Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Isaiah, the Lord's order of marriage, and 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030 per Morgan Stanley. 


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, manol said:

This makes sense to me.

So... what happens when there is no such thing as time, such that time spent with one person does not take away from time that can be spent with another?  My understanding (based on numerous near-death experience accounts) is that time as we know it here does not exist (at least not as a limitation) on the "other side".

I speculate that the polyamorous community is ahead of the rest of us in your openness to "love has no limits", and I hope and expect that limitations imposed by time and locality will some day no longer be in play. 

That is a usual defense of plural marriage in the eternities. I have used it myself. When you can inherently know and feel the love of someone else jealousy probably isn't a huge issue. It is not a good defense of plural marriage in mortality.

If you tried to structure something similar to LDS plural marriage the polyamorous community would call it "harem building" and the idea that all these women should basically raise children with less help from the father would be seen as lunacy. In general people in polyamorous relationships only have children with one partner if they have children at all. Also it is pretty generally accepted that other than small amounts of time to maintain other preexisting relationships for the first few years of a child's life you shouldn't expect to have time to start new relationships and your other partners have to accept that you will have less time for them.

It is also worth noting that the polyamory they put on trashy shows is not the norm. Those are almost always triads and quads (or bigger) and are a very hard form of polyamory. These setups involve three or more people all simultaneously in a relationship with everyone else in the group. A triad is three dyad relationships plus the group relationship. The odds of one relationship thriving on its own are decent. When you need three relationships to go well for your relationship structure to work and you aren't even a part of one of those relationships the odds of success plummet. The usual way these form is due to a hetero couple adding a woman (or very rarely a man) with the intent for the couple to date the new (usually bisexual) woman (sometimes called a unicorn or a third though the latter is considered dehumanizing, sometimes called a dragon if it is a man). This works even less well than most triads for all sorts of reasons.

The problem with plural marriage is that it shares a lot in common with unicorn hunting. It is different in that the women don't usually share a sexual relationship but it is still a lot of relationships to manage and maintain. Plural marriage can sometimes mitigate this by having separate households but that means the man has to split his time. Now imagine that it is a man and his three wives all living together. Each person has three adult relationships to maintain, at least one of them probably sexual/romantic. There are six one on one relationships to maintain. If even one goes bad living in that house could become a complete hell. Note that this applies even if your three relationships are going relatively well.

That is also why people into polyamory generally tell you NOT to live with more than one partner unless the relationships are all in great shape and have lasted a long time (at least past the New Relationship Energy or honeymoon phase).

Posted
On 4/13/2024 at 9:49 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not psychologist, but he seems to have a narcissistic personality. He says all he wants is loyalty and when Mari practically throws herself at his feet asking for forgiveness and does everything he asks, he says, "Nah."

Stoooopid, stoooopid man.

Did you hear that his and the wives or Janelle's son committed suicide recently? I wish he'd held on another day and had gotten help. I watched "Sister Wives" from the very beginning and even wished I had that large family and how much fun they all had, well kind of. :) Then covid hit and all hell broke loose and the family quickly fell apart. It was a sad deal, I hope the family can get together often again, and heal from this horrible ordeal. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you hear that his and the wives or Janelle's son committed suicide recently? I wish he'd held on another day and had gotten help. I watched "Sister Wives" from the very beginning and even wished I had that large family and how much fun they all had, well kind of. :) Then covid hit and all hell broke loose and the family quickly fell apart. It was a sad deal, I hope the family can get together often again, and heal from this horrible ordeal. 

I hadn't heard about Janelle' son. Very sad.

Seeing Kody spiral and alienate everyone was sad. I don't know how long Robin can possibly last. She looked miserable in the last few episodes I watched.

Posted
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When you can inherently know and feel the love of someone else jealousy probably isn't a huge issue. It is not a good defense of plural marriage in mortality.

Agreed on both points.  

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you tried to structure something similar to LDS plural marriage the polyamorous community would call it "harem building"

Ha!  Imo that's a good name for it!

Posted
22 hours ago, manol said:

Ha!  Imo that's a good name for it!

There are several names for it but most of them would be censored here and probably rightly so. I picked the palatable one.

Posted
On 4/12/2024 at 11:29 PM, Calm said:

You are assuming both women would be happy living together?

Why would they marry the same man then?
In general, I assume adults entering plural marriage are aware of the blessings and challenges it brings. 

Having more help with household chores reduces the time needed to be spent on chores.
Bedrooms dont increase in number when kids increase - bunkbeds, etc.
Some sister wives might want to work outside the home - reducing the financial burden.
None of these dynamics are new.

Posted
3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why would they marry the same man then?
In general, I assume adults entering plural marriage are aware of the blessings and challenges it brings. 

Most poly people with access to the internet have no idea what they are doing. Why would those viewing plural marriage as a kind of obligation have any idea what they are getting into? Especially if their parents didn’t practice it?

