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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cruiserdude
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3641
Location: Wasatch front

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

Post by Cruiserdude »

FrankOne wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:05 pm
Jonesy wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 2:56 pm There was an interesting post a while back that questions our response about polygamy either way, righteous or not. Even if confronted with the possibility of polygamy being a righteous practice, many women (and some men) would still reject it. I think there’s a lot of baggage in association with anything involving sex. Those are just some of my thoughts here, but more should be said…
What a long term culture has practiced takes a long time to change excepting those times of extreme hardship. Hardship changes everyone. Through adversity.... comes learning .

Fear is the greatest motivator. Fear of poverty makes people work. Fear of losing a special relationship causes women to hold on to their man possessively. Fear keeps people together and fear drives people apart. The greatest fear takes precedence over lesser fears. A woman that fears leaving her friends and modern conveniences is superseded by the fear of losing her husband that is relocating to a 3rd world foreign country for long term work. She goes with him. She was bonded to her husband more than she was bonded to her convenient life and friends. Some women would choose to stay. You could call all of the above motivations of love as well. Interesting, huh?

The baggage of sex , for me, goes to the simple problem of "sharing" . If I engage that, this could end up being a debate on polyandry ..."good for goose , good for gander" discussion. so.. that's all from me.

The problem today is comfort and ease. Who wants to confront what's inside them when the outside is so comfortable? Life is full of pleasantness, right? The scriptures call it pain and pleasure. Who wants pain? Just about no one. Who wants pleasure... just about everyone.

True learning is painful. Most people run from learning.

Hyloglyph did something unusual. He had a regular life and what appeared to be a normal happy marriage when gauged by today's standard. Yet, he chose a very hard course and brought pain to his marriage. Pain=Learning. Who does this? Who has the powers of observation and the guts to act in order to better his marriage? This isn't to bring applause to Hyloglyph because he'd likely return the applause with a slag hammer.

On a side note, as I read Hyloglyph's posts, I keep hearing a song that I love by Joe Walsh. This song really makes me smile. It's real. Ordinary Average Guys. Folks in suits and ties are fine, but can they drive rock bolts, tie wire or draw a bead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLNAkPsjAEk

I realize that some of this discussion has been abrasive to a few. Here is a clip.
============

The Prophet Joseph Smith despised sham. Pretense to him was folly. Once he said, “I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite. I do not want you to think that I’m very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus” (Documentary History of the Church, 5:401).
Great post FrankOne.
And what a fantastic quote from Joseph. I hadn't read that one before, at least that I remember. His wisdom and love for his fellow men are a great modern day example for me to try to follow.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving and holding the marriage, the family, and society together. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Who has the only real skin in the game, incentive, and actual responsibility to solve the problem? The reality is, although this issue — the male sex drive — is actually the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist, neither women nor the Church have any real incentive to actually address the issue. Women and the Church (that societal nurture that I keep referring to) consider the male sex drive to be a weakness. Instead of it being a God-given gift, and a strength, they consider it to be a weakness that must be overcome. They just want to try to ignore the issue and have it go away, because life would be so much simpler in so many ways if the male sex drive would just go away, or at least start winding down at about age 35, and be completely wound down by age 50-55.

But like it or not, we're actually talking here about an obvious issue that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women have more men to share? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 23rd, 2022, 8:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

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

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm
Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?


dunno. Is this a trick question?
So that a man will have twice as much sex and twice as many children as his wife which can no longer reproduce?


"Logic validates desire" (Aurealias)

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

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

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving the marriage, the family, and society. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Whose responsibility is to actually solve the problem?

Like it or not, we're talking here about an obvious problem that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women share more men? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.
I don't know Mangus. I feel like I've already tried to give an answer to all these questions but no one really likes my answers. But here's my philosophy again: Why did God give us a sweet tooth when sugar is the worst thing for your body and the bitter foods are the healthiest? Why did he make childbirth, pregnancy, nursing, and taking care of babies so incredibly painful and hard? Yes, men have a hard time it seems denying themselves something they want more than their wives, and something they need permission to do. They struggle because they grew up thinking there would be no problem, and that it was their right to have after marriage. But it's a false message and tradition. It's only a right if he can give a gift to his wife she will want and appreciate, because sex is designed to be a two way gift. You cannot receive unless she receives, and she cannot give unless you give, so what is she receiving and what are you giving? Stimulation that leaves her feeling used and uncomfortable? She has her agency that needs to be respected, and it's not her duty to fulfill a man's sex drive. If sex was about true love, then he would be making sex about his wife. I've given suggestions on how husbands can help their wives feel this from them, so hopefully they will try my suggestions and not give up. One thing to keep in mind - if you look at children playing together - if one child has a toy and another child wants their toy, suddenly the child who has the toy might really want to keep their toy. The more the wanting child wants, the less the other child wants to give. So it would do husbands good if they have disinterested wives, to never come across as wanting something from their wife, because she automatically is thinking it will be at her expense, and she's done with doing all the giving. The mindset has to be, what am I going to give. That's the only thing that will get her interested in asking for physical intimacy and sex, if she sees you as a giver of good physical gifts. Give her a back rub or foot rub, and reassure her you're not interested in sex unless she is. Give her hugs and kisses and reassure her you are not interested in sex unless she is, but you're still willing to give to her anyway. This is one way you can try to build trust. Pretend like you're dating and you can't have sex, but you can be romantic.

