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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

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

Post by HVDC »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 1:47 pm
Sarah wrote: September 20th, 2022, 11:44 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 9:04 am
Sarah wrote: September 20th, 2022, 8:17 am

Your ancestor led an amazing life. She has homestead skills but she also went to school and worked professionally. I know lots of women with this same kind of grit, determination, and ambition, they just might focus their energy on different things. Lots of moms for example focus on giving their kids as many opportunities as possible. We can judge and say, sports or drama, or music aren't important, but that's the culture we live in. Maybe it's the neighborhood you live in, but my neighborhood and ward are full of women who don't rest, who are working part-time to make ends meet or who are volunteering dozens of hours at school or with church callings, or neighborhood events. We are caring for the widows in our ward who can't do much on their own, and it can be exhausting. We are cooking and cleaning and doing laundry and taking care of home repairs. The list could go on and on. Yes, we are not farming or producing much, but the men aren't either. They get paid to sit at a desk all day and don't "produce" anything but a service. That's exactly what wives do as well. We are providing a service and it comes in many shapes and forms.
Interesting.

I now live in a very large rural ward, where one of the defining characteristics of the men is their production-orientation, and one of the most defining characteristics of the women is their consumption-orientation. This is in stark contrast to Anabaptists, where both men and women share a fundamental production-orientation, and very little consumption orientation.

I have lived in urban and suburban areas, and I have never noticed that this issue is any better there. Maybe some people simply don’t understand the fundamental difference between production and consumption.

No legitimate productive assumptions can be derived from simply staying busy.
So the men in your area are labeled producers because they are involved in food and animal production. Does that mean when you were practicing law that you were not producing, but only staying busy?
Attorneys are some of the biggest consumptive parasites in existence. On the whole, what do they produce? The single thing that the legal profession is most effective at is separating people from their money. Legalized theft? Is that productive?
Had the privilege of being deposed once.

My employer provided Attorney and everyone else casually discussed their mutual acquaintances.

And their respective Bat and Bar Mitzvahs.

She told me if I talked too much she would kick me under the table.

I believed her.

Now I know what the lamb felt like discussing what's for dinner with the wolves.

Twelve against one.

I figured out my attorney was on somebodies side.

But certainly not mine.

After a while, I figured out the game.

The idea is to talk a lot without saying anything.

So that's what I did.

Just a loose lipped nobody with nothing to say.

Shucks, golly, gee.

I never got kicked.

They never got the money they wanted.

I never got eaten.

Lots of disappointment all around.

Only three hours.

My upper level manager got two days.

Hope to never do it again.

Sir H

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

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

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 1:47 pm
Sarah wrote: September 20th, 2022, 11:44 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 9:04 am
Sarah wrote: September 20th, 2022, 8:17 am

Your ancestor led an amazing life. She has homestead skills but she also went to school and worked professionally. I know lots of women with this same kind of grit, determination, and ambition, they just might focus their energy on different things. Lots of moms for example focus on giving their kids as many opportunities as possible. We can judge and say, sports or drama, or music aren't important, but that's the culture we live in. Maybe it's the neighborhood you live in, but my neighborhood and ward are full of women who don't rest, who are working part-time to make ends meet or who are volunteering dozens of hours at school or with church callings, or neighborhood events. We are caring for the widows in our ward who can't do much on their own, and it can be exhausting. We are cooking and cleaning and doing laundry and taking care of home repairs. The list could go on and on. Yes, we are not farming or producing much, but the men aren't either. They get paid to sit at a desk all day and don't "produce" anything but a service. That's exactly what wives do as well. We are providing a service and it comes in many shapes and forms.
Interesting.

I now live in a very large rural ward, where one of the defining characteristics of the men is their production-orientation, and one of the most defining characteristics of the women is their consumption-orientation. This is in stark contrast to Anabaptists, where both men and women share a fundamental production-orientation, and very little consumption orientation.

I have lived in urban and suburban areas, and I have never noticed that this issue is any better there. Maybe some people simply don’t understand the fundamental difference between production and consumption.

