WHERE IS THE SHORELINE FOR SUBMISSION? Or, Is Your Husband Seeking Plural Marriage Your Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card?

[NickF]

That, my dear Watson, is the question!

Ditto!

 

[MeganC]

I do understand that a 1st wife operating under the assumption that she deserves to have a man all to herself

Steve made promises to me when I married him. Monogamy was not one of them but he did make other promises and he kept them.

I guess I am just saying that if a man makes a promise of monogamy to a woman as a condition of marriage then for the overall covenant of marriage to be kept he correctly needs to renegotiate with her or keep his word. He also has to accept the fact that she might divorce him and leave.

Or he can divorce her and start over.

But where he is the one asking to change the marriage covenant then the burden is on him.

*****************

I am sure this happens rarely but what would happen if the wife wanted to change the covenant and bring in another woman? Who has the say on that?

 

[Keith Martin]

But where he is the one asking to change the marriage covenant then the burden is on him.

In reality, every aspect of every burden is on him, so this is no exception.

But it is not a matter of a woman having absolute veto power. I'm all for patient teaching, but there has to be a limit sometime.

And, at risk of being horribly redundant, I'm rather certain that there is a high positive correlation between those women who firmly resist plural marriage and those women who are broadly in violation of their end of meeting the other aspects of the marital vows made at the wedding. Which also means there is a high positive correlation between those women who have kept all their vows and those who demonstrate willingness to consider biblical polygyny. Far too often, women think that, just because they haven't cheated on their husbands, they can excuse falling down on the have and to hold, etc.

I am sure this happens rarely but what would happen if the wife wanted to change the covenant and bring in another woman? Who has the say on that?

Depends on Who or what one considers to be the controlling authority: His Word or the feministized culture?

The man has the say. Period. You only mentioned bringing in another woman, so I'll start with that: this, I believe, would be one of those times when it would be very valuable to consider one's wife to be a helpmeet consultant; thank her for her suggestion, give the suggested new woman serious consideration, and if you as a man believe she would be a good addition to the family, bring her on in! If not, thank your woman again and suggest that she keep her eye out for a woman who would be a better fit.

If, on the other hand, the wife wanted to change the covenant and bring in another man, I think I'm safe in predicting that every man in this organization would simply say, "No, honey, that's not going to happen."

 

[MeganC]

But it is not a matter of a woman having absolute veto power.

If one party wants to change the terms of a covenant then both parties must agree to the change or else the covenant is broken. You're correct that the first wife doesn't have absolute veto power. The man can say, "I'm going to have another wife and you can just deal with it!"

And then she can divorce him for cause and leave him. That might not be Scriptural but it is reality.

 

[Keith Martin]

If one party wants to change the terms of a covenant then both parties must agree to the change or else the covenant is broken. You're correct that the first wife doesn't have absolute veto power. The man can say, "I'm going to have another wife and you can just deal with it!"

And then she can divorce him for cause and leave him. That might not be Scriptural but it is reality.

Oh, yes, it's certainly reality, and any man who even brings up polygyny is a fool if he doesn't realize threats of divorce will be on the table.

However, doesn't that also mean it's just as realistically legitimate for husbands to cast off their wives for any infraction wives exhibit in regard to abandoning all the other aspects of the wedding vows/covenants? When the wife says, "I'm going to expect you to uphold every bit of what a traditional woman expects of a traditional man, but you no longer have the right to expect that I uphold every bit of what a traditional man expects of a traditional woman," or "I led you to believe I would take care of you sexually in a way that would make you never need another woman, but now you're stuck and you just better get accustomed to twice a week or maybe twice a month or year," or "I've discovered a chink in your armor and now I feel entirely comfortable to treat you with ongoing utter disrespect but still expect to be treated like a fragile flower," does the man have the same level of legitimacy in throwing her overboard?

What function does it serve on women's part to regularly assert that they have the right to divorce and for them to generally be celebrated for the 'courage' of doing so -- while most public opinion on men divorcing women labels it a grievous and insensitive assault on women?

 

[MeganC]

It's an unfair double standard and in an age of empowered feminism and equity you'd think this would come to an end.

But the truth is that anti-family lesbian feminists like to use this kind of thing as a weapon against men so it persists.

That being the case, and now stipulated as something we agree upon, a man should take care when he tries to renegotiate his marriage covenant. Or be prepared to deal with the results.

