Some thoughts in the way of me feeling perfectly right about going the polygyny route

[Keith Martin]

My understanding is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that two or more consenting adults can live together.

Lawrence v Texas.

When you buy property in our state, one is now required to sign forms declaring that one will respect that decision.

 

[Keith Martin]

Yes and no. There seems to be far more held against a woman for having multiple sexual partners. The man whores are admired, but the women disdained.

Yes, some do admire 'man whores,' and even in our community there are men who strut their stuff in that regard.

However (and you know I say anything I say you to with all respect for you and your family, not to mention with a backdrop of admiration and full gratitude for the role you played for me in the past during The Coup that occurred in my family 2.5 years ago), I think you may be missing a salient point: female whoring and male whoring are two different animals. Unfair, yes, but when exactly did fairness play any real role in life? I'm (perhaps unfortunately) stuck with not being in the 70% of men who've been demonstrated to be able to have casual sex in such a way that it has no effect on their ability to sustain relationships and/or on the manner in which they behave as husbands. Women, on the other hand, are only VERY rarely capable of divorcing sexual behavior from their ability to properly pair-bond. Add to that the recent research on how female DNA is partially altered not only by every male child a woman carries but, at least by the time she reaches her 8th sexual partner (usually earlier, averaging at the 3rd), and with every subsequent one, by the DNA each man transfers to her during vaginal intercourse (this partially because the vagina absorbs more cellular material than does the penis).

Both emotionally and biologically, women are hardwired for their ability to engage in full bonding and/or to sustain relationships to be tremendously affected by their history of how many men having been inside them. Men, not so much. We all know this in our bones, and we know that women know this even better than men do, because women are much more brutal in their assessments of highly-experienced fellow women than men would ever be.

 

[NBTX11]

My priority numbers 1A and 1B for a potential wife would be 1. Is a Christian who loves God and shows it in her life, and 2. Has not had a lot of sexual partners. Everything else pales in comparison and can be worked with. Those two most likely can't. We get the mistake or previous husband. We get that. I'm talking about a pattern of behavior.

Maybe that's a double standard, but I suspect most men believe similarly. Want a top tier Godly man as a husband. Don't **** around. If you already ****** around, don't expect one. You might get one, but wouldn't expect it.

 

[frederick]

My priority numbers 1A and 1B for a potential wife would be 1. Is a Christian who loves God and shows it in her life, and 2. Has not had a lot of sexual partners. Everything else pales in comparison and can be worked with. Those two most likely can't. We get the mistake or previous husband. We get that. I'm talking about a pattern of behavior.

Maybe that's a double standard, but I suspect most men believe similarly. Want a top tier Godly man as a husband. Don't **** around. If you already ****** around, don't expect one. You might get one, but wouldn't expect it.

While I'd whole heartedly agree with you on your priority list for having a Christian woman as a wife who had not been promiscuous while claiming to be a Christian, I'd give consideration to a woman who had been saved from such a background. After all, even Rahab is specifically named in the genealogy of our Lord and Saviour. God can and He does change the hearts of men and women turning even the most wretched sinners into saints. Shalom

 

[Keith Martin]

What should be and what is are two different things.

You're correct; it's marital capitalism, but, as men, we can't escape that we're currently living in a world in which 80+% of the women have been hypnotized into believing they 'deserve' men in the top 10-20%. The only way that could actually work would be widespread acceptance of polygamy (not possible at present) combined with widespread acceptance of the bottom 80% of men anesthetizing themselves with drugs that would make them not care that they're going to be basically partnerless.

What's called for is education for women that focuses on learning things about intersexual dynamics that they just don't want to hear. But we're all just wasting our time whistling Dixie arguing about what men and women are currently doing wrong. We can all be potentially right about our arguments, but in the absence of women being enlightened about what their reasonable mate expectations should be -- requiring that most rewards would be removed for female delusion -- it won't matter if we're right or wrong on either side. 80% of young women will simply continue ratcheting up their body counts with 20% of the young-to-early-middle-aged guys who are only rarely going to marry them, while those young women will simultaneously remain categorically unwilling to formally share those top-20% guys as they continue to informally offer themselves up to those same men for casual sex. This is the the ongoing condition of our times and, absent radical changes of approaches on the part of men, this will only continue to gravitate toward what looks inevitable at this point in time: 90% of young women considering only 10% of young-to-early-middle-age (20-35 y.o.) men as attractive enough to qualify as potential sexual and marital mates.

