General A use for Concubines?

[Keith Martin]

Now @Keith Martin , whose opinion I always value, will probably sneer at this. He is against any accommodation for the first wife and believes the focus should be on training her in proper submission. But we are called to live with our wives in wisdom.

No sneering here. Yes, I now believe in relentless training of 1st wives, given that, if it's needed, the only other option is to invest in some velvet to wrap around the bridle a man will have to wear as his wife trains him, but I don't have any attachment to the actual words or titles.

 

[Keith Martin]

So here are my questions: Why do women object so much to polygyny when the evidence is that their husbands having additional sexual partners does not seem to bother them all that much in practice?

In place of my original post, I'm simply taking this opportunity to assert here that I've been operating so long on a mistaken belief that Biblical Families had the phrase, "patriarchy and polygyny," or "patriarchy and biblical polygamy," as intentions to support and promote in its Mission Statement that, when prompted to go look for it yesterday, I assumed it had been removed, but it had not, and @FollowingHim helped demonstrate that to me in the last hour. My apologies to anyone whom I disturbed or who was misled by me.

The bottom line, though, is that I really don't belong around here. I don't fit any of the religious molds that align with the mission, I've been red-pilled past the point of being able to unsee certain things, I've likely already contributed as much as will ever be the case for me here, I recognize that this is home for many of you, and I don't want to be an antagonist, but I'm not even permitted to attend gatherings anymore, so I'm simply going to redirect my efforts elsewhere.

Nothing is wrong. I just don't belong, and any effort to change my mind will likely just inspire me to start thinking again about what I clearly just wished the purpose of the organization would be. That, however, is not mine to determine, so I prefer to look at Biblical Families as a place where my participation was originally mutually beneficial but just isn't any longer. Those with my contact info are free to reach out. It's not as if I'm going to disappear off the face of Earth!

 

[Keith Martin]

And would there be value in trying to circumvent those objections by protecting the status of everyone involved in the relationship?

Little to no value.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think that ultimately it's even simpler. Those who have been conditioned to think "first == ONLY" don't see that so much as 'status' but as security. Any perceived change to that tautology is thus threatening.

The title 'concubine' may help to short-circuit that.

It could.

 

[Keith Martin]

At the time I joined my family I didn't have a name for how I felt. My #1 job in the family at first was to have sex with Steve and get pregnant. That led to me be very interested in bringing something else to the table and that led to me going to culinary school. Which allowed me to literally bring something to the table!

But what was I at first? I wasn't a wife equal to Shari or Christie and that was certain. I was less than what they were. Given my job description of "boink the husband" I was a concubine. Over time I became his wife. I became a wife in general. It was a process.

Like no one gets to be a general when they join the army they start as a private and then earn their promotions.

Which is why I sometimes laugh at people who think a magical ceremony (church or legal) suddenly makes them into a wife or husband when the truth is it is so much more. Imagine if we made people into 747 pilots because they performed a ceremony and were blessed by a pastor? Same thing.

IMHO even the most wonderful couple who are head over heels in love can get married and they're still not husband and wife. They're committed lovers, for sure. But plenty of people get married, love each other, and still fail to become a husband or a wife.

Joining together is a process.

And for a plural it's going to start by being less than the first wife. It's just the way it works.

A plural can come into a household as a helper or nanny and perform a set of roles but still not do all the things a wife would do. Likewise a plural can come into the household and boink like a bunny and still not do all the things a wife would do.

What is she then? Myself, I think there's less pressure on a plural if she wants to consider herself as a concubine at first. She's committed, he's committed, but everyone has a fair understanding of her role as someone new in the marriage, family, and household.

Christie used to halfway joke when people would figure out that she was Steve's additional woman and she'd call herself his mistress and that shut them up. Even she knew she wasn't entirely equal to Shari at the time.



First wives are threatened by subsequent plurals. The first wife usually fears being replaced and driven out by the new woman. Which is part of why I say if you want to do poly then start your first marriage as a poly marriage because that's tons easier than renegotiating your vows several years and a couple kids after the fact.



