Biblically speaking. If a man/household needs a first wife's outside income, is the husband right in seeking additional wives?

[CountrySquire]

In embracing my role and pursuing truth, I've also come to a greater realization of my own gifts.

And I've realized that one of my strengths is in visualizing a goal and managing the steps towards it. As someone who's engaged in entrepreneurial activity and had managerial responsibilities, I see no reason why that wouldn't be an asset in leading a polygynous home.

I absolutely believe in the husband's headship, and I have similar goals to many on here about sustainability, privacy and simplicity of lifestyle. To achieve that goal, there needs to be vision, a plan to implement it, and the resources to do so. If between where we are now and that point, my wife or wives have skills that can make that happen, then it's wise for me to guide them in using those skills for the benefit of the family unit.

I don't see any of that as being incompatible with male headship or Biblical truth. Everyone having different gifts but applying them in the shared vision and leadership of the husband seems like a beautiful plan.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm still curious your take on my Polygamy question though. Is a man right in seeking additional wives if he needs a first wife's income to provide food and clothing?

Personally, I'd say if a man is not in a financial / practical position to support an additional wife, he shouldn't be actively "seeking" one - by which I mean investing substantial time and effort into trying to find one. That time and effort should be going into improving the situation for his own family.

However, if God drops an additional wife in his lap and says "here she is", then he should marry her regardless of financial circumstances. People are more important than money, and God's instructions overrule our human logic. Most simply, if she's managing to survive single somehow, then whatever income stream she is currently living off can continue for the present, and they'll adjust over time.

 

[Keith Martin]

Wow; lots of great thoughts all the way around!

I'm just going to highlight a few:

In my opinion the husband is responsible for the provision of the household, but that is not the same thing as being responsible to bring in every dollar that the household needs.

Exactly. He's the head, the leader, the one who organises what everyone does.

The idea that a man will work outside of the home, bringing in money, is a very modern idea that is how Western society has worked since the industrial revolution. But more historically "normal" would be a subsistence farming family.

And then there was the Exodus from Egypt to the Land of Milk and Honey, during which each day the women and children and livestock sat around on stones in the desert while the men went off to earn their paychecks before they returned each night to start up the meanderingly-northward trek again . . . just kidding.

A wife is to submit to her husband, not because he is providing for the household, but simply because she is commanded to submit to her husband. Simply because he is the appointed leader of the household. It's not a privilege he has to earn, it's a job he is assigned from the start

Is it a real 'need' or just a want? Food, water, clothing, and shelter are the things we need but we desire oh so much more and are consumed with acquiring it all. When each one is doing their part, families can be very productive while being economical but it doesn't necessarily mean getting more stuff or having more money to spend. Adding someone with specific additional skills may very well help fill a need for the family and benefit all concerned.

My husband is not only MY head, but head of the house. He makes the decision that are best for the house. Myself and his other wives are HIS helpmeets.

Thank you, @Sunflower, for introducing that very relevant word to this discussion. Full contemplation of that assigned role would prevent a great deal of mulling about whether one is getting a fair shake or whether one is even in a position to judge whether someone else is living up to their Creator-created expectations.

If she decides that family M is a better choice than family C, even though it would require her to bring in income, then that is her choice.
Not every family is family A, multimillionaire and perfect spiritual credentials.

You are asking excellent, if hard, questions.
These are good discussions.

If between where we are now and that point, my wife or wives have skills that can make that happen, then it's wise for me to guide them in using those skills for the benefit of the family unit.

I don't see any of that as being incompatible with male headship or Biblical truth. Everyone having different gifts but applying them in the shared vision and leadership of the husband seems like a beautiful plan.

Amen, brother, well said.

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm still curious about my Polygamy question though. If a woman has to provide a portion of her own food and clothing by working outside of the household. Then why does a man think he's in a position to provide for more wives? Since he's not technically providing enough.

I'm still curious your take on my Polygamy question though. Is a man right in seeking additional wives if he needs a first wife's income to provide food and clothing?

Yes definitely, however Biblically speaking if a man can't provide the basic needs (when I say needs, I mean food and clothing) without the first wife's help then should he be seeking additional wives?