No legitimate productive assumptions can be derived from simply staying busy.
So the men in your area are labeled producers because they are involved in food and animal production. Does that mean when you were practicing law that you were not producing, but only staying busy?
Attorneys are some of the biggest consumptive parasites in existence. On the whole, what do they produce? The single thing that the legal profession is most effective at is separating people from their money. Legalized theft? Is that productive?
huh. an honest atty. Isn't that a paradox? Something tells me that you weren't the average esquire.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing. At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear again in 8 months to discuss the matter further.

As we were traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said given her status and condition, the only possible “productive” employment prospect was learning how to “do nails,” — because, in her words there is always plenty of demand from women “wanting to try make themselves look more beautiful.”

I asked her why women are so obsessed with trying to make themselves look more beautiful — for their benefit, or someone else’s (their husband’s)? She responded, “So that men will be more inclined to buy them things.”

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” “cosmetologist,” or “nail artist” as their profession. How productive! And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started down that path, and she said she had a friend who could teach her, but the supplies were expensive. I had already given her an extra sewing machine we had kicking around, so I told her that, unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead of taking her home. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 21st, 2022, 5:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

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

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:28 pm I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing.

At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear in 8 months. As were we’re traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said the only possible employment prospect was doing nails— “because women like to make themselves look beautiful.”

I asked her why women like to try to make themselves look beautiful, and she said so that men will be more inclined to buy them things.

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” and “cosmetologist,” as their profession. And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started, and she said the supplies were expensive. I told her unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
I was given a reality check when I went to Mexico several weeks ago. A male relative was working in a new job there and he was told that he had to wear a watch. Of course, everyone in the city had a smart phone, but he still had to wear a watch in his position but not to be able to check the time. When he asked the reason, he was told that it gave the appearance that he was important. Time was important to him.

Although I've worked in several latin based countries before, I never took notice of how appearance is unusually important in those locations. In this last visit, I became observant of "appearances". I was quite surprised at what I learned.

As far as women needing a good appearance for men, it used to be that it was to simply secure a man for marriage. This, of course, has been known since Adam and Eve. Now? things have changed. It's devolved into a condition of out and out "getting". What do they call it when a woman uses her physical appearance to "get stuff" aka money? It's sad.

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

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

Post by HVDC »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:28 pm I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing.

At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear in 8 months. As were we’re traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said the only possible employment prospect was doing nails— “because women like to make themselves look beautiful.”

I asked her why women like to try to make themselves look beautiful, and she said so that men will be more inclined to buy them things.

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” and “cosmetologist,” as their profession. And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started, and she said the supplies were expensive. I told her unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
A tale as old as time.

Nothing really new here.

What's really new is that the average women gets to play.

Don't worry.

Once she gets prettier.

She will get what she wants too.

America brings out the worst in everyone.

Eventually.

Too bad is closing time on Pleasure Island.

And you know what happens then.

Sir H

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

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

Post by FrankOne »

HVDC wrote: September 20th, 2022, 4:28 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:28 pm I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing.

At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear in 8 months. As were we’re traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said the only possible employment prospect was doing nails— “because women like to make themselves look beautiful.”

I asked her why women like to try to make themselves look beautiful, and she said so that men will be more inclined to buy them things.

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” and “cosmetologist,” as their profession. And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started, and she said the supplies were expensive. I told her unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
A tale as old as time.

Nothing really new here.

What's really new is that the average women gets to play.

Don't worry.

Once she gets prettier.

She will get what she wants too.

America brings out the worst in everyone.

Eventually.

Too bad is closing time on Pleasure Island.

And you know what happens then.

Sir H
a quote from "Westworld" come to mind. That show really dives into the current psyche of man and reveals the future quite accurately. After watching the series, I understood the words "violent delights" more meaning "self degrading".

"These violent delights have violent ends"

From above:
"America brings out the worst in everyone"

The converse is true as well . "America refines the character of the few"

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

FrankOne wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:57 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:28 pm I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing.

At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear in 8 months. As were we’re traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said the only possible employment prospect was doing nails— “because women like to make themselves look beautiful.”