As parents we are bigger and stronger than our children, and so we have the responsibility and obligation to slow down, come to their level and work with them on their weakness and not get frustrated at them if they don't do what we want. They mature at their own pace. Husbands as the bigger and stronger one and the one with the stronger sex drive, has the obligation to slow down and come down to the level of his wife, to be patient and understanding and not get frustrated. Acting frustrated, disappointed and sad only creates rebellion or fear in children and it's the same thing with your wife. You can't force children to move or love faster than they have strength, and so it is with women. So I think the greater sex drive is to ensure God's children are conceived, but it is also there to teach men love and self control. If multiple wives were the answer, you wouldn't see Jacob saying that the Lord commanded them to have one wife only. The Lord respects women and their feelings more than he cares about creating as many children as possible.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

I figured you would have the answers. But unfortunately, I still only have questions.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

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

Post by FrankOne »

Sarah wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 7:44 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving the marriage, the family, and society. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Whose responsibility is to actually solve the problem?

Like it or not, we're talking here about an obvious problem that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women share more men? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.
The Lord respects women and their feelings more than he cares about creating as many children as possible.
We all quote the God which is the reflection of ourselves.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7209
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving and holding the marriage, the family, and society together. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Who has the only real skin in the game, incentive, and actual responsibility to solve the problem? The reality is, although this issue — the male sex drive — is actually the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist, neither women nor the Church have any real incentive to actually address the issue. Women and the Church (that societal nurture that I keep referring to) consider the male sex drive to be a weakness. Instead of it being a God-given gift, and a strength, they consider it to be a weakness that must be overcome. They just want to try to ignore the issue and have it go away, because life would be so much simpler in so many ways if the male sex drive would just go away, or at least start winding down at about age 35, and be completely wound down by age 50-55.

But like it or not, we're actually talking here about an obvious issue that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women have more men to share? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.
I'm afraid that I don't have the answers to most of these questions. While I believe it's obvious that masturbation outside of marriage is sinful, which you seem to agree with, I can't tell you precisely where it falls in severity compared to other sins. I also can't tell you if it's sinful to masturbate occasionally while married if one is thinking about one's spouse. I suppose that this is between the person and God and their spouse.

As far as the solution for a wife completely withholding sex from her husband, I don't know the answer there either. I can see where polygamy makes sense as a viable solution, but in light of Jacob 2, one would have to be absolutely certain that God approves of it, lest one be found guilty of whoredoms. And per D&C 132, it would have to be done by proper priesthood authority. Given these realities, I think at present polygamy probably isn't a viable solution.

Divorcing one's wife and marrying another is an option, but Jesus called this adultery. So that's very problematic.

If the scriptures and teachings of the church are true, then at present it would seem that God expects the husband to just remain celibate. This may be what Jesus was alluding to when he said what he said about Eunuchs.

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 ¶ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

So, perhaps that is the answer, and the solution to the dilemma and challenges of the male sex drive — and perhaps what God expects? — if/when a man’s wife is and/or becomes frigid, as I have suggested before, at that point a man should have himself castrated for everyone’s sake, and from that point forward he becomes the functional equivalent of his wife’s slave or bond servant, to faithfully serve and provide for her the rest of her/his days without any hope or expectation of any kind, having completely surrendered his sexual freedom and liberty once she decides to permanently withhold herself from him.

I have recently been reading my cousin Tmac’s new book, Succession Planning and Other Legal Issues for Family Farmers & Ranchers. In the book he repeatedly makes the observation that mating choices and who one marries is the single most critical decision and component in the whole equation. And that observation takes on a whole new meaning in light of this discussion.

If a man rolls the dice and marries a woman with little or no actual and probing due diligence on this subject, and it turns out that his wife is or subsequently turns frigid, has zero interest in sex, and completely withholds herself from him (which obviously happens a lot), according to your male reasoning, Atticus, perhaps the best answer/solution is for the man to have himself neutered and essentially become his wife’s slave/bond servant for the rest of his/her life?

