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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 100
Posts: 484

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

Post by HereWeGo »

Sarah wrote: September 21st, 2022, 12:10 pm
HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:14 am Mangus, you bring up good things with this turn into the sex part of the discussion. I agree that it is important to know how each person is with sex before marriage. I also was young and just got married without knowing this. I thought women would like sex since they liked being close, kissing, holding hands, etc. in High School. I quickly found out cuddling is not sex. My marriage was hard because I was expected to be the provider and seldom got the bonding benefits of sex. Fortunately, she decided to end the marriage. I picked a new wife who liked sex and things were MUCH better.

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

I'm guessing that your second wife had a previous marriage before you? Why do you think she enjoys sex more than your first wife? Is she having orgasms regularly? Is she content with being close to you? Some women pretend to enjoy sex in order to cope with and accept what reality is. My mom told me before I got married that "sex was for the husband," and that her body just didn't orgasm like she had heard about. She told me she tried to act passionate like the women she saw on television. Faking it doesn't always lead to making it, if you know what I mean.
Intimate questions. Intimate answers. A guy can usually tell if a woman doesn't enjoy sex. It appears more like a chore or duty rather than an exciting time. She also doesn't ask much if he doesn't.

This was my second wife's second marriage also. She had a good sexual relationship with her first husband also (according to her). His problem was he liked to have sex with other people as well as his wife. My 2nd wife asks for sex as much and probably more than I do where my first would say no often. I make it a policy to have my wife orgasm first. Few failures there and it makes things better overall.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
Just like you are realizing that life would be so much better for men if they had more sex and more partner freedom, men also realized way back when, that in order to build great buildings, and farm enormous amounts of land, or paddle a big boat (I'm thinking of that Ben Hur movie) they needed lots of man-power to accomplish great things. And since you could never get people to agree to such hard labor that must be unified and coordinated, what was your solution? Slavery. It gives the strong men power over the weaker men.

You just need to come up with a way to force others to do what you want them to do, or put them in a position of desperation so that they have no other choice if they want to eat. Then you can have what you want. It's the story of the ages that the strong get want they want at the expense of the weak. And what is great about America and our rule of law, is that there is freedom to own land and work for whomever you want to work for, even if it's just working your own land or building your own business. You are free to leave bad bosses if you want to and go find another one. It's not always easy, and many people stay in bad situations because they feel compelled to, but you are not a bond-man or slave. We don't have the same freedom with marriage if we want to follow God's laws. So that's what you're arguing for is freedom. And actually, God's highest laws are not pure capitalism, nor are they forced communism. So we are learning what the ideal set up may need to look like for marriage to be a thing in eternity that allows a bit more freedom but still is a committed covenant relationship.

Women, because of the nature of their bodies, which was the curse God placed upon them, are always going to be in desperation mode and are more likely to be treated like a slave. And throughout history and in the heathen nations even today, that's often what we see, is women being treated like slaves or property. It is traditionally very hard for a woman to provide for herself, and impossible if she is pregnant or has small children. And throughout history we see men also trying to limit a woman's rights and freedoms so that she stays even more dependent, forcing her to rely solely on her husband. She essentially "works" for him, or must do what he wants if she wants to keep eating or have a father for her children. She has no other choice, and men seem to like that she doesn't have choice in the matter. Women can also take advantage of a dedicated husband who feels he has no moral right to leave. But woman has that earthly dilemma of the potential of being taken advantage of by those who take care of her. Children are in the same boat, and that's one reason you see wicked men and women taking advantage of children - because they can. The greatest wickedness of the ages is taking advantage of someone's weakness for your own selfish desires or ambition. And I consider entitlement one of the greatest curses of mankind. When the strong feel entitled to the gifts of the weak you are looking at wickedness. It is a problem of both genders.

So back to sex - I feel like a problem might be a husband thinking a wife is like himself. He thinks she feels sex the same way he does, or at least she should! He doesn't understand the female body. The greatest darkness that has covered the earth is the potential of women, and how to unlock that potential, sexually and otherwise. It's understandable that you have regrets and disappointments about your own marriage and how you would love to do it over again, as we all feel that way about one issue or another in our lives. We all have similar regrets and disappointments in life. The good news is that we have eternity to learn from this great hellish drama and take that knowledge forward to correct all the problems. So let's unveil some of that light so we can get out of the dark ages of sex and how women are looked upon.

