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

[Sarah]

Now, I really think some people are starting to get past the surface, and all the inherent negative biases and social conditioning in the Church, and starting to finally get down to some actual brass tacks in this discussion.

And it is interesting that in this discussion we have not yet gotten the steady LDS female chorus (endless, single-dimensional refrain) of, come He!! or High Water “I WILL NEVER SHARE A MAN”!

But, unfortunately, it is mostly men participating in the discussion, with Sarah as essentially the only woman offering much “but this is the Church’s current position” push-back.

It is truly interesting how when it comes to the vast majority of the things of this World, at this point, the Church seems completely content to just be swept away by the World, but when it comes to “The Patriarchal Law of Abraham that Leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom,” and even the principle of telestial plural marriage — which so many others are starting to see the merit of — the Church and its members appear to be prepared to resist as if plural marriage is the single worst plague since the world began — worse than abortion, same-sex marriage, single mothers, fatherless children and families, etc. The Church would rather see an entire ocean of single mothers than any plural marriage or actual paternal responsibility and support.

It is interesting.

Yes, you have a handful of pro-polygamist men on here who agree with you, who beat the same Isaiah drum of - "look, you will have to share your husband because 86% of men in Zion are going to die!" No wonder the women don't want to participate in the discussion.

I don't think finding a few women online who want polygamy is evidence of much of anything.

This is no different than what happened in the early days of the church. They all thought because the gospel was coming forth and the Lord had revealed to Joseph the principle of multiple wives, that it's purpose was to fulfill this prophecy in Isaiah, and have this principle in place for when all the men would die very shortly. It was preached by every missionary to hurry and get sealed to the man with the highest authority you could find before the world ended. It was preached over the pulpit that this Isaiah prophecy would soon be fulfilled and the Mormons would be ready. They even wrote a little ditty about this theme that was sung by the saints. Yet, they got ahead of themselves apparently. If anything we can say that the saints already fulfilled the prophecy!

I'm open to multiple interpretations of this scripture, but this last time I was reading it, what came to my mind was this - every time Isaiah speaks of "the daughter of Zion" singular, we all know that he is talking about Israel as a whole or as a group. So when he talks about daughters of Zion, I think he is pointing more to individuals within the group and describing the choices of each member, but these descriptions and warnings can apply to individuals of both genders within the group just like we know that "daughter of Zion" is a description of everyone. The description of their judgment is a description of slavery.

Here's some quotes from the student manual:

(13-22) Isaiah 3:24–26. The Fruits of Transgression upon the Daughters of Zion

The prophet contrasts their former beauty with the results of judgment. Because of their wickedness, the beauty, the pride, and the fashion will become tragedy, disaster, and slavery. The girdle in verse 24 was the sash used to fasten the outer clothing. Keil and Delitzsch showed that the “rent” which was to replace it was the rope used to bind slaves. Sackcloth was black goat’s hair worn at times of great mourning. The “burning” refers to the branding that often accompanied one’s being made a slave. Thus Keil and Delitzsch translated this verse: “And instead of balmy scent there will be mouldiness, and instead of the sash, a rope, and instead of artistic ringlets a baldness, and instead of the dress cloak a frock of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty” (Commentary, 7:1:147).

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”
Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

So the thought I had was that this number 7 represents completion or fullness. And what is completed? It is the shame and disgrace that will come to all of Israel.
In that day it was very shameful to be childless or unmarried in their culture, and so Isaiah is using an example of the epitome of shame in their culture to represent the complete shaming these people will have. Their shame will be complete and fulfilled. Do you really think 86% of the men in Zion are going to die?

No doubt after a period of war, there will be more women than men, but history shows us that polygamy isn't always the natural result. I was looking up polygamy and war, and most of the links were about how the practice leads to war, but this article talks about women in Europe after WW1 and how they simply had to wait longer for marriage and married younger men - essentially waiting for the boys to grow up. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... -in-europe

[EvanLM]

But the reality is, plural marriage is both a celestial and telestial law. Millions of people practice it telestially. In places where it is legal, and acceptable between consenting spouses, how can it be considered adultery?



bwahahahahahahahahahaha I'm still laughing . . .you guys are such a riot . . .
hurch, take liberty with interpreting the three kingdoms of glory

I thought people on this forum wanted to tell the prophet what to do . . . and how to interpret scripture and doctrine

I am so wrong . . you actually want to tell God what to do and who top intrepret doctrine to make you happy . . . . false prophets . . .

[Sarah]

Now, I really think some people are starting to get past the surface, and all the inherent negative biases and social conditioning in the Church, and starting to finally get down to some actual brass tacks in this discussion.

And it is interesting that in this discussion we have not yet gotten the steady LDS female chorus (endless, single-dimensional refrain) of, come He!! or High Water “I WILL NEVER SHARE A MAN”!

But, unfortunately, it is mostly men participating in the discussion, with Sarah as essentially the only woman offering much “but this is the Church’s current position” push-back.

It is truly interesting how when it comes to the vast majority of the things of this World, at this point, the Church seems completely content to just be swept away by the World, but when it comes to “The Patriarchal Law of Abraham that Leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom,” and even the principle of telestial plural marriage — which so many others are starting to see the merit of — the Church and its members appear to be prepared to resist as if plural marriage is the single worst plague since the world began — worse than abortion, same-sex marriage, single mothers, fatherless children and families, etc. The Church would rather see an entire ocean of single mothers and their children than any plural marriage with corresponding actual paternal responsibility and support, including safety and security.

It is interesting.

I need to comment on this idea that the church is hurting single moms by not allowing polygamy. It should be apparent to everyone, that when you are a plural wife, you are essentially a single mom most of the time. Polygyny creates single moms, and working moms, with a marriage in name only. Because I know how hard it is to have and raise children, I personally would rather remain childless or if I was in a situation that my husband was taking on more wives, I would stop having children, because I would realize that I would have little to no help or support from my husband going forward. (It would probably depend on how much money he was providing!) You can argue that the sister wives have an obligation to help take care of each other and each other's children, but single moms could get together and do that without a husband and splitting that one lonely paycheck if they wanted to. In fact, in Africa, and probably everywhere, there are groups of women doing this, banding together to help take care of one another because they don't trust any of the men.

In the early days of the church when polygyny was practiced, the norm was for the wives and children of these large families to rarely see the father or husband, and have little financial support. Many of these men apparently thought they could provide for a lot of women and their children, and while they learned the hard lesson of how difficult it actually was, the wives suffered as a result of everyone's ignorance about how multiple wives and enormous families actually turn out. Or, you had many men who expected all their wives to be content with that "name only" marriage, because of the verse in Isaiah. And so the women had to beg for more support. No thanks!

