexual relationship inside marriage is just a given. It’s not the wife doing the husband a favor. It’s not something the husband buys with good behavior. It just is a given. A marriage isn’t a marriage without it. Literally.

That is where you keep going off the rails. Turning sex into something normal and good and special— into something transactional.

If you as a woman are exchanging sex for labor/chores/help/money/whatever— then that degrades you. You have now gone from being a loving wife to being a ______, well you fill in the blank with the word you use to describe women who trade sex for something of value.

Where I’m from women like that are usually called hookers I guess.

I don't see how you think I'm making sex transactional. I simply said that he shouldn't feel entitled to sex if he doesn't want his wife to feel entitled to all his labor and all the fruits of his labor. How is avoiding an attitude of entitlement transactional? There always needs to be balance and unselfishness to balance out selfishness. Frequent one-sided sex for him where she's just trying to be generous, but doesn't get a lot out of it emotionally, and feels worse physically, would be like a wife who took her husband's pay check and spent it all on herself. Should that just be expected and a no brainer as well?

[hyloglyph]

After a short weekend reprieve in this discussion, before circling back to additional self-evident truths and realities, including a real candid and even harder-hitting discussion about sex later (probably in a few days), I want to take the opportunity to really stir the pot, shift gears, and take this discussion in a completely different direction (from the age-old sex-themed discussion) about other self-evident truths and realities.

For these new directions I seriously thought about changing horses and starting a completely new thread, but ultimately decided to stick with this same horse, and this thread.

The context for this part of the discussion actually has little to do with plural marriage. It had nothing to do with sex and reproduction. It had nothing to do with the young women referenced in the OP. It focuses on the existing, middle-aged wife referenced in Tmac’s example.

According to this hypothetical example, this woman is now beyond her reproductive life expectancy and no longer has any reproductive capacity. That is a natural reality. I get it. Whether she is nonetheless willing to provide the glue that can hold the relationship together or not is a discussion for another day.

The issue for this part of the discussion focuses exclusively on productive, rather than reproductive issues.

Previous thoughts and statements on this subject drew a few comments, but there has never been a full-fledged discussion.

To put this discussion in further context, I am going to draw on a discussion with one of my fundamentalist acquaintances, and it goes back to one of my earlier comments about a younger woman/sister wife should be willing to take a productive role in helping to tend a large garden, put-up food, etc., etc.

In my discussion with this friend, he said that in addition to reproductive capacity, productive willingness and capability is also a huge issue and concern, because if more mature, entitled wives in mainstream modern culture have reached a point that they feel zero productive obligation, and they expect their husbands to single-handedly provide, protect and slay dragons for them, while they are not willing to offer anything — including glue — to the equation, then why wouldn’t a man start also factoring all of that into the equation, and also start to ask himself how he might surround himself with more productive people — especially in light of the direction this world is clearly headed?

Afterall, the the self-evident reality is that people are either assets or liabilities, net producers and reproducers, or net consumers. In an Agrarian society, children are views as a blessing and an asset. But in the modern, technocratic world they are viewed as liabilities. What about women who likewise refuse to pull their own weight in any way?

This hits fairly close to home with me, because as a retired attorney, and former judge, I have seen just about everything. In addition, I have a 30 year-old daughter in law who has reproduced no children, and does not seem inclined to. She likewise does not work, or “produce” anything else, including any cooking, cleaning, or help around the house. But she does keep herself busy chasing her consumptive pursuits. She is a great burden on my son, who is solely responsible to support and provide for all this.

My attitude is: Either produce, reproduce, or do both, but please, do something useful.

As the world continues to move rapidly in the direction it is going, I think this is a huge issue — yet wives have their husbands’ testicles and at least half of everything they own locked up in their purses.

Thoughts?

That's cool that you used to be an attorney and judge. I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

In regards to your DIL, sounds like she is avoiding anything hard and taking advantage of your husband. This doesn't mean that most women are like this, or that it is just a women problem. We are raising kids with the easy life who want to keep it that way.
If I were your son I would talk to her and explain calmly and lovingly that he'd like some boundaries on what she is spending on, or a budget they can agree on, and explain to her that if she is going to not get a job or do any housework, then he will get to decide how the money is spent. If for example she is buying food and preparing it somewhat, then that is some work, so the husband can provide money for her to spend on food and other things they both use. He needs to set boundaries with her and counsel with her on her spending and habits. Maybe he wants more healthy food and that is going to mean less money for her to spend on herself. So the boundary for her needs to be restricting the money he's giving her. Husbands need to not be afraid of upsetting their wife, and her potential back-lash, if she's acting like a spoiled child. But he can't act entitled to sex or he'd be acting the same way as she was, just expecting to be taken care of sexually, in the same way she's expecting to be taken care of physically.