I asked her why women like to try to make themselves look beautiful, and she said so that men will be more inclined to buy them things.

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” and “cosmetologist,” as their profession. And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started, and she said the supplies were expensive. I told her unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
I was given a reality check when I went to Mexico several weeks ago. A male relative was working in a new job there and he was told that he had to wear a watch. Of course, everyone in the city had a smart phone, but he still had to wear a watch in his position but not to be able to check the time. When he asked the reason, he was told that it gave the appearance that he was important. Time was important to him.

Although I've worked in several latin based countries before, I never took notice of how appearance is unusually important in those locations. In this last visit, I became observant of "appearances". I was quite surprised at what I learned.

As far as women needing a good appearance for men, it used to be that it was to simply secure a man for marriage. This, of course, has been known since Adam and Eve. Now? things have changed. It's devolved into a condition of out and out "getting". What do they call it when a woman uses her physical appearance to "get stuff" aka money? It's sad.
and you are fulfilling prophecy with that comment . . .part of the filth of the daughters of Zion that is washed away in Isaiah 4:4 is the reproach of not being married. So you are talking about Isaiah 4:1 where the daughters of Zion are still haughty and don't like reproach.

re·proach
[rəˈprōCH]
VERB
address (someone) in such a way as to express disapproval or disappointment:
"critics reproachedhim for his failure to tackle the deficiency " · [more]
synonyms:
have/express a poor opinion of · dislike · be against · object to · [more]
NOUN
the expression of disapproval or disappointment:
"he gave her a look of reproach" · [more]
synonyms:
rebuke · reproof · reproval · admonishment · admonition · scolding · [more]

the Lord isn't he one that reporaches them. . . instead it is the comments like you have made in this post. Theya re so haughty. I'm not sure why that verse doesn't go with the previous chapter 4, but still, they are wrong to take hold of one man and follow a culture that encourages this evil practice. but the Lord eventually blesses them by washing aways their filth . . .the filth of haughtiness that leads to immorality

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

woops forgot . . . later in the Isaiah scriptures he says that each woman will have a man which is a blessing in the millenium and for spiritual ascent . . .I'll find it tomorrow . . .one man one woman

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

Belizean Grove
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Belizean Grove logo
The Belizean Grove is an elite, invitation-only American women's social club, located in New York City.[1][2] Founded in 1999 by Susan Stautberg, a former Westinghouse Broadcasting executive, and Edie Weiner, a futurist,[3] the Belizean Grove includes approximately 115 to 125 influential members from the military, financial, and diplomatic sectors. It is the female equivalent to the male-only social group, the Bohemian Club, whose annual meetings are held at the Bohemian Grove in California.[2] The Belizean Grove meets annually in Belize or similar Central American locations.[4] They also meet in New York and other U.S. cities, for activities they describe as "a balance of fun, substantive programs and bonding".[5]

Notable members of the Belizean Grove include former General Services Administration Administrator Lurita Doan and U.S. Army General Ann E. Dunwoody.[2][6] High-level executives from Goldman Sachs, Victoria's Secret, and Harley-Davidson also belong to the Grove, as do some ambassadors.[5] Other business leaders include: Davia Temin,[7] CEO and Founder of Temin and Company, Catherina Allen, CEO of Santa Fe Group,[8] and Ann Kaplan of Circle Financial Group.[9] Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the Grove until June 19, 2009, when she resigned after Republican senators voiced concerns over the group's women-only membership policy.[10][

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

What is the Seraphic Society? - The Celebrity Personal Assistant …
The Seraphic Society has been in secrecy for more than 50 years. Founded in 1940, the Seraphic Society is a secret association of Executive Assistants to CEOs and the nation's elite. Some have likened them to a sort of Skull & Bones or Illuminati of Executive Assistants. It's goal, according to Fortune Magazine is "To establish a bond of ...

https://www.findcelebrityjobs.com/what-is-the...
Feedback
The Seraphic Society | New York, NY | Cause IQ
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/t ... ,133277655
Feb 24, 2016 · The Seraphic Society was organized in 1940 in ny to establish a bond of cooperation and friendship among secretaries to business and philanthropic leaders, enabling …

