|
Post by JJ77 on Mar 2, 2010 23:14:26 GMT -5
I have no idea if I am following your train of thought or not, so let me repeat (in my own words) what I *think* you are saying. ok? Ok. So firstly you are saying that equality is a parity , with a sexual core ? (sex as in the act of sex, not as in male / female) That little nuget aside lol ... Basically what you are saying is that trying to hold fundamentalist polygamy to a set of values / standards set by mainstream society (which fundy's view as amoral) is futile - apples and oranges. Additionally, according to "religous based fundamental polygamy" values the idea of a woman in a man's position is disgusting ? That's the core of what I read / heard but again i'm not sure i'm following yoru train of thought - so i could be way off base. Here's what doesnt make sense to me - whether you beleive men and women are "equal" or not, don't you believe that one should "practice what they preach"? Don't you believe that one should hold themsleves to the same standards they hold for others? Because that's basically what this "double standard" thing comes down to for me. It's ok for Bill to "___fil in the bank___ " but if one of his wives were to do the same ... it would become a major issue.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 3, 2010 8:31:00 GMT -5
I think that Wurks is, or is pretending to be a fundamentalist. Since, according to Wurks, the one husband-multiple wives thing is inspired by God, it is above judgement, and the opposite one wife-multiple husbands is just yuck, gross, only about sex. 'What we do is above any judgement or comparison because it is holy'. And I also think Wurks meant to say something along the lines of, 'how stupid of you to think that you can judge what we do and have the nerve to accuse us of having a double standard'. I believe that proclaiming that polygamy is holy is false and really just a way of men justifying their (thinly-veiled) desire to screw more than one woman. Patriarchal, misogynistic, and testosterone-driven. If it is OK, or holy, or inspired for men to do it, it's equally OK for women to do it. Joseph Smith was, in my opinion, a huckster and a charlatan. I can almost see it happening.....'oh that young girl is turning me on...but I'm already married......Oh-ho, I just had a revelation from God that it's OK for me to screw her.....I just have to marry her first and I can have as many wives as I want!! Yipee--ain't religion grand [as long a you are a man]!!' There was a very popular thread on the old BL boards about how unbelievably lame the Book of Mormon is. As in, there is no way that God dictated this really bady done religious treatise. I will forever reject any chauvanistic, patriarchal religion--looks entirely too human for me. If God's way isn't BETTER than man's way, what use is it?
|
|
|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Mar 3, 2010 16:40:39 GMT -5
I personally do not believe in organized religion of any kind. I am a deist. My husband is a devout Christian though lol. So I'm not judgemental of people who have a faith they follow. I just choose not to follow one. I am not sure what Wurks is getting at, but it does seem obvious he/she doesn't see polygamy is a bad thing but sees polyandry as a terrible abomination. I say let people who whatever they want, as long as young children are not getting harmed in the process.
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 3, 2010 19:33:45 GMT -5
I am not sure what Wurks is getting at, but it does seem obvious he/she doesn't see polygamy is a bad thing but sees polyandry as a terrible abomination. Yes on both. I'm tempted to be more caustic... but I wont. My point is that it is part of the religious fundamentals and it is a patriarchal order. I also think that every family really should have a man at the head. However having said that, I also don't believe that women should be coerced or owned like chattel. That is NOT part of the fundamentals in spite of all you see (in the news, media, and drama) to the contrary notwithstanding. In fact women leave and write horribly derogatory books about it when the fundamentals get violated. Some of you have made some good points about equality, although I do think that the feminist movement is terribly misguided and has gone way wrong for what is really good for most women. (or the country for that matter) Amen. Everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion. very truly yours, wurks
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 4, 2010 4:29:19 GMT -5
I want to point out that what is 'fundamental' is different for each flavor of religious fundamentalist.
What is 'fundamental' to you probably is anathema to my Christian fundamentalist relatives, and their 'fundamentals' differ entirely from those of Islamic fundamentalists....etc....
Just sayin'......
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 4, 2010 5:05:10 GMT -5
Upon considering what it would feel like to have 2 husbands, I think I just might like it.
Think about it: one of the husbands would really listen, even if the other one was 'uh huh, yeah, uh huh....' while reading the paper; we could share the housework; three incomes; if one didn't want to cuddle the other one would; how much fun would it be to legitimitly (sp) have 2 or more entirely different sexual relationships; they could keep each other company and be each others friends--like brother-husbands; one of them could be a stay-at-home-dad and take care of the kids if I didn't want to; always someone enthusiastically willing to accompany me out; always someone enthusiastically willing to stay home and hang; between them all, one of them would ALWAYS say just the right thing; IN OTHER WORDS: I would almost always get what I wanted....and they'd have to be happy with their 'share'.......and if one of them were being really high-maintenance, I could just hang out with the other one while the first one 'got over it'....
Wow....I have found this exercise of the imagination to be very enlightening. Polygamy creates an incredibly unbalanced power and value structure within the family. Great for the 'one'...not so great for the 'many'.