I feel like i'm being annoying lol

Like Steve, I applaud you asking the amount of questions you're asking. Generally speaking, it's not at all annoying, but I will admit that, by the time I read the third of your posts immediately quoted above, I was yelling in my own mind, "Asked. And answered. And answered again. And you even asserted that you understood at one point."

Among the many excellent direct responses that were made before you continued to grind the ax of, "Hey, if he isn't providing enough so that his first wife doesn't have to work outside the home to pay for some of her own food, clothing, etc., how can a man justify having an additional wife?", perhaps Steve's was most to the point:

the husband is responsible for the provision of the household, but that is not the same thing as being responsible to bring in every dollar that the household needs.

This, to me, is a heart thing. It's natural to look out for oneself before jumping into a situation, but it also demonstrates a certain lack of faith in Yah's Wisdom to over-worry about whether one is going to be taken advantage of. @frederick pointed out that this discussion is also in need of making the distinction between wants and needs. The biblical admonition in Exodus 21:10 simply makes clear that the buck stops at the 'desk' of the husband. It doesn't mean that the husband is responsible for every aspect of the sweat equity necessary to ensure that everyone in his care receives their share of their basic needs; he has every right, in fact, he has the responsibility to delegate so that everything will operate most efficiently, most humanely, most effectively -- and what is promised is food, clothing, protection from dangers and the elements, and due benevolence. There's nothing in there about smartphones, social media, trips to the museums, or any kind of generalized grins and giggles. Much less 401Ks.

I and others have written elsewhere at length about the tendency, in the discussion of polygyny as a theoretical matter, for people to start having unnecessarily highly elevated expectations for husbands who want to be husbands of multiple wives. This is a snare of the highest order, because where it goes is in the direction of first wives becoming increasingly 'entitled' to have one of the best husbands, and for potential second wives to have the misguided expectation that, if they're going to be willing to engage in that family structure, they also have the right to expect their future husband to be a better man than the average monogamy-only husband. This is sophistry.

I know it's sobering, but sometimes -- even though these start off with great questions -- discussions such as these need to be grounded in what is real. It's only a fantasy that most of the unmarried women are choosing from among a smorgasbord of potential Prince Charmings. In point of fact, we're talking about women who lack covering, which also means they lack protection, they lack companionship, they lack sexual intimacy, and they lack any real sense of security. If they're not on welfare, they have jobs, and they are living their lives day-by-day just like everyone else, but without stability and generally immersed in loneliness (which itself is a silent killer).

So it's all well and good to say that a man shouldn't seek a second wife until he's got all of his ducks in a row, but what I always notice that we leave out of the equation is that, if he's only a mediocre husband like the average monogamy-only husband, and he may end up requiring his first wife to cut back on the Louis Vuitton or the hair salon or having complete access to her own automobile in order to take in a second woman, we have the tendency to either (a) focus on the fact that the first wife may have to sacrifice [not needs, but wants] or (b) focus on the fact that the hypothetical incoming second wife won't be living the life of Reilley. In reality, what is really happening on the ground is that, if that guy doesn't offer that potential second wife slot because he's influenced by our misplaced negative judgments, the end result is going to be just another lonely woman left out in the cold. What about her? Is she really better off all alone than she would have been in a family where she might still be asked to work part-time at Walmart? And is her entrapment in loneliness unworthy of asking a first wife to wait longer to get a new purse?

 

[NickF]

According to scripture he is to ensure a wife has food, shelter, and clothing.

Those are relatively minor expenses.

What would concern me when I was looking for my first wife if her attitude was something along the lines of “you have to provide all my needs and I’m not working” I’d have passed over anybody with that attitude.

I chose my wife because her attitude was. “I’ll happily work and help you in any way I can. I will joyfully submit to you in everything and obey you. I will follow your lead wherever you lead me.”

That was her attitude and that’s why I chose her.

While I applaud your efforts to make sure you are choosing wisely and to vet a potential man. Make sure you aren’t minding God’s business and getting into the mindset of being the judge of your man. God judges him and chastises him for wrong behavior. That’s His business not yours. Again, great if you’re learning this in order to vet a good man and ensure you’re not going to submit to a lazy so-and-so.