Occupation: President
Location: PO Box 7717, New York, 10150, NY

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

most famous member belizean grove member
Sonya sotomeyer

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

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

Post by EvanLM »

A Club for the Women Atop the Ladder
Give this article

Melanie Sabelhaus, former deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration, spoke at a Belizean Grove event in 2010.
Melanie Sabelhaus, former deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration, spoke at a Belizean Grove event in 2010.Credit...Hollis Rafkin-Sax

By Pamela Ryckman
April 2, 2011
ON the site of a 17th-century monastery in Cartagena, Colombia, a sort of Illuminati of the business and political worlds gathered in February for their annual winter rites.

Drawn from government, banking, technology and beyond, its members form a rare — and global — power elite. Each has been tapped, in Skull and Bones fashion, by an existing member. Each searches out and grooms new talent — people who can add to this group’s considerable wealth, knowledge and power.

But men need not apply: this exclusive club is women-only.

It is called Belizean Grove, and if you haven’t heard of it, you’re not alone. Founded 12 years ago, it operates mostly under the radar. The first time it received any real public attention was in 2009, when it became known that Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court justice, was among its 125 or so members. (She has since quit.)

Despite its low profile, Belizean Grove is fast becoming what could be considered the world’s ultimate old girls’ club. Perhaps that’s no surprise, as it is modeled on one of the nation’s most exclusive old boys’ clubs, Bohemian Grove. That hush-hush group, an extension of the 139-year-old Bohemian Club in San Francisco, has counted so many rich and powerful men among its ranks — including the presidents Eisenhower, Carter, Nixon and both Bushes — that it sounds like something out of a Dan Brown novel. Indeed, in 1942, the men of Bohemian Grove, who meet each summer under a canopy of redwoods in Monte Rio, Calif., dreamed up the Manhattan Project.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

EvanLM wrote: September 20th, 2022, 7:55 pm
FrankOne wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:57 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 20th, 2022, 3:28 pm I am blessed to have an adventurous life, with many interesting experiences.

Today, I had one that ties into both this thread and the discussion I started on the Railroad thread on August 30th.

viewtopic.php?t=62446&start=1000

In that post I talked about meeting an Ecuadorian woman in a wheelchair, with broken ankles, begging in a Walmart parking lot.

Today was her initial deportation hearing, and she reached out to me and asked me if I would come take her, because she had no means of transportation, and no where else to turn. And if there is a pattern with me, it is that when people reach out to me and ask for help, I try to be responsive. So I took her to the hearing.

At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered her to reappear in 8 months. As were we’re traveling to and from the hearing, I asked her how things were going, and if she had any employment prospects. She said the only possible employment prospect was doing nails— “because women like to make themselves look beautiful.”

I asked her why women like to try to make themselves look beautiful, and she said so that men will be more inclined to buy them things.

I simply couldn’t help but think about this thread. And I also could not help but think about all the women out there who claim “hairdresser,” “manicurist,” and “cosmetologist,” as their profession. And I simply couldn’t help but think about how all of this ties together — in this country, this little gal’s best and most “productive” career/employment opportunity is doing nails so that women can attempt to further sexualize themselves — for whose benefit?

I asked what she needed to get started, and she said the supplies were expensive. I told her unfortunately, I was not in a position to help her out with that. She acted disappointed and an uncomfortable silence ensued. When we were getting close to the place in Provo where she lives with a friend, I asked her if she needed anything else before I took her home. She sheepishly asked me if I would drop her off at the Wal-mart parking lot in Spanish Fork where I originally found her instead. What could I say?

What can I say? The record speaks for itself.
I was given a reality check when I went to Mexico several weeks ago. A male relative was working in a new job there and he was told that he had to wear a watch. Of course, everyone in the city had a smart phone, but he still had to wear a watch in his position but not to be able to check the time. When he asked the reason, he was told that it gave the appearance that he was important. Time was important to him.

Although I've worked in several latin based countries before, I never took notice of how appearance is unusually important in those locations. In this last visit, I became observant of "appearances". I was quite surprised at what I learned.