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Having more help with household chores reduces the time needed to be spent on chores.
Bedrooms dont increase in number when kids increase - bunkbeds, etc.
Some sister wives might want to work outside the home - reducing the financial burden.
None of these dynamics are new.

More people (and more children) also increase the amount of chores.

It also leads to the joy of apportioning said chores.

Work outside the home? Virtually all of them did. On the farm they lived on. There aren’t a ton of wage paying jobs for women in the 1800s outside of stuff like laundering clothing, domestic help, and prostitution.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Bedrooms dont increase in number when kids increase - bunkbeds, etc.

Smaller rooms are much harder to keep clean.  Finding homes for everything to be put away easily and accessed easily is the key and that can be quite difficult in small rooms with lots of beds.

Plus kids do better with studying if they have a dedicated work space of their own, that can be hard if four to six kids are sharing a room.

Do you have kids and if so, how often do you clean their rooms, do their laundry, etc?

Then there is the issue of if one of the kids likes a very well organized room down to size and color coding legos and organizing books on the shelf by genre, author and title (unless a series and then it is chronological), but tends to efficiently drop no longer needed attire  on the floor until there’s enough to merit taking to the laundry room and the other wants beds made and clothes hung up, but has horribly messy drawers with no rhyme or reason that draw a shudder from the more refined soul.  Or one loves to read intelligent literature in a quiet refuge and the other craves the spotlight, so is constantly putting on lame shows and musicals depriving their sibling of their preferred pasttime by both preempting the bedroom as a stage, but also browbeating them into performing in the minuscule bit parts she assigns to everyone else.   

Lots of opportunities for fighting among roommates speaking from experience. Now imagine this not just with two kids with very different tastes, but with all the combinations as you add additional kids.  Instead of one pair of two kids fighting, with three sharing it’s three pairs fighting, with four it’s 6 pairs fighting, with five it’s 9 pairs***…not a case of more is less work when it comes to navigating the family members’ relationships with each other.  More is much more complicated and therefore much more time.

*** feel free to correct the math if I need a refresher on combinations.

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Work outside the home? Virtually all of them did. On the farm they lived on. There aren’t a ton of wage paying jobs for women in the 1800s outside of stuff like laundering clothing, domestic help, and prostitution.

You forgot seamstress and governess and companion….what genteel spinsters did…at least until they strangled their employers with tape measures or framed them for murder if what I read is accurate.  
 

Also being nanny….which falls under domestic help, I guess, but seems to deserve a special category of its own for so many reasons in my view.

Edited by Calm
Posted
On 4/19/2024 at 6:20 PM, Calm said:

You forgot seamstress and governess and companion….what genteel spinsters did…at least until they strangled their employers with tape measures or framed them for murder if what I read is accurate.  
 

Also being nanny….which falls under domestic help, I guess, but seems to deserve a special category of its own for so many reasons in my view.

Seamstressing was a brutal line of work in the Victorian era. It is not the kind of work you would seek out. It is the kind of work you were driven to. For most women of the era that meant being unmarried. Women mostly created their own clothing within their own household with tailors providing the upper classes some of their clothing. There was no ‘ready made clothing’ that you would buy off the shelf until around the Civil War and it was mostly stuff for slaves and sometimes sailors. I doubt many plural wives were involved. The hours were long if you wanted to feed yourself and you could only barely get by.

Many unmarried women turned to the more lucrative career of prostitution and this includes in Utah. While it was technically illegal it was allowed in Salt Lake City and other Mormon settlements. The madams who ran the business were often wealthy and most likely knew enough secrets about the elite of society to keep the government and the church from stamping it out.

Governess was similar to seamstress except that the position was (from what I have read) rare in Utah. In any case wives would basically never do the job. This job was what you took up if you were an educated woman who was on the ropes. If your parents died or their business went under or whatever you could turn to that job to survive. Nanny is the same as a governess for younger children that does care and not so much education.

Note that dressmakers and seamstresses of earlier periods could do much better because women were relatively less maginalized in the Early Modern Period and even less marginalized in the Medieval Period and women could belong to some guilds and had other trade rights that were not a thing later with tightened gender restrictions.

There is a running theme with some polyamorous “Unicorn Hunters” (usually a hetero couple) that basically want to recreate the domestic worker/nanny/governess position by adding another person (almost always a woman) to the relationship. They want a woman to move in, help raise and care for their kids, usually want them to work a job and contribute financially to the household, do chores, and also have sex with the other two people. Basically you get to do the governess/nanny job unpaid and bond with children sometimes on a parent/child level except you have no rights to see the children if the relationship collapses (which it almost always does). Basically modern plural marriage but is progressive because the women are supposed to be dating too I guess. “Unicorn Hunters” are almost universally hated and told they are looking for a “bangmaid” or “bangnanny”. Sometimes particularly ineffective men get told the same thing where their partner is basically their maid and also sexual partner.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...