In scriptural examples you have to understand that the man owned all the property, labor, proceeds, children, everything that was in his household. Everyone was culturally expected to work and contribute to the household. Everyone worked period. Everyone contributed. If he didn’t clothe one of those wives, he would be reprimanded by the elders. Because it would be shameful to not take care of his family or to show favoritism. He was not the sole provider and worker that did all the labor while everyone else enjoyed his fruits. Went to soccer practice, school, puttered around the house, did cooking and cleaning. Got her nails did.

The modern western world’s idea of a stay at home wife is much more leisurely minded than the rest of history. Those women WORKED!

So to answer concisely. IF I were to seek a second, she would be expected to work in some capacity and contribute to the household with some kind of productive behavior. That should be expected. That might mean working outside the home for a time, it might mean working as a secretary for me, or helping me with writing books. Might mean helping with growing food in our garden and caring for livestock. If another grown adult is joining a family, why should they not expect to pull their own weight? Shouldn't she desire to help as much as she could?

Speaking personally. I can't afford to take a second wife if she's a freeloader and dead weight. But having a second would likely more than double my income since I'm self employed and could branch out into more enterprises, writing and teaching more. It would be a tremendous leap forward in financial security for my family.

So the real question comes down to what do you mean by "support another wife"? Does that mean pay for the lifestyle she is used to? Pay for her to sit home watching soaps and eating bonbons? Or does that mean "can she have her material needs met by joining?". Because if she's worth her salt, she could be bringing more to the table than she's removing.

 

[LDremoved]

Like Steve, I applaud you asking the amount of questions you're asking. Generally speaking, it's not at all annoying, but I will admit that, by the time I read the third of your posts immediately quoted above, I was yelling in my own mind, "Asked. And answered. And answered again. And you even asserted that you understood at one point."

Among the many excellent direct responses that were made before you continued to grind the ax of, "Hey, if he isn't providing enough so that his first wife doesn't have to work outside the home to pay for some of her own food, clothing, etc., how can a man justify having an additional wife?", perhaps Steve's was most to the point:

This, to me, is a heart thing. It's natural to look out for oneself before jumping into a situation, but it also demonstrates a certain lack of faith in Yah's Wisdom to over-worry about whether one is going to be taken advantage of. @frederick pointed out that this discussion is also in need of making the distinction between wants and needs. The biblical admonition in Exodus 21:10 simply makes clear that the buck stops at the 'desk' of the husband. It doesn't mean that the husband is responsible for every aspect of the sweat equity necessary to ensure that everyone in his care receives their share of their basic needs; he has every right, in fact, he has the responsibility to delegate so that everything will operate most efficiently, most humanely, most effectively -- and what is promised is food, clothing, protection from dangers and the elements, and due benevolence. There's nothing in there about smartphones, social media, trips to the museums, or any kind of generalized grins and giggles. Much less 401Ks.

I and others have written elsewhere at length about the tendency, in the discussion of polygyny as a theoretical matter, for people to start having unnecessarily highly elevated expectations for husbands who want to be husbands of multiple wives. This is a snare of the highest order, because where it goes is in the direction of first wives becoming increasingly 'entitled' to have one of the best husbands, and for potential second wives to have the misguided expectation that, if they're going to be willing to engage in that family structure, they also have the right to expect their future husband to be a better man than the average monogamy-only husband. This is sophistry.

I know it's sobering, but sometimes -- even though these start off with great questions -- discussions such as these need to be grounded in what is real. It's only a fantasy that most of the unmarried women are choosing from among a smorgasbord of potential Prince Charmings. In point of fact, we're talking about women who lack covering, which also means they lack protection, they lack companionship, they lack sexual intimacy, and they lack any real sense of security. If they're not on welfare, they have jobs, and they are living their lives day-by-day just like everyone else, but without stability and generally immersed in loneliness (which itself is a silent killer).