It doesn’t inspire much cause for hope. No wonder the Intermountain West is considered the Suicide Belt for men over 55, who, according to this reasoning, are now left with the following five options if/when their wife becomes frigid and permanently withholds herself from him: 1) utilize the sinful practice of masturbation to cope, and risk going to He!! for that evil practice; 2) get divorced in order to have a shot at an opportunity for more action, and buy a ticket to He!! for adultery; 3) roll-over, get neutered, and just faithfully serve one’s wife the rest of her frigid days; 4) just pull the plug and commit suicide (which we just had another cousin do — his funeral is today), likewise arguably sealing one’s eternal fate, or; 5) continue to provide for the first wife, take a second wife, and have more children, which will of course be condemned by the Church, and probably the first wife (who would rather have a neutered husband/slave).

This is now the sort of discussion that will definitely compound middle-aged insomnia. But why might a man feel like a victim in the whole bloody conspiracy?

What was God’s divine intention behind all this? Why are men designed, created and wired the way they are? Was it God’s design and plan from the outset that once a man’s wife is done having children he should be gelded/neutered like a horse to end his male sex drive, while preserving some usefulness (as opposed to a bull/steer which would just be slaughtered at that point)?

What was God’s intent? Why did He create men this way, setting up this awful moral dilemma? Did He really expect them to choose to be neutered and become eunuchs to solve the dilemma? Is that what God expects? Why? WHY?

It is pretty clear that of these five options, neutering would be the most acceptable, palatable and preferable to the Church. That is probably why Atticus suggested it. And that option is probably likewise the most preferable to most wives. But, of these five options, which offers any real hope to a man? For a marriage (not just the wife), family, or society?

Mamabear, what say you? You are the only one who hasn’t chimed in yet. What are your thoughts? Answers?

Sarah’s answer is that wives are fully entitled to withhold themselves, and they should have equal opportunity to have more men if they want. Atticus’ answer is to be neutered and become a eunuch. Mamabear, I know that you are uncomfortable with the amount of information being shared here, but what are your answers? Vote with Atticus and the Church — neutering sounds pretty good?

Anyone else?

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2490

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

Post by Mamabear »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 3:54 am So, perhaps that is the answer, and the solution to the dilemma and challenges of the male sex drive — and perhaps what God expects? — if/when a man’s wife is and/or becomes frigid, as I have suggested before, at that point a man should have himself castrated for everyone’s sake, and from that point forward he becomes the functional equivalent of his wife’s slave or bond servant, to faithfully serve and provide for her the rest of her/his days without any hope or expectation of any kind, having completely surrendered his sexual freedom and liberty once she decides to permanently withhold herself from him.

I have recently been reading my cousin Tmac’s new book, Succession Planning and Other Legal Issues for Family Farmers & Ranchers. In the book he repeatedly makes the observation that mating choices and who one marries is the single most critical decision and component in the whole equation. And that observation takes on a whole new meaning in light of this discussion.

If a man rolls the dice and marries a woman with little or no actual and probing due diligence on this subject, and it turns out that his wife is or subsequently turns frigid, has zero interest in sex, and completely withholds herself from him (which obviously happens a lot), according to your male reasoning, Atticus, perhaps the best answer/solution is for the man to have himself neutered and essentially become his wife’s slave/bond servant for the rest of his/her life?

It doesn’t inspire much cause for hope. No wonder the Intermountain West is considered the Suicide Belt for men over 55, who, according to this reasoning, are now left with the following five options if/when their wife becomes frigid and permanently withholds herself from him: 1) utilize the sinful practice of masturbation to cope, and risk going to He!! for that evil practice; 2) get divorced in order to have a shot at an opportunity for more action, and buy a ticket to He!! for adultery; 3) roll-over, get neutered, and just faithfully serve one’s wife the rest of her frigid days; 4) just pull the plug and commit suicide (which we just had another cousin do — his funeral is today), likewise arguably sealing one’s eternal fate, or; 5) continue to provide for the first wife, take a second wife, and have more children, which will of course be condemned by the Church, and probably the first wife (who would rather have a neutered husband/slave).

This is now the sort of discussion that will definitely compound middle-aged insomnia. But why might a man feel like a victim in the whole bloody conspiracy?

What was God’s divine intention behind all this? Why are men designed, created and wired the way they are? Was it God’s design and plan from the outset that once a man’s wife is done having children he should be gelded/neutered like a horse to end his male sex drive, while preserving some usefulness (as opposed to a bull/steer which would just be slaughtered at that point)?

What was God’s intent? Why did He create men this way, setting up this awful moral dilemma? Did He really expect them to choose to be neutered and become eunuchs to solve the dilemma? Is that what God expects? Why? WHY?

It is pretty clear that of these five options, neutering would be the most acceptable, palatable and preferable to the Church. That is probably why Atticus suggested it. And that option is probably likewise the most preferable to most wives. But, of these five options, which offers any real hope to a man? For a marriage (not just the wife), family, or society?