 

[Keith Martin]

It's an unfair double standard and in an age of empowered feminism and equity you'd think this would come to an end.

But the truth is that anti-family lesbian feminists like to use this kind of thing as a weapon against men so it persists.

That being the case, and now stipulated as something we agree upon, a man should take care when he tries to renegotiate his marriage covenant. Or be prepared to deal with the results.

Certainly. But I will assert with vehemence that storm clouds are brewing and that women as well better be prepared to reap the whirlwind they have been whipping up.

This cannot be laid at the feet of anti-family lesbian feminists, because they couldn't have done this on their own. As men, we are 100% responsible for everything that happens, so we bear the burdens created by having been asleep at the switch in the 60's, 70's and 80's (not to mention many among us taking advantage of the new rules to get lots of casual sex), but women are also 100% responsible for the degree to which they have milked the new rules to sever themselves from their helpmeet responsibilities, all the while feeling entitled to the largesse of everything men had to do to keep the world running, with the added sting of women not even having to recognize all that men do for them. As Camille Paglia famously said, men created for women a world in which women have enough leisure time and communications opportunities that they could focus their energy on complaining about what men haven't yet done for them.

But don't blame it on the transgender lesbian leprechauns; in the female realm, it is mainstream women -- including many among the so-called anti-feminist fundamentalists -- who exploit feminism for their own purposes, including remaining in domination over their husbands. Yes, the buck stops with the men who permit this to happen, but part of the change that needs to occur among men is to stop dreaming up new ways to coddle wives but instead be man enough to call a spade a spade.

Know this: that which is rewarded will be repeated; if a woman is rewarded for digging in her heels, how long can she be expected to keep her heels dug in? Can you or do you want to hold your breath that long?

Someone else recently wrote in another thread, "If our wives are rebellious, stubborn, combative, gossips and the like, it's not their fault, it's ours. That's what it means to be a leader by the way--the failures are all your fault and the victories are because of your team. It can be a thankless job, but if above all else, you care about your team and completing your objective, it is rewarding. As a man, we have been given the responsibility by God to lead, protect, and provide for our wives and children--both spiritually and physically. We can shirk this responsibility but we will be held accountable for it. 'She wouldn't listen to me' won't be an excuse. It's time for the Godly men on this forum to realize that if our wives aren't of like mind in regard to the righteousness of polygyny, it's not their fault, it' ours."

Some of this I'm in complete agreement with, but it's bookended with something more insidious than the notion of mutual submission. This is straight-up just-attach-your-leash-onto-my-nose-ring advice. The writer ended by stating, "It takes real work to say 'I am the man!' and change." Absolutely, but what he missed was that changing doesn't have to limiting yourself to considering your wife blameless and/or begging for her to provide you with suggestions about how you can become a better man. Sometimes the very change a man needs is to grow a spine and confront his wife for her misbehavior. Sometimes, in fact, that's the most loving thing to do for her. Women have grown complacent in a cultural atmosphere where they're permitted to be aggressively bossy but can still rely on the men metaphorically adhering to "Don't hit the girl." Men are certainly where the family buck stops, at least on its way through Yeshua to Yah, but what the above paragraph describes is something properly titled Mastery of Disempowerment. Empowerment occurs from the bottom up, not from the top down. This business of laying every bit of the blame on the leader while giving what should, if anything, have been the lion's share of the credit to the followers is insidiously destructive for a team. Teamwork occurs when the team follows its coach, not when the coach butters up the team. In fact, if the team deserves to be buttered up, then the coach has abdicated -- and such teams only win in realms in which participation trophies are handed out to everyone.