So it's all well and good to say that a man shouldn't seek a second wife until he's got all of his ducks in a row, but what I always notice that we leave out of the equation is that, if he's only a mediocre husband like the average monogamy-only husband, and he may end up requiring his first wife to cut back on the Louis Vuitton or the hair salon or having complete access to her own automobile in order to take in a second woman, we have the tendency to either (a) focus on the fact that the first wife may have to sacrifice [not needs, but wants] or (b) focus on the fact that the hypothetical incoming second wife won't be living the life of Reilley. In reality, what is really happening on the ground is that, if that guy doesn't offer that potential second wife slot because he's influenced by our misplaced negative judgments, the end result is going to be just another lonely woman left out in the cold. What about her? Is she really better off all alone than she would have been in a family where she might still be asked to work part-time at Walmart? And is her entrapment in loneliness unworthy of asking a first wife to wait longer to get a new purse?

Definitely agree with you. It was just something that peeked my interest after reading those verses and left me confused. Also I'm sorry if it feels like I'm grinding the axe. I can see why it seems that way, my question was more or less "what if a man doesn't hold up his end of the bargain" because the Bible states pretty clearly what he should be doing as a husband.

 

[LDremoved]

According to scripture he is to ensure a wife has food, shelter, and clothing.

Those are relatively minor expenses.

What would concern me when I was looking for my first wife if her attitude was something along the lines of “you have to provide all my needs and I’m not working” I’d have passed over anybody with that attitude.

I chose my wife because her attitude was. “I’ll happily work and help you in any way I can. I will joyfully submit to you in everything and obey you. I will follow your lead wherever you lead me.”

That was her attitude and that’s why I chose her.

While I applaud your efforts to make sure you are choosing wisely and to vet a potential man. Make sure you aren’t minding God’s business and getting into the mindset of being the judge of your man. God judges him and chastises him for wrong behavior. That’s His business not yours. Again, great if you’re learning this in order to vet a good man and ensure you’re not going to submit to a lazy so-and-so.

In scriptural examples you have to understand that the man owned all the property, labor, proceeds, children, everything that was in his household. Everyone was culturally expected to work and contribute to the household. Everyone worked period. Everyone contributed. If he didn’t clothe one of those wives, he would be reprimanded by the elders. Because it would be shameful to not take care of his family or to show favoritism. He was not the sole provider and worker that did all the labor while everyone else enjoyed his fruits. Went to soccer practice, school, puttered around the house, did cooking and cleaning. Got her nails did.

The modern western world’s idea of a stay at home wife is much more leisurely minded than the rest of history. Those women WORKED!

So to answer concisely. IF I were to seek a second, she would be expected to work in some capacity and contribute to the household with some kind of productive behavior. That should be expected. That might mean working outside the home for a time, it might mean working as a secretary for me, or helping me with writing books. Might mean helping with growing food in our garden and caring for livestock. If another grown adult is joining a family, why should they not expect to pull their own weight? Shouldn't she desire to help as much as she could?

Speaking personally. I can't afford to take a second wife if she's a freeloader and dead weight. But having a second would likely more than double my income since I'm self employed and could branch out into more enterprises, writing and teaching more. It would be a tremendous leap forward in financial security for my family.

So the real question comes down to what do you mean by "support another wife"? Does that mean pay for the lifestyle she is used to? Pay for her to sit home watching soaps and eating bonbons? Or does that mean "can she have her material needs met by joining?". Because if she's worth her salt, she could be bringing more to the table than she's removing.

I definitely agree. My personal opinion is that a wife should do whatever her household needs. Whether she wants to or not. Sure we would all prefer to do the things we love but we all know the world doesn't work that way. Also what better joy is there than taking care of the people you love, in whatever way you're needed.

What caused my confusion was the Bible verses stating that a woman's work was is in the home and implying that a man's was outside of the home. I needed some clarification.

 

[Keith Martin]

I agree; great post from Nick.

 

[MeganC]

@LovesDogs ,

Our church has a very big thing about debt and if a family has big debts then they should not take on a plural.

Steve and Shari had a mortgage and some other debts when they met Christie. Going by the rules then they should not have taken Christie into the family. But Christie made good money and she paid off Steve and Shari's debts so they could be a family in good standing with the church. Christie worked after she got married and most of the time that was at home and other times it meant she had to travel. No one ever said it was bad. And sometimes she made more money that Steve did.