And speaking of single moms, do you know that in one of the surveys I read, 24% of the men in the church have never been married compared with 14% of the women I think? What is the church doing to help all these single men? We could easily solve the single women and men problem if we allowed plural marriage to go both ways, within a covenant relationship and group, where everyone was committed to taking care of each other and supporting the weakest among the group, helping to lift everyone higher. Men could help other men work and take care of family members. People would be able to learn the hard lessons and correct bad behavior more easily as well, if they had multiple partners giving them a greater perspective on what correct behavior looks like. Everyone would just need to be patient with one another and loyal to one another. But I realize this kind of society would only work with people who have proven to be honest and full of charity. The reward for the Celestial is what I see it as.

[Wolfwoman]

There are many women who, finding themselves 30 something and still single, or 40 something and still single, will use a sperm donor in attempts to be a Single Mother By Choice. I honestly applaud them. While a donor is the not the best way (the child doesn't know much about their identity), at least these women are trying to keep the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Reminds me of Tamar in the Bible. I think most of them would definitely say they would much rather be a single mom than be in a polygamous relationship. Your few women seeking it out are in the minority, and if they were given the chance to be loved and cherished by one man only, I think most of them would choose that over the polygamous relationship.

Regarding the profile above where they said:
"She does not have to be Christian"
That seems like rather low standards...

[FrankOne]

Women - want multiple husbands?
Men - want to share your wife with other men?
Might greatly awaken all involved!


4 Countries Where Women Have Multiple Husbands:
https://thewhistler.ng/4-countries-wher ... -husbands/


Let’s discuss “Women and Plural Marriage”!!!

if it works for you

[BringZion]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

[EvanLM]

Now, I really think some people are starting to get past the surface, and all the inherent negative biases and social conditioning in the Church, and starting to finally get down to some actual brass tacks in this discussion.

And it is interesting that in this discussion we have not yet gotten the steady LDS female chorus (endless, single-dimensional refrain) of, come He!! or High Water “I WILL NEVER SHARE A MAN”!

But, unfortunately, it is mostly men participating in the discussion, with Sarah as essentially the only woman offering much “but this is the Church’s current position” push-back.

It is truly interesting how when it comes to the vast majority of the things of this World, at this point, the Church seems completely content to just be swept away by the World, but when it comes to “The Patriarchal Law of Abraham that Leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom,” and even the principle of telestial plural marriage — which so many others are starting to see the merit of — the Church and its members appear to be prepared to resist as if plural marriage is the single worst plague since the world began — worse than abortion, same-sex marriage, single mothers, fatherless children and families, etc. The Church would rather see an entire ocean of single mothers than any plural marriage or actual paternal responsibility and support.

It is interesting.

Yes, you have a handful of pro-polygamist men on here who agree with you, who beat the same Isaiah drum of - "look, you will have to share your husband because 86% of men in Zion are going to die!" No wonder the women don't want to participate in the discussion.

I don't think finding a few women online who want polygamy is evidence of much of anything.

This is no different than what happened in the early days of the church. They all thought because the gospel was coming forth and the Lord had revealed to Joseph the principle of multiple wives, that it's purpose was to fulfill this prophecy in Isaiah, and have this principle in place for when all the men would die very shortly. It was preached by every missionary to hurry and get sealed to the man with the highest authority you could find before the world ended. It was preached over the pulpit that this Isaiah prophecy would soon be fulfilled and the Mormons would be ready. They even wrote a little ditty about this theme that was sung by the saints. Yet, they got ahead of themselves apparently. If anything we can say that the saints already fulfilled the prophecy!

I'm open to multiple interpretations of this scripture, but this last time I was reading it, what came to my mind was this - every time Isaiah speaks of "the daughter of Zion" singular, we all know that he is talking about Israel as a whole or as a group. So when he talks about daughters of Zion, I think he is pointing more to individuals within the group and describing the choices of each member, but these descriptions and warnings can apply to individuals of both genders within the group just like we know that "daughter of Zion" is a description of everyone. The description of their judgment is a description of slavery.

Here's some quotes from the student manual:

(13-22) Isaiah 3:24–26. The Fruits of Transgression upon the Daughters of Zion

The prophet contrasts their former beauty with the results of judgment. Because of their wickedness, the beauty, the pride, and the fashion will become tragedy, disaster, and slavery. The girdle in verse 24 was the sash used to fasten the outer clothing. Keil and Delitzsch showed that the “rent” which was to replace it was the rope used to bind slaves. Sackcloth was black goat’s hair worn at times of great mourning. The “burning” refers to the branding that often accompanied one’s being made a slave. Thus Keil and Delitzsch translated this verse: “And instead of balmy scent there will be mouldiness, and instead of the sash, a rope, and instead of artistic ringlets a baldness, and instead of the dress cloak a frock of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty” (Commentary, 7:1:147).

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”
Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

So the thought I had was that this number 7 represents completion or fullness. And what is completed? It is the shame and disgrace that will come to all of Israel.
In that day it was very shameful to be childless or unmarried in their culture, and so Isaiah is using an example of the epitome of shame in their culture to represent the complete shaming these people will have. Their shame will be complete and fulfilled. Do you really think 86% of the men in Zion are going to die?

No doubt after a period of war, there will be more women than men, but history shows us that polygamy isn't always the natural result. I was looking up polygamy and war, and most of the links were about how the practice leads to war, but this article talks about women in Europe after WW1 and how they simply had to wait longer for marriage and married younger men - essentially waiting for the boys to grow up. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... -in-europe

this is why polygamy is cultural . . not having anything to do with religion or gospel of Christ . . there is no Abrahamic law that you are talking about. . . someone made that up . . . hook, line, sinker

[Sarah]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

Thanks for sharing your history and experience! I can't remember a time on this forum that we had woman from a polygamous family share her experience, so I appreciate you writing up your thoughts.

[Sarah]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

Just want to throw out an idea about your comment about regular sex. Sister Nelson gave a talk at BYU and talked about sex within marriage and said something that I agree with, and that is that no one should feel "used" with the sex act (something to that effect). I used to believe the way you did and felt an obligation to give my husband sex all the time no matter what because I found that if I didn't, he would become annoyed and treat me poorly. There was also a period when sex was painful for me, and he didn't seem to care - his attitude was still that he deserved it. This attitude was a turn off and caused me to not enjoy sex with him. It wasn't until I realized that sex was a two-way gift that should be given and received by both for the right reasons, that our sex life improved, and I set some boundaries and told him his attitude of entitlement was a turn off, that he was able to change and be more patient and compassionate with me. It's not just about him. You should be enjoying sex just as much as he is, and if you're not, then you aren't receiving any good gift from him when that is how it's designed to be. You are giving to him at the same time he is giving to you, and he is receiving from you at the same time you are receiving from him, so a gift of sex for a gift of sex, not a gift of sex from you in exchange for a work gift from him. You are also giving a lot of work! You are working to give him children and food and laundry and all the other work you do. A husband should not feel he is owed sex because of all the work he does. His wife is also working along side him, and that is a fair exchange - work gifts for work gifts, sex gifts for sex gifts. So I plan to teach my children that they should not feel obligated to give their spouse sex if something isn't right about it. They need to make sure both are eagerly in agreement and not move forward unless they are both united in their desire and enjoyment of the act.