I'd say you'd be better off just being up front and honest with everyone going into the different relationships. And be honest that the relationship between you and your first wife will be different than the one with the subsequent wife or wives. That's reality and it's also honest to say this.

Steve once said that the four us made a good wife. Singular. Because each of us brought something into the family that the family didn't have without them. We are not equal in all things and Steve never said we were equal to each other. But each of us was good or great at somethings the others were not.

Seriously, if a plural brings nothing to your family that your first wife doesn't already provide then why bother? So be honest that the plural is different and not equal and that she's going to have to find her way and establish herself in the family over time.

Wow, just about every line of that comment had at least some nugget of wisdom in it. I’m afraid my response isn’t going to do your comment justice but let me try.

This logical, fact based and literal approach is one of the things that has endeared you and @Joleneakamama to so many of us. I point it out here because it’s so admirable but also because it has bearing on what I’m going to say next.

Your logical and clear eyed thinking, again, is admirable, but I think a lot of people in general, including ones in much less stretching endeavors than polygyny would recoil at this statement:

I am not disagreeing with the statement mind you. It makes perfect sense. I was less of a Marine coming out of boot camp than that four corporal who was responsible for my dumb butt and who I eventually became. And it works the other way too, I am now less of a Marine than either of them.

But very few people want to think of themselves as lesser. I’m sure there’s a spiritual lesson here, something about the first being last and all but if everyone had ingested all of the spiritual lessons we wouldn’t need to have this conversation. As it is being lesser is anathema to most of us. I do want to think of myself as a lesser Marine but I’m pushing 50 and couldn’t do 20 pull ups with a rope and tackle. A first wife doesn’t want to think of herself as less exciting than the new wife and the new wife doesn’t want to think of herself as less important.

I’m pretty sure that you’re trying to agree with me so I’m not actually arguing with you, especially considering your status as a practitioner and mine as monogamous, but I am just wondering if we’re not shifting our paradigm enough. Are we trying to hold on to too much western baggage by having s multiple monogamous marriages going on all at once.

Maybe it’s all goes back to @andrew ’s “scalable marriages” philosophy and I’m just retreading old ground.

Do you think that process might have evolved differently if you were elevated immediately to the same status as the other two wives?

This statement should be an entire teaching that gets explored with some old school bib fam hair splitting flame war. Interesting thought and I think my first marriage would fit into this category.

How would it effect the existing wives?

So the new woman having a defined lesser status would ease some of that? I should emphasize that I have no sisters and my entire life has been spent around men and in male environments. I struggle mightily trying to figure out the world from a woman’s perspective.

Clearly best practices, no doubt. I’m interested in those who did not have that foresight could do though.

Yes! Don’t coddle anyone or try to smooth their path! This is so important for men to learn. We keep wanting to through our cloak over mud puddles and it just muddies our mantle and doesn’t keep the women’s feet dry. If we’re on the right path we don’t need to apologize for the bumpy ride!

Nothing is a strong word, the slightest little thing is still something. I mean, concubines always have a use…..

Thank you for that detailed response! Your experience is invaluable to those of us who are still trying to figure this out!

The bottom line is that both @MeganC and @Joleneakamama are remarkable women.

 

[Keith Martin]

Does there come a point where the subsequent wife can be fully invested, for lack of a better term?

And is there a need for the subsequent to not feel like a, again for a lack of a better term, a guest in another woman’s house?

You know my vote: absolutely yes, and I assert that the man should establish this ahead of time in most cases (especially given that most wives are not going to be Megans or Jolenes).

 

[Keith Martin]

And that can happen in one of three ways, from my observations.
The first can be a positive one. If a woman is concerned about making a commitment to the family and is only willing to do so on a temporary basis in order to protect herself. Western society doesn’t admit this as an option, yet all too often this is the way that it is actually lived.