At one point we were very short on cash and I had no problem working outside the house and even though it wasn't a lot of money it made a big difference for us at the time. No one made an issue out of it.

Ideally the man can handle everything but if the circumstance means the wife has to work too then that's what you do.

I would say that if I ever had to work outside the house again I wouldn't complain.

 

[paterfamilias]

Not going to touch on the biblical part of the argument...in fact I will say that I don't see the entire proposition as valid generally speaking with respect to a single income and a connection to authority within a family.

None of us are the ones who forced a doubling of the work force in a large number of industries and by extension lowered the wages while boosting production and profits for companies. None of us threw open the borders and thereby depressed wage growth all the more. None of us voted for or advocated for the changes to the culture that brought us to this place where two incomes are generally required to support a family.
I can do a quick review of the results of that shift though. Children being "educated " by low iq lunatics who are literally sexually grooming them and confusing their sexual (not gender, grrrr need to do a whole thread about that grotesque gaslight) development. The family being atomized in general terms. Women being masculinized out of necessity to fit into pidgin holes created for men. Lowered birth rate. Rampant bloody immorality and debauchery, the whole issue of mass abortion...the list could become an extended dance remix.

So whats the solution?
You guessed it, polygyny! Want to work as super career woman? Want to go back to school and finish your degree? Want to work part time in a satisfying but not high paying job? Want to be a stay at home mom and homeschooler? Want to keep the house as the worlds most amazing home economist? Want to run a business out of the home on your own time? Why not all of it at various stages or pick a couple from the list? Betcha more adults will bring more opportunities and more factors to the equation. More more more. Be a glutton and feel good about it. More love, more kids and more options. Do I need to march about beating a drum and shouting Mooooore!?! I swear I will totally do an Oliver Twist on you with the big sad eyes and beseech "Please sir...may I have some more?"

My personal vision is two adults at a time working full time to ensure that not only is there cash flowing into the home but that between them, they are apt to be able to get insurance on one or more additional wives and all the children. Ideally with both working adults working in a telecommuting job and the family being on a homestead. I see changes and shuffles over time. Hell, if I married a rich girl, I would be happy to be a house dad and focus on the homeschooling, homesteading and developing a self sufficient system that allowed us to survive a crisisor weather a storm. I just don't see that the notion of the husband needing to be the sole means of support as valid any more and I definitely don't see it as necessary for the husband to be the head of the family.
If we go by the notions presented in the last few days in other conversations that say women have these limited roles and responsibilities...think it was sex, keeping the home and caring for children but I could be wrong... I say that is not nearly enough. Not even close. We are husband and wife, best friends and partners in all things. My expectation is that we, be it couple or group, all pitch in and all tackle challenges as our individual abilities allow as well as a team. The families needs are Everyone's responsibility. I want women beside me who are there for all of it and not just being a cook, kid polisher and mattress dancer.
Maybe it is because I am not so focused on specific sexual roles beyond the necessary ones like child bearing and who can lift more heavy stuff. I am more interested in talents being utilized to the general good of the family. Keeping the house for example...I can do it and all of the tasks just fine but don't expect me to be the one to initiate or to lead the parade. Same goes for gardening. Cooking however, don't get in my way or you may get knocked down as I haul ass to the kitchen. Childcare? I love my son and I enjoy spending time with him. I love playing games and teaching him and helping him to develop into a fine smart boy. I will change a diaper or deal with getting puked on and it doesn't lesson my manhood. Neither does the work that I do within the context of the family or outside of the home determine my level of authority within the family. I do that. My wife agrees and it works or we would have never gotten married. A future wife/wives will agree as well or things simply will not work. I determine my authority via deeds, actions and via willingness to take the responsibility for everyone. If there is a problem then I am responsible. If there is a threat then I will be the one to face it so as to make sure my women and children do not. Not a silly faux bravado thing, it is simply my job and responsibility as a man and as the head of the family. At the same time, if a wife knows something I do not, has mitigating information for a decision or can show that I have the wrong end of the stick or a fallacious conclusion then I damn well want to know. Screw the ego thing. My decisions effect everyone. It is my wives job absolutely required in the job description to advise me and if needed to correct bad information I might have and use for making decisions. Yeah, maybe I will act sulky or butthurt for being a dumbass but that will be me feeling like a dumbass that I had to be corrected, not that she was in error for showing that I was in error.