The choice for men is to either (a) become full patriarchs and refrain from further rewarding women for exhibiting Female Independence Delusion (which is a strategy that has the potential for forcing women to collectively reassess their presuppositions); or (b) accept the fact that, for most 20-35-year-old men (not to mention those of us who are older), for quite some time the only willing-and-able female mates are predominantly going to come from the bottom 20% of women. Most of us married our current wives during a previous era not characterized by the current dynamics, but young men are choosing from among women who have been entirely indoctrinated by our secular culture and were raised by mothers and fathers who were themselves also entirely indoctrinated by government schools and our secular culture.

If, as men, we're unwilling to expect appreciation and respectful cooperation from our women, we're in no position to expect anything but the dregs -- perhaps dregs with prairie dresses and head coverings who refrain from adultery but dregs nonetheless. The exceptions to this that will only prove the rule will probably continue to inspire wishful thinking among the remaining men, but, rather than the dynamic of whether or not we're worthy, male failure to promote and expect respectful cooperation (submission) with patriarchy will provide the nails that men continue to pound into their own coffins.

Risking boring those reading this, I'm convinced that anything that even remotely smacks of seeking female approval has nearly nothing to do with whether men seeking any form of marriage will successfully find women who are willing and prepared to be married to them. [I submit that it's almost axiomatic that the best list we might be able to make for what not to do as men could be compiled by just asking the women in our lives what they think we should do with our time, energy and resources.] We can find sex partners, but even most among us who are ostensibly married but tolerate disobedience, demands for a full voice without full acceptance of responsibility, disrespect, or insufficient appreciation for the full range of provision, protection and due benevolence men collectively provide women are not even close to being in the type of relationship prescribed by Scripture -- or in alignment with common sense. Instead, we're in voluntary enslavement to our women.

And when we choose that path rather than standing tall and expecting respectful cooperation we're also embarrassing ourselves no matter how much we convince ourselves that we're possessed of full manhood or wearing the pants in our family. Those who know me know I've had to confront this very thing in myself, so I'm not just callously casting aspersions. IYKYK, and OYKYCUI.

 

[MemeFan]

Who is admiring man whores? Maybe the world, but certainly not Bible believing Christians.

Because being man-whore is real skill.

Often man-whores do practice developing this skill in same manner as professional athletes.

 

[Joleneakamama]

@Keith Martin the picture needs more roads. I know for sure one should read "fat girl, with kid, who won't put out."

 

[MemeFan]

Only if choosing women of his own age.

Every year new batch of 18-years girls arrives.

You're correct; it's marital capitalism, but, as men, we can't escape that we're currently living in a world in which 80+% of the women have been hypnotized into believing they 'deserve' men in the top 10-20%. The only way that could actually work would be widespread acceptance of polygamy (not possible at present) combined with widespread acceptance of the bottom 80% of men anesthetizing themselves with drugs that would make them not care that they're going to.

Never in human history was normal that 80% of men are without sexual partner. Only possible if some war has wiped out most of male population. Otherwise unsexed men would form coalition, execute sexed men and distribute women. No problem since unsexed way outnumber sexed men.

For society to function most members must have their needs fullfiled, which implies most men need to have sex.

And here you trust too much what women say. It's not in girls interest to say she prefers average, althought most girls will finish with average man. She wants what is best for herself and claiming acceptance of average isn't path towards that.

 

[NBTX11]

While I'd whole heartedly agree with you on your priority list for having a Christian woman as a wife who had not been promiscuous while claiming to be a Christian, I'd give consideration to a woman who had been saved from such a background. After all, even Rahab is specifically named in the genealogy of our Lord and Saviour. God can and He does change the hearts of men and women turning even the most wretched sinners into saints. Shalom

I agree with you. The Rahab type woman is the exception. But, sadly, many women that claim to be Christians also behave this way. They get into relationships with men, have sex with them, and things do not work out between them and they go their separate ways.

 

[Keith Martin]

And here you trust too much what women say. It's not in girls interest to say she prefers average, although most girls will finish with average man. She wants what is best for herself and claiming acceptance of average isn't path towards that.

I'm not designing reality. I'm just the messenger citing well-documented statistics. Things have become what they've become. And I don't care what women 'say;' I care about what they do. What they're doing is having false confidence that they can eventually marry a good guy, sleeping around while they wait to be ready to settle down, and ending up all alone because Good Guys waiting for young women to exhaust their Hoe Phases are pretty much mythical creatures.

Mind you, this isn't all women behaving this way -- just MOST women.

You're correct about men rising up. Eventually they will, but for now they're just drinking, drugging, video-gaming, porning and self-jerking themselves into sedated states. My prayer is that men wake up with a purpose, but if they collectively wake up without having insight into how we got here, it's really not going to be pretty.

 

[Keith Martin]

I agree with you. The Rahab type woman is the exception. But, sadly, many women that claim to be Christians also behave this way. They get into relationships with men, have sex with them, and things do not work out between them and they go their separate ways.

