Support Second wife left… asking me to be alone in her « time »

[FollowingHim]

Simply because it cannot be exclusively penetrative vaginal sex. Oral sex, hands, any other sexual activity is intimate sexual acts that engage one another.

Which means that your distinction between vaginal and oral is pointless. On the one hand, you are saying that any sexual activity is "sex". At the same time, you are saying that only vaginal penetration is "sex". You are picking and choosing which definition you prefer and applying the ones that give you the answers you want.

Stop it. This is hypocrisy. Pick a definition and stick with it.

As you say above, sex is anything that requires you to get naked together. And she had sex with various men before you, then with you.

I actually have considerable compassion for a woman who finds penetrative sex difficult. I presume by "great difficulties" you are referring to vaginismus (look it up, it's a common psychological / physiological condition). What you seem to fail to appreciate is that when a woman has this reaction to penetrative sex, it is often a subconscious protective reaction caused by bad penetrative sex in her past. Regardless of the cause, she cannot even know this unless she has tried it. So, she's not a virgin by any definition - she's had penetrative sex, however briefly, in order to know she cannot have it. And if her body would not relax and allow her to have penetrative sex with you, she was not comfortable being with you either. At a deep subconscious level she always had reservations about this. She is a very traumatised woman who needs particular care, both psychological and medical. And you have just made her life even more complicated by adding yet another in the string of relationships which only add to her trauma and will perpetuate this problem for her.

 

[ChoosingGod]

I just know it because in intimacy, she had great difficulties, and well, I’ve been there with her physically, and I could feel it, both physically and psychologically. She also went with me for some testing and she declared it to the nurses so and I trust her on that. Furthermore the «ex » in question testified that it was true in his part too.

I am talking about the fact that the other man testified that he knew not her

Which means that your distinction between vaginal and oral is pointless. On the one hand, you are saying that any sexual activity is "sex". At the same time, you are saying that only vaginal penetration is "sex". You are picking and choosing which definition you prefer and applying the ones that give you the answers you want.

Stop it. This is hypocrisy. Pick a definition and stick with it.

As you say above, sex is anything that requires you to get naked together. And she had sex with various men before you, then with you.

I actually have considerable compassion for a woman who finds penetrative sex difficult. I presume by "great difficulties" you are referring to vaginismus (look it up, it's a common psychological / physiological condition). What you seem to fail to appreciate is that when a woman has this reaction to penetrative sex, it is often a subconscious protective reaction caused by bad penetrative sex in her past. Regardless of the cause, she cannot even know this unless she has tried it. So, she's not a virgin by any definition - she's had penetrative sex, however briefly, in order to know she cannot have it. And if her body would not relax and allow her to have penetrative sex with you, she was not comfortable being with you either. At a deep subconscious level she always had reservations about this. She is a very traumatised woman who needs particular care, both psychological and medical. And you have just made her life even more complicated by adding yet another in the string of relationships which only add to her trauma and will perpetuate this problem for her.

Yes, I know of this problem.
Yes, she had sexual abuse I will not get into details.
Yes, she was very open with me, more than all the others before. But I didn’t want to rush, I respected her pace and comfort. It almost happened, but not quite.

As to define sexual acts that can be :

I’ll just go with this one.
Proverbs 30:20 KJV

20 Such is the way of an —>adulterous<— woman; —> she eateth, <— and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

So here, I understand that having oral sex (with a man other that her husband) is defined as adultery. In my own opinion, this confirms that all type of intimate relations confirm a bond, or in this case adultery.

Add to that Ezekiel 16:32
32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

« Taketh »
STRONGS H3947:
לָקַח965 verb take (Late Hebrew id., especially buy, and (Niph.) be taken in marriage; MI17; 20

 

[IndianaLife]

Your second wife has a really warped view of sex. It is not gross to have sex with her after having sex with first wife. It is a beautiful expression of your love for her.

If it's hours and a shower later, sure. Otherwise, agree to disagree. And just because you feel one way, doesn't mean another person does, OP's 2nd wife's feelings are valid because *that is how she feels*.