[EvanLM]

looks like facebook has taken over and we are reading the liberal rage of the modern woman

this would be a good article for glamour

[BringZion]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

Just want to throw out an idea about your comment about regular sex. Sister Nelson gave a talk at BYU and talked about sex within marriage and said something that I agree with, and that is that no one should feel "used" with the sex act (something to that effect). I used to believe the way you did and felt an obligation to give my husband sex all the time no matter what because I found that if I didn't, he would become annoyed and treat me poorly. There was also a period when sex was painful for me, and he didn't seem to care - his attitude was still that he deserved it. This attitude was a turn off and caused me to not enjoy sex with him. It wasn't until I realized that sex was a two-way gift that should be given and received by both for the right reasons, that our sex life improved, and I set some boundaries and told him his attitude of entitlement was a turn off, that he was able to change and be more patient and compassionate with me. It's not just about him. You should be enjoying sex just as much as he is, and if you're not, then you aren't receiving any good gift from him when that is how it's designed to be. You are giving to him at the same time he is giving to you, and he is receiving from you at the same time you are receiving from him, so a gift of sex for a gift of sex, not a gift of sex from you in exchange for a work gift from him. You are also giving a lot of work! You are working to give him children and food and laundry and all the other work you do. A husband should not feel he is owed sex because of all the work he does. His wife is also working along side him, and that is a fair exchange - work gifts for work gifts, sex gifts for sex gifts. So I plan to teach my children that they should not feel obligated to give their spouse sex if something isn't right about it. They need to make sure both are eagerly in agreement and not move forward unless they are both united in their desire and enjoyment of the act.

Yes, I totally agree with everything you said. All the specifics about being respectful and considerate of one another, etc, in my mind, was assumed. No one should put up with being used or disrespected…and I think very few husbands are intentionally being like that and most would do anything to make their wife happy…my comments are with the assumption of a good man.

So yes, not at obligation per se…but more as a gift to each other, because you truly care about and appreciate each other. Women have to make a conscious and specific decision to see physical intimacy like that…the world has us thinking all men are animals and then often project that onto our husbands who have committed their lives to us…forgetting that it is a natural and inherent way they express love. Our husbands are not trying to take something from us.

And I do think many women don’t give it the priority and consideration it deserves…because it is probably just as important to him as listening is to her. If a husband were to tell his wife to shut up when she was in the middle of telling him something important about her day, that would be incredibly hurtful and rude to her. If he really couldn’t listen to her in that moment, there are respectful ways to communicate that. But it is the one thing a husband and wife have to rely solely on one another for. Every single other thing in life can come from almost anyone else…so a husband going to his wife often for the one thing he can get from no one else is a power she should wield with the upmost care and consideration. I know, technically, it goes both ways, but rarely do women have to do anything more than hint or smile at their husband and it’s reciprocated. Whereas many women act like it’s the metaphorical desert she can only hand out after he’s eaten all his veggies, cleaned his room, maintained good grades and washed his hands. Or, in real life…helped with the kids, watched a romantic movie, been a good listener, been nice to your mother, taken out the trash and paid 5 sincere compliments.

There was a Prager video a few years ago that presents the idea that it’s a moral obligation to be as happy as possible as much as possible. I think it’s the same with sex: to be as willing as possible as often as possible. (Sorry if this topic is making anyone uncomfortable!)

So, I don’t know if I would exactly say that sex is “owed” in marriage, but the scriptures do say that once we get married our bodies are not our own.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

There was an old book written in 1959 I read many years ago that I found very powerful…

It’s titled “The Power of Sexual Surrender” by Marie Robinson M.D.

It’s about the power of surrendering fully to your husband…wholly trusting that he loves you and is expressing his love and not using you. (Maybe the way women felt before the battle of the sexes?) Again…this is with the assumption you married a good man.
The book gets to the heart of the matter instead of reading like women are a machine that he just needs to push all the right buttons, in the right order to turn on.
What I have found is that once you do fully surrender and let yourself be loved, (not the same as doing it out of fear that he will get it elsewhere or be grouchy without it) It is pretty amazing. The world would say that a man will take it and you for granted and be less respectful. But I’m a committed marriage, it’s actually the opposite. You become an incredible treasure to his heart and the source of his deepest comfort.

[blitzinstripes]

The OP sounded to me like reading a personal classifieds for bi-curious women.

[EvanLM]

no one is uncomfortable . . . the book everything you wanted to know about sex and was afraid to ask sat on the bookshelf of the home I was raised in. Probably one of my smark alek brothers put it there The book really ticked me off since I don't see that anyone can tell me what sex should be to me. Or make me rate sex according to some psychologist's stupid opinion.

I know that most of our attitudes towards sex was definitely brainwashed into us by these types of books and movies and discussions by man/woman. Even the prophets have never said anything other than what I hear said by sex therapists or whoever.

your posts echo the same narratives . . . those of man. that is why there are contradictions with their talk and with movies and with us. There are no rules in the scriptures . .

the problem is simply that we , as couples, disagree on a lot of things. we disagree on discipline of kids, how to spend money, where to vacation, how to vacation, grooming, animals in the house, when to eat supper, and on and on. whether our feet stink

We decide what we will find to be incompatible about and what NOT to be incompatible about. In crude words, we choose our fights.

in a marriage, you can fight about sex or not . . .you could post just as easily about grooming or food as you do about sex. They all carry the same weight. It is only SOCIETY that has told you that sex carries more importance than anything else. not true and partners will work it out to their compromise or whatever just like they do every other conflict in marriage

or they won't work it out thinking it is so damn important as to keep causing conflicts.