Feminists (both the overt obvious ones and the minions of covert ones pretending not to be feminists but relying heavily on the excuses provided by feminism) are never going to take as much responsibility as the level of freedom and privileges they now expect. They never intended to do so, and why should they if they can continue to get away with it. Some may not like the fact that I now regularly address this, but what we like isn't what's important, no matter how much feminism hypnotizes us into believing that women should still be treated as innocent flowers while they knee-cap the men in their lives with hedge clippers. It's not what we like; what matters is what is screwed up all around us. I began this post by mentioning that women as well better be ready to reap the whirlwind of the ramifications of their choices. I think most people remain encased in their own comfortable intellectual bubbles, assuming that if they just read their Bibles and follow some certain set of rules they can ignore how the world around them is disintegrating. But it's definitely disintegrating, and it's not just out there -- it's also in all of our hearts in here. Because the coddling of women, as if they are all just sweet little things like Bambi, is leading toward some very dire consequences. Men are increasingly avoiding getting married (31% of all men now reach age 30 as virgins, and over half will never father children. While we blah blah blah about how men better improve their game if they want women to follow them, men are decreasingly even stepping up to the plate. This is the world we're creating by demanding that a woman's right to be selfish trumps everything else in marriage, even whether they live up to the rest of their vows or do anything significant to behave as helpmeets. As long as we as men allow women to operate under a definition of submission that means that following a man's lead is only required when it's what the woman wanted to do anyway -- while continuing to expect men to organize and maintain the world women feel entitled to inhabit -- we will only hasten this trend for men to avoid women as much as possible. If all women could end up having lives like the rich female celebrities who encourage them to demand everything and settle for nothing, life at least would be groovy for the women. But even that's just not real. The percentage of women who spend the last decades of their lives in poverty and generalized terminal loneliness continues to grow, which is something for all of us to keep in mind.

And I write all of this concerned far less for the strangers who bounce off our Biblical atmosphere like minor asteroids, scarring us up a bit but almost never contributing anything of substance back to our long-term members -- my concern is for those of you who have virtually and literally linked arms with my family and me and my fellow brothers and sisters. Are the hurt feelings of the asteroids more important than the hurting lives of those who can be counted on as part of the ongoing orbit of Planet Fellowship?

This is not just about happy-wife, happy-life.

[The goofy stuff about the homeless man is at the end; the point of the video is the first couple segments.]

 

[MeganC]

But don't blame it on the transgender lesbian leprechauns

I do. They started this crap.

Susan B. Anthony and her lesbian friends started the destruction of the family, they advocated birth control and abortion, and these same witches started the temperance movement to shut down saloons and the sale of alcohol. The latter being their first attack on masculinity.

As if these harpies needed birth control!!!


My issue with changing a covenant is that the man gave his word to his wife what their marriage would be like. No one forced him to do this. Especially these days when so many people don't even get married or committed.

If he'll break this promise then what other promises will he break?

That's why I say he needs to first honor his covenant and ask his wife if it can change and then go from there. She probably won't say yes right away but that's how it goes.

As to the stupid woman in your video she's the poster child for why women need strong men in their lives.

 

[MeganC]

I feel an epic post about women coming. If you think I've been hard on men just wait...

 

[FollowingHim2]

I do. They started this crap.

Susan B. Anthony and her lesbian friends started the destruction of the family, they advocated birth control and abortion, and these same witches started the temperance movement to shut down saloons and the sale of alcohol. The latter being their first attack on masculinity.

As if these harpies needed birth control!!!
View attachment 3514

My issue with changing a covenant is that the man gave his word to his wife what their marriage would be like. No one forced him to do this. Especially these days when so many people don't even get married or committed.

If he'll break this promise then what other promises will he break?

That's why I say he needs to first honor his covenant and ask his wife if it can change and then go from there. She probably won't say yes right away but that's how it goes.

As to the stupid woman in your video she's the poster child for why women need strong men in their lives.

A bunch of the women in that photo have that arrogant/prideful look that feminists and women for abortion get. It's like playing 'spot the demon'.

 

[Keith Martin]

My issue with changing a covenant is that the man gave his word to his wife what their marriage would be like. No one forced him to do this. Especially these days when so many people don't even get married or committed.

If he'll break this promise then what other promises will he break?

And, once again, I agree with you, as long as we have the same expectations for women that they follow through with the word-giving they engaged in leading up to marriage. I've brought up this same lack of symmetry many times in these threads, and when I ask questions like,

doesn't that also mean it's just as realistically legitimate for husbands to cast off their wives for any infraction wives exhibit in regard to abandoning all the other aspects of the wedding vows/covenants? When the wife says, "I'm going to expect you to uphold every bit of what a traditional woman expects of a traditional man, but you no longer have the right to expect that I uphold every bit of what a traditional man expects of a traditional woman," or "I led you to believe I would take care of you sexually in a way that would make you never need another woman, but now you're stuck and you just better get accustomed to twice a week or maybe twice a month or year," or "I've discovered a chink in your armor and now I feel entirely comfortable to treat you with ongoing utter disrespect but still expect to be treated like a fragile flower," does the man have the same level of legitimacy in throwing her overboard?

it seems like most everyone ignores those questions as if they're the third rail of marital politics. Usually, at best, what occurs is an answer that goes like this: "Yes, buuutttt . . . men are mean," or, "Yes, buuutttt . . . men made promises they didn't keep," as if men discovering polygyny somehow sweeps every failure to follow through on vows on the part of women under the rug. Why must any criticism of women be immediately followed up by a criticism of men? Why are we so afraid of confronting women? Why do they get a pass? Why is a man attacked as a misogynist simply because he addresses failures on the part of women?