The other two situations have nothing positive, imo.
One is where the the first wife makes it clear that all decisions are hers to make and that the sister wife is indeed a second class member of the household. Even when the husband seeks equality between them.
The other is where a sister wife comes into the family and is intended by all to be an equal member, but it is in fact a one-way street. The family is a resource for her, but she doesn’t choose to be a contributing member of the family. Her assets and income belong to her alone, while she depends on the family to supply some of her needs.

Boom!

 

[Keith Martin]

Awesome thread, @The Revolting Man.

 

[CountrySquire]

This has recently been on my mind, and a timely thread.

I became aware, not too long ago, that there's a not insignificant fetish among more worldly people that involves the wife who takes great joy in her husband having other female partners. Even sometimes calling them his "girlfriends."Of these, a large percentage would consider themselves "submissive."

And yet, I would venture the women indulging in this kink (which I do not endorse, and can't Biblically permit) are larger in number than those who consider themselves accepting of plural marriage. One wonders why?

Of course, it could be as simple as secularism. But when you consider they're fine with their husbands dating other women, and bedding them, seemingly taking either joy in it or believing he "deserves" it, you have to ask what is it about polygyny or making her a wife that disturbs them? They're 75 percent there in the actual practice, but don't connect the dots.

 

[Mark C]

And yet, I would venture the women indulging in this kink (which I do not endorse, and can't Biblically permit) are larger in number than those who consider themselves accepting of plural marriage. One wonders why?

I am tempted to call it "Hitleryism" based on one obvious example.

But when you consider they're fine with their husbands dating other women, and bedding them, seemingly taking either joy in it or believing he "deserves" it, you have to ask what is it about polygyny or making her a wife that disturbs them?

I might be willing to venture that there really are women who just plain hate sex, which might be a reason for saying, "let him get it somewhere else." (Perhaps a subset of Hitleryism.)

But then there are those that just don't want it from HIM, or don't want it in any WAY the Bible endorses. Which takes it beyond what is often called mere 'secularism'.

 

[MeganC]

I became aware, not too long ago, that there's a not insignificant fetish among more worldly people that involves the wife who takes great joy in her husband having other female partners. Even sometimes calling them his "girlfriends."Of these, a large percentage would consider themselves "submissive."

And yet, I would venture the women indulging in this kink (which I do not endorse, and can't Biblically permit) are larger in number than those who consider themselves accepting of plural marriage. One wonders why?

I submit to you that what you consider a kink or fetish is in fact not a kink or fetish.

Our current secular society considers childbearing and heterosexuality to be aberrant. I say that because I think you might be a bit misled by that society here.

Child bearing and heterosexuality are God's Design. Anything that supports His Design cannot be a kink or fetish.

But you know what is a kink or fetish?

Sex without immediate consequences as we see in the era of birth control. Birth control is a tool of the lesbian feminists and the socialists to destroy the family. The advent of legalized birth control directly led to the 'Sexual Revolution' of the 1960's and a steady decline in worldwide marriage rates.

Now the perversion that was facilitated by birth control has metastasized and we see children being groomed by (in particular) teachers into becoming 'trans'. Not just gay or lesbian, but trans. Why? Because trans kids are sterilized kids who will never have children.

When I was 16/17 I developed a very powerful desire to have a baby. It was all I could think of and some days it hurt that I wasn't pregnant. For my own reasons which I will not state here I sought out a poly family. The family that attracted me the most was the one where the husband had two wives and he'd had kids with both wives.

The fact that he was a proven husband and father attracted me. Subsequently, I will admit to liking it when he would take another plural and get her pregnant. I got a little thrill from that and it made me want to have another baby with him. I'll admit this.

I also liked that when another woman liked my husband and found him sexually attractive it validated my impression of him.

Now you might call this a kink or a fetish but tell me how this constitutes any sort of Biblical offense in the context of a Biblical marriage?

 

[NickF]

It's not a fetish, it's completely natural, and all nature attests to the fact that women are attracted to men who are deemed "valuable" by other women. Groupies exist because it's female nature.