I suppose some are more caught up in sex side of things that come with the submission...which is what so many of these conversations drill down to in truth. Sexual access at will. Ok, I will admit that I like girls. Just a little bit. Maybe more than a little. Don't think a lot of the lads on the site will argue with me too much on the point that girls are just absolutely delightful and inspire all kinds of thoughts and desires pretty much constantly. We are broadcast fertilizers. It comes with the biology. And yeah...
I will admit that I really enjoy regular access and that I hope that goes for any future wife/wives as well. I have found though that the regular access is more of something that needs to be at least in broad stroke terms hammered out in advance. You do after all wish to only mary someone who is compatible. So I tend to see that as more to do with the individual couples than an overarching role for a wife. Don't need to act a perv and make the nookie thing something you talk about constantly, certainly not early or in particular detail. You certainly should be on tue same page about how import of an aspect it is to you personally though. But then again, you could say that about so very many facets of a marriage.
Ok, end extended yammering here.

 

[paterfamilias]

Personally, I'd say if a man is not in a financial / practical position to support an additional wife, he shouldn't be actively "seeking" one - by which I mean investing substantial time and effort into trying to find one. That time and effort should be going into improving the situation for his own family.

However, if God drops an additional wife in his lap and says "here she is", then he should marry her regardless of financial circumstances. People are more important than money, and God's instructions overrule our human logic. Most simply, if she's managing to survive single somehow, then whatever income stream she is currently living off can continue for the present, and they'll adjust over time.

Bingo

 

[paterfamilias]

my question was more or less "what if a man doesn't hold up his end of the bargain"

Entirely the point of talking, communicating, comparing ideas, being cautious and parsimoniously sifting the wheat from the chaff and the truth from the exaggeration and the reality from the flat bullshit.
That is on all of us whether plural or mono. I think that the casual coupling and casual bonding of our modern world has blunted our interest in choosing a husband/wife on how they will act as a spouse and provide for the family. Instead it is all about our feelings, emotions, desires and attractions. Frequently it is our very transient feelings, desires, emotions and attractions.

 

[paterfamilias]

I definitely agree. My personal opinion is that a wife should do whatever her household needs. Whether she wants to or not. Sure we would all prefer to do the things we love but we all know the world doesn't work that way. Also what better joy is there than taking care of the people you love, in whatever way you're needed.

What caused my confusion was the Bible verses stating that a woman's work was is in the home and implying that a man's was outside of the home. I needed some clarification.

I see the husband and the wife no differently in that they both work for the family in whatever way they can.

 

[LDremoved]

@LovesDogs ,

Our church has a very big thing about debt and if a family has big debts then they should not take on a plural.

Steve and Shari had a mortgage and some other debts when they met Christie. Going by the rules then they should not have taken Christie into the family. But Christie made good money and she paid off Steve and Shari's debts so they could be a family in good standing with the church. Christie worked after she got married and most of the time that was at home and other times it meant she had to travel. No one ever said it was bad. And sometimes she made more money that Steve did.

At one point we were very short on cash and I had no problem working outside the house and even though it wasn't a lot of money it made a big difference for us at the time. No one made an issue out of it.

Ideally the man can handle everything but if the circumstance means the wife has to work too then that's what you do.

I would say that if I ever had to work outside the house again I wouldn't complain.

Thank you! I like hearing from a family with experience. I also agree with you but when I read those verses it made me curious what the Bible meant because the interpretation I got did not match my personal preference.

 

[MeganC]

Thank you! I like hearing from a family with experience. I also agree with you but when I read those verses it made me curious what the Bible meant because the interpretation I got did not match my personal preference.

We all strive for the ideal that the Bible sets forth for us. Yet it is perfectly human to fall short of perfection. The best we can do is to strive for excellence.