A husband needs to look at his wife's body as an instrument in some ways. Or like a garden. You can't just say to the instrument or the garden - What do you want! Tell me what to do! You have to learn yourself and experiment to see how to get your wife's body to play beautiful music for you. You have to give to her. Your #1 goal needs to be to sexually satisfy your wife before yourself, and learn to put your own desires on the back-burner. God gave you a difficult wife body to work with so you could learn unselfishness and the concept of sacrifice. Unfortunately more often than not, the wife is making the greater sacrifice by offering her body to her husband and trying to enjoy what little she can. Women must learn forgiveness and be willing to let her husband try again to give her pleasure that she wants. She just might need to tell him that what he has done in the past has turned her off. Women must learn to not give up on themselves, and not tell themselves it is only their own problem. They need to recognize the role the husband plays in being attractive, and why they are recoiling at sex with their husband. It's often because of so many built up bad experiences with the husband. They just don't want to deal with trying anymore with someone who is thinking of himself before her. Or the husband acts frustrated and impatient, and those things signal entitlement, which is the most unattractive thing in the world. Of course she is going to reject you if you act entitled to sex. So you both need to peel back the layers of trauma and resentment if that's what life has given you.

Of course men and women would both like more sexual partners. It's funny how the argument for a wife only having one husband always rests on the logic of her weakness in childbearing capacity, but when it comes to men's desire for multiple partners, sexual fulfillment or needs are part of the equation. Multiple partners for the wife would also increase her sexual learning, enjoyment, and fulfillment, and also ensure there was optimal opportunities to conceive. If she is one of many wives, her opportunities for both are cut-down to at least half. Each wife added limits her opportunity with sex and children. So the obvious answer in my mind is to have a covenant group of men and women who promise to care for and provide for the children and each other, and it allows for more learning and growth and opportunity for all the members. It's interesting to read about the Oneida group marriage experiment, (which I'm not advocating for) but they put a large focus on sexual education. They had the older men and women sexually teach the younger ones so they could all be on the same page. The problem with their experiment was that it was too controlling and was basically a communist family relationship. All partners had to be with all others equally, and they had to share all their offspring equally, so that no parent could spend extra time with their own child. They were the group's children. They didn't have the concepts we have of stewardship and consecration, sacrifice and unity, so that you allow freedom, but at the same time all covenant to give to those who ask, and put all increase into the "storehouse" to be of use to all. The system must be based on the correct principles of love, which amounts to giving and receiving, requesting and withholding, for the right reasons, only motivated by love and not selfishness. That is a whole other discussion that we could get into.
So husbands, you can buy a book and learn. Someone gave me "The Act of Marriage" and I read that before I got married. I think my husband skimmed through and decided it was my job to figure out and just tell him what to do. Then when I tried to tell him what to do he would act impatient and frustrated if I got frustrated. So I gave up because at that point I didn't feel love for him much. And for women, they have to feel true love if they are going to enjoy sex. Men don't need true love obviously to orgasm and ejaculate. But for women - sex is a mental thing. She has to be in the zone, totally focused on positive feelings and enjoying what her husband is giving her. He has to be a giver and learn to unlock the female body with his gifts of touching. He may need to touch her for an hour or more. But he needs to stay positive, encouraging and not give up, or she will give up for sure.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 1:11 pm
Sarah wrote: September 21st, 2022, 12:10 pm
HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:14 am Mangus, you bring up good things with this turn into the sex part of the discussion. I agree that it is important to know how each person is with sex before marriage. I also was young and just got married without knowing this. I thought women would like sex since they liked being close, kissing, holding hands, etc. in High School. I quickly found out cuddling is not sex. My marriage was hard because I was expected to be the provider and seldom got the bonding benefits of sex. Fortunately, she decided to end the marriage. I picked a new wife who liked sex and things were MUCH better.