Mamabear, what say you? You are the only one who hasn’t chimed in yet. What are your thoughts? Answers?

Sarah’s answer is that wives are fully entitled to withhold themselves, and they should have equal opportunity to have more men if they want. Atticus’ answer is to be neutered and become a eunuch. Mamabear, I know that you are uncomfortable with the amount of information being shared here, but what are your answers? Vote with Atticus and the Church — neutering sounds pretty good?

Anyone else?
I’ve no idea why you want my opinion, maybe it’s to pick it apart like the others. You seem to twist words well….. I don’t recall Atticus saying to get neutered. I don’t want to be part of your game.
What would Jesus do?
Maybe you should ask God and seek answers from Him.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

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

Post by Jonesy »

I can’t offer any answers either. But I think it’s fair to offer some (of my) perspective. And not to diminish the intent of this thread. There are certainly good points made here.

But there is no sure satisfaction that can be gained in this life but to follow God, and we’re certainly not going to see any fairness in doing so in the here and now.

I don’t know if I would say sex is the glue to a marriage. I actually think the glue to marriage is righteousness, selflessness included. I also don’t think it’s fair to blame God for the moral dilemma in which we’re placed. How would a celestial being live a life in this telestial probation? The sum of it is that the natural man is an enemy to God. I will offend some and even say that our fallen bodies are an offense to God until we receive of the new bodies in the millennium, or transfigurations. As different sexes, we do owe each other a healthy amount of benevolence in this regard. We’re not set up for success.

Now, if you’ll all excuse me, I need to give my wife a sincere hug and express my gratitude to her…

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

:)
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 24th, 2022, 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Jonesy, thanks for chiming in, but I’m just going to say it: Mormon self-righteousness is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together?

Is that why Mormons now have about the same birth rates and divorce rates as the rest of the world, but higher pornography use and anti-depressant use than the rest of the world? Because we’ve got “righteousness” figured out, and we’ve got a corner on it?

Righteousness is the glue that holds the world together? Okay. It does have a clever sound to it, like a sound bite from general conference or something. I could easily hear someone in the Relief Society general presidency say something like that. It is such a catchy, but completely hollow and meaningless statement: Righteousness is the glue that binds. It is the glue that holds the world together.

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

And Mamabear, thanks. Fair enough. This is just a discussion. And you have been brave enough to chime in and make some pretty pointed comments, so I thought you wanted to be part of the discussion. But instead, apparently you just want people to see your comments, but ignore them, and pretend they are not part of the discussion?

Everyone else’s words, including mine, can be picked apart, and we all understand that is what happens in a discussion like this, but your words should be immune from any such scrutiny? Fair enough.

Is it a game? But people only want to play if it can be a one-sided game? Is that the idea? I understand. There are plenty of people staying on the sidelines for that very reason.

So, as you wish. But as to what Atticus said, what did he say? Didn’t he choose to quote and highlight scripture saying that it would be better to choose to be a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake? So, what is a eunuch?

If I’m misunderstanding something that seems this clear, please help me out. If someone suggests that the answer, the solution, as clearly articulated in the scripture, is to be a eunuch, are they not suggesting that the answer/solution is to be neutered? If that isn’t what the suggestion means, what does it mean? How can it mean anything other than to be physically, chemically or sexually neutered — neutralized? Isn’t that what this whole discussion is about — how to deal with the male sex drive? What else could that scripture and that suggestion mean? Words do have meaning, and that is what it means to be a eunuch, just like it means the same thing to be a steer or a gelding. Is this a just a game? Nothing more than a word game?

I know it’s a hard discussion. I get that. I am well aware that plenty of people are watching, but staying on the sidelines for that very reason. People we could normally expect to hear something from aren’t talking. Why? Because it’s not just a game. It’s real. We are discussing the very real, earthy, hard core facts of male life. It may seem like too much information at times, but we’ve been dealing with way too little information for way too long.

This is an issue that affects millions of men. It affects most married couples and families. It affects society. But what it has taken us 20 pages of hard-core discussion to figure out is that rather than talk about the glue — I still maintain that sex, rather than righteousness, is the actually the real glue — and how to strengthen the glue that holds marriages, families and society together, instead we should be talking about actually just completely do away with the glue and take the glue off the table and completely out of the equation (among other things to help us all be more righteous), by having men become eunuchs. And how do they become eunuchs? By being neutered?

But if you are a eunuch, it is entirely possible that you will be more righteous, but what is even the point of being married? Why be married if you are a eunuch? Why? And that really leads to the next logical, reason-based conclusion: Why be married if there is no glue? Whether it is because of voluntary castration or otherwise, if there is no glue what is the point of being married? If there is no glue, what is the point of marriage? Really? Isn’t that the point of marriage, so that you can have glue, and that glue can help hold the marriage together?