[EvanLM]

The OP sounded to me like reading a personal classifieds for bi-curious women.

too much information . . . facebook stuff

[Sarah]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

Just want to throw out an idea about your comment about regular sex. Sister Nelson gave a talk at BYU and talked about sex within marriage and said something that I agree with, and that is that no one should feel "used" with the sex act (something to that effect). I used to believe the way you did and felt an obligation to give my husband sex all the time no matter what because I found that if I didn't, he would become annoyed and treat me poorly. There was also a period when sex was painful for me, and he didn't seem to care - his attitude was still that he deserved it. This attitude was a turn off and caused me to not enjoy sex with him. It wasn't until I realized that sex was a two-way gift that should be given and received by both for the right reasons, that our sex life improved, and I set some boundaries and told him his attitude of entitlement was a turn off, that he was able to change and be more patient and compassionate with me. It's not just about him. You should be enjoying sex just as much as he is, and if you're not, then you aren't receiving any good gift from him when that is how it's designed to be. You are giving to him at the same time he is giving to you, and he is receiving from you at the same time you are receiving from him, so a gift of sex for a gift of sex, not a gift of sex from you in exchange for a work gift from him. You are also giving a lot of work! You are working to give him children and food and laundry and all the other work you do. A husband should not feel he is owed sex because of all the work he does. His wife is also working along side him, and that is a fair exchange - work gifts for work gifts, sex gifts for sex gifts. So I plan to teach my children that they should not feel obligated to give their spouse sex if something isn't right about it. They need to make sure both are eagerly in agreement and not move forward unless they are both united in their desire and enjoyment of the act.

Yes, I totally agree with everything you said. All the specifics about being respectful and considerate of one another, etc, in my mind, was assumed. No one should put up with being used or disrespected…and I think very few husbands are intentionally being like that and most would do anything to make their wife happy…my comments are with the assumption of a good man.

So yes, not at obligation per se…but more as a gift to each other, because you truly care about and appreciate each other. Women have to make a conscious and specific decision to see physical intimacy like that…the world has us thinking all men are animals and then often project that onto our husbands who have committed their lives to us…forgetting that it is a natural and inherent way they express love. Our husbands are not trying to take something from us.

And I do think many women don’t give it the priority and consideration it deserves…because it is probably just as important to him as listening is to her. If a husband were to tell his wife to shut up when she was in the middle of telling him something important about her day, that would be incredibly hurtful and rude to her. If he really couldn’t listen to her in that moment, there are respectful ways to communicate that. But it is the one thing a husband and wife have to rely solely on one another for. Every single other thing in life can come from almost anyone else…so a husband going to his wife often for the one thing he can get from no one else is a power she should wield with the upmost care and consideration. I know, technically, it goes both ways, but rarely do women have to do anything more than hint or smile at their husband and it’s reciprocated. Whereas many women act like it’s the metaphorical desert she can only hand out after he’s eaten all his veggies, cleaned his room, maintained good grades and washed his hands. Or, in real life…helped with the kids, watched a romantic movie, been a good listener, been nice to your mother, taken out the trash and paid 5 sincere compliments.

There was a Prager video a few years ago that presents the idea that it’s a moral obligation to be as happy as possible as much as possible. I think it’s the same with sex: to be as willing as possible as often as possible. (Sorry if this topic is making anyone uncomfortable!)

So, I don’t know if I would exactly say that sex is “owed” in marriage, but the scriptures do say that once we get married our bodies are not our own.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

There was an old book written in 1959 I read many years ago that I found very powerful…

It’s titled “The Power of Sexual Surrender” by Marie Robinson M.D.

It’s about the power of surrendering fully to your husband…wholly trusting that he loves you and is expressing his love and not using you. (Maybe the way women felt before the battle of the sexes?) Again…this is with the assumption you married a good man.
The book gets to the heart of the matter instead of reading like women are a machine that he just needs to push all the right buttons, in the right order to turn on.
What I have found is that once you do fully surrender and let yourself be loved, (not the same as doing it out of fear that he will get it elsewhere or be grouchy without it) It is pretty amazing. The world would say that a man will take it and you for granted and be less respectful. But I’m a committed marriage, it’s actually the opposite. You become an incredible treasure to his heart and the source of his deepest comfort.

Well said. Thank you for your response. I figured you had a good marriage and husband, but just wanted to put that out there, because not every wife trusts her body with her husband. Trust needs to be earned. I like and I agree with what you said. The only thing I may disagree a little bit with is what Paul is actually saying (and some things Paul said I think may be his opinion). I don't think the idea is that our bodies are not our own and we have to allow our spouse to rule over our bodies. It's rather that our spouse is the only one who has power to awaken and harness those sexual powers. So no one else except your husband has that power, not even you. Each spouse has that power over the other to unlock creation, but that doesn't mean entitlement. We each are due benevolence, so we each should respect agency and feelings and put the other first. But as the wife is the weaker vessel, the husband"s duty is to be patient and respectful of that weakness and help his wife more than expect something.

[Mangus MacLeod]

I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Or would 45 be even better? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler? Wouldn’t most wives actually be happier?

[HVDC]

Those who have been paying any attention already know my story on this subject. Because this is yet another thread about plural marriage, I'm sure just the thought of it will have some people pulling their hair out. But the purpose of this thread is not to continue the ad nauseam debate about plural marriage , history, policies, practices and attitudes in the LDS church.

There are several other places where I could have picked up this conversation, including the thread that I started a few months ago about the undeniable negative biases of the LDS Church and the vast majority of its members, towards plural marriage.

viewtopic.php?t=67368

And I noticed the thread about "Women and Polygamy" in the Sisters' section, which doesn't seem to be gaining much traction, as often seems to be the case with threads in that section.

And, I could have used the Railroad thread, perhaps, but it doesn't seem like a great fit there, either, and last time I did that, with my story about helping a panhandler, the discussion ended up spinning so far out of control, that I can't wish anything like for that thread again.

So, here we are. And, just like my observations about Mormon' attitudes toward panhandlers in the Railroad thread, one of the primary purposes of this thread is to express my own, current observations on this subject. And I want it to be very clear, that these observations are not about any kind of LDS perspective, or pretended to be from LDS women -- who in my view have been so conditioned and biased regarding this issue, that little, if anything, useful can be gleaned from that.

The conventional LDS narrative is reflected in the following post, from the other Women and Polygamy thread:

Have you all noticed there don't ever seem to be any women defending polygamy here on our threads? Very telling indeed.

In contrast, the reality is, I think most members of the Church would be completely floored at how many mainstream women and couples are currently seeking polygamous arrangements. Completely floored.

Because I'm sure no one will believe me -- because it simply cannot be true -- it is always and only about the guy(s), and their desire for more sex. According to the conventional narrative, that is and always has been and always will be the driving force behind plural marriage. That is the widely-accepted (but false) conventional narrative. So I am going to offer just a few snippets of profiles from women actively seeking plural marriage arrangements -- to push back a little bit against that whole narrative, based on alternative-view, purely female perspectives:

Family Priority.
I am a healthy, happy, successful and objectively attractive 30 year-old woman, looking for the right family fit. My Mormon religion doesn't understand what I want and will expel me from their presence once they find out.

My priorities are: family first, God second and my faith third. I believe God graces and picks us to care for His spirit children. They must have priority.

I have thought about this for some time. I really want children. Not one or two, I'd like a minimum of 4. If this isn't in your cards, please move on. I don't want my children to miss on the opportunities of siblings. And when I'm gone, they will have each other.