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

I'm guessing that your second wife had a previous marriage before you? Why do you think she enjoys sex more than your first wife? Is she having orgasms regularly? Is she content with being close to you? Some women pretend to enjoy sex in order to cope with and accept what reality is. My mom told me before I got married that "sex was for the husband," and that her body just didn't orgasm like she had heard about. She told me she tried to act passionate like the women she saw on television. Faking it doesn't always lead to making it, if you know what I mean.
Intimate questions. Intimate answers. A guy can usually tell if a woman doesn't enjoy sex. It appears more like a chore or duty rather than an exciting time. She also doesn't ask much if he doesn't.

This was my second wife's second marriage also. She had a good sexual relationship with her first husband also (according to her). His problem was he liked to have sex with other people as well as his wife. My 2nd wife asks for sex as much and probably more than I do where my first would say no often. I make it a policy to have my wife orgasm first. Few failures there and it makes things better overall.
Thanks for answering my questions :) I thought it might be a situation like that.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Baurak Ale wrote: September 21st, 2022, 12:53 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
Assuming God makes no mistakes and has no superfluous waste in his design of our bodies, it is worth noting that women possess a body part whose only apparent function is physical pleasure. I for one don't think God made a design mistake.
I think it is a fair statement that human sexuality, especially for women, is much more complex than many, including most men, realize and understand. If that were not the case there would not be so much frustration with it.

But Baurak makes a good point about the unique design of the human female body in this regard. Those who have studied animal and livestock reproduction understand that it is driven entirely by, and dependent upon, the male sex drive. Male sex drive and virility drives almost the entire equation. Of course females must be fertile, and cycling in order for successful conception to occur. But, it is the males doing all the work to make it happen, and seemingly deriving all the corresponding pleasure. Although reproductive male animals appear to enjoy the mating process as much or more than human males, there is no indication that the females actually derive any pleasure from it, which brings us back to a whole bunch of “why” questions about how God designed things, and why they are designed the way they are.

On that score, the irrefutable evidence seems to be that human females are unique in that regard. Of all species, God designed and created human females in such a way that they would actually be physically capable of deriving great physical pleasure from the mating process — if it is correctly understood and executed, and all the right components, including emotional connection(s), etc., are in place. It is still often complicated at best, but the design does appear to be effective, if it can be correctly understood and effectively stimulated.

But if there is little or no effort to understand it — including in advance — it is often the source of great frustration, when it appears that the design intention was just the opposite — that it could be an important part of this incredibly strong and effective glue that could help bond a relationship together for eternity.

That appears to be the potential — which often appears to go unmet, so that is the problem.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 21st, 2022, 4:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

I'll share one more story about my husband and I, in case it can help anyone out there.

When the point came that I realized WHY I wasn't interested in sex with my husband, I came to my husband and said, "I'm not going to have sex unless you can persuade me to have sex with you." That seemed to wake him up. He actually went to the Lord in prayer, which shows his good and humble heart hidden beneath the false beliefs he had grown up with. The answer he received was, "stop putting pressure on her to have sex." So after that, he came to me and apologized, saying he was sorry if I ever felt pressured to have sex with him, that he didn't want me to feel that way. I think I was so touched by his humility that I decided to have sex with him that night :lol:

He was putting pressure on me indirectly. He would act disappointed or sad if I was not interested. He would treat me poorly in response to what he felt was me treating him poorly. All this showed his entitlement and was putting pressure on me to please him. He didn't realize he was being manipulative. After this little incident we still had some problems to work through in overcoming his impatience and frustration with my weakness, but it was at least a step in the right direction. In fact, it may have been just for me. Later on when I brought up this inspiration he had received, he had forgotten all about it - (which was evidenced by some of the problems we still encountered) So one step forward, two steps back or two steps forward, one step back, is just a reality couples may face.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1045

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

Post by FrankOne »

HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:29 am
LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Not a bad idea. Add to that no children during this year. This would have prevented much heartache to us in my first marriage. We could have parted ways in a friendlier way.
My wife and I did this for 4 yrs before we had kids. At the end of 4 yrs we learned about each other and had a great time on adventures. At the end of 4 yrs, we both REALLY wanted kids together. Turned out great.