 

[LDremoved]

@LovesDogs ,

Our church has a very big thing about debt and if a family has big debts then they should not take on a plural.

Steve and Shari had a mortgage and some other debts when they met Christie. Going by the rules then they should not have taken Christie into the family. But Christie made good money and she paid off Steve and Shari's debts so they could be a family in good standing with the church. Christie worked after she got married and most of the time that was at home and other times it meant she had to travel. No one ever said it was bad. And sometimes she made more money that Steve did.

At one point we were very short on cash and I had no problem working outside the house and even though it wasn't a lot of money it made a big difference for us at the time. No one made an issue out of it.

Ideally the man can handle everything but if the circumstance means the wife has to work too then that's what you do.

I would say that if I ever had to work outside the house again I wouldn't complain.

I like how your churches handles the situation as well!

 

[Keith Martin]

@LovesDogs ,

Our church has a very big thing about debt and if a family has big debts then they should not take on a plural.

Debt is a killer, and Dave Ramsey certainly helped save me and my family from the debt my first wife saddled me with in the wake of her leaving me back in 1982, so I recommend avoiding it at all costs, and I generally applaud having such a rigid standard, but what are we supposed to recommend to people who are in the following situation (and don't even try to tell me that this is at all unusual, given the level of debt held by the average American)?

The currently-married couple has outstanding debt in excess of $20K beyond their mortgage. They meet a widow who wants to join them in a plural marriage, but the widow also has $10K of outstanding debt.

Are they supposed to wait to get married until all debt is paid off?

Should the original couple divorce and then live apart until they pay off their debts?

What I'm pointing out is that certain lines in the sand can be drawn in a way that is, effectively, arbitrary -- and why are we insisting that debt trumps becoming one flesh?

 

[Keith Martin]

Not going to touch on the biblical part of the argument...in fact I will say that I don't see the entire proposition as valid generally speaking with respect to a single income and a connection to authority within a family.

None of us are the ones who forced a doubling of the work force in a large number of industries and by extension lowered the wages while boosting production and profits for companies. None of us threw open the borders and thereby depressed wage growth all the more. None of us voted for or advocated for the changes to the culture that brought us to this place where two incomes are generally required to support a family.
I can do a quick review of the results of that shift though. Children being "educated " by low iq lunatics who are literally sexually grooming them and confusing their sexual (not gender, grrrr need to do a whole thread about that grotesque gaslight) development. The family being atomized in general terms. Women being masculinized out of necessity to fit into pidgin holes created for men. Lowered birth rate. Rampant bloody immorality and debauchery, the whole issue of mass abortion...the list could become an extended dance remix.

So whats the solution?
You guessed it, polygyny! Want to work as super career woman? Want to go back to school and finish your degree? Want to work part time in a satisfying but not high paying job? Want to be a stay at home mom and homeschooler? Want to keep the house as the worlds most amazing home economist? Want to run a business out of the home on your own time? Why not all of it at various stages or pick a couple from the list? Betcha more adults will bring more opportunities and more factors to the equation. More more more. Be a glutton and feel good about it. More love, more kids and more options. Do I need to march about beating a drum and shouting Mooooore!?! I swear I will totally do an Oliver Twist on you with the big sad eyes and beseech "Please sir...may I have some more?"