I'd prefer a couple that are comfortable in their relationship. I'm looking to be second wife and to have children. I'm not looking for a bisexual relationship. I'm also not sure about being in a relationship with more than two wives. Having to share 50% of a husband feels like my limit. If you can't tell, I'm just pretty honest and straight-forward.

Craving Sisterhood.
At 28, I'm already looking for a good place to settle-in, become part of a family, and start having children. I would love to be a third wife in an established family I would like to become part of an established family unit looking to add on. Looks are not important but a caring spirit is my priority

Couple Looking for More
We are a somewhat open minded married couple looking for a LIKE MINDED single female..We have been married 18 years (bout to be 19)...We have 6 children ages 18-2). I am a stay at home mom. We homeschool our children...we believe in God and would like our Sister wife to as well...In fact, she must believe in God...be looking for a forever love...be my best friend forever and my hubbys wife forever...not mind living off grid...most importantly trustworthy, loyal, caring and moral...

Looking for a Sister Wife
I am a nearly-thirty woman looking for a wonderful, loving woman to be a companion and sister wife in my home. I live with my husband and our daughter, near Kansas City, Missouri. I like to garden and grow fresh vegetables. I take care of chickens and other animals, and manage a small backyard farm. I absolutely love to spend time outdoors in nature and the sunshine.

I grew up in a large family, and I LOVE my sisters! I wish they lived near me, but sadly, they do not. The last few years (since the pandemic) have been lonely for me - I would love to have constant companionship from a beautiful woman who could be my sister in marriage and who I could love with all my heart, like I do my biological sisters! Currently, I am a stay-at-home mother to my daughter, and am attending online classes for IT certifications, heading into the IT career field. My husband works from home and works a stable job for the local government.

I believe having a sister wife would be wonderful and amazing in so many ways, as I believe the support of women helping other women in an entirely non-sexual way is something special and irreplaceable. I just want a sister wife to love, talk with, connect with, support, and be supported by her! To me, that sounds like a dream come true - to love a woman and be loved in return by her, and have my family circle of love grow by one. I want a woman who believes in morals, has a sense of right and wrong, and is also open-minded and non-judgmental. She does not have to be Christian, however, I would prefer it if some religious background is there, or a simple belief in a higher power. I want someone who wants to be loved greatly!

Marriage Wanted
I am a perfectly normal, socially aware person, Tolerant and compassionate, Honest, loyal and faithful. Happy to be with my loved ones .

I am the faithful type. Fertile. Sexually adventurous. Educated. Family orientated. I would fit in with a family unit and be happy to help with other children within that unit .

I am a young lawyer. I work in the city for a reputable law firm. I am in my first year there. But I would rather be a wife and mother. I would happily forgo any and all career, especially in the short term , to be married and have children of my own.

I would like a mature husband who is hard working. I would want to be an asset to him and the family. I would love to belong to a large family unit

That's just for starters -- for all those who absolutely insist that it simply cannot possibly be -- no normal, sane woman would ever be interested in plural marriage.

Well, here's a little food for thought.

And, I'm going to throw-in a couple random profile images (you can try to match them) to help round-out the picture -- for all those who will likewise insist that no "attractive" woman would ever consider such a thing.

RL Profile Pic.JPG
3WiW.JPG
BG.JPG

So.

How many wives do you have?

Sir H

[Sarah]

I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?



Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?

Obviously you are misjudging this conversation. This woman who chimed in about her experience and myself are not "liberal" just because we have rejected the idea that being a plural wife is desirable. It sounds like you believe the only good women out there are those who want to be a plural wife, and would not care about her own sexual wants but be only concerned about pleasing her husband.

Why did God make you stronger? Because God created opposites, strong and weak, rich and poor, intelligent and not so intelligent, gifted and not so gifted. Abused and tramatized, and those who are not. Why didn't he create everyone equal? It's so the strong would learn to help the weak, to learn empathy and compassion and patience. The weak would be forced to be humble but would learn from their experience the good from the evil. You can choose to feel angry and entitled to things because you are strong or weak, or you can choose to be a giver. But givers matched up with receivers are going to realize the imbalance at some point. There are men in the world who are rich, gifted, privileged, smart and savvy, and use their gifts to take advantage of the poor and weak. That is what taking on more wives is like. It's like you are the rich guy who keeps raising the rent because you can.

Just because you have all this sexual power and strength, doesn't mean you need to use it at the expense of your wife. You need to learn self-control and strive to bring her to your level of strength, just like we all need to focus our attention on the weak and the poor and needy. She could come up to your level of arousal and desire if that was your only focus, on helping her become that way.

[Sarah]

I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?

You're trying to convince yourself and others that women would prefer to be poor and needy rather than rich like you.

[HVDC]

I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?

I think you should lead the way.

Women follow strong men.

Talk means nothing.

The current membership of the church is lost.

Confusion is the order of the day.

Perhaps you are strengthening your rhetorical skills.

But arguing with women is a waste of time.

At the end of the day.

No woman will change her mind.

Only God or Satan can do that.

And men.

I will be happy to do the work they find so distasteful.

Good luck.

Keeping my testicles.

Just in case.

Sir H

[harakim]

Now, I really think some people are starting to get past the surface, and all the inherent negative biases and social conditioning in the Church, and starting to finally get down to some actual brass tacks in this discussion.

And it is interesting that in this discussion we have not yet gotten the steady LDS female chorus (endless, single-dimensional refrain) of, come He!! or High Water “I WILL NEVER SHARE A MAN”!

But, unfortunately, it is mostly men participating in the discussion, with Sarah as essentially the only woman offering much “but this is the Church’s current position” push-back.

It is truly interesting how when it comes to the vast majority of the things of this World, at this point, the Church seems completely content to just be swept away by the World, but when it comes to “The Patriarchal Law of Abraham that Leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom,” and even the principle of telestial plural marriage — which so many others are starting to see the merit of — the Church and its members appear to be prepared to resist as if plural marriage is the single worst plague since the world began — worse than abortion, same-sex marriage, single mothers, fatherless children and families, etc. The Church would rather see an entire ocean of single mothers and their children than any plural marriage with corresponding actual paternal responsibility and support, including safety and security.

It is interesting.

I need to comment on this idea that the church is hurting single moms by not allowing polygamy. It should be apparent to everyone, that when you are a plural wife, you are essentially a single mom most of the time. Polygyny creates single moms, and working moms, with a marriage in name only. Because I know how hard it is to have and raise children, I personally would rather remain childless or if I was in a situation that my husband was taking on more wives, I would stop having children, because I would realize that I would have little to no help or support from my husband going forward. (It would probably depend on how much money he was providing!) You can argue that the sister wives have an obligation to help take care of each other and each other's children, but single moms could get together and do that without a husband and splitting that one lonely paycheck if they wanted to. In fact, in Africa, and probably everywhere, there are groups of women doing this, banding together to help take care of one another because they don't trust any of the men.