 

[IndianaLife]

Thank you… but I do not think at my age, that God will supply another, and virgin that is, aIso

Women with a past sexual history, especially if divorced or widowed, aren't trash to throw aside and forget... I don't know why being a virgin is a must.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Rahab was a harlot, Ruth was a widow. Widows are free to remarry. Harlots are free to marry. What is important is that anyone - man, woman or child repent of their sins in order to be acceptable to God. We are rarely told whether this transition takes place. There was nothing whatever wrong with Rahab being in David's lineage, or of Ruth's. Not really sure what that has to do with the argument. By the way, I am told that the issue of whether sex equals marriage does not belong in this section. Do you know where it might belong so I can continue that thread of thought?

A number of threads are devoted to this topic. It’s one of my favorites. Search for threads with “sex equals marriage” in the title.

@FollowingHim started one that probably stayed on track the longest and I think it something like “organized discussion” in the title.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yes to all that.

I’m sorry but this isn’t credible. If she lived with a man who would become her “ex” for four years without having sex than one of them needs to go see a doctor because that’s not healthy.

 

[NickF]

Agreed, completely implausible to the point of silliness.

 

[FollowingHim]

I’m sorry but this isn’t credible. If she lived with a man who would become her “ex” for four years without having sex than one of them needs to go see a doctor because that’s not healthy.

Agreed, completely implausible to the point of silliness.

No, it's not implausible, if she has a medical / psychological condition that prevents intercourse. If that is the case, which seems to be the suggestion, they could certainly have spent four years satisfying each other in many other ways without technically having vaginal intercourse. However, what would be ridiculous would be to define sex so narrowly so as to consider them still unmarried after spending four years going right up to that line but not technically crossing it.

Which means that regardless of what you think really happened in that bedroom, it's very safe to say they're married.

 

[Joleneakamama]

, it's not implausible, if she has a medical / psychological condition that prevents intercourse.

Never heard of that before, but if even her ex whatever he was affirmed that? OK. As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction.

However, what would be ridiculous would be to define sex so narrowly so as to consider them still unmarried after spending four years going right up to that line but not technically crossing it.

Was it sex that was being defined? I thought it was relationship status with the previous man she lived with. Are there verses in the Bible that inform us of what, besides natural procreative sex, might count the same and equal marriage? Even the verse the op used "eating and wiping her mouth" was about an adulterous woman, not an act that made one married.

Young man from the next farm over to girls father...."Hello sir, I had my way with your daughter last night and need to talk to you about marrying her."
Father says "Is that so? What exactly did you do?"
Young man says "I kissed her and she reached down my pants and grabbed me."
Father is just sitting there waiting for the rest of the story. If that is where the story ended...and nothing else happened ....
would the farmer feel this contact necessitated talk of marriage because his daughter "had sex?"
My point is that word sex is also used describing one's biological "plumbing" at birth, and now other things are called sex acts that are not procreative....and would only be called foreplay in a healthy relationship where both parties were fully intimate and enjoying each other.

Which means that regardless of what you think really happened in that bedroom, it's very safe to say they're married.

I understand your thinking as a Christian who understands the moral danger in trespassing into adultery, but you have pointed out before that in our modern world an actual wedding ceremony is far closer to the Biblical betrothal than merely being "engaged" to someone. So the question then becomes intent. Did BOTH people INTEND to be married and commited to each other, or were they just, in their own hearts and minds (which can certainly be wicked according to the Bible) just messing around with each other ...but stopping short of what in your own words would be (technically) crossing the line?

I am aware of people who after living together...and having sex for 15 years do NOT call themselves married. They may be exclusive to each other (biblically ok) ....they may have an open relationship (biblically adultery) but since they aren't calling it marriage one would have to look at behavior and try to guess where their boundaries if any are.
This kind of ambiguous nonsense is likely why "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" is part of our instructions.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am aware of people who after living together...and having sex for 15 years do NOT call themselves married.

