General A use for Concubines?

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, yes. Yes. I know you can think of a use for concubines without my help. This isn't that. It's also not my usual diatribe against the whole concept of concubines, and in fact I have had a modicum of evolution on that front, although not very much.

What I'd like to get some feedback on is an idea that was planted in my somewhat infertile brain some time ago by our esteemed @MeganC (incidentally, I just realized while tagging her in this post that there is not one other user on the forum whose screen name begins with "mega" and I for one see this an incredible oversight on the part of every man here. Someone's screenname should start with the word mega, for marketing purposes if no other) but I digress.

Several times over the years she has mentioned that she considered herself a concubine when she first joined her family and that this held some appeal to her. My impression, which may be completely mistaken, was that that role was an easier one for her to feel comfortable in while she developed the emotions for her husband and an affinity for the role she would later grow into. All well and good, if that was a useful construct in that situation then I applaud the use of it. But that has been percolating in the back of my mind for some time now.

At some point it was joined by the realization that when men "cheat" on their wives it frequently doesn't result in a divorce. Many marriages are able to survive so called male infidelity quite well, whereas female infidelity very frequently ends in divorce. This is apparently true across cultures, and I could personally relate a number of anecdotes that conform to that pattern. For whatever reason women are able to reconcile themselves with their husbands having had sexual partners concurrent with their own sexual pairing and the prevalence of mistresses and "baby mamas" is further support for the idea.

I'll get back to the concubines in a moment, but I need to explore this idea that women are not actually all that naturally insistent on the sexual exclusivity of their husband, at least not according to the divorce statistics. I was pretty shocked by this when I thought about it. The conventional wisdom is that wives are devastated by the thought of their husbands having sex with another woman. We have all heard that objection many times, from panicked women posting fly-by cries for help and even from women well established and admired amongst us. The level of angst and anguish that gets expressed can be intense and I believe is usually genuine. But I no longer believe its connected to the man having sex with another woman, for the reasons already stated. There has to be something else driving the negative reactions.

I am sure that there are a number of reasons, but I suspect that there are two that predominate. One of them is wholly negative and not relevant to our discussion here today so we're going to skip it. The other is not wholly negative and in fact could be rooted in a healthy perspective and it is one of status. The first wife could be revolting against a loss of her status. This is not a bad thing. I greatly value and jealousy guard my status. I assume to this guarding of status can be an extensive web of different types of status. It probably needs its own thread, but not now unless you want to start it.

Which brings me to our use for concubines. If there really is a status issue involved here, and it could also be affecting the second wife, who may see that title as implying she had no other options and had to settle, could the path be smoothed, as it was for Megan, by simply calling the second woman something other than wife ? It doesn't have to be concubine. It could be mistress or any other name that allows both women to keep their status in their mind's eye if nothing else, until the situation becomes more normal? Could it be as simple as a vocabulary problem?

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

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

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

 

[Mark C]

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

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

 

[PeteR]

Interesting and valuable thoughts.. I think the first wife's strong revolt may be status driven, but the rooting of that status in 'queen worship' or occupying the relational 'throne' may prove it more spiritual than physical in her revolt.

Utilizing a term like concubine may short circuit, or may strengthen her claim on an elevated status that will still need to be broken, if only at a slower and percieved to be less painful pace...

I wholly agree with your thoughts on women accepting sexual sharing more easily than men because of how we are hardwired. From experience, status and security seem the bigger dragons that must be overcome. I chose equality of status among my women thus fighting the battle of taking the percieved throne for myself as king/head of the home.

 

[steve]

I chose equality of status among my women thus fighting the battle of taking the percieved throne for myself as king/head of the home.

I don’t think that reinforcing status is a good idea.

To me, the usefulness of concubine title is if the woman is scared to commit to a long term relationship.

Although it seems that it is sometimes easy to commit, but then find an excuse for a back door, proving themselves to have had a concubine mentality in reality.

 

[Bartato]

I think you raise a good point about loss of status. The first wife dreads the loss of it, and potential additional wives don't want the lower status of sharing a man either. This is a fruit of the carnal mind.

Contrary to popular "Christian" thought, women have also been affected by the Fall, have sinful pride, and selfish ambition in their hearts.

Like men, women have to crucify their flesh, and set all their hopes and dreams on the Lord Jesus Christ. Then, in submission to His loving rule, she humbles herself, and submits to the leader (husband) that God has given her and the relationship that God has defined.

 

[NVIII]

This is interesting to me. Mostly because my second wife originally asked to be my concubine exactly so that she wouldn't offend my first wife. Those who have been paying attention know where my second wife is from and will not find it strange that she also at that time offered to make her dwelling in one of my barns apart from the house. She pleaded with me every step of the way for me to be certain that I would not change the way I associated with my first wife for her sake. She explained that the guilt she would feel would be too much, and she would rather be alone than to cause another woman that pain.