On the far side of this, I find it comical that a piece of paper that the STATE issues to you and few words by any LEGAL shmo makes sex ok in the eyes of Church Authority. I don't see any of that from God. Two people commit to each other... and that's it. No.one.else.matters. Our culture is whacked.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

FrankOne wrote: September 21st, 2022, 3:48 pm
HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:29 am
LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am

What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Not a bad idea. Add to that no children during this year. This would have prevented much heartache to us in my first marriage. We could have parted ways in a friendlier way.
My wife and I did this for 4 yrs before we had kids. At the end of 4 yrs we learned about each other and had a great time on adventures. At the end of 4 yrs, we both REALLY wanted kids together. Turned out great.

On the far side of this, I find it comical that a piece of paper that the STATE issues to you and few words by any LEGAL shmo makes sex ok in the eyes of Church Authority. I don't see any of that from God. Two people commit to each other... and that's it. No.one.else.matters. Our culture is whacked.
The state does it to reward couples who want to have children together in a committed relationship, with benefits and status. It's for the benefit of children, because children do best with a married couple as parents, and it's also to help hold parents accountable for their children. We need to do a better job protecting the rights of children as the weakest and poorest among us.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1045

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

Post by FrankOne »

Sarah wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:00 pm
FrankOne wrote: September 21st, 2022, 3:48 pm
HereWeGo wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:29 am
LadyT wrote: September 21st, 2022, 11:20 am

Maybe we should do handwriting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Not a bad idea. Add to that no children during this year. This would have prevented much heartache to us in my first marriage. We could have parted ways in a friendlier way.
My wife and I did this for 4 yrs before we had kids. At the end of 4 yrs we learned about each other and had a great time on adventures. At the end of 4 yrs, we both REALLY wanted kids together. Turned out great.

On the far side of this, I find it comical that a piece of paper that the STATE issues to you and few words by any LEGAL shmo makes sex ok in the eyes of Church Authority. I don't see any of that from God. Two people commit to each other... and that's it. No.one.else.matters. Our culture is whacked.
The state does it to reward couples who want to have children together in a committed relationship, with benefits and status. It's for the benefit of children, because children do best with a married couple as parents, and it's also to help hold parents accountable for their children. We need to do a better job protecting the rights of children as the weakest and poorest among us.
I disagree :)

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7227
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

Both of these things?
Maybe we should do handfasting, marriage for a year and then decide if you want to have a forever marriage? Then both can decide if they want to be with this person.
Based on what the scriptures say, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be against this, but Satan would be all for it.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7227
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 4:14 am So, it sounds like we can all mostly agree that we’re talking here about the Drunkards of Ephraim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Sarah?
What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night

User avatar
HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1756
Location: Far and Away

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

Post by HVDC »

Well this took an unexpected turn.

The truth is.

The current youth are much more knowledgeable about sex than I was.

And maybe still are.

But.

This knowledge has not changed relationships much.

They still have the same problems.

In my opinion.

Base on my limited experience.

The husband needs to know enough about sex to seduce his wife their first time.

Then do again and again.

Practice makes perfect as they say.

Orgasms are addictive.

They assist in bonding.

Which is why it is best not to give one to a female you are not married to.

It's unfair to start her in the road of needing/wanting orgasms without sincere intent.

She may become a slut.

And it is not entirely her fault.

In short.

You are a cad.

Not a man.

I taught my kids that semen is the glue that holds a marriage together.

And to use condoms sparingly.

Bonus.

Lots of grandkids.

However.

Lust is a must for good sex.

And we are warned away from that.

Rightfully before marriage.

Wrongfully after.

I say it's okay to lust for your spouse.

Necessary even.

Unfortunately.

The world deliberately teaches a false expectation of romantic love which rarely can be met.

This coupled with unrealistic sexual expectations.

Leads to blaming each other for the inevitable disappointment.

And while I don't usually agree with Sarah.

I cannot agree with sexual exploration before marriage.

Our society is wallowing in this.

And the result has been less children being born.

Not more.

No.

The answer is still chastity.

And having more realistic expectations in the bedroom.

I still believe there is a place for polygamy.

But not simply for more sex.

If one is not getting enough sex.

Then they need to communicate that to their spouse.

If they cannot meet each others needs.

Then they can allow each person to find another way to meet those needs.

I think the real problem is one of control in a relationship.