In the early days of the church when polygyny was practiced, the norm was for the wives and children of these large families to rarely see the father or husband, and have little financial support. Many of these men apparently thought they could provide for a lot of women and their children, and while they learned the hard lesson of how difficult it actually was, the wives suffered as a result of everyone's ignorance about how multiple wives and enormous families actually turn out. Or, you had many men who expected all their wives to be content with that "name only" marriage, because of the verse in Isaiah. And so the women had to beg for more support. No thanks!

And speaking of single moms, do you know that in one of the surveys I read, 24% of the men in the church have never been married compared with 14% of the women I think? What is the church doing to help all these single men? We could easily solve the single women and men problem if we allowed plural marriage to go both ways, within a covenant relationship and group, where everyone was committed to taking care of each other and supporting the weakest among the group, helping to lift everyone higher. Men could help other men work and take care of family members. People would be able to learn the hard lessons and correct bad behavior more easily as well, if they had multiple partners giving them a greater perspective on what correct behavior looks like. Everyone would just need to be patient with one another and loyal to one another. But I realize this kind of society would only work with people who have proven to be honest and full of charity. The reward for the Celestial is what I see it as.

I think there were a few great points in this post.
1. Single moms could band together. They don't need a man.
2. What kind of relationships would result from a plural marriage?
3. Single men would benefit from reverse polygamy
4. There are more never married men than women.

Single moms could band together. They don't need a man/polygamy.
I think you're right. They can and should band together. I don't think it works based on the few examples I have seen. I think it's part survival instinct and part cultural influence. Women banding together could theoretically get past either/both of those, but I haven't seen it done. In many ways, I feel like this would be a superior outcome, because women are conditioned to rely on a man by nature. They are conditioned not to try and protect and provide for themselves but rather find a stronger male to do that for them. Only then can they feel secure. This is not the way the modern world works. They can rely on themselves and would be happier if they felt that way even if they WERE in a relationship.
The cultural conditioning is harder. At this moment, the cultural message is that women are victims and should blame men for everything. So they often don't look inward as much as I think would be beneficial. If women co-parented with other women, they would have to confront that it's not the men who are to blame for all problems. I think it would cause them to re-evaluate many cultural messages they have been receiving.

How a polygamous relationship would be
It's interesting how you see a man having two wives as necessitating that he will not pay attention to either. I would guess this is based on 1800s style "doctrinal" polygamy where a man had a right to have women and the women basically had to go along or spend eternity burning in hell. I would hope those are not the conditions under which polygamy would arise again. Brigham Young is a bad example in so many ways, with how he treated his wives (including wife no.19) being one demonstration of that. I can't really judge what was actually going on, but it seems pretty clear that if your kids don't know you are their dad, then you are doing life wrong. I think the term sister wives is a better way of looking at it. The polygamous relationship is about building a community. The children play together, the wives do things together, the man does things with everyone, just the wives, just the kids, etc.

Single men would benefit from reverse polygamy
There is no doubt about this, but I don't think we have a lot of historical context in Western culture to draw from here. That's one reason why it's never debated. A second reason is because men don't seem that desperate to be married but everyone knows a woman who has been or is desperate to be married and can't find someone. Maybe those two points go together, even.
I am a man so it's hard for me to see what social conditioning and in-born nature are causing me problems. It feels unnatural to share a sexual partner, mostly for hygienic reasons and because the paternity of kids would be in question. Maybe getting past that would be beneficial, though. I don't see that right now. I'm sure there are other things. It's easier for me, as a man, to see the ways that polygamy would benefit women and also there is more discussion around that and my life experience has been within the context of polygamy. I would be interested in your thoughts on the benefits this would have.

There are more never married men than women
The never married crowd is probably made up largely of people who chose not to be married. I don't think it's as much about failure to attract a mate as it is a contentedness to live alone. Sure, there are some men and women who have never married but want to. I think this goes more to my point that men are not seeing the value of a marriage as marriage is practiced in our current society. Women may have more of an internal drive to be married for spiritual or biological reasons.
While I think there are never-married women who really want a marriage, it's the single moms I know that are more desperate for one and would benefit from one. I don't even think they are desperate for a *marriage* per se, to your first point. They are desperate for a partner to help them. However, I think they have an innate need or a cultural influence to need to be with a man. I think it's perhaps irrational in today's society for a woman to feel like she needs a man so she can be happy. A woman can survive without a man.
However, I also think it's important for children to have both halves. If you look at kids raised by single moms, in general, I think you'd find they have more trouble being a productive member of society. They have more trouble forgiving. They have more trouble seeing the value in society as a whole and their part in it. I think if you see children raised by a single man, they are, in general, more likely to be callous, more likely to suppress their emotions, more likely to lash out in anger, more likely to put off things that make them happy and more likely to not try something because they might fail. I think the children need both influences and the balancing out of comfort and growth in all ways.

Having said all that, I'm somewhat suspicious of anyone who wants polygamy and I'm beyond suspicious of anyone who defends their view of polygamy as a necessary principle in and of itself. If a rule doesn't provide a benefit to everyone, then you're obviously doing it wrong even if it is an eternal principle. Eternal principles are not there to make people do what you say (Satan's plan), they are there as guidance for how life could be better. I don't know that polygamy is an eternal principle. I believe it was introduced by Brigham and friends after Joseph died. I don't think there is a heavenly mandate for it. I also think it goes wrong 10x as much as it goes right. However, I definitely see it's benefit in the society we are heading toward. There are other ways to achieve those same benefits. I just don't know if they will work or people will find and believe them like I think they will polygamy. The debate should probably be centered less around polygamy and more around how to help the widows and orphans (biblical windows includes divorcees) If polygamy is the right option, great. If not, then it doesn't really matter if the word polygamy is also used to describe an eternal principle: they are not the same thing.

[harakim]

I am usually a lurker, but just wanted to throw in my .50 cents.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For theref shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That’s pretty clear counsel from the “most correct book on the earth.” When the Lord establishes, it is by two. It was Adam and Eve. Many quite the Old Testament…but for one, it’s a highly manipulated text, and for another…it’s not any sort of guide book on ideal family situations.
And yes, I realize it is so much more complicated than that and some people are just desperate to be part of any family and some women really would just love to have children, etc.
And any environment filled with selfless, kind people is going to be pleasant, while the exact same set up with angry, selfish people is going to be horrible…so individual experiences are going to be as varied as the people themselves.
All that said, I think a monogamous relationship with very traditional roles is ideal. A masculine, good, protective man, providing for his hardworking feminine wife who stays home with the children and cares for their home provides the optimal setting for raising well adjusted children and contributing to society. They are equals, specializing in their God given individual roles. Now my own little soapbox…Someone earlier commented about how some say that women just slave at home and men just wanting to have someone to sleep with…I just have to point out…why is it that men are demonized for expecting regular, caring sex from their wives? Wives expect their husbands to go to work and provide and come home and help out every single day whether he ‘feels like it’ or not. It goes both ways. I’m not saying a wife has to say yes every single time, but I do think she has a moral obligation to say yes as pleasantly and as often as she can…because she cares for him and he cares for her…she did get to chose who she married, and in my mind, regular sex is pretty much part of the marriage agreement.