As far as women needing a good appearance for men, it used to be that it was to simply secure a man for marriage. This, of course, has been known since Adam and Eve. Now? things have changed. It's devolved into a condition of out and out "getting". What do they call it when a woman uses her physical appearance to "get stuff" aka money? It's sad.
and you are fulfilling prophecy with that comment . . .part of the filth of the daughters of Zion that is washed away in Isaiah 4:4 is the reproach of not being married. So you are talking about Isaiah 4:1 where the daughters of Zion are still haughty and don't like reproach.

re·proach
[rəˈprōCH]
VERB
address (someone) in such a way as to express disapproval or disappointment:
"critics reproachedhim for his failure to tackle the deficiency " · [more]
synonyms:
have/express a poor opinion of · dislike · be against · object to · [more]
NOUN
the expression of disapproval or disappointment:
"he gave her a look of reproach" · [more]
synonyms:
rebuke · reproof · reproval · admonishment · admonition · scolding · [more]

the Lord isn't he one that reporaches them. . . instead it is the comments like you have made in this post. Theya re so haughty. I'm not sure why that verse doesn't go with the previous chapter 4, but still, they are wrong to take hold of one man and follow a culture that encourages this evil practice. but the Lord eventually blesses them by washing aways their filth . . .the filth of haughtiness that leads to immorality
This is actually a good point. I remember having this thought before. Would the Lord feel a sense of dislike, disappointment, or of needing to scold a woman because she was single? The fear of reproach is with her because of men or people in general, judging and being critical of an unmarried woman. It's earthly shame. She's worried about how people will treat her with reproof, and scolding, just like we see here. She feels ashamed not because she's worried about what God thinks of her marital status, but because she knows how people will judge her and treat her. So her clinging to one man is a desperation thing, a symbol of being humbled or put to shame. And I do think this entire scene is symbolic of the state individuals in the House of Israel will find themselves in as they are invaded and enslaved. They will be put to shame by the war and destruction that will befall them because of their haughtiness, pride, and vanity.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society), and; 4) to provide genuine Christian service and support to a woman in need. Aside from those four practical reasons why would a man want and/or be willing to take on more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because according to the conventional narrative, everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night, with big consequences forever after? Isn’t it literally the functional equivalent of playing Russian roulette on that issue?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance, and discovery only after the fact?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t really like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, discovery after the fact, and take a big risk of supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with premarital sex per se, and/or being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too, in terms of steep learning curve.

In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been discovered 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

I understand that young people can be both inexperienced, naive, and very indoctrinated about all of this. But taking any kind of more mature, experienced, and better-informed approach, why would anyone just roll the dice and hope for the best?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it, and whether pain-free, satisfying intercourse is even possible.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, just how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not backing myself into this corner until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 21st, 2022, 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
That is a great question. Is it necessary to set aside the law of chastity for a woman to be able to determine —for herself — whether or not she is capable of having an orgasm, and whether or not she enjoys it? As part of the reasonable due diligence under the circumstances those are some of the threshold questions.

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
I can chime in later this morning.

User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1220

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

Post by HereWeGo »

Mangus, you bring up good things with this turn into the sex part of the discussion. I agree that it is important to know how each person is with sex before marriage. I also was young and just got married without knowing this. I thought women would like sex since they liked being close, kissing, holding hands, etc. in High School. I quickly found out cuddling is not sex. My marriage was hard because I was expected to be the provider and seldom got the bonding benefits of sex. Fortunately, she decided to end the marriage. I picked a new wife who liked sex and things were MUCH better.

The only problem could be that if every prospective couple did this due diligence, many of the women who didn't like sex would be rejected by a guy who would then look for a woman who would be more sexually compatible to him. We need to face facts--almost all men want sex and plenty of it. Many women are similar but not nearly as many as men.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Yes, the cold, hard facts and realities of life.

But what is the point of naively getting married based on a myriad of assumptions, especially when it comes to this subject matter, and then have a greatly frustrated and thwarted marriage that will often end in divorce anyway?