 

[MemeFan]

Sex without immediate consequences as we see in the era of birth control. Birth control is a tool of the lesbian feminists and the socialists to destroy the family. The advent of legalized birth control directly led to the 'Sexual Revolution' of the 1960's and a steady decline in worldwide marriage rates.

Birth control existed before feminism and socialists.

People do pay attention to timing between children. All of them. It matters that mother has enough recovery time. To provide this time only option is birth control which doesn't always means pills and condoms.

 

[MemeFan]

I became aware, not too long ago, that there's a not insignificant fetish among more worldly people that involves the wife who takes great joy in her husband having other female partners. Even sometimes calling them his "girlfriends."Of these, a large percentage would consider themselves "submissive."

Women sexually aroused by their partner having sex with other females are called cuckqueans.

 

[CountrySquire]

To clarify - I don't consider these things kinks, but what I was referring to in the secular culture, as MemeFan references above, there is a "kink" world where the first wife idealizes and finds gratification in her husband having sexual dalliances apart from her, with other women.

My belief is that the root desire can be Biblical, and expressed in polygyny, but for some reason, these parties aren't connecting the dots. I can Biblically and biologically rationalize the root of it just fine, but they don't make the connection and my larger question is why?

If you're a woman, who has no problem with your husband dating and bedding other women, but don't make the connection to polygyny, why is that? That's what I'm asking and what I wonder if they ever consider.

 

[MemeFan]

To clarify - I don't consider these things kinks, but what I was referring to in the secular culture, as MemeFan references above, there is a "kink" world where the first wife idealizes and finds gratification in her husband having sexual dalliances apart from her, with other women.

My belief is that the root desire can be Biblical, and expressed in polygyny, but for some reason, these parties aren't connecting the dots. I can Biblically and biologically rationalize the root of it just fine, but they don't make the connection and my larger question is why?

If you're a woman, who has no problem with your husband dating and bedding other women, but don't make the connection to polygyny, why is that? That's what I'm asking and what I wonder if they ever consider.

It's culture.

Having wives is bad, but having wife and mistress is more "understable".

Today I posted that somebody highly ranked on some Winscon university was created female-female-male porn. It's simply in West more socially acceptable way for man to sleep with multiple females.

 

[MemeFan]

Women sexually aroused by their partner having sex with other females are called cuckqueans.

Why are you sad, @Keith Martin?

Such desires are lubricant for polygamous marriage.

Best way to start polygamous marriage is woth such women. She won't need convincing. Instead she will find husband slacking if he avoids finding another wife.

 

[MeganC]

If you're a woman, who has no problem with your husband dating and bedding other women, but don't make the connection to polygyny, why is that? That's what I'm asking and what I wonder if they ever consider.

Because they're acting on a desire that's in them but that society considers to be a problem.

Swingers are a good example of this. Except it's okay with society if you're a swinger. Just don't marry all the ladies you swing with.

 

[NVIII]

Women sexually aroused by their partner having sex with other females are called cuckqueans.

To be clear, it's women who are sexual aroused from the sense of degredation, humiliation, and shame by their husband having sex with other women. Oftentimes it is paired with the subversion of male authority to the female, the cuckquean as you pointed out, who instigates and moderates the behavior. It is a very confused place. It is a perversion otherwise known, as @CountrySquire correctly identified it, as a kink. And that is why we don't see it acting as a bridge from the doctrine of monogamy to God's order. The two, in fact, are both doctrines of demons and belong in the same hell.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Awesome thread, @The Revolting Man, but I hope you're reconsidering this notion of there being any legitimacy in men causing one ounce of discomfort for women.

Ya know -- it really goes back to the Garden. If only Adam hadn't been more attentive to Eve's needs so he could have been there to pluck the Fruit for her . . . we might all be in the Promised Land by now.

I cheated on this one as you know. We talked about it over the phone several months ago. I think it’s a valuable conversation though and I appreciate your contributions to it, both edited and non.