 

[julieb]

Interesting post, I am with @steve that it isn't a good idea to reinforce status of the first wife but I think there could be some use in what you are saying. I find that in most successful plural families I have known, the additional wives understand the practical wisdom that the first wife has because of the years she has already had married to their husband. Going slow at the beginning and feeling out the strengths and passions of additional wives and how it fits with how the household is run presently is time well spent, no matter what you call the position.

 

[MeganC]

Several times over the years she has mentioned that she considered herself a concubine when she first joined her family and that this held some appeal to her. My impression, which may be completely mistaken, was that that role was an easier one for her to feel comfortable in while she developed the emotions for her husband and an affinity for the role she would later grow into.

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

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

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

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

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

Joining together is a process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Revolting Man]

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

That led to me be very interested in bringing something else to the table and that led to me going to culinary school. Which allowed me to literally bring something to the table!

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

But what was I at first? I wasn't a wife equal to Shari or Christie and that was certain. I

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

I was less than what they were.

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

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

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

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

Over time I became his wife. I became a wife in general. It was a process.

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

But plenty of people get married, love each other, and still fail to become a husband or a wife.

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

Myself, I think there's less pressure on a plural if she wants to consider herself as a concubine at first.

How would it effect the existing wives?

First wives are threatened by subsequent plurals. The first wife usually fears being replaced and driven out by the new woman.

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

Which is part of why I say if you want to do poly then start your first marriage as a poly marriage because that's tons easier than renegotiating your vows several years and a couple kids after the fact.

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

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

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

Seriously, if a plural brings nothing to your family that your first wife doesn't already provide then why bother?

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

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

 

[NickF]

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

This mirrors some of the conversations I've had with men over the past couple years. In the assessment of my own situation, I can see how this could be and likely would be a major strength and benefit. While Catie is absolutely wonderful, I can see where adding another good woman could balance some of her characteristics and bring a more harmonious balance to the dynamic.

As with all things, the question of whether or not a second should be brought along as a "concubine" or not is extremely situationally dependent. Some women might respond better to that kind of mentality. Others would suffer greatly at the thought.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am loving this thread @The Revolting Man. Lots of great insights here.

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

I think that it seriously does bother them a lot - just not enough to actually divorce over it in many cases. It is truly a very upsetting thing for a woman who has been led to believe in monogamy culturally - but it is very upsetting simply because all her life she has been trained to find it very upsetting. There is not a core biological reflex underneath it. While when it comes to women committing adultery, that's just as culturally upsetting to a man - plus there is a core biological reflex underneath it that also makes it repulsive to him. The existence or lack of this core biological reflex is hidden under many layers of cultural programming, but yet it is still present underneath it all, and ultimately has a strong influence on the final decision in situations of adultery, even though those involved may not even realise that is why they made the decisions that they did.

But very few people want to think of themselves as lesser.

Don't think of the person as lesser. The private is not lesser as a person than the corporal - they just have a lesser role. Fewer responsibilities, fewer expectations. In the same way a concubine is not lesser than a wife - she's a person of equal value - but she may have a lesser role in the family. An easier role, with fewer expectations. That may make it less daunting for her to walk into - she's not expected to know how to run a complex home and do the business accounting like wife 1 does, she's expected to do whatever it is that her husband expects of HER, which is likely less. As wife 1's role was also much less at the start - likely the same as the new wife's role - and only grew into "running a complex home and doing the accounting" as the children accumulated and the business grew.

Now, it should be entirely possible for a new wife to come into the home with the title of "wife", with everyone including her still having realistic expectations of her role as a newcomer to the family. But I can certainly see how giving her an explicit title to this effect could clarify everything for everyone and have emotional value.

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

It must be remembered that a concubine is just a type of wife. Women referred to as concubines in scripture are also called wives in different places (e.g. Jacob's concubines, who are actually more commonly called wives). So a concubine is not a non-wife. They are simply a wife with an additional, qualifying descriptor.

This is why the process from "concubine" to "wife" for you was gradual. There was no point where you had to re-marry Steve to become a "real wife" - because you already were a real wife. But you were a wife on the lowest rank in the household. You gradually moved "up the ranks" among the wives, taking on more and more responsibilities. But from the start you were Steve's woman (wife) and he was your man (husband). You were just the concubine-woman. You eventually became the legal-wife-woman, which was a greater role with higher expectations. But all along you were his woman.