There are some natural, biological realities that just as well be part of the equation: women who are more comfortable in their own skins sexually will be happier and more satisfied, have happier and more satisfied husbands, and almost automatically have more children — which is a good thing. It’s a win/win all the way around versus the converse situation.

For a myriad of very practical reasons this really ought to be a bigger part of the whole marriage equation and the discussion.

LadyT
captain of 100
Posts: 621

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

Post by LadyT »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handfasting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Last edited by LadyT on September 21st, 2022, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1220

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

Post by HereWeGo »

LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Not a bad idea. Add to that no children during this year. This would have prevented much heartache to us in my first marriage. We could have parted ways in a friendlier way.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
What you are suggesting makes a whole lot more sense than attempting to commit for all eternity to someone you have never even slept with.

On this particular subject the Church’s policies and practices make little practical sense. Instead of saying you have to wait for a year to be sealed after a civil wedding, no one should be allowed to be sealed until they have been married for at least a year. It would make a lot more practical sense.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:47 am
LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
What you are suggesting makes a whole lot more sense than attempting to commit for all eternity to someone you have never even slept with.

On this particular subject the Church’s policies and practices make little practical sense. Instead of saying you have to wait for a year to be sealed after a civil wedding, no one should be allowed to be sealed until they have been married for at least a year. It would make a lot more practical sense.
This is probably the main reason secularists do this exact thing, or reject marriage entirely. They live together for awhile before getting married. In a day of birth control we can do this. The downside of course is that pregnancies will happen, and children will end up without a father or mother who as skipped out on their partner. Marriage forces us to restrict ourselves to someone who may not meet all our expectations. We have been given this dilemma and contradiction from God, and it's our job to obey God's laws until we can see a blending of them, in order that we can see the ultimate solution which will solves both sides of the equation.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:14 am Mangus, you bring up good things with this turn into the sex part of the discussion. I agree that it is important to know how each person is with sex before marriage. I also was young and just got married without knowing this. I thought women would like sex since they liked being close, kissing, holding hands, etc. in High School. I quickly found out cuddling is not sex. My marriage was hard because I was expected to be the provider and seldom got the bonding benefits of sex. Fortunately, she decided to end the marriage. I picked a new wife who liked sex and things were MUCH better.

The only problem could be that if every prospective couple did this due diligence, many of the women who didn't like sex would be rejected by a guy who would then look for a woman who would be more sexually compatible to him. We need to face facts--almost all men want sex and plenty of it. Many women are similar but not nearly as many as men.

I'm guessing that your second wife had a previous marriage before you? Why do you think she enjoys sex more than your first wife? Is she having orgasms regularly? Is she content with being close to you? Some women pretend to enjoy sex in order to cope with and accept what reality is. My mom told me before I got married that "sex was for the husband," and that her body just didn't orgasm like she had heard about. She told me she tried to act passionate like the women she saw on television. Faking it doesn't always lead to making it, if you know what I mean.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

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

Post by Baurak Ale »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

Obviously, the production-related discussion did not gain much traction, and I guess I’m not surprised. Contrary to Sarah’s protests to the contrary, in my experience and observation almost everyone wants to be a consumer. Almost no one wants to be a producer. And I find it interesting that the American dream of my new-found little Ecuadorian friend is to both be a consumer and to service consumers. Maybe that is the real answer to Sarah’s question about lawyers and practicing law. For the most part, they don’t produce anything, but in the process of their consumptive legal theft, they may “service” other consumers. Consumers servicing (and feeding off of) other consumers in a largely unproductive societal food chain.

But, to help bring this whole discussion full circle, I can see 3-4 practical reasons why a man might want to consider practicing plural marriage, including the following: 1) to have more sex; 2) to have more children; 3) to attempt to surround himself with people with more productive orientation and capacity (which may not exist in mainstream society). Aside from those three practical reasons why would a man want more wives? And at what cost?

From my perspective two of those issues are applicable regardless of any discussion of plural marriage.

Cutting straight to the chase, even in a purely monogamous relationship, if hindsight were 20/20, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever choose to marry a woman who didn’t like to have sex, and was only interested in being a consumer? Really?