And they are simply wrong. They define "marriage" as being "having a government licence", and that is simply incorrect. The fact that many people misunderstand marriage does not affect its actual definition.

Did BOTH people INTEND to be married and commited to each other

That is the important question. And It has already been answered:

Then she was with her ex, they exchanged some vows I think, then she left 4 years later

Hence the position I have taken on this matter.

 

[PastorLarry]

No, it's not implausible, if she has a medical / psychological condition that prevents intercourse. If that is the case, which seems to be the suggestion, they could certainly have spent four years satisfying each other in many other ways without technically having vaginal intercourse. However, what would be ridiculous would be to define sex so narrowly so as to consider them still unmarried after spending four years going right up to that line but not technically crossing it.

Which means that regardless of what you think really happened in that bedroom, it's very safe to say they're married.

Agreed!!!

 

[paterfamilias]

I can't help but think that this degree of detail was necessary
That the conversation could have been had, analysis made and advice given without the intimate nature being explored quite so much.
The virgin topic should to my mind have been left out.

The end result is that things went sideways, it doesn't seem like it is apt to be repaired. Would we not be best served to try to help the family as a whole get past the break?

 

[steve]

I can't help but think that this degree of detail was necessary
That the conversation could have been had, analysis made and advice given without the intimate nature being explored quite so much.
The virgin topic should to my mind have been left out.

The end result is that things went sideways, it doesn't seem like it is apt to be repaired. Would we not be best served to try to help the family as a whole get past the break?

I am seeing a lot of variations on the same theme lately: People aren’t posting the way that i feel that they should.
Real life situations and problems have gritty details that may be annoying, but they are part of that particular story and affect the outcome.
In this particular thread, the man was asking for advice or opinions on sleeping situations and it turned out that his real problems were much deeper.
It’s known as a teachable moment, where people can learn from other’s mistakes. We are still in the Wild Wild West of polygyny where there is no Poly 101 textbook. Too many are a law unto themselves and riding rough-shod over principles that used to be considered normal respect for each other and, worst of all, respect for the intentions of their Creator.

As far as helping the family get past the break, convincing him to accept the “break”, as you call it, was the first order of business. I’m not sure if we have even succeeded, I don’t see any evidence that we have.

Hopefully we are here to learn and grow, and that’s going to involve some less-than-pretty scenarios.

 

[paterfamilias]

I am seeing a lot of variations on the same theme lately: People aren’t posting the way that i feel that they should.
Real life situations and problems have gritty details that may be annoying, but they are part of that particular story and affect the outcome.
In this particular thread, the man was asking for advice or opinions on sleeping situations and it turned out that his real problems were much deeper.
It’s known as a teachable moment, where people can learn from other’s mistakes. We are still in the Wild Wild West of polygyny where there is no Poly 101 textbook. Too many are a law unto themselves and riding rough-shod over principles that used to be considered normal respect for each other and, worst of all, respect for the intentions of their Creator.

As far as helping the family get past the break, convincing him to accept the “break”, as you call it, was the first order of business. I’m not sure if we have even succeeded, I don’t see any evidence that we have.

Hopefully we are here to learn and grow, and that’s going to involve some less-than-pretty scenarios.

I see it very differently.
I don't see that the claim of virginity was relevant to the topic.
I frankly think that upon realizing that it was the presumably quebecois woman who had previously posted her back story that the initial claim was essentially a coping mechanism. Not a particularly uncommon one either frankly. I will wager that goodly number of us...Men and woman both have encountered the claim when we know it to be false or unlikely to the point of fantasy.
In my own experience, that tends to go along with some mental and/or personality disorders. Based upon the two sides of the story we have been given, it seems pretty clear in my mind that the woman in question is not seeing the world in the same way many of us might...to put it as mildly as possible.
This seems glaringly obviously. It also seems obvious the rift is naturally causing ChoosingGod some great degree of emotional stress...quite justifiably so I expect.
Just see more mileage in a focus on his hurt than the specific aspects of the unfortunate woman's past or present.

