why not multiple husbands?

[FollowingHim]

why are you presuming it is the man that has to be the generous one here following the lead of his wife? Should not a loving wife with a low libedo be willing even when she is not "ready", out of love and respect for her husband?

The easiest way to have a terrible sexual relationship is to do it for someone else's happiness.

So no. She should not be willing if she does not want it out of 'love' if any man gave me that sort of nonsense he would get an earful. Who wants to sleep with someone who lays there like a fish so you can get your jollies? How grotesque is that? :evil: No thank you, give me a person 'up for it' each time.

Bels, you have a very narrow view of what is right and loving here. How very unliberal of you! There is a wide range of practice on this one, don't rush to judge. I know of one couple who followed your view, and would go for months without sex until they both happened to be "in the mood" at the same time (they've broken up now...). I know of others who lovingly provide what their spouse wants / needs even if they themselves are not "in the mood", and each have a lot more intimacy as a result. To think that someone who is not "in the mood" but having sex out of love would necessarily just "lie like a fish" is a major presumption (fish tend to jump around when you get them in your boat anyway ) - and even if it were so, to presume that nobody would want that is also a major presumption!

Scripturally, a husband is to love his wife, a wife is to obey her husband, and neither is to deprive the other of sex. These three instructions all go hand-in-hand. To take the command for a husband to love his wife to the extreme that he would never expect his wife to give him sex when she was not in the mood is to throw away the commands for a wife to obey her husband and not deny him sex. On the other hand, to take the command that a wife is to obey her husband to the extreme that her opinion is never considered on the matter and her husband does what he likes regardless of her feelings, is to throw away the command for a husband to love his wife and not deny her the intimacy that she desires. Both extremes are sadly common, both are equally wrong, and both can contribute to the failure of a relationship for different reasons. There is a loving middle ground that is intended by these passages and works very well to the benefit of both spouses and the longevity of their marriage.

On the multiple husbands issue, I agree that if a woman is married to multiple men she would not technically be breaking her covenant by sleeping with any individual one of them. However the man is NOT just sleeping with his own wife, but the wife of another (or several others) as well. The man is therefore breaking the Levitical laws, while sleeping with his own wife.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sleeping with your own wife makes you immune from breaking these laws - on the contrary, sleeping with your own wife during her period would be breaking these laws with your own wife. So the fact that he is married to her is irrelevant - it is the fact that she is also married to someone else that is the issue.

Note that I was being sarcastic about killing off brothers Bels, I think you might have missed that, I know cultures with polandry have different laws... :roll:

 

[Hugh McBryde]

We have recently been discussing gender selective abortion and only yesterday I was watching news about the problem in India. It has reached such proportions now that trafficking of teenage girls has become epic. Many of these girls are being forced into marriage in populations that have aborted so many of their female foetuses, the rest are sold into brothels, one girl described being raped several times every day for seven months until she was found by her family. My heart aches for her and all other women going through this in those and other regions. How on earth can someone think Polyandry is worse than that?...I couldn't possibly understand."

It wasn't us sexist bigoted racist homophobic conservative Christians that wished to have abortion on demand. It can easily be argued that abortion on demand has been far harder on the female side of humanity than it has been on men.

Maybe, just maybe we're just bigoted racist homophobic conservative Christians, but not sexists.

It seems to me we got to the "abortion on demand" status we are now in, by leaning heavily on the plight of "poor women" who had no future with the burden of a child due to the understandable "mistake" they had made, and as Obama put it "shouldn't get a life sentence" for that error. SURELY it was more humane...HOW could the abortion be WORSE than that?

Bels, this is NOT an intellectual reason for adopting Polyandry. The plea you're making is to heap another probable mistake on top of what now is a certain mistake. "Let's solve the inequities of 'Abortion on Demand' by adopting Polyandry."

No.

Let's REASON it out first instead of drawing from the bottom of the deck as we did with elective abortion. Maybe the old ways might not be best (sin has entered the world you know), but they may well be better and indeed, the best we can do. What if old ways WERE as "Good as it gets?"

 

[Isabella]

Bels, you have a very narrow view of what is right and loving here. How very unliberal of you!

Is this supposed to bother me? I have not made any 'I'm a proud liberal' stance so move on from the hyperbole...

There is a wide range of practice on this one, don't rush to judge. I know of one couple who followed your view, and would go for months without sex until they both happened to be "in the mood" at the same time (they've broken up now...)

.

I never said that not wanting intimacy is not a problem, it is, but that needs to be worked on the answer is not 'put out to make someone else happy' as far as I am concerned. Now you are perfectly free to believe that a loving spouse should put out and I will forever disagree with you.

and even if it were so, to presume that nobody would want that is also a major presumption!