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that we men all do what has been suggested, and have ourselves neutered to deal with dilemma of the male sex drive, and thereby completely and permanently remove all possible glue from the equation, how many marriages do you think would still last? Honestly, without any possibility of glue, what is the point or incentive to be married?

I’m sorry if this is a hard discussion and makes you feel uncomfortable? How do you think it feels to live it? Do you think this discussion is less comfortable than the real-life dilemma it is describing and discussing?

But thanks for providing an opportunity for further clarification.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 24th, 2022, 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

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

Post by Jonesy »

Ok, I see what you’re saying. No, righteousness is definitely not the glue holding up marriage, nor society as we sit.

But I was speaking in the context of the sum of my post. That righteousness OUGHT to be the glue that holds together societies and families. Modern society is so topsy-turvy that sex currently IS the glue that upholds it—yes, that is our current reality, but cannot be our guide.

Zion begins in the heart of the individual, and if we don’t start repenting there, then we might become preoccupied about other things…

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Okay, so much for the idea of self-evident truths. I guess we’re just going to have to let it play out for a while longer so things — truth — can become more self-evident.

Has “righteousness” ever been the glue that held society together?

Sure, the city of Enoch was so righteous that it was taken up. But what did that do to hold the rest of society together?

And there have been parts of society that were so wicked and unrighteous that they were destroyed. But has righteousness per se ever been the thing that actually held society together? Ever?

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7209
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 3:54 am So, perhaps that is the answer, and the solution to the dilemma and challenges of the male sex drive — and perhaps what God expects? — if/when a man’s wife is and/or becomes frigid, as I have suggested before, at that point a man should have himself castrated for everyone’s sake, and from that point forward he becomes the functional equivalent of his wife’s slave or bond servant, to faithfully serve and provide for her the rest of her/his days without any hope or expectation of any kind, having completely surrendered his sexual freedom and liberty once she decides to permanently withhold herself from him.

I have recently been reading my cousin Tmac’s new book, Succession Planning and Other Legal Issues for Family Farmers & Ranchers. In the book he repeatedly makes the observation that mating choices and who one marries is the single most critical decision and component in the whole equation. And that observation takes on a whole new meaning in light of this discussion.

If a man rolls the dice and marries a woman with little or no actual and probing due diligence on this subject, and it turns out that his wife is or subsequently turns frigid, has zero interest in sex, and completely withholds herself from him (which obviously happens a lot), according to your male reasoning, Atticus, perhaps the best answer/solution is for the man to have himself neutered and essentially become his wife’s slave/bond servant for the rest of his/her life?

It doesn’t inspire much cause for hope. No wonder the Intermountain West is considered the Suicide Belt for men over 55, who, according to this reasoning, are now left with the following five options if/when their wife becomes frigid and permanently withholds herself from him: 1) utilize the sinful practice of masturbation to cope, and risk going to He!! for that evil practice; 2) get divorced in order to have a shot at an opportunity for more action, and buy a ticket to He!! for adultery; 3) roll-over, get neutered, and just faithfully serve one’s wife the rest of her frigid days; 4) just pull the plug and commit suicide (which we just had another cousin do — his funeral is today), likewise arguably sealing one’s eternal fate, or; 5) continue to provide for the first wife, take a second wife, and have more children, which will of course be condemned by the Church, and probably the first wife (who would rather have a neutered husband/slave).

This is now the sort of discussion that will definitely compound middle-aged insomnia. But why might a man feel like a victim in the whole bloody conspiracy?

What was God’s divine intention behind all this? Why are men designed, created and wired the way they are? Was it God’s design and plan from the outset that once a man’s wife is done having children he should be gelded/neutered like a horse to end his male sex drive, while preserving some usefulness (as opposed to a bull/steer which would just be slaughtered at that point)?

What was God’s intent? Why did He create men this way, setting up this awful moral dilemma? Did He really expect them to choose to be neutered and become eunuchs to solve the dilemma? Is that what God expects? Why? WHY?

It is pretty clear that of these five options, neutering would be the most acceptable, palatable and preferable to the Church. That is probably why Atticus suggested it. And that option is probably likewise the most preferable to most wives. But, of these five options, which offers any real hope to a man? For a marriage (not just the wife), family, or society?

Mamabear, what say you? You are the only one who hasn’t chimed in yet. What are your thoughts? Answers?

Sarah’s answer is that wives are fully entitled to withhold themselves, and they should have equal opportunity to have more men if they want. Atticus’ answer is to be neutered and become a eunuch. Mamabear, I know that you are uncomfortable with the amount of information being shared here, but what are your answers? Vote with Atticus and the Church — neutering sounds pretty good?