Hells bells...for all we know, our man could be...not saying is by any means here, just making a point... the type of troll who comes in and stirs things up and upon getting the boot comes back to stir the pot as a supposed female? Again, not saying thst is the case but we have all seen some dramatic tales which have turned out to be the work of fantasist types.

To my mind teacand sympathy type of reaction is best.
If we were all sitting round a campfire and having the conversation with him directly, my take would be different. Then I would be one of the most apt to try to put his nose in hard truths so that he could move on to his next stage in emotions.

Less so in this environment.
Perhaps I am turning prude. Would not have thought so but I did find myself obviously preferring a more circumspect approach. That or simply skipping to the "Dude, that is unrealistic. Nobody else would/does believe that. If you wish to believe that as well as many other aspects then you will have a harder time letting her go". That seems like the primary message he needs to receive. The same advice I would give to plyg set or mono folks

 

[NickF]

Would we not be best served to try to help the family as a whole get past the break?

The paradigm one is speaking from determines a vast difference in end results. The majority of us here are viewing the situation through the lens of scriptural standards. You understandably have a different one that allows for more flexibility and subjective morality. Ours is quite rigid according to a literal letter of the law.

He is in a painful situation no doubt.

However my responsibility is to not encourage or condone continued sinful behavior if indeed the relationship was based in a sinful act.

Your responsibility seems to be focused on the most expedient solution that results in the least emotional distress for this present time. I could be misunderstanding your purpose and motivation.

 

[paterfamilias]

The paradigm one is speaking from determines a vast difference in end results. The majority of us here are viewing the situation through the lens of scriptural standards. You understandably have a different one that allows for more flexibility and subjective morality. Ours is quite rigid according to a literal letter of the law.

He is in a painful situation no doubt.

However my responsibility is to not encourage or condone continued sinful behavior if indeed the relationship was based in a sinful act.

Your responsibility seems to be focused on the most expedient solution that results in the least emotional distress for this present time. I could be misunderstanding your purpose and motivation.

Hand waggle

I sm thinking more about the eyes of newbies who come in.
Yeah if they are going to be a part of the party long term there is some adult conversation...it happens...but as much as you may recall I use earthy language in person, I wince a little at discussing stranger's intimate parts and whether in fact the puzzle pieced were snapped together and the degree of frequency.
I get the part about ridgid laws as given to the group by the bible...more than a little of a ridgid moralist myself. It is just the means of parsing thst I had in mind.
Myself I would have unsurprisingly made a bit more humor of the situation and used the term boink most likely so as to make the point without being quite as graphic.
Perhaps put it down to stoggy rather than other objections.
Which is kind of funny as my wife, former plural wife and a number of quite close to wives of the past would all be gobsmacked at the notion of me being stoggy.

 

[PastorLarry]

I am one of your newbies but I have adopted you all as family and got right into things. As a Pastor I am used to hearing every intimate detail after detail after detail. And yes, that does sometimes get tedious as well as a bit embarrassing I suppose. But I kind of assumed that in this kind of setting, more so probably than in many other settings, that a bit of frank discussion would not be wrong. I think you agree with me. But to be any practical good to each other, don't you think accepting what is being said by each other, though we might not have revealed as much, or perhaps we would have revealed as much or more - it's all about being here for each other.