Now, I would also like to ad a bit of my unique perspective. I come from a polygamous family. My dad joined the LaBaron group in Mexico where he met and married my mom. My mother was his third/last wife polygamist wife. (He had been widowed at 21 and divorced once before he hooked up with his “head” wife and they chose two sister wives.) They didn’t stay with the fundamentalist group very long, so we grew up in middle America trying to blend in…which I am so grateful for- that I wasn’t raised indoctrinated. I have a brother who was old enough to be my dad who was a fundamentalist polygamist. Out of my dad’s 17 kids, he was the only one who chose to live that way. By the time I came along, my dad was old and my mom had to work to help support our large family. So I grew up closer to one of my step mothers than my own mother who was always gone/tired. But my other step mother was not nice to me at all. I have a sister who is only 4.5 months older than me and we grew up somewhat like twins and are best friends. Most of my siblings were born in pairs. Where the genders match up…we are very close. My mother got sick of the situation and eventually left my dad and co. Even though I think polygamy is horrible and would never advocate it, and I understand it was horrible for my mom, I still hate that she left the family and was a single mom. I loved my dad and family. She was not an emotionally healthy person with skills to provide…so things were very unstable. But I agree with the person who said polygamy breaks women’s hearts. There was a lot of jealousy and drama between the wives. And after my dad died while I was in high school my entire family blew about with the wind for awhile. Now as adults we really enjoy getting together and visiting.
I joined the church shortly after my dad passed away and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My husband is an amazing man and we are trying to figure out raising 8 kids together in these crazy last days. Sometimes we joke that having a clone or another woman around to help with the work and childcare would be nice…but I will NEVER see how people think polygamy is some higher law or desirable. The intimate relationship/friendship/bond between one man and one woman is precious and sacred. It is worth working on and perfecting…I don’t even know how that would work with a third person involved where sides can be taken.
Anyway, that is my experience and perspective.

Just want to throw out an idea about your comment about regular sex. Sister Nelson gave a talk at BYU and talked about sex within marriage and said something that I agree with, and that is that no one should feel "used" with the sex act (something to that effect). I used to believe the way you did and felt an obligation to give my husband sex all the time no matter what because I found that if I didn't, he would become annoyed and treat me poorly. There was also a period when sex was painful for me, and he didn't seem to care - his attitude was still that he deserved it. This attitude was a turn off and caused me to not enjoy sex with him. It wasn't until I realized that sex was a two-way gift that should be given and received by both for the right reasons, that our sex life improved, and I set some boundaries and told him his attitude of entitlement was a turn off, that he was able to change and be more patient and compassionate with me. It's not just about him. You should be enjoying sex just as much as he is, and if you're not, then you aren't receiving any good gift from him when that is how it's designed to be. You are giving to him at the same time he is giving to you, and he is receiving from you at the same time you are receiving from him, so a gift of sex for a gift of sex, not a gift of sex from you in exchange for a work gift from him. You are also giving a lot of work! You are working to give him children and food and laundry and all the other work you do. A husband should not feel he is owed sex because of all the work he does. His wife is also working along side him, and that is a fair exchange - work gifts for work gifts, sex gifts for sex gifts. So I plan to teach my children that they should not feel obligated to give their spouse sex if something isn't right about it. They need to make sure both are eagerly in agreement and not move forward unless they are both united in their desire and enjoyment of the act.

Yes, I totally agree with everything you said. All the specifics about being respectful and considerate of one another, etc, in my mind, was assumed. No one should put up with being used or disrespected…and I think very few husbands are intentionally being like that and most would do anything to make their wife happy…my comments are with the assumption of a good man.

So yes, not at obligation per se…but more as a gift to each other, because you truly care about and appreciate each other. Women have to make a conscious and specific decision to see physical intimacy like that…the world has us thinking all men are animals and then often project that onto our husbands who have committed their lives to us…forgetting that it is a natural and inherent way they express love. Our husbands are not trying to take something from us.

And I do think many women don’t give it the priority and consideration it deserves…because it is probably just as important to him as listening is to her. If a husband were to tell his wife to shut up when she was in the middle of telling him something important about her day, that would be incredibly hurtful and rude to her. If he really couldn’t listen to her in that moment, there are respectful ways to communicate that. But it is the one thing a husband and wife have to rely solely on one another for. Every single other thing in life can come from almost anyone else…so a husband going to his wife often for the one thing he can get from no one else is a power she should wield with the upmost care and consideration. I know, technically, it goes both ways, but rarely do women have to do anything more than hint or smile at their husband and it’s reciprocated. Whereas many women act like it’s the metaphorical desert she can only hand out after he’s eaten all his veggies, cleaned his room, maintained good grades and washed his hands. Or, in real life…helped with the kids, watched a romantic movie, been a good listener, been nice to your mother, taken out the trash and paid 5 sincere compliments.

There was a Prager video a few years ago that presents the idea that it’s a moral obligation to be as happy as possible as much as possible. I think it’s the same with sex: to be as willing as possible as often as possible. (Sorry if this topic is making anyone uncomfortable!)

So, I don’t know if I would exactly say that sex is “owed” in marriage, but the scriptures do say that once we get married our bodies are not our own.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

There was an old book written in 1959 I read many years ago that I found very powerful…

It’s titled “The Power of Sexual Surrender” by Marie Robinson M.D.

It’s about the power of surrendering fully to your husband…wholly trusting that he loves you and is expressing his love and not using you. (Maybe the way women felt before the battle of the sexes?) Again…this is with the assumption you married a good man.
The book gets to the heart of the matter instead of reading like women are a machine that he just needs to push all the right buttons, in the right order to turn on.
What I have found is that once you do fully surrender and let yourself be loved, (not the same as doing it out of fear that he will get it elsewhere or be grouchy without it) It is pretty amazing. The world would say that a man will take it and you for granted and be less respectful. But I’m a committed marriage, it’s actually the opposite. You become an incredible treasure to his heart and the source of his deepest comfort.

Well said. Thank you for your response. I figured you had a good marriage and husband, but just wanted to put that out there, because not every wife trusts her body with her husband. Trust needs to be earned.