Anyone else?
I didn't actually say that a man should have himself neutered in this situation. And I'm not aware of the church ever teaching this, let alone expecting this.

I said that at present it would appear that God expects the man to remain celibate. This doesn’t require neutering. But this does beg the question of why Jesus said what he said about eunuchs in conjunction with marriage, after his disciples suggested that man should not get married at all if divorcing his wife for any reason other than fornication is considerd adultery and forbidden.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

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

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:32 am And Mamabear, thanks. Fair enough. This is just a discussion. And you have been brave enough to chime in and make some pretty pointed comments, so I thought you wanted to be part of the discussion. But instead, apparently you just want people see your comments, but ignore them, and pretend they are not part of the discussion?

Everyone else’s words, including mine, can be picked apart, and we all understand that is what happens in a discussion like this, but your words should be immune from any such scrutiny? Fair enough.

Is it a game? But people only want to play if it can be a one-sided game? Is that the idea?

As you wish. But as to what Atticus said, what did he say? Didn’t he choose to quote and highlight scripture saying that it would be better to choose to be a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake? Do you know what a eunuch is?

If I’m misunderstanding something that seems this clear, please help me out. If someone suggests that the answer, the solution, as clearly articulated in the scripture, is to be a eunuch, are they not suggesting that the answer/solution is to be neutered? If that isn’t what the suggestion means, what does it mean? How can it mean anything other than to be physically, chemically or sexually neutered — neutralized? Isn’t that what this whole discussion is about — how to deal with the male sex drive? What else could that scripture and that suggestion mean? Words do have meaning, and that is what it means to be a eunuch, just like it means the same thing to be a steer or a gelding. Is this a just a game? Nothing more than a word game?

I know it’s a hard discussion. I get that. I am well aware that plenty of people are watching, but staying in the sidelines for that very reason. People we could normally expect to hear from aren’t talking. Why? Because it’s not just a game. It’s real. We are discussing the very real, earthy, hard core facts of male life. It may seem like too much information at times, but we’ve been dealing with way too little information for way too long.

This is an issue that affects millions of men. It affects most married couples and families. It affects society. But what it has taken us 20 pages of hard-core discussion to figure out is that rather than talk about the glue, and how to strengthen the glue that holds marriages, families and society together, we should actually just completely do away with the glue and take the glue off the table and completely out of the equation, by having men become eunuchs. And how do they become eunuchs? By being neutered?

But if you are a eunuch what is even the point of being married? Why be married if you are a eunuch? Why? And that really leads to the next logical, reason-based conclusion: Why be married if there is no glue? Whether it is because of voluntary castration or otherwise, if there is no glue what is the point of being married? If there is no glue, what is the point of marriage? Really? Isn’t that the point of marriage, so that you can have glue, and that glue can help hold the marriage together?

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that we men all do what has been suggested, and have ourselves neutered to deal with dilemma of the male sex drive, and thereby completely and permanently remove all possible glue from the equation, how many marriages do you think would still last? Honestly, without any possibility of glue, what is the point or incentive to be married?

I’m sorry if this is a hard discussion and makes you feel uncomfortable? How do you think it feels to live it? Do you think this discussion is less comfortable than the real-life dilemma it is describing and discussing?

But thanks for providing an opportunity for further clarification.
The purpose of the marriage relationship is to become a parent, a father and a mother, and to work together to raise these gifts from God. Husbands who aren't getting the sex they want can focus on what they do have, and what their wife has given them, assuming she has birthed a child. This is a great sacrifice and an eternal blessing. Feeling grateful for what you do have hopefully will make you more attractive. I acknowledge that there are some wives out there who have made up their mind and are determined to reject physical intimacy at all costs, and I don't know how God will judge that. She has a problem of fear that has led her to set an impenetrable wall, but if she can learn to forgive and allow her husband to try to give physical and sexual gifts to her, there is hope.

In marriage we exchange many kinds of love gifts, not just sex. We exchange work gifts and the fruits of our labor. So a man is working to provide the necessities of life and protection, while the wife is working to bring forth children and is caring for them. That is her first priority. She can also cook, clean, manage laundry and other chores, but realize that the housework is never done, and putting pressure or expectations on her is just going to make her rebell in the work area as well. The fruits of her labors are the children, and can be clean clothes, cooked meals etc. that she shares with her husband while the fruit he shares is the money he brings in and any other work he does around the house and with the children. So this is an example of how marriage partners exchange love gifts that happen to be work gifts. We can focus on these.

Partners can also exchange verbal gifts or emotional and mental gifts. Words of kindness and expressions of gratitude and love can be given. Just think if one or the other became handicapped in a way in which they could not have sex. You can still love the person and serve them.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2490

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

Post by Mamabear »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:32 am And Mamabear, thanks. Fair enough. This is just a discussion. And you have been brave enough to chime in and make some pretty pointed comments, so I thought you wanted to be part of the discussion. But instead, apparently you just want people to see your comments, but ignore them, and pretend they are not part of the discussion?