Example: I, though being poly (in mind and soul) for the last 50 years have not yet found my wiveS. I am begging the Lord to provide at least two wiveS that I may spend the remainder of my days (I'm guessing I'll live to 120 though my dad only lived to 92 and my mother to 99) enjoying the company of wiveS. In fact, I am reading through the Psalms again just now and have noticed for the first time that King David has made no qualms about (in his estimation) deserving in some ways certain things from God because of the integrity of his heart. I am thinking - YES!, Got put me through a wife who I loved dearly, and still do though she was not of a mind to be physical with me at all, yet not believing I had the right to put her away because of that, I endured. And He put me through all that for a reason - he taught me about Poly. I had never known a soul who was poly. I still have never met a poly person. Yet I have a file full of papers I have written on the subject and files of folders of things others have written on the subject. Because of the great physical needs that were mine - because of my genuine love for and enjoyment of being around the many church ladies and enjoying their own special kind of chatter, humor and joys, as well as enjoying the femaleness of their persons, I studied the Scriptures diligently for many years wondering why God put me through this - and yes He did. I am (as far as I know) the only person in Iowa who is poly. I have taught it and I still do teach it via my writings to anyone who will listen, as well as from the pulpit (In case you wonder why my last church was so small). The person who is pastoring the church I am now attending, since closing my last feeble little country church after the death of one of my last members, has learned more about poly than he ever wanted to know. In fact, he received about 12 pages from me after he made the statement at the end of a service that "the Old Testament does not teach polygamy and neither does the New Testament". He got more than he ever wanted from anyone following any of his statements, I am sure. He is still yet to discuss that with me, though I am demanding a hearing.

But see - this is personal stuff. More information than most people would ever want to know. Yet, I speak from the standpoint of knowledge based on God's Word as well as Question concerning God's provision as I STILL SEEK WIVES. My hope would be that someone here would speak to those things, not in a critical way though so be it if that is necessary - but in a positive teaching way. My thing is personal. But are there possibly others with the same personal (or similar) needs?

 

[Joleneakamama]

I will wager that goodly number of us...Men and woman both have encountered the claim when we know it to be false or unlikely to the point of fantasy.
In my own experience, that tends to go along with some mental and/or personality disorders.

For sure.

Based upon the two sides of the story we have been given, it seems pretty clear in my mind that the woman in question is not seeing the world in the same way many of us might...to put it as mildly as possible.

right. and ChoosingGod got caught up in it with probably good intentions....but an awful outcome.

This seems glaringly obviously. It also seems obvious the rift is naturally causing ChoosingGod some great degree of emotional stress...quite justifiably so I expect.

yep.

Just see more mileage in a focus on his hurt than the specific aspects of the unfortunate woman's past or present.

Believers want to make sure they are not supporting sin, or suggesting sin. As others have pointed out. There was an additional aspect complicating understanding. Those are French speaking Canadians. The woman even posted in French. So yet another way that meaning or understanding can be lost.

We cannot expect perfect results or perfect communication in this limited electronic exchange between imperfect people.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm with @steve - I'm getting quite sick of people complaining about how people have asked the questions they have asked. This attitude will only discourage others from reaching out as they will be nervous that they will be criticised over how they even asked the question. This is ridiculous and petty.

When someone actually has a serious problem they will cry out for help however makes most sense to them. If you hear someone yelling "My leg, it's got my f****n leg!" out in the bush, it's not much use if one person who hears it calls back "you're supposed to cry out 'help' if you want help, do you want us to help?", and another says "stop swearing".

Let's not do it on a forum either.

 

[Raw Truth]

It’s been almost 2 weeks since my sw left my home, to a place 7hours away from me…

Been there to visit, she had but accusations for me, I tried to explain to her my feelings and point of view, to no avail. It was very draining emotively.

She left some of her stuff behind, as well as her cat and dog we still take care of.

We had a 1 week / 1 week bedtime schedule.
The sw is reproaching me that I slept with my fw during « her week time » even if she’s gone and say I don’t consider her in all that, that I seek my own pleasure only.

The way I understand it, I should be sleeping alone in her bed and not with my fw for all her week even if she left? Is that even reasonable? She confuses me.

Honestly, as the leader of your home, you should have the freedom to decide where you sleep and with whom. Your wives shouldn’t be dictating or threatening you for making decisions within your own household, especially if you're leading in alignment with righteousness. If they're doing so, it sounds like an issue of respect and reverence toward your role as head of the family.

According to scripture, wives are instructed to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord, and when a man is being bound by rules to keep his wives happy, it goes against both biblical principles and the idea of patriarchy. As helpmeets, their role is to support and uplift you, not the other way around. Leadership comes with certain responsibilities, but it also means having the authority to make decisions that you believe are best for your household.