The idea that any man is happy to have sex with a woman who is so disinterested in it that she might as well be a sex doll, is not very loving to me and actually quite vulgar, but perhaps you need to be a woman to know how distasteful that seems?

Scripturally,

This does not pertain to me and it is, of course, a part of your religious beliefs which I will not accept as a good guideline for a loving relationship.

B

 

[Isabella]

Maybe, just maybe we're just bigoted racist homophobic conservative Christians, but not sexists.

It seems to me we got to the "abortion on demand" status

Woah, back up from the abortion debate, I seriously don't care about what America thinks, it wasn't about Americans, it is happening in India a very culturally conservative nation so why the cultural bias? Or is suddenly every country on earth America?

Bels, this is NOT an intellectual reason for adopting Polyandry. The plea you're making is to heap another probable mistake on top of what now is a certain mistake. "Let's solve the inequities of 'Abortion on Demand' by adopting Polyandry."

I made no plea, I said I don't know how anyone can think KIDNAPPING teenage girls so men can be sexually satisfied is preferable to Polyandry. The sex selective abortion was happening on a vast scale nearly 20 years ago, that argument has passed, the effect of it is starting to be seen as that generation seeks to get married. India is not a Christian nation, their cultural mores are not at the mercy of Christian ideals, they don't have a problem with abortion but it is very much a patriarchal nation having boys is highly prized and girls are seen as a burden....until of course they want to marry off these sons.

Nothing you wrote has any relevance to my mindset (or indeed a mindset that is not that of an American Christian) at all.

B

 

[FollowingHim2]

The idea that any man is happy to have sex with a woman who is so disinterested in it that she might as well be a sex doll, is not very loving to me and actually quite vulgar, but perhaps you need to be a woman to know how distasteful that seems?

You don't speak for all women Bels. I in actual fact disagree with you and am quite happy with the status quo. Samuel does not need to be a women to understand my feelings on the matter (and they are the only ones that matter considering I'm his only wife ), I certainly make my views known to him.

You may find it vulgar. I find it loving.

 

[Isabella]

The idea that any man is happy to have sex with a woman who is so disinterested in it that she might as well be a sex doll, is not very loving to me and actually quite vulgar, but perhaps you need to be a woman to know how distasteful that seems?

You don't speak for all women Bels. I in actual fact disagree with you and am quite happy with the status quo. Samuel does not need to be a women to understand my feelings on the matter (and they are the only ones that matter considering I'm his only wife ), I certainly make my views known to him.

You may find it vulgar. I find it loving.

Indeed, you are correct, I don't talk for ALL women, but nor do you talk for women who don't buy into the mindset that it is loving to put out for another persons happiness. I think when you factor in the particular religious ideals that has a significant influence upon whether you might feel that is an acceptable and loving way to behave. I personally cannot think of anything more abhorrent than that someone just laying there like a doll and I pity the woman who feels she needs to do that rather than examine why her sex life is so uninspiring that her partner does not excite her. Because as far as I am concerned there is nothing more exciting than someone you want, who wants you back.

B

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Woah, back up from the abortion debate, I seriously don't care about what America thinks, it wasn't about Americans, it is happening in India a very culturally conservative nation so why the cultural bias? Or is suddenly every country on earth America?"

I don't accept a nation that is aborting it's females out of existence as "culturally conservative," unless you simply mean by "conservative" as "resistant to change." Nah...that still doesn't work, but it's a bit better.

I made no plea, I said I don't know how anyone can think KIDNAPPING teenage girls so men can be sexually satisfied is preferable to Polyandry."

I reject all three. You seem willing to accept the abortion of female children (and I don't see how they can be FEMALE unless they are also HUMAN) as being solved by polyandry. Is what you really want a denial of sex to men? I'm not sure this is going to work, since it's shown that men tend to turn to homosexuality when denied female companionship.

Will it be better when we start raping young boys instead of young girls (Sparta)?

What would you call this appeal to emotion if it is not a "plea?" I'm open to any term other than "argument" in the logical sense.

The sex selective abortion was happening on a vast scale nearly 20 years ago, that argument has passed, the effect of it is starting to be seen as that generation seeks to get married."

I rather suspect the argument for elective abortion has been soundly refuted and now we are dealing with the consequences, which we again, would wish to avoid. Shades of the whole elective abortion debate!