Everyone else’s words, including mine, can be picked apart, and we all understand that is what happens in a discussion like this, but your words should be immune from any such scrutiny? Fair enough.

Is it a game? But people only want to play if it can be a one-sided game? Is that the idea? I understand. There are plenty of people staying on the sidelines for that very reason.

So, as you wish. But as to what Atticus said, what did he say? Didn’t he choose to quote and highlight scripture saying that it would be better to choose to be a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake? So, what is a eunuch?

If I’m misunderstanding something that seems this clear, please help me out. If someone suggests that the answer, the solution, as clearly articulated in the scripture, is to be a eunuch, are they not suggesting that the answer/solution is to be neutered? If that isn’t what the suggestion means, what does it mean? How can it mean anything other than to be physically, chemically or sexually neutered — neutralized? Isn’t that what this whole discussion is about — how to deal with the male sex drive? What else could that scripture and that suggestion mean? Words do have meaning, and that is what it means to be a eunuch, just like it means the same thing to be a steer or a gelding. Is this a just a game? Nothing more than a word game?

I know it’s a hard discussion. I get that. I am well aware that plenty of people are watching, but staying on the sidelines for that very reason. People we could normally expect to hear something from aren’t talking. Why? Because it’s not just a game. It’s real. We are discussing the very real, earthy, hard core facts of male life. It may seem like too much information at times, but we’ve been dealing with way too little information for way too long.

This is an issue that affects millions of men. It affects most married couples and families. It affects society. But what it has taken us 20 pages of hard-core discussion to figure out is that rather than talk about the glue — I still maintain that sex, rather than righteousness, is the actually the real glue — and how to strengthen the glue that holds marriages, families and society together, instead we should be talking about actually just completely do away with the glue and take the glue off the table and completely out of the equation (among other things to help us all be more righteous), by having men become eunuchs. And how do they become eunuchs? By being neutered?

But if you are a eunuch, it is entirely possible that you will be more righteous, but what is even the point of being married? Why be married if you are a eunuch? Why? And that really leads to the next logical, reason-based conclusion: Why be married if there is no glue? Whether it is because of voluntary castration or otherwise, if there is no glue what is the point of being married? If there is no glue, what is the point of marriage? Really? Isn’t that the point of marriage, so that you can have glue, and that glue can help hold the marriage together?

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that we men all do what has been suggested, and have ourselves neutered to deal with dilemma of the male sex drive, and thereby completely and permanently remove all possible glue from the equation, how many marriages do you think would still last? Honestly, without any possibility of glue, what is the point or incentive to be married?

I’m sorry if this is a hard discussion and makes you feel uncomfortable? How do you think it feels to live it? Do you think this discussion is less comfortable than the real-life dilemma it is describing and discussing?

But thanks for providing an opportunity for further clarification.
Maybe you didn’t see the only question in my post. What would Jesus do in this situation? Seek His guidance and you will find it.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

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

Post by Jonesy »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:45 am Okay, so much for the idea of self-evident truths. I guess we’re just going to have to let it play out for a while longer so things — truth — can become more self-evident.

Has “righteousness” ever been the glue that held society together?

Sure, the city of Enoch was so righteous that it was taken up. But what did that do to hold the rest of society together?

And there have been parts of society that were so wicked and unrighteous that they were destroyed. But has righteousness per se ever been the thing that actually held society together? Ever?
It’s apparently self-evident enough for you. I’ll take Enoch’s Zion any day. It’s probably the one heart and one mind mentality that kept it together. You can keep “the rest of society”.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

So, instead of having sex, you think the people in the City of Enoch were just "being righteous" instead. Okay. Fair enough.

And, in response to both Mamabear’s question and Atticus’ comment, regardless of what
“the Church says,” apparently Christ has already provided the answer: For the sake of the Kingdom, be neutered and become a eunuch. Of the five possible options in this scenario, there is only scriptural support for two possible solutions to the dilemma of the male sex drive: plural marriage or being neutered and becoming a eunuch. In terms of what Jesus would do, those are the only words He has given us.

But all other arguments presented here at this point now by two women and two men, including at least one who has claimed that has a very satisfying sex life, with respect to a marriage in which there is now zero glue, all point to castration as the best option — for the sake of righteousness, the kingdom, putting off the natural man, if thy right hand (or testicles) offend thee, smite it/them off — it all points in that direction as the best solution from those perspectives, and supposedly the most inspired.