But that is another topic.

Sir H

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

HVDC wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:11 pm Well this took an unexpected turn.

The truth is.

The current youth are much more knowledgeable about sex than I was.

And maybe still are.

But.

This knowledge has not changed relationships much.

They still have the same problems.

In my opinion.

Base on my limited experience.

The husband needs to know enough about sex to seduce his wife their first time.

Then do again and again.

Practice makes perfect as they say.

Orgasms are addictive.

They assist in bonding.

Which is why it is best not to give one to a female you are not married to.

It's unfair to start her in the road of needing/wanting orgasms without sincere intent.

She may become a slut.

And it is not entirely her fault.

In short.

You are a cad.

Not a man.

I taught my kids that semen is the glue that holds a marriage together.

And to use condoms sparingly.

Bonus.

Lots of grandkids.

However.

Lust is a must for good sex.

And we are warned away from that.

Rightfully before marriage.

Wrongfully after.

I say it's okay to lust for your spouse.

Necessary even.

Unfortunately.

The world deliberately teaches a false expectation of romantic love which rarely can be met.

This coupled with unrealistic sexual expectations.

Leads to blaming each other for the inevitable disappointment.

And while I don't usually agree with Sarah.

I cannot agree with sexual exploration before marriage.

Our society is wallowing in this.

And the result has been less children being born.

Not more.

No.

The answer is still chastity.

And having more realistic expectations in the bedroom.

I still believe there is a place for polygamy.

But not simply for more sex.

If one is not getting enough sex.

Then they need to communicate that to their spouse.

If they cannot meet each others needs.

Then they can allow each person to find another way to meet those needs.

I think the real problem is one of control in a relationship.

But that is another topic.

Sir H

And the unexpected turn that you left out is that Sarah is actually Mangus’ wife.

It all makes sense now.

Ldsff is cheaper than couples therapy

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

HVDC wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:11 pm Well this took an unexpected turn.

The truth is.

The current youth are much more knowledgeable about sex than I was.

And maybe still are.

But.

This knowledge has not changed relationships much.

They still have the same problems.

In my opinion.

Base on my limited experience.

The husband needs to know enough about sex to seduce his wife their first time.

Then do again and again.

Practice makes perfect as they say.

Orgasms are addictive.

They assist in bonding.

Which is why it is best not to give one to a female you are not married to.

It's unfair to start her in the road of needing/wanting orgasms without sincere intent.

She may become a slut.

And it is not entirely her fault.

In short.

You are a cad.

Not a man.

I taught my kids that semen is the glue that holds a marriage together.

And to use condoms sparingly.

Bonus.

Lots of grandkids.

However.

Lust is a must for good sex.

And we are warned away from that.

Rightfully before marriage.

Wrongfully after.

I say it's okay to lust for your spouse.

Necessary even.

Unfortunately.

The world deliberately teaches a false expectation of romantic love which rarely can be met.

This coupled with unrealistic sexual expectations.

Leads to blaming each other for the inevitable disappointment.

And while I don't usually agree with Sarah.

I cannot agree with sexual exploration before marriage.

Our society is wallowing in this.

And the result has been less children being born.

Not more.

No.

The answer is still chastity.

And having more realistic expectations in the bedroom.

I still believe there is a place for polygamy.

But not simply for more sex.

If one is not getting enough sex.

Then they need to communicate that to their spouse.

If they cannot meet each others needs.

Then they can allow each person to find another way to meet those needs.

I think the real problem is one of control in a relationship.

But that is another topic.

Sir H
I like your observation that the issue is about control. I see so many controlling people in my life. But so many different styles. Some are really good at being the victim, others are pushy, some disrespectful as they just do what they think you need or want and don't ask first. Some are very intentionally manipulative, and lie in order to get people to think negatively of someone they can't control.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6341

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

Post by Sarah »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:24 pm
HVDC wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:11 pm Well this took an unexpected turn.

The truth is.

The current youth are much more knowledgeable about sex than I was.

And maybe still are.

But.

This knowledge has not changed relationships much.

They still have the same problems.

In my opinion.

Base on my limited experience.

The husband needs to know enough about sex to seduce his wife their first time.

Then do again and again.