Put another way, we live in a world in which women are for the most part given carte blanche to criticize men, and men are also free to criticize other men, as long as they're not pretending to be women. Occasionally women are permitted to criticize women, but if a man deigns to address problems among women, this is something that most men and women come down on like it's baby rape. I can get why many women don't want to be held accountable, but I'm really most focused when talking about this on the men who erect fences around criticizing women. Their motivations could also stand some airing, because, whether we like it or not, they are part of the set of men who are role models to our boys. In my own life, I count the combination of my former willingness to be openly criticized by my wife in front of our children and the taboo against doing the same in reverse to be one of my bigger regrets as a father. I am not just casting aspersions as if I've never been in error.

What I especially find laughable is being labeled a woman hater simply for addressing problems exhibited by women that most everyone else seems to be pretending aren't occurring. Does anyone stop to engage in self-examination when making the leap required to make such an accusation? I can potentially see why a man who hates women would inform his wife that he wants another one, because it's certainly an easy path toward getting rid of her -- but why on Earth would a man-hating woman be willing to take on two or more of them at once, much less willing to not only put up with the slings and arrows from his first wife but put forth the effort to convince another woman to join him?

 

[Keith Martin]

My issue with changing a covenant is that the man gave his word to his wife what their marriage would be like. No one forced him to do this. Especially these days when so many people don't even get married or committed.

If he'll break this promise then what other promises will he break?

I'd suggest that an even more cogent question women should be asking about men is, if, like today's majority, he isn't willing to make any promises, what, if anything, are you ever going to be able to count on him for? -- which goes hand in hand with the fact that, in Modern Marriages, men are still expected to keep up every aspect of their end of the traditional bargain, whereas women are given passes left and right when it comes to whether they're keeping up their end.

This is also a good place to announce that I've started a new thread. It's adapted from a Substack article I published Monday, but it still has some relevance to our crowd here: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/are-we-not-mules-we-are-devo.16887/

 

[MeganC]

I'd suggest that an even more cogent question women should be asking about men is, if, like today's majority, he isn't willing to make any promises, what, if anything, are you ever going to be able to count on him for?

To some extent I have more respect and trust for a man who does not make promises at all than I do the man who makes promises he can't keep.

If neither man can keep his promises then the first man is the more honest of the two.

 

[NickF]

This is precisely why I led my bride to create scripturally sound vows for our wedding ceremony. I wasn't going to make vows that were not based on what The Word says.

 

[Keith Martin]

To some extent I have more respect and trust for a man who does not make promises at all than I do the man who makes promises he can't keep.

If neither man can keep his promises then the first man is the more honest of the two.

I agree with you, but that's kind of like focusing on whether one would want snakebite or diphtheria; fortunately that doesn't come anywhere near close to exhausting the options available when it comes to whether men make promises or whether men keep the promises they make.

How about this choice (among the hundreds or millions on the continuum of choices):

Which kind of man would you respect more and/or be more likely to hitch your sails to:

• A man who promises very little, will follow through on all of that very little, but deliver nothing beyond that?; or
• A man who promises a tremendous amount, and delivers completely on almost everything, but falls short on a couple things here or there?

I'm declaring that this dichotomy applies directly to our discussion about backing away from vows of monogamy after biblical truth is discovered (which reflects that it was purposefully hidden by so-called religious 'authorities,' as well as that even most young brides know full well that forsaking all others is a bigger sacrifice for men than it is for women). Having kept the vow for a significant amount of time in most cases (longer on average than the average woman waits before bailing out entirely on the marriage, which is certainly breaking the same vow), even if, after a reasonable period of assisting his wife to prepare for it, the man were to unilaterally declare the initial 'forsaking all others' vow for himself null and void, the impact on her wouldn't even approach the impact it would have on him were she to do the same thing. Not only is having another wife not adultery, whereas the wife taking another man would be, what a woman most likely experiences is a violation of her selfishness, whereas the man's primal primary experience about adultery-related jealousy is one of a violation of his legacy -- either robbing him of legacy or being cuckolded into being required to raise another man's issue.