India is not a Christian nation, their cultural mores are not at the mercy of Christian ideals, they don't have a problem with abortion but it is very much a patriarchal nation having boys is highly prized and girls are seen as a burden....until of course they want to marry off these sons."

Would that they WERE a Christian Nation. The USA, which is a least a recently (nominally) Christian nation, has a larger female population than a male one. Hmmm.... Maybe "Christian Values" promote the RESPECT of women.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Because as far as I am concerned there is nothing more exciting than someone you want, who wants you back. B

Absolutely! And I am certainly inspired, happy, fulfilled and excited

But there are stages that we go through in life where we are more tired, have a new baby etc, where we can be loving to our husbands through those times until we are feeling back to 'normal' so to speak. And that doesn't mean lying there like a dead fish, how boring! But we don't have to be 'in the mood' to enjoy the intimacy, rather than the physical nature of sex.

 

[Chaplain]

I'll make it a very simple answer......God's word does not support such a marriage / relationship. End of chapter 1 !!!

You aint a Christian...then go do what you want...It don't matter to you what Gods word says to you anyway. Trying to convince you of the wrongness is like beating a dead horse. Until you come to know Christ and are willing to follow what the Word says there is no point in discussing this any further....End of Story!!!


From a poor ole country preacher!

 

[Isabella]

don't accept a nation that is aborting it's females out of existence as "culturally conservative,"

I did not say it was, I said that India is a culturally conservative nation, so framing this as some sort of Liberal ethics vs. Conservative ethics is flawed.

You seem willing to accept the abortion of female children

I this is bogus and libel, I don't appreciate it and I think you have major comprehension skills if you read that into my posts.

Would that they WERE a Christian Nation

.

Too bad.

 

[Isabella]

Absolutely! And I am certainly inspired, happy, fulfilled and excited

Yeah, I don't need to know that, truly.

But there are stages that we go through in life where we are more tired, have a new baby etc

,

Of course, but I did not think we were talking about new baby exhaustion, which is a temporary thing all new mothers go through and you would think new fathers would be a little understanding, after all, you are sore, tired and have a new baby waking you up every hour. I was going by Samuel's example of the couple who went for months in between periods of intimacy, now bearing in mind it is physically impossible she is having a baby every few months that is not the issue, the issue is a long term one. If a woman turns off of intimacy there is a reason, now it could be physical, but it is more than likely mental and/or emotional and like I said before the largest sex organ is the brain. If her husband is not feeding that (through ignorance) and she puts out anyway because she 'loves him' than she is denying herself future satisfaction because he will never learn that she is not enjoying herself but is just doing it to make him happy. That is why I said, that any long term total loss of libido needs to be examined and worked through, together, for the future happiness of all concerned because that is a problem, Doing it anyway to make someone happy is ignoring the problem and not only that, it is just drawing out the misery because then the wife might not feel she is able to crush the poor husband by saying 'I do this to make you happy, not because I want to do it'.

With the exception of Samuel who seems perfectly happy with making love to a disinterested woman :roll: I want to know how many men would be happy to hear that themselves? I am not a man so can't understand the male brain, perhaps I am naive and would like to think that men want their women/woman totally engaged, interested and excited by them too?
I think anything less is just....mechanical and that is a huge turn off.

But we don't have to be 'in the mood' to enjoy the intimacy, rather than the physical nature of sex.

But they are not the same, nor does one necessarily turn into the other, they can be mutually exclusive. This is why wives who have lost their libido with withdraw from all forms of intimacy, a kiss, a cuddle etc because they fear that it will develop into something else that they can't cope with.
My point is it is necessary to get to the root of the problem instead of putting a 'bandaid' over it with unwanted sex.

And although we have been mostly talking of wives here, as I stated before I know men who have had lower libidos than their women and I don't see anyone rushing to tell men to 'do it out of love' because very often that is physically impossible anyway, if a man is disinterested a man is disinterested. In one case, despite urging to 'get to the root' as I suggested, he would rather ignore it and so, his wife left him.

Like I said, loss of intimacy IS a problem, the solution is fixing the problem, not faking it.

B

 

[Isabella]

I'll make it a very simple answer......God's word does not support such a marriage / relationship. End of chapter 1 !!!

You aint a Christian...then go do what you want

This is it Chaplain, this is what I have been saying all along. People have been rushing to find physical reasons, emotional reasons, social reasons and all sorts of other things that don't always stand up to examination and are full of cultural bias. When the answer is quite simple, why not? Because it is not allowed.