Practice makes perfect as they say.

Orgasms are addictive.

They assist in bonding.

Which is why it is best not to give one to a female you are not married to.

It's unfair to start her in the road of needing/wanting orgasms without sincere intent.

She may become a slut.

And it is not entirely her fault.

In short.

You are a cad.

Not a man.

I taught my kids that semen is the glue that holds a marriage together.

And to use condoms sparingly.

Bonus.

Lots of grandkids.

However.

Lust is a must for good sex.

And we are warned away from that.

Rightfully before marriage.

Wrongfully after.

I say it's okay to lust for your spouse.

Necessary even.

Unfortunately.

The world deliberately teaches a false expectation of romantic love which rarely can be met.

This coupled with unrealistic sexual expectations.

Leads to blaming each other for the inevitable disappointment.

And while I don't usually agree with Sarah.

I cannot agree with sexual exploration before marriage.

Our society is wallowing in this.

And the result has been less children being born.

Not more.

No.

The answer is still chastity.

And having more realistic expectations in the bedroom.

I still believe there is a place for polygamy.

But not simply for more sex.

If one is not getting enough sex.

Then they need to communicate that to their spouse.

If they cannot meet each others needs.

Then they can allow each person to find another way to meet those needs.

I think the real problem is one of control in a relationship.

But that is another topic.

Sir H

And the unexpected turn that you left out is that Sarah is actually Mangus’ wife.

It all makes sense now.

Ldsff is cheaper than couples therapy
Now that would be a hoot!
Yeah, I'm taking donations if anyone wants to thank me for the free advice! :lol:

User avatar
HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1756
Location: Far and Away

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

Post by HVDC »

Sarah wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:29 pm
HVDC wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:11 pm Well this took an unexpected turn.

The truth is.

The current youth are much more knowledgeable about sex than I was.

And maybe still are.

But.

This knowledge has not changed relationships much.

They still have the same problems.

In my opinion.

Base on my limited experience.

The husband needs to know enough about sex to seduce his wife their first time.

Then do again and again.

Practice makes perfect as they say.

Orgasms are addictive.

They assist in bonding.

Which is why it is best not to give one to a female you are not married to.

It's unfair to start her in the road of needing/wanting orgasms without sincere intent.

She may become a slut.

And it is not entirely her fault.

In short.

You are a cad.

Not a man.

I taught my kids that semen is the glue that holds a marriage together.

And to use condoms sparingly.

Bonus.

Lots of grandkids.

However.

Lust is a must for good sex.

And we are warned away from that.

Rightfully before marriage.

Wrongfully after.

I say it's okay to lust for your spouse.

Necessary even.

Unfortunately.

The world deliberately teaches a false expectation of romantic love which rarely can be met.

This coupled with unrealistic sexual expectations.

Leads to blaming each other for the inevitable disappointment.

And while I don't usually agree with Sarah.

I cannot agree with sexual exploration before marriage.

Our society is wallowing in this.

And the result has been less children being born.

Not more.

No.

The answer is still chastity.

And having more realistic expectations in the bedroom.

I still believe there is a place for polygamy.

But not simply for more sex.

If one is not getting enough sex.

Then they need to communicate that to their spouse.

If they cannot meet each others needs.

Then they can allow each person to find another way to meet those needs.

I think the real problem is one of control in a relationship.

But that is another topic.

Sir H
I like your observation that the issue is about control. I see so many controlling people in my life. But so many different styles. Some are really good at being the victim, others are pushy, some disrespectful as they just do what they think you need or want and don't ask first. Some are very intentionally manipulative, and lie in order to get people to think negatively of someone they can't control.
Yeah.

I know because I have observed it first hand.

And also because I have done some of those myself.

Sir H was not always a Sir.