And women are not innocent victims of anyone but themselves, the hypnotizers who've programmed them to behave this way, and those of us parenting them who were insufficient in our pushback against it.

 

[NVIII]

Canada's law is from the same base, so unless anyone can share a specific law against polygamy in Canada then I'm pretty sure you're ok there, and in the UK.

I really hate speaking for others, but I've let time pass and they haven't spoken. I know a few from this forum who have said that it is illegal in Canada. A quick google turns up the following: https://vogellawyers.com/polygamy-law-canada/

Which states recognise common law marriage like this?

Again, a quick google: https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/common-law-marriage-by-state

Oddly enough, my State is not on that list. I remember believing it was 10 years ago when I first searched all this out, but who knows.

Does anyone know anyone who has actually been prosecuted for polygamy (not a polygamist prosecuted for something else, someone specifically prosecuted for polygamy) anywhere in the USA or elsewhere in the West?

Another google search turned up several in USA and Canada, some in the past 20 years. Scanning through them, they look like all or most have exacerbating circumstances.

I think Christians tend to be timid do-gooders, and worry about this sort of thing too much, while the secular world around us just sleeps with whoever they like and find that nobody actually cares.

For this reason, we owe the alphabet soup group props for opening the gates. A rising tide lifts all ships.

But I still think this is unenforced.

As I said, it is largely unenforced, but there are things you can do to increase this risk, especially things you might do if you don't understand which side of the law you are on in your particular location. It's true that the likelihood of being prosecuted is slim and getting slimmer every day, but as of now the likelihood remains and it is always going to be greater for one professing Christ. It's not paranoia to tell the truth to someone who asks, especially when it's accurately modulated with words like "technically" and "largely unenforced".

Consider moonshine laws. Moonshine laws likewise are largely unenforced (and another set of liberties that you New Zealanders enjoy that most don't). As long as you stay small and keep it to yourself in the USA, the ATF isn't going to mount a taskforce. But be brazen about it or the law's attention another way, and don't be surprised when charges materialize. And yet, you'll still hear some in the home distilling community telling others it's like wine and not against the law. They are misinformed and they are misguiding others.

To say there is no law is to set someone up for a great big ugly surprise when they act obliviously because in their minds it's totally legal. That's irresponsible.

This really ought to be a separate and comprehensive thread. Does this organization not have legal counsel?

 

[MemeFan]

Consider moonshine laws. Moonshine laws likewise are largely unenforced (and another set of liberties that you New Zealanders enjoy that most don't). As long as you stay small and keep it to yourself in the USA, the ATF isn't going to mount a taskforce. But be brazen about it or the law's attention another way, and don't be surprised when charges materialize. And yet, you'll still hear some in the home distilling community telling others it's like wine and not against the law. They are misinformed and they are misguiding others.

Is situation same with marihuana? Federal crime, but some states refuse to cooperate with officers of Union.

 

[FollowingHim]

Another google search turned up several in USA and Canada, some in the past 20 years. Scanning through them, they look like all or most have exacerbating circumstances.

Exactly. I've only heard of people being prosecuted for other matters - e.g. underage marriage - with polygamy just being a factor of the circumstances. I have never heard of an actual prosecution for polygamy itself for the pure sake of prosecuting for polygamy. If it doesn't happen, it's not worth worrying about.

I really hate speaking for others, but I've let time pass and they haven't spoken. I know a few from this forum who have said that it is illegal in Canada. A quick google turns up the following: https://vogellawyers.com/polygamy-law-canada/

You're right, that does look like a clear law against it. I had a look into that case to see how it all ended:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-bc-blackmore-oler-bountiful-sentencing-1.4722332

This article stresses that these are the first prosecutions for polygamy in Canada since 1906 - which reinforces my point that this simply doesn't happen. The two men in question were prominent FLDS leaders in Warren Jeffs' cult, so were caught up in the general crackdown on him and his associates - the context therefore being the fact that Jeffs was prosecuted for child sexual assault, so prosecutors went after his closest associates because they perceived a risk to children and wanted to stamp it out. So although this precise case was for polygamy alone, the reason they were prosecuted is fundamentally due to them being close associates of a convicted child molesterer.

Blackmore had 27 wives. It's reported that some of them were underage, but he wasn't prosecuted for that, just prosecuted for polygamy. His family size is way to the extreme nutty end of the scale that nobody we know even contemplates, yet he got only 6 months home detention for it, which is really a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.

Olef had 5 wives, and got 3 months home detention for that. But the next year he was convicted of trafficking an underage girl to the USA to be married, and went to jail for 12 months. Again, this demonstrates that the real issue was child molestation happening in their cult - the polygamy law was just a legal tool they could get them on.