 

[Bina]

THE SHREW II SUMMARY:

• DEFINITIONS AND GROUND RULES: Initial introductions to each other as necessary, which included some declarations about how general issues of failure to assert leadership have impacted both family stability and pursuit of polygyny. One brother injected this relevant quote: “you will never win a war until you are prepared to die for your cause." Another brother asserted that the zone of success in marriage lies somewhere between blind obedience and constant challenging. Yet another provided a testimonial about how thoroughly submissive his wife is, with one major exception: when the possibility of another woman joining the household becomes real.
• Some divorced members chimed in with describing pitfalls created by insufficient leadership on their part that led to the dissolution of their marriages.
• Clarification of cultural differences among members hailing from as far and wide as the United States and The Lands Down Under.
• Recognition of the need for some common definitions:
• a. Polyamory: sexual relationships not limited to monogamy. Some polyamory is closed (the participants only have sex with those to whom they have committed relationships), some open (some may be committed, but participants are permitted to have sex with people who are not committed to others to whom one is committed). Generally speaking out in the mainstream culture, the woke crowd now restricts usage of the term ‘polyamory’ to refer to open-ended polyamory and includes not only swinging but entirely open-ended sexual relationships that don’t have to involve one bit of commitment. However, the following terms are actually technical subdivisions of the real definition of polyamory.
  b. Polygamy: generally, when we use it we mean polygyny, but technically ‘polygamy’ refers to one person being married to more than one other person without prejudice regarding the genders involved. It is a form of closed polyamory. Polygamy includes both polygyny and polyandry.
  c. Polygyny: one man with multiple wives, a form of polygamy that is the model in Scripture. When referring to polygyny as polygamy, it is best to use the phrase, “Biblical polygamy,” because polygyny is Biblical polygamy, but ‘polygamy’ could be polyandry.
  d. Polyandry: one woman with multiple husbands, also a form of polygamy but one that is prohibited by Scripture, given that the biblical definition of adultery specifies that it involves sex between a married woman and a man other than the one man she's permitted to marry.
  e. Throuples (or trouples): closed committed relationships within which all three members have sexual relationships with both other members (this can also be expanded to quadrouples, quintrouples, etc., but those are quite rare). Technically, throuples can consist of one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men or three women. Throuples generally include some level of mutual commitments among all participants but not always, because, generally speaking, the group requires a leader, and in most cases, the leader is considered to be married to the other members. For our purposes, though, within Biblical polygyny, one man would be married to two or more women, and the women would be sexual with each other as well as with their husbands, but they would not be strictly considered married to each other – and in many if not most cases the women would only be sexual with each other when being sexual with their husband. This type of arrangement has been discussed in at least a couple dozen other threads here on Biblical Families, so I request that we not debate the legitimacy or illegitimacy of it – unless, that is, someone can discover the up-until-now entirely-elusive Scripture that condemns women having sex with other women. Just be aware that, while some among us consider this illegitimate, some among us – including myself – consider this family structure to be entirely scripturally legitimate. As one of this discussion group's members so wisely stated in at least one other discussion: according to Scripture, “the marriage bed is undefiled.” Period.
  f. Marriage: this word has a gazillion definitions, but for our purposes, I'm asserting we should limit it to the commitment a man and woman make before YHWH to be one flesh for life that is sealed by the consummation of the relationship. This has nothing to do with marriage licenses or regulation by churches or government entities.
• WARM-UP: Once the initial introductory period was over, the discussion continued with a relatively loose structure, punctuated by questions mostly inspired by particularly-pointed comments; I'll included examples of most as this summary proceeds.
• Comment: "Enter the Spirit with the Word and maybe just maybe the woman wasn't the full manifestation of the solution to the dilemma of isolated man." Question: "if we stipulate that woman is only a partial manifestation of the solution to the dilemma of isolated man, and if we also stipulate that the Spirit and the Word and the Father and the Son are crucial parts of the equation, what else is required to complete the puzzle? What else are we being exhorted to bring into manifestation in order to solve the isolated-man dilemma?" One particularly useful response in the ensuing discussion was that it's a mistake to attempt to reverse-delegate responsibility for leadership back up to Yah by excusing oneself with phrases along the lines of, "It's my woman's -- or my child's -- problem, because she's being rebellious against God."
• CHAIN OF COMMAND: Conversely, after some suggestions were made that proper leadership entails putting the needs of one's wife and children ahead of one's own, I posed the following question: "Are you suggesting that the Yah=>Yeshua=>husband=>wives=>children=>animals hierarchy should be changed to Yah=>Yeshua=>wives=>children=>husband=>animals?" If so, or if not, is elevating the needs of wives and children above ours the truly loving thing to do in a world in which they rely on our organization, creation, implementation and protection? This theme wove itself in and out of many subsequent topics, but one comment stood out: "Society tells us that 'If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy,' and everyone [inappropriately] accepts that as fine. There is some truth hidden in there just getting obfuscated by the backwards matriarchy.' I offered the following as a rhetorical question: "imagine being part of the Blizzard Family, stuck in a blinding snowstorm on a mountain top; the lot of you have been trudging endlessly through white-out conditions across rough terrain for days with nothing to eat and only snow-melt to provide water. The seven of you come across a full-but-already-opened can of kosher army rations, and given how loaded those are with