But at this point, I'm going to have to bow out of awhile. I've got to get ready to go to the funeral of our middle-aged male cousin who committed suicide probably primarily as a result of many of the frustrations being discussed in this thread. Instead of the City of Enoch, and all of the theories being bantered about in this discussion, my cousin's funeral is the real world that I will be dealing with today.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 24th, 2022, 9:15 am, edited 4 times in total.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7209
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

In regards to self evident truths, I think it's important to remember that the God who created us and gave us life has said:

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God's word also says:

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

Our goal should be to understand what God expects and then try to do it, not what we can reason for ourselves using our own wisdom. We shouldn't expect the answers to be self evident to carnal man.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2490

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

Post by Mamabear »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:15 am So, instead of having sex, you think the people in the City of Enoch were just "being righteous" instead. Okay. Fair enough.

And, in response to both Mamabear’s question and Atticus’ comment, regardless of what
“the Church says,” apparently Christ has already provided the answer: For the sake of the Kingdom, be neutered and become a eunuch. Of the five possible options in this scenario, there is only scriptural support for two possible solutions to the dilemma of the male sex drive: plural marriage or being neutered and becoming a eunuch. In terms of what Jesus would do, those are the only words He has given us.

But at this point, I'm going to have to bow out of awhile. I've got to get ready to go to the funeral of our middle-aged male cousin who committed suicide probably primarily as a result of many of the frustrations being discussed in this thread. Instead of the City of Enoch, and all of the theories being bantered about in this discussion, my cousin's funeral is the real world that I will be dealing with today.
“In terms of what Jesus would do, those are the only words He has given us.”
That’s entirely different than seeking answers and then DOING what Jesus would do.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7209
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:15 am So, instead of having sex, you think the people in the City of Enoch were just "being righteous" instead. Okay. Fair enough.

And, in response to both Mamabear’s question and Atticus’ comment, regardless of what
“the Church says,” apparently Christ has already provided the answer: For the sake of the Kingdom, be neutered and become a eunuch. Of the five possible options in this scenario, there is only scriptural support for two possible solutions to the dilemma of the male sex drive: plural marriage or being neutered and becoming a eunuch. In terms of what Jesus would do, those are the only words He has given us.

But all other arguments present here at this point now point to castration as the best option for the sake of righteousness, the kingdom, putting off the natural man, if they right had (or testicles) offend thee, smite it/them off, all point in that direction as the best solution, and apparently the most inspired.

But at this point, I'm going to have to bow out of awhile. I've got to get ready to go to the funeral of our middle-aged male cousin who committed suicide probably primarily as a result of many of the frustrations being discussed in this thread. Instead of the City of Enoch, and all of the theories being bantered about in this discussion, my cousin's funeral is the real world that I will be dealing with today.
Sorry to hear about your cousin. My condolences.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

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

Post by Jonesy »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:15 am So, instead of having sex, you think the people in the City of Enoch were just "being righteous" instead. Okay. Fair enough.
Yes, including righteous sex. Lol

This concept is self-evident to anyone including a child. Do you think the city of Zion was held together by sex or because the people were of one heart and one mind? So, while society/families/marriages may fail for whatever reason, a righteous society/family/marriage will not because they are anchored by God. In fact, it’s more accurate to say that society/families/marriages fail because of unrighteousness.

I use broad strokes because righteousness is individually applied. Zion is next level where the people are of one heart and mind.

I am truly sorry about your cousin…

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

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

Post by FrankOne »

Atticus wrote: September 24th, 2022, 1:10 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving and holding the marriage, the family, and society together. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Who has the only real skin in the game, incentive, and actual responsibility to solve the problem? The reality is, although this issue — the male sex drive — is actually the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist, neither women nor the Church have any real incentive to actually address the issue. Women and the Church (that societal nurture that I keep referring to) consider the male sex drive to be a weakness. Instead of it being a God-given gift, and a strength, they consider it to be a weakness that must be overcome. They just want to try to ignore the issue and have it go away, because life would be so much simpler in so many ways if the male sex drive would just go away, or at least start winding down at about age 35, and be completely wound down by age 50-55.

But like it or not, we're actually talking here about an obvious issue that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women have more men to share? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.

As far as the solution for a wife completely withholding sex from her husband, I don't know the answer there either. I can see where polygamy makes sense as a viable solution, but in light of Jacob 2, one would have to be absolutely certain that God approves of it

Divorcing one's wife and marrying another is an option, but Jesus called this adultery. So that's very problematic.

good points. Polygamy is between a man and God. Outsiders trying to judge these things haven't the faintest idea of what is occurring in another's relationship.

As far as divorce goes, common sense would still have to be employed. If she is simply old, and isn't interested in sex, then I wholly agree with the idea that divorce is an incorrect move. If she withholds sex and also is incurably defiant, resentful and manipulative, then divorce would make perfect sense.

Post Reply