So in the whole of the last century only two men have been prosecuted for polygamy in Canada. Both had far more wives than anyone on this forum, and both were associated with or suspected of facilitating child molestation.

Whatever the law might say, in practice nobody is actually prosecuted for just having a couple of adult wives.

 

[MemeFan]

I'm not designing reality. I'm just the messenger citing well-documented statistics. Things have become what they've become. And I don't care what women 'say;' I care about what they do. What they're doing is having false confidence that they can eventually marry a good guy, sleeping around while they wait to be ready to settle down, and ending up all alone because Good Guys waiting for young women to exhaust their Hoe Phases are pretty much mythical creatures.

It's probably belief that fertility last longer than it does. So family formation starts later than it should.

 

[NVIII]

Is situation same with marihuana? Federal crime, but some states refuse to cooperate with officers of Union.

No, not really. That one is still much more polarized.

 

[Keith Martin]

It's probably belief that fertility last longer than it does. So family formation starts later than it should.

That's certainly one component, because it's consistently used as justification for young women to focus on education and career before beginning childbearing, but (a) it fails to take into account the very real specter of geriatric eggs, and (b) it's just one of the many components of outright delusion when it comes to promoting the myth of female independence being a wise path for the average woman.

 

[Victorious]

I have appreciated people on this forum who have given me thoughtful input in the past, as well as prayers (and these always really help).

I'm not sure how thrilled I should get at the thought of more than one woman. I'm actually still single. Right now, my favorite mindset of a woman would be someone who is mostly indifferent to whether I took another wife, but understands that polygyny isn't adultery. That's partly because I believe I need to leave the door open for an ex to return (in which I'd have 2), which is a scenario that I see God's law potentially causing to play out: for example, if a man divorces his wife on Matthew 19:9 grounds and marries another woman, if the first wife repents, she's still bound to her original husband despite him having taken another wife. I can see general benefits in a wife (even one) understanding what is or isn't adultery and also the reasons why: it suggests that she understands the patriarchal nature of marriage in ways that most don't.

As far as a woman being dead-set on wanting a sister wife or two, this is what holds me back. I know there's probably a 99% chance that this audience isn't going to "like" this, but here is my core concern about more than one wife:

1 Corinthians 7 32-35
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

I suspect that this is why Paul wanted an elder to be the "man of one woman." One is enough to prevent the "burn with passion" that Paul says to avoid, as well as avoiding temptation to "porneia" by marrying. But if a man has two wives, then hasn't he just doubled the issue that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 7 32-35? For anyone with several wives, I'd definitely be interested in your thoughts on that.

As a quick aside that might likely become the focus of some people's reply, other interpretations of "mias" don't work from what I can see. "First-wife man" makes the least sense especially when we consider polygyny: why would it be less offensive if a man divorced his second or third wife than his first? "First-wife man" sounds like a ridiculous way of Paul saying that the man has never sent away a wife. "mias" meaning an article also doesn't make sense just because (someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this one, extremely possible) it isn't generally necessary to use articles, and cross-references of "mias" that are said to seem like an article look more to me like they're trying to identify something distinguished, like "a CERTAIN voice" or "a CERTAIN tree," or "particular" or something along those lines. And why doesn't Paul just use the word "Gamesas" to describe "a married man" like he does in 1 Corinthians 7:33? By all means, make your case where you think I didn't work that out correctly. Or could "mias" just be a contrast to a philanderer? I mean most of the requirements of elders are pretty commonplace virtues anyway, and requirements for widows to be on widows' lists for support required the incredibly obvious virtue of being the wife to one husband (don't know how she'd be around there otherwise in the first place). So, perhaps it refers to a man who avoids "porneia" that Paul constantly warns about emphatically.

I should probably do more homework and browse the forum for my next question: how are people actually avoiding the law? I guess Utah is known for having extremely mild consequences for polygyny so some move there. Otherwise, how are people avoiding being in serious trouble with the law over this? I mean polygyny has been on TV, somehow, but would one have to duck and keep a low profile for life?

Thanks all.

"First-wife man" as a concept in this passage has nothing to do with whether a candidate for leadership in the Assembly has ever been divorced from anybody.
The qualification is that he must have taken at minimum One Woman, had children, and demonstrated his ability to provide headship to them.
The translation "one wife" contains this even without the underlying Greek when you realize it is a stake in the sand: It has to mean either "1 wife or more" OR "1 wife and NO more. Since this passage is not about marriage, but leadership, it clearly makes sense in context of the ensuing requirements that the intended meaning is "at minimum 1".