Just an H.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7227
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:02 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am

What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night
You're entitled to your opinion, but really the only opinion that matters is God’s opinion. And based on the teachings in the scriptures and by Latter-day prophets, I think your opinion is on pretty shaky ground.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:47 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:02 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night
You're entitled to your opinion, but really the only opinion that matters is God’s opinion. And based on the teachings in the scriptures and by Latter-day prophets, I think your opinion is on pretty shaky ground.
I think you are just rambling bud. Save that type of stuff for someone other than me lol

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7227
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:11 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:47 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:02 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm

So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night
You're entitled to your opinion, but really the only opinion that matters is God’s opinion. And based on the teachings in the scriptures and by Latter-day prophets, I think your opinion is on pretty shaky ground.
I think you are just rambling bud. Save that type of stuff for someone other than me lol
No rambling at all. I don't think the scriptures or teachings of Latter-day prophets support the idea that God is in favor of a man expecting a woman to pleasure herself and tell him all about it before he'll consider marrying her. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that God is very much against this. But you are free to believe as you wish.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:19 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:11 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:47 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:02 pm


Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night
You're entitled to your opinion, but really the only opinion that matters is God’s opinion. And based on the teachings in the scriptures and by Latter-day prophets, I think your opinion is on pretty shaky ground.
I think you are just rambling bud. Save that type of stuff for someone other than me lol
No rambling at all. I don't think the scriptures or teachings of Latter-day prophets support the idea that God is in favor of a man expecting a woman to pleasure herself and tell him all about it before he'll consider marrying her. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that God is very much against this. But you are free to believe as you wish.
No citation? Figures

I guess you want the bishops to just be keeping all those details to themselves you unholy bugger

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1045

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

Post by FrankOne »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:02 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 6:59 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:41 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 7:24 am

What exactly are you advocating for here?

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

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

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

Maybe it would be helpful to better and more further define the law of chastity for purposes of this discussion.
So you're saying you want your girlfriend to pleasure herself and tell you about it prior to you considering marriage?

Well. Yeah and from my perspective it would be alright for her to go ahead and do that after we get married once in a while too. Guy needs to get some rest sometimes jeez
The amount of work a guy has to do to keep a girl happy I swear it’s all day and all night
hahahaha

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7227
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:23 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:19 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:11 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:47 pm

You're entitled to your opinion, but really the only opinion that matters is God’s opinion. And based on the teachings in the scriptures and by Latter-day prophets, I think your opinion is on pretty shaky ground.
I think you are just rambling bud. Save that type of stuff for someone other than me lol
No rambling at all. I don't think the scriptures or teachings of Latter-day prophets support the idea that God is in favor of a man expecting a woman to pleasure herself and tell him all about it before he'll consider marrying her. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that God is very much against this. But you are free to believe as you wish.
No citation? Figures

I guess you want the bishops to just be keeping all those details to themselves you unholy bugger
What citation would you like?

Not sure what details you want Bishop's to disclose. You want juicy details of other people's sex lives?

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:32 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:23 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:19 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:11 pm

I think you are just rambling bud. Save that type of stuff for someone other than me lol
No rambling at all. I don't think the scriptures or teachings of Latter-day prophets support the idea that God is in favor of a man expecting a woman to pleasure herself and tell him all about it before he'll consider marrying her. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that God is very much against this. But you are free to believe as you wish.
No citation? Figures

I guess you want the bishops to just be keeping all those details to themselves you unholy bugger
What citation would you like?

Not sure what details you want Bishop's to disclose. You want juicy details of other people's sex lives?
Are you American?

Usually American men are tall enough that every damn thing doesn’t just fly right over their head.

You must be a special case.

I noticed you still didn’t cite anything though. Lol it’s fine don’t bother

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1045

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

Post by FrankOne »

So ...is there an authority in the room? I'm not sure if I gleaned the correct conclusion that atticus is a bishop.

I'm not sure what Bishops hear in private is remotely relative to this discussion at all. I got lost over Persia. Where is this plane going anyway?

edit. I misread! hahahah. I didn't pay attention to all of the posts. Missed one. My conclusion was utterly false.

but I'm still got lost over the gulf.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Jeez guys you are cramping my style. It’s no fun if everything has to be spelled out.

Bishops quiz young adults about various things that either are or aren’t going on in their sex lives.

Therefore, asking about something like that is not totally off limits. Or if it is then the bishops are sinning.

A young man in love with a young woman and earnestly looking to get hitched to her for time and all eternity has at least as much right to ask a couple questions as a bishop would.

There doesn’t have to be anything overly scandalous about it. Most people do their research one way or another it’s called courtship.

Post Reply