preservatives and how cold it is outside you're not about to be worried about whether they're spoiled. Seven people, and almost a full daily ration for one person. Shangri La might be right around the corner, but at this point in time there is no evidence of any definite civilization for what might be a week's trek through what you're all in the middle of -- or worse. Most of you have been wondering which one of you you'll all have to eat like the Donner party in order to survive. The strength of each of the seven is nearly depleted. Assume that consuming half the ration can will boost the strength of one person enough to go on for several hours and that the entire can would inspire a whole day's effort. Assume also that eating less than a fourth of the can would do little more than create the equivalent of a half-hour's sugar high. How do you divide up the contents of the can? The socialism thing to do would be to give each person 1/7 of what's left. The pragmatic socialism thing to do might even be to give slightly larger portions to people based on their weight, so dad might get 25%, and the littlest kid might just get a nibble. The feminist thing would be to give the females bigger portions in order to correct historical injustices. But then there's the survival choice: who among everyone there is the most important person to survive the next several hours? The youngest child, because s/he has the longest life ahead of hir? The mother, because as long as she survives she can always find another husband and have additional children to replace the ones she left behind in the blizzard? I assert that the bare minimum of half the can should be consumed by the man -- if not even more, with perhaps a quarter given to the mother and nibbles for the five children. Because when the future is uncertain -- which it almost always is -- the family's survival is more dependent on and shouldered by the father than by anyone else in the family. If the Blizzard family makes it through the next day, they can all recuperate from exhaustion, frostbite and bleeding wounds, but only the man -- or a very prepared older male child -- has the potential in such a situation to bring them through such a thing. Life isn't a Disney movie; in 99 out of a 100 cases, the mother is not going to be able to lead the family to safety. Giving the whole can to the 4-year-old may make everyone feel emotionally whole, but it's also a certain script for death for them all. That's clearly an extreme example, but it makes my point: it is more important that the man's needs and desires be paramount than it is to address all the needs and desires of everyone else in the family. He is The Rock, and everyone benefits from The Rock being well taken care of. This, I assert, is also true in the sexual realm. I'm bone tired of all the virtue signaling men do to prove that they've got their Piety Merit Badges, pretending that sexual satisfaction isn't a human need that comes close to rivaling the need to eat, to drink and to sleep. The family wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Yah-endowed sex drive, because it's the only thing that inspires overcoming the mountains of foundational differences between men and women that are a pain in the a** to traverse. Those kids whose idyllic childhoods we waste our time worrying about wouldn't even exist, period, if it weren't for the inspiration to experience sexual satisfaction which Yah included as part of our makeup. Instead of us or our women or our children acting like wanting to engage in sexual behavior is something we should be embarrassed by, I say we need to tell those women, those children, and even ourselves if we're even partially brainwashed by the Feminized Condemnation Christianity Culture, that they should be damn thankful their husbands and fathers have such a strong desire to get laid, because it's part of the backbone of what it takes to make men willing to do all the unbelievable amount of stuff they already have to do in order to take care of their families. My sexuality is none of my children's business, and if my wife is unwilling to or incapable of keeping up with my sex drive, then, yes, for the sake of maintaining a healthy, successful family led by a patriarch who lives life according to the dictates of Yah and Yeshua, every one of my family members, out of self interest, should want me to get another wife if I believe -- for whatever reason -- that I need one, even if only for the purpose of sexual satisfaction. Despite all the stereotypes and unfair efforts to demonize polygyny, that the only reason a man would want another woman permanently in his life would be sexual satisfaction is rarely the actual case, but even when it is, it's time we men stopped encouraging other men to be ashamed of it."
• Comment: "This is precisely where adversity comes in - the adversity mostly indirectly targets men in an attempt to undermine men in the long run - men unafraid because we fear God alone. That same adversity would directly nip at the heels of your wives and children to pull them into the darkness. How are you going to deal with this? Everyone is handed different adversity. Why would it take one form? We know that adversity attacks weakness by nature - and as the strong man - keeping that adversity as far away from our household as possible is the goal. In fact, it’s only in a rebellious household that adversity can even find footing."
• To address a growing elephant in not only the SHREW II room but in numerous other public Biblical Families threads, I posed the following question: "Is there anyone among the group who believes that authority and discipline should not be tempered with love?" Starting with some discussion about this being something we men tend to fear will be leveled against us, our consensus was clearly that authority and discipline should be tempered with love.
• This led to a discussion of the importance of keeping the proper hierarchy in place when a family has more than one wife, as well as recognizing that Scripture doesn't place earlier wives in authority over subsequent wives.
• IS PITY EMPOWERING? Introducing (1) the importance of distinguishing between (a) pity/sympathy/feeling sorry for others and (b) true compassion, as well as recognizing that feeling sorry for others or worrying about them does little to benefit them.
• Which went off into a tangent about the degree to which focusing on outside-authority contracts (even so-called covenant contracts through religious authority figures) provides opportunities for wives to sidestep full submission.
• Next question was rhetorical: "Which is more loving: encouraging self-pity and success through manipulation of others, or encouraging self-empowerment combined with respect for others?” General consensus ensued.