You should never marry someone you don't trust. Once you marry them, then you have to trust them. If you stop trusting them, you need to immediately work on resolving that. If they are untrustable, you need to get a divorce.
Not trusting your spouse is a guaranteed way to an emotional desert where you take any good thing and be unhappy about it and your spouse will realize that whatever time and energy they spend trying to make you happy is actually making you more miserable and they will try to avoid you. It will probably start with fighting, but it will end in absenteeism.
A marriage is literally an agreement to trust that person in all situations. The trust is earned before the marriage. If you didn't do due diligence, then you have to make a decision. A marriage without trust is going to fail 100% of the time. You might stay legally married, but like the alleged polygamy principle, just because it's called a marriage, it's not what is meant by marriage.

[Sarah]

So a man after marriage, discovers that his wife likes to spend lots of money, and she routinely spends all of it every month, mostly on stuff that only she wants. Should that husband continue to trust all their money in her hands? Should he divorce her? Or should he talk to her and set some boundaries so she can earn his trust? That's all I'm advocating for when it comes to sex. If a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, she won't trust him until he changes.

[Sarah]

Just want to throw out an idea about your comment about regular sex. Sister Nelson gave a talk at BYU and talked about sex within marriage and said something that I agree with, and that is that no one should feel "used" with the sex act (something to that effect). I used to believe the way you did and felt an obligation to give my husband sex all the time no matter what because I found that if I didn't, he would become annoyed and treat me poorly. There was also a period when sex was painful for me, and he didn't seem to care - his attitude was still that he deserved it. This attitude was a turn off and caused me to not enjoy sex with him. It wasn't until I realized that sex was a two-way gift that should be given and received by both for the right reasons, that our sex life improved, and I set some boundaries and told him his attitude of entitlement was a turn off, that he was able to change and be more patient and compassionate with me. It's not just about him. You should be enjoying sex just as much as he is, and if you're not, then you aren't receiving any good gift from him when that is how it's designed to be. You are giving to him at the same time he is giving to you, and he is receiving from you at the same time you are receiving from him, so a gift of sex for a gift of sex, not a gift of sex from you in exchange for a work gift from him. You are also giving a lot of work! You are working to give him children and food and laundry and all the other work you do. A husband should not feel he is owed sex because of all the work he does. His wife is also working along side him, and that is a fair exchange - work gifts for work gifts, sex gifts for sex gifts. So I plan to teach my children that they should not feel obligated to give their spouse sex if something isn't right about it. They need to make sure both are eagerly in agreement and not move forward unless they are both united in their desire and enjoyment of the act.

Yes, I totally agree with everything you said. All the specifics about being respectful and considerate of one another, etc, in my mind, was assumed. No one should put up with being used or disrespected…and I think very few husbands are intentionally being like that and most would do anything to make their wife happy…my comments are with the assumption of a good man.

So yes, not at obligation per se…but more as a gift to each other, because you truly care about and appreciate each other. Women have to make a conscious and specific decision to see physical intimacy like that…the world has us thinking all men are animals and then often project that onto our husbands who have committed their lives to us…forgetting that it is a natural and inherent way they express love. Our husbands are not trying to take something from us.

And I do think many women don’t give it the priority and consideration it deserves…because it is probably just as important to him as listening is to her. If a husband were to tell his wife to shut up when she was in the middle of telling him something important about her day, that would be incredibly hurtful and rude to her. If he really couldn’t listen to her in that moment, there are respectful ways to communicate that. But it is the one thing a husband and wife have to rely solely on one another for. Every single other thing in life can come from almost anyone else…so a husband going to his wife often for the one thing he can get from no one else is a power she should wield with the upmost care and consideration. I know, technically, it goes both ways, but rarely do women have to do anything more than hint or smile at their husband and it’s reciprocated. Whereas many women act like it’s the metaphorical desert she can only hand out after he’s eaten all his veggies, cleaned his room, maintained good grades and washed his hands. Or, in real life…helped with the kids, watched a romantic movie, been a good listener, been nice to your mother, taken out the trash and paid 5 sincere compliments.

There was a Prager video a few years ago that presents the idea that it’s a moral obligation to be as happy as possible as much as possible. I think it’s the same with sex: to be as willing as possible as often as possible. (Sorry if this topic is making anyone uncomfortable!)

So, I don’t know if I would exactly say that sex is “owed” in marriage, but the scriptures do say that once we get married our bodies are not our own.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

There was an old book written in 1959 I read many years ago that I found very powerful…

It’s titled “The Power of Sexual Surrender” by Marie Robinson M.D.

It’s about the power of surrendering fully to your husband…wholly trusting that he loves you and is expressing his love and not using you. (Maybe the way women felt before the battle of the sexes?) Again…this is with the assumption you married a good man.
The book gets to the heart of the matter instead of reading like women are a machine that he just needs to push all the right buttons, in the right order to turn on.
What I have found is that once you do fully surrender and let yourself be loved, (not the same as doing it out of fear that he will get it elsewhere or be grouchy without it) It is pretty amazing. The world would say that a man will take it and you for granted and be less respectful. But I’m a committed marriage, it’s actually the opposite. You become an incredible treasure to his heart and the source of his deepest comfort.

Well said. Thank you for your response. I figured you had a good marriage and husband, but just wanted to put that out there, because not every wife trusts her body with her husband. Trust needs to be earned.

You should never marry someone you don't trust. Once you marry them, then you have to trust them. If you stop trusting them, you need to immediately work on resolving that. If they are untrustable, you need to get a divorce.
Not trusting your spouse is a guaranteed way to an emotional desert where you take any good thing and be unhappy about it and your spouse will realize that whatever time and energy they spend trying to make you happy is actually making you more miserable and they will try to avoid you. It will probably start with fighting, but it will end in absenteeism.
A marriage is literally an agreement to trust that person in all situations. The trust is earned before the marriage. If you didn't do due diligence, then you have to make a decision. A marriage without trust is going to fail 100% of the time. You might stay legally married, but like the alleged polygamy principle, just because it's called a marriage, it's not what is meant by marriage.

I forgot to quote you but my last post was for you.

[harakim]

So a man after marriage, discovers that his wife likes to spend lots of money, and she routinely spends all of it every month, mostly on stuff that only she wants. Should that husband continue to trust all their money in her hands? Should he divorce her? Or should he talk to her and set some boundaries so she can earn his trust? That's all I'm advocating for when it comes to sex. If a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, she won't trust him until he changes.

I agree that you should always try and work things out. You should trust that they have good intentions and that you don't understand everything that is going on. If you don't trust that they have good intentions, then I think you should try and fix that internally and if you can't, then do them a favor and get a divorce so they can marry someone who will love them. Having differences and trusting that the other person wants to work them out with you is the key.
I would say, if a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, then she should make that clear and set some boundaries. But if she doesn't trust that he wants what's best for her, then their relationship is on the fast track to nowhere.