But since we’ve now attempted to fully explore the production side of the equation, now let’s more fully explore the sex side of the equation, with a hard-hitting discussion about that subject, fully enabled by middle age insomnia.

And most of this really has nothing to do with plural marriage, aside from the possible motivating factor that the man may not feel like he is getting enough, so that is his primary motivation for taking on more mouths to feed.

But here is the cold, hard question: Coming back to some of Hyloglyph’s observations, and setting possible recognized exceptions aside, why would a healthy, libido-driven man ever want to marry a woman who doesn’t enjoy having sex?

And there are a few cold, hard realities associated with this. If a woman doesn’t even enjoy having sex when she’s young, it’s pretty unlikely that she is going to enjoy it more as she gets older — all of which may turn out to be a great frustration to her husband. So, if you can do some due diligence and figure some of that out sooner rather than later, and see the writing on the wall before it’s too late, why not do it?

Now I know this is where things really get dicey with the Church, etc., because everything from petting to masturbation are suppose to be strictly taboo prior to marriage. But does it really make any practical sense to leave everything to chance and a big mystery on the wedding night and forever after?

I’m just going to cut to the chase and say that if I had it all to do over again, and if I ever end up doing it again, I would never marry a woman who didn’t at least know if she could orgasm, how best to do it, and/or if she even really enjoyed it. Why should such important practical questions be left entirely to chance?

And I completely get it. A man can play a much bigger role in all of that than he usually realizes and/or understands. And, the cold hard reality is that a woman will have a hard time “loving” a man she doesn’t like.

But, I’m just going to say it, a woman (even if it is my daughter) is doing both herself and her would-be husband a serious disservice if she doesn’t even know until after the fact whether she can orgasm, and what it takes in her individual case. This one single issue can lead to endless conflict and heartache. If there are two issues that almost all married couples fight about it is sex and money. So, why shouldn’t they do a whole lot more due diligence on those subjects in advance, rather than just leaving everything to chance, and supporting the 50/50 divorce rate, even in the Church?

And this really doesn’t even need to have anything to do with being a virgin on the wedding night — although that can be an issue too. In our case, after all the build-up and high expectations about what a wonderful experience our wedding night was going to be, because we were both virgins, about 2 a.m., in an era and location that had not yet been exposed to 24 hour “convenience” stores, we were sorely disappointed to learn that without some additional lubrication it simply wasn’t going to happen without some serious pain on her part. So, it didn’t happen. Wedding night without consummation. Believe me, what a let-down!

Really? In what sane world does it make sense to leave such important matters, with serious long-term consequences — including the question of whether or not she can even orgasm, let alone whether she can have intercourse without serious pain — entirely to chance and discovery only after it is too late to do anything about it?

Why would any sane, reasonable and rational man do that?

At this point, after a lifetime of experience, I can say that I would never, ever again marry a woman who didn’t even at least know if she could orgasm, and/or whether or not she enjoyed doing it.

Why? Because it is a big part of the glue I’ve been talking about. In that tug of war between nature and nurture you might reach a point in life where you find out, only too late, how important that glue really is.

So, regardless of the age or stage or the circumstances, if I were a prospective, would-be husband, that would be one of my serious due diligence questions. And if the answer was “I don’t know,” my response would be “well, you better find out — because I’m not doing this until I know.”

Did I mention that this part of the discussion was going to be hard-hitting? Is there any legitimate reason why it shouldn’t be?

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

That polygamy would solve the problem of being stuck in a monogamous marriage where the man doesn't get as much sex as he desires?

That people should set aside the law of chastity and have sex before marriage to "try things out and see if they're sexually compatible?"

Both of these things?
That is a great question. Is it necessary to set aside the law of chastity for a woman to be able to determine —for herself — whether or not she is capable of having an orgasm, and whether or not she enjoys it? As part of the reasonable due diligence under the circumstances those are some of the threshold questions.

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
Assuming God makes no mistakes and has no superfluous waste in his design of our bodies, it is worth noting that women possess a body part whose only apparent function is physical pleasure. I for one don't think God made a design mistake.

Post Reply