My personal vision is two adults at a time working full time to ensure that not only is there cash flowing into the home but that between them, they are apt to be able to get insurance on one or more additional wives and all the children. Ideally with both working adults working in a telecommuting job and the family being on a homestead. I see changes and shuffles over time. Hell, if I married a rich girl, I would be happy to be a house dad and focus on the homeschooling, homesteading and developing a self sufficient system that allowed us to survive a crisisor weather a storm. I just don't see that the notion of the husband needing to be the sole means of support as valid any more and I definitely don't see it as necessary for the husband to be the head of the family.
If we go by the notions presented in the last few days in other conversations that say women have these limited roles and responsibilities...think it was sex, keeping the home and caring for children but I could be wrong... I say that is not nearly enough. Not even close. We are husband and wife, best friends and partners in all things. My expectation is that we, be it couple or group, all pitch in and all tackle challenges as our individual abilities allow as well as a team. The families needs are Everyone's responsibility. I want women beside me who are there for all of it and not just being a cook, kid polisher and mattress dancer.
Maybe it is because I am not so focused on specific sexual roles beyond the necessary ones like child bearing and who can lift more heavy stuff. I am more interested in talents being utilized to the general good of the family. Keeping the house for example...I can do it and all of the tasks just fine but don't expect me to be the one to initiate or to lead the parade. Same goes for gardening. Cooking however, don't get in my way or you may get knocked down as I haul ass to the kitchen. Childcare? I love my son and I enjoy spending time with him. I love playing games and teaching him and helping him to develop into a fine smart boy. I will change a diaper or deal with getting puked on and it doesn't lesson my manhood. Neither does the work that I do within the context of the family or outside of the home determine my level of authority within the family. I do that. My wife agrees and it works or we would have never gotten married. A future wife/wives will agree as well or things simply will not work. I determine my authority via deeds, actions and via willingness to take the responsibility for everyone. If there is a problem then I am responsible. If there is a threat then I will be the one to face it so as to make sure my women and children do not. Not a silly faux bravado thing, it is simply my job and responsibility as a man and as the head of the family. At the same time, if a wife knows something I do not, has mitigating information for a decision or can show that I have the wrong end of the stick or a fallacious conclusion then I damn well want to know. Screw the ego thing. My decisions effect everyone. It is my wives job absolutely required in the job description to advise me and if needed to correct bad information I might have and use for making decisions. Yeah, maybe I will act sulky or butthurt for being a dumbass but that will be me feeling like a dumbass that I had to be corrected, not that she was in error for showing that I was in error.

I suppose some are more caught up in sex side of things that come with the submission...which is what so many of these conversations drill down to in truth. Sexual access at will. Ok, I will admit that I like girls. Just a little bit. Maybe more than a little. Don't think a lot of the lads on the site will argue with me too much on the point that girls are just absolutely delightful and inspire all kinds of thoughts and desires pretty much constantly. We are broadcast fertilizers. It comes with the biology. And yeah...
I will admit that I really enjoy regular access and that I hope that goes for any future wife/wives as well. I have found though that the regular access is more of something that needs to be at least in broad stroke terms hammered out in advance. You do after all wish to only mary someone who is compatible. So I tend to see that as more to do with the individual couples than an overarching role for a wife. Don't need to act a perv and make the nookie thing something you talk about constantly, certainly not early or in particular detail. You certainly should be on tue same page about how import of an aspect it is to you personally though. But then again, you could say that about so very many facets of a marriage.
Ok, end extended yammering here.

What a WONDERFUL stream of consciousness; this kind of thing is why I'm so glad you're my friend!

You hit several nails on the head here, @paterfamilias. Thanks for articulating the Economy of Scale argument!

 

[paterfamilias]

What a WONDERFUL stream of consciousness; this kind of thing is why I'm so glad you're my friend!

You hit several nails on the head here, @paterfamilias. Thanks for articulating the Economy of Scale argument!

*cutesys shyly (lol)
You are entirely too kind.
I figure that if one throws in some whimsy then any number of serious topics become fun.

 

[LDremoved]

@LovesDogs ,

Our church has a very big thing about debt and if a family has big debts then they should not take on a plural.

Steve and Shari had a mortgage and some other debts when they met Christie. Going by the rules then they should not have taken Christie into the family. But Christie made good money and she paid off Steve and Shari's debts so they could be a family in good standing with the church. Christie worked after she got married and most of the time that was at home and other times it meant she had to travel. No one ever said it was bad. And sometimes she made more money that Steve did.

At one point we were very short on cash and I had no problem working outside the house and even though it wasn't a lot of money it made a big difference for us at the time. No one made an issue out of it.

Ideally the man can handle everything but if the circumstance means the wife has to work too then that's what you do.

I would say that if I ever had to work outside the house again I wouldn't complain.

I just have to say that your family must be awesome if a wife wanted to help pay off debt just to join it lol