Riveting and contemplative material here. Thank you!

 

[NBTX11]

This is precisely why I led my bride to create scripturally sound vows for our wedding ceremony. I wasn't going to make vows that were not based on what The Word says.

Unfortunately, many men do not do this, including myself. I got married 31 years ago when I was 20. All I cared about then was marrying my wife, and I let the preacher come up with the vows without vetting them, and of course one of them was keeping myself only for her until death. Of course, I knew nothing of polygyny then, other than what the church taught, so I accepted the vows at the time and current church teaching on monogamy only. When I did come to the realization of plural marriage being acceptable before God, I did ask my wife to release me from that particular vow, and she did so. There were 3 or 4 other vows that were made than I have no problem with. They didn't relate to polygyny.

 

[frederick]

Unfortunately, many men do not do this, including myself. I got married 31 years ago when I was 20. All I cared about then was marrying my wife, and I let the preacher come up with the vows without vetting them, and of course one of them was keeping myself only for her until death. Of course, I knew nothing of polygyny then, other than what the church taught, so I accepted the vows at the time and current church teaching on monogamy only. When I did come to the realization of plural marriage being acceptable before God, I did ask my wife to release me from that particular vow, and she did so. There were 3 or 4 other vows that were made than I have no problem with. They didn't relate to polygyny.

My first bride and I were like @NickF and his bride. Although we had no idea of biblical marriage allowing polygyny at the time we married we wrote and recited our own vows. We wanted to have our relationship founded solidly on The Word. It has been an anchor for us through the storms.

 

[NBTX11]

My first bride and I were like @NickF and his bride. Although we had no idea of biblical marriage allowing polygyny at the time we married we wrote and recited our own vows. We wanted to have our relationship founded solidly on The Word. It has been a anchor for us through the storms.

Like I said, I was 20 years old (no excuse, right). And the preacher is supposed to know what he's doing, or at least I thought at the time.

What 20 year old that was brought up in a monogamy only church and culture seriously vets the vows they are told to repeat. Not many.

 

[frederick]

What 20 year old that was brought up in a monogamy only church and culture seriously vets the vows they are told to repeat. Not many.

Unfortunately, not many indeed. And yes, no excuse. The awesome privilege and blessing we each have is to learn and grow in the knowledge of the truth. Hopefully we don't stay as infants in the faith, but mature to be leaders and teachers of the truth to the next generation. And that's applicable to both men and women; to learn and grow and become mature in the faith.