I’m not super comfortable talking about these type of subjects but I would just say that it is my personal opinion and understanding that:

Sex should not be a transactional thing in a marriage. Even just framing it like that will sink you.

A sexual relationship inside marriage is just a given. It’s not the wife doing the husband a favor. It’s not something the husband buys with good behavior. It just is a given. A marriage isn’t a marriage without it. Literally.

That is where you keep going off the rails. Turning sex into something normal and good and special— into something transactional.

If you as a woman are exchanging sex for labor/chores/help/money/whatever— then that degrades you. You have now gone from being a loving wife to being a ______, well you fill in the blank with the word you use to describe women who trade sex for something of value.

Where I’m from women like that are usually called hookers I guess.

I don't see how you think I'm making sex transactional. I simply said that he shouldn't feel entitled to sex if he doesn't want his wife to feel entitled to all his labor and all the fruits of his labor. How is avoiding an attitude of entitlement transactional? There always needs to be balance and unselfishness to balance out selfishness. Frequent one-sided sex for him where she's just trying to be generous, but doesn't get a lot out of it emotionally, and feels worse physically, would be like a wife who took her husband's pay check and spent it all on herself. Should that just be expected and a no brainer as well?

Yeah that is transactional.

Plus your whole framing is off. You are framing it as tit for tat. (Literally? )

Rather than framing husband and wife as a team who are ONE, you are framing it as “well if you expect x then I expect y”

Your whole frame of reference and way of looking at relationships sets you up for conflict and pettiness and competition.

It is my understanding that a union of husband and wife is a team relationship. Not a give and take relationship.

Do you not see the difference?

In your model, each person is contributing something and then expecting something in return. That naturally leads to trying to get the best deal for your contribution. You naturally want to pay less and get more.

The team model of thinking is the opposite. Have you ever played on a sports team? Each person is trying to contribute as much as they possibly can regardless of what the other person is contributing. There is a common goal that unites you. If you work and get a bunch more rebounds than your teammate does— that’s great. You both benefit. Nothing is transactional. And you are happy to play as hard as you can.

Your whole framing of the way relationships work is worldly. Eye for an eye. Goes back to Babylon.

The way I understand it— all that type of thing is bad very bad long term. You need to be on a team together or if you dont understand sports then you could think of singing parts in a duet. There is no competition and no transaction, it is harmonious and complimentary and symbiotic.

It’s a totally different way of framing it from how you are seeing it.

You are seeing it through the normal academic style lens which always pits friend against neighbor and kids against parents and wives against husbands.

Because that whole way of looking at things naturally implies conflict.

If I were in a marriage like that I wouldn’t last one month.

[Mangus MacLeod]

I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

On one hand, I can’t say that I’m necessarily surprised. On the other hand, especially in that regard, I can’t say that I envy your husband — or my wife for that matter. It is a whole lot easier to be an attorney than to be married to one. My cousin Tmac was fortunate enough to figure that out 20 years before I did.

And one of the reasons I say this is based on a presentation I once heard at a high-falutin’ legal function, where the title of the key-note address was: “The crisis of over-confidence in the legal profession.” It made a bigger and more lasting impression on me than anything else I have seen or heard in over 30 years of experience in the legal system.

This is a completely hopeless discussion if it is nothing more than an endless debate amongst lawyers and wannabe lawyers, all of whom may suffer from that malady.

Heaven help us.

[Mangus MacLeod]

And, this part of the discussion was not supposed to be about SEX. So can we just leave that alone for a while, and come back to sex later, in a completely, COMPLETELY different context?

This part of the discussion is intended to focus on productive rather than reproductive, sex-related issues.

[Sarah]

I joke with my husband that I must have been an attorney in my last life.

On one hand, I can’t say that I’m necessarily surprised. On the other hand, especially in that regard, I can’t say that I envy your husband — or my wife for that matter. It is a whole lot easier to be an attorney than to be married to one. My cousin Tmac was fortunate enough to figure that out 20 years before I did.

And one of the reasons I say this is based on a presentation I once heard at a high-falutin’ legal function, where the title of the key-note address was: “The crisis of over-confidence in the legal profession.” It made a bigger and more lasting impression on me than anything else I have seen or heard in over 30 years of experience in the legal system.

This is a completely hopeless discussion if it is nothing more than an endless debate amongst lawyers and wannabe lawyers, all of whom may suffer from that malady.

Heaven help us.

Yes, hopeless, but isn't it fun? For me it's like playing a sport.