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

Which shows that the fact that these terms are perceived differently by different people is actually useful. Christie and Steve both knew she was his woman (wife). But she also knew she was a lesser wife. She could have described that in many different ways - second wife, lesser wife, concubine, mistress, baby mama - but the word used wouldn't have changed what she knew was the truth of the situation. But all of the last three options, that don't include the word "wife", may still be disliked seriously by society but induce less emotional revulsion because they don't sound like they are supplanting the first wife. And that actually means that what they hear may be more accurate than what they would hear from the word "wife". Say "mistress", and they should hear "additional woman whose existence I may disagree with but at least isn't supplanting his wife because she's clearly additional". Which may be a far more accurate description than they would hear if you used the word "wife", even if the word "wife" is more technically correct.

 

[Joleneakamama]

As with all things, the question of whether or not a second should be brought along as a "concubine" or not is extremely situationally dependent. Some women might respond better to that kind of mentality. Others would suffer greatly at the thought.

I see Megan's point in using the term. In her usage it's a bit like using a term like fetus properly. A fetus isn't non human, and a concubine isn't a non wife. It is more a distinction in responsibilities and expectations.

Myself, I would not want my sisterwife to be less loved, less valued, or her relationship with her husband to be treated as less important. I was very glad that he could say his feelings for her were equal to his feelings for me. I'm not bothered by hearing the same terms of endearment used when he addresses her. To me it means this is good....and I can expect it to last.

Of course expectations are different. I told her not to stress about doing....or worry about not doing enough, and work into things. To me this is just common sense and the golden rule.

She knows where things are now, has figured out the wood cook stove, and gets into what I usually do and does laundry too sometimes.
(And a bunch of other very appreciated things)

People adding to their household should be patient and not expect someone new to be instantly anything. Time to learn, adapt, and get accustomed is reasonable.

 

[NickF]

Really enjoying this thread, not much to contribute but love the back and forth.

 

[NVIII's Babe]

There is not a core biological reflex underneath it. While when it comes to women committing adultery, that's just as culturally upsetting to a man - plus there is a core biological reflex underneath it that also makes it repulsive to him.

This is what I wanted to add.

When we started our journey, it was physically upsetting for me to imagine my husband with (physically or emotionally) another woman. It actually gave me severe gastrointestinal distress if I dwelt on it for even a minute. I had to stop thinking about it through the process of tearing down cultural conditioning in my life. Once more of that process was complete, I had to train my mind into it... it could be likened to the process of adapting the body's immune system to allergens over time.

Yet, I did not want to divorce him. I never wanted to divorce him, and the minutes I contemplated running away were fleeting in the grand scheme. It was never an option in my mind. I can't really explain that or teach it to another woman. Maybe it is a biological reflex.

I don't think the divorce rate is necessarily a reliable indicator of the true feelings of first wives.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Going slow at the beginning and feeling out the strengths and passions of additional wives and how it fits with how the household is run presently is time well spent, no matter what you call the position.

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

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

 

[The Revolting Man]

commit, but then find an excuse for a back door, proving themselves to have had a concubine mentality in reality.

This seems like the danger, that the “concubine” is a second class citizen and is only a temporary fixture in the home.

 

[steve]

This seems like the danger, that the “concubine” is a second class citizen and is only a temporary fixture in the home.

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

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

 

[FollowingHim]

This seems like the danger, that the “concubine” is a second class citizen and is only a temporary fixture in the home.

Yes, I have a strong objection also to the idea that a "concubine" could be a temporary wife. Theologically speaking, sex is more important than that, it makes a marriage, and marriage is intended to be permanent. And practically/emotionally speaking, the very suggestion that the relationship is less than permanent may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, for many reasons. I understand the theoretical logic behind @steve's point that a woman who is not yet willing to commit permanently could be taken on without expecting her to commit permanently as a way of helping her move towards a better life, but I honestly think it is both unscriptural and likely to achieve the opposite in practice. This is something we have debated before and don't really need to rehash, we're both set in our opinions. But in the interest of other readers getting a balanced perspective on what people here are thinking, I just want to note that this specific suggestion does not have universal support:

To me, the usefulness of concubine title is if the woman is scared to commit to a long term relationship.

The first can be a positive one. If a woman is concerned about making a commitment to the family and is only willing to do so on a temporary basis in order to protect herself.

 

[steve]

I agree that my opinions aren’t popular.
But they are an attempt to deal with a problem honestly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The other is where a sister wife comes into the family and is intended by all to be an equal member, but it is in fact a one-way street. The family is a resource for her, but she doesn’t choose to be a contributing member of the family. Her assets and income belong to her alone, while she depends on the family to supply some of her needs.

We don't talk about this enough!