B

 

[FollowingHim]

Bels, you've really got the wrong end of the stick here and are presuming an enormous amount about my personal sex life, when I have actually made some very general statements about the differences in individuals, and my wife has simply affirmed that my statements are not offensive to all women and I am not an abusive husband. I am not going to discuss the details of my own sex life, stop presuming the "worst" according to your own perceptions.

People are different, as you have repeatedly stated when you say that some women have a higher libedo than their men. There is no one "right" level of libedo that everyone should be expected to achieve by "fixing" what they naturally feel. Yes, there are problems that affect libedo that can be fixed, and I fully agree that both husbands and wives should work on fixing any issues that do exist. However to expect every couple to have exactly the same libedo is ridiculous in my view, they're still probably going to end up somewhat different. There is a lot of room here for love even when libedo is different between two people.

This ultimately comes back to the fact that scripture requires love, obedience and provision of sex in a marriage, as I stated earlier, all three go hand in hand, and in the right balance make for an amazing marriage with great sex for both spouses, as God intended. You don't accept scripture as a guide to life, I know that, but that is entirely irrelevant. This is a Christian website, offering advice for Christian marriage, so that is the reality for the target audience of this site, hence why I state it. You're free to do whatever you like. I am however extremely glad to have a wonderful and loving wife who DOES follow scripture.

Sorry Bels but I won't be sending you a proposal any time soon, you're not fishy enough for me, don't cry too much my dear I know you'll get over it with time.

How on earth did we get onto this topic, we seem to be going all over the place in this thread!

 

[Isabella]

Bels, you've really got the wrong end of the stick here and are presuming an enormous amount about my personal sex life, when I have actually made some very general statements about the differences in individuals, and my wife has simply affirmed that my statements are not offensive to all women and I am not an abusive husband. I am not going to discuss the details of my own sex life, stop presuming the "worst" according to your own perceptions.

You are right, I did presume this was something you found acceptable after this exchange:

Scripturally, a husband is to love his wife, a wife is to obey her husband, and neither is to deprive the other of sex. These three instructions all go hand-in-hand. To take the command for a husband to love his wife to the extreme that he would never expect his wife to give him sex when she was not in the mood is to throw away the commands for a wife to obey her husband and not deny him sex.

Indicating that this was a part of an acceptable "Middle ground" Then Sarah subsequently wrote that

You may find it vulgar. I find it loving.

and then she presumed to talk about her sex life in her follow up post....that is when I thought you might have been discussing how YOU both do things and that is why I referenced you in my last post.

I certainly was not considering your post as specifically personal at first, but you must admit, with Sarah's entry into the conversation it made it seem more so....

exactly the same libedo is ridiculous in my view, they're still probably going to end up somewhat different. There is a lot of room here for love even when libedo is different between two people.

Oh I agree, though I feel if the situation is that someone is hyper sexual and their partner is near Asexual, than it is not a good match. Everything else can be worked on though, I just personally do not feel it is loving to expect a partner any partner to do something that is so meaningful and visceral just to make someone else happy, it removes the real specialness of the situation and turns it into something mechanical, this is more than likely to end up having the opposite effect and sexual activity will cease to be mutually enjoyable. This will have a worse long term effect.

Sorry Bels but I won't be sending you a proposal any time soon, you're not fishy enough for me, don't cry too much my dear I know you'll get over it with time.

I am crushed.

B

 

[FollowingHim]

I certainly was not considering your post as specifically personal at first, but you must admit, with Sarah's entry into the conversation it made it seem more so....

Understandably. Now you can wonder how much is personal and how much is general. How active is your imagination? :shock:

 

[Isabella]

I certainly was not considering your post as specifically personal at first, but you must admit, with Sarah's entry into the conversation it made it seem more so....

Understandably. Now you can wonder how much is personal and how much is general. How active is your imagination? :shock:

I will rein it in.

 

[CecilW]

Bels and Samuel, y'all are too funny!

Bels, I'll be your consolation prize and propose, but it has to be face to face. No? Now I'm crushed. :lol:

 

[Isabella]

Bels and Samuel, y'all are too funny!

Bels, I'll be your consolation prize and propose, but it has to be face to face. No? Now I'm crushed. :lol:

Being face to face is not a problem, but trust me, my beatific smile hides a deviate soul....i.e. you would not want me.... :twisted:

B

 

[CecilW]

Being face to face is not a problem, but trust me, my beatific smile hides a deviate soul....i.e. you would not want me.... :twisted:

But Sir BumbleBerry ...

 

[Isabella]

Being face to face is not a problem, but trust me, my beatific smile hides a deviate soul....i.e. you would not want me.... :twisted:

But Sir BumbleBerry ...

:lol: Fair dues, I think he could cope with me!