I know that most of the female BL fans reading this have imagined themselves in a polygamous marriage--now do the same imagining yourself in a polyandrous (or whatever it's called) marriage. It takes a little while to get the feel of being at the center of the relationships. A mono marriage keeps the balance fairly equal between the husband and wife; a polygamous marriage puts the women outside/around the center (don't deny it, Wurks), but with polyandry--ladies come to center stage, please. Very different. Very interesting. Any why not, I ask you???!!??
|
|
|
Post by morgain13 on Mar 4, 2010 10:46:12 GMT -5
LOL I think it would more likely be two husbands not listening tow hat we are saying, two husbands not helping with the housework, two husbands going off on fishing trips & outings to ball games, two husbands to cook for...
I would rather have another wife personally. I don't know if I can deal with their intimate relationship - but a wife would more likely help with the kids, help with the housework, and have similar interests
|
|
|
Post by marionj2 on Mar 4, 2010 11:18:48 GMT -5
Some of you have made some good points about equality, although I do think that the feminist movement is terribly misguided and has gone way wrong for what is really good for most women. (or the country for that matter) s And as a male, you know what is really good for most women, of course!
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 4, 2010 12:48:03 GMT -5
Why not? Go ahead and go for it. If you think you could be yinny enough to handle all that yang. The way I see it though, is that any woman who thinks this might be a good idea is already way to yangy to even be mentally healthy enough to even make it work one on one. So it's not if but when she would turn into Medussa. iwo... wanting it would be far better than actually having it. lol
Maybe if your little cult also included dedicated Karreza. Maybe? But somehow I don't think you really could envision this arrangement being mutually non orgasmic.
Remember though, you have to seduce, you don't get to coerce anyone. lol
But back to my original premise. This kind of rationale demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what does work and how it actually works.
and Marion... Just ask.. It might surprise you how well I know what is good for you.
very truly yours, wurks
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 4, 2010 19:39:37 GMT -5
I doubt if people are quite that black and white as your yin/yang reference suggests.
So a woman at the center becomes a Medussa; what does that make a man at the center? Oh, I forgot...it makes you a god.
One on one quite wonderful for both, thank you very much.
Just how is my hypothetical 'little cult' different from yours? Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.....
You are the one who keeps referring specifically to sex, e.g., Kareeza. IS it all about sex for FLDSers? Men, I mean. Hypothetical question, don't bother answering it...
Orgasmic vs. non-orgasmic is simply a matter of preference. You really think you're all that, don't you? Bringing up Kareeza, jeez...
Relationships 101: there is a huge continuum of ways of relating that have very little to do with seduction OR coersion. See, that is ALSO a black/white way of thinking. Both seduction and coersion are power plays against the other person. Both are about control. Both make objects of the other. The difference is that seduction is covert and coersion is overt, with covert control not being any better than overt control.
Morgaine, you hit the nail on the head, lol. Fishing trips, watching games together, "what's for dinner, honey? We're hungry..", my imagined polyandry utopia has become a nightmare, thanks to your insight!!
Give me monogamy any day.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 4, 2010 20:02:21 GMT -5
Wait, wait, I've got it--the perfect set-up: communal living with couples sharing domocile, or at least coming together often enough in a central area. That way, you get to have a monogamous marriage, and be among other women. The best of both worlds, in my mind. It satisfies the "I'd prefer to have another wife." AND "I don't want to share my husband."
In the 80s, I read the Laurel's Kitchen cookbook and then their Bread book. They lived in a spiritual community and a number of monogamous families shared a huge old restored farmhouse. It sounded wonderful. (Some members of the community had their own houses, but everyone ate together.)
It all goes back to the extended family with monogamy being ideal for us.
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 4, 2010 21:00:12 GMT -5
I doubt if people are quite that black and white as your yin/yang reference suggests.
Only because you really haven't tried it? To you it's still just a nice theory.
So a woman at the center becomes a Medussa;
Yep. She would. That's why you don't see any historical examples.
what does that make a man at the center? Oh, I forgot...it makes you a god.
Nope.. now that is you doing the black and white thinking. But in all fairness, it does seem to make some of them into devils.
One on one quite wonderful for both, thank you very much.
Yes it can be.
Just how is my hypothetical 'little cult' different from yours? Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.....
Exactly pot. Go ahead and try to make it work. Have a "revelation" and try to sell to a few thousand followers.
You are the one who keeps referring specifically to sex, e.g., Kareeza. IS it all about sex for FLDSers? Men, I mean. Hypothetical question, don't bother answering it...
Maybe if they had actually figured that out. Unfortunately most of them haven't either. But I didn't get the impression your cult was intended to be so platonic. I missed that... sorry.
Orgasmic vs. non-orgasmic is simply a matter of preference. You really think you're all that, don't you? Bringing up Kareeza, jeez...
Well, i'm not bragging. (but I could) But i'm surprised that you'd have such a problem being the temple prostitute. Sounded to me like that was your ideal plan. Instead you start turning into Medussa just thinking about. lol
Relationships 101: there is a huge continuum of ways of relating that have very little to do with seduction OR coersion. See, that is ALSO a black/white way of thinking. Both seduction and coersion are power plays against the other person. Both are about control. Both make objects of the other. The difference is that seduction is covert and coersion is overt, with covert control not being any better than overt control.
Nice. You do get that. Most people have a real problem with my caustic humor at first. lol
Maybe you didn't actually imply that polygamy is always about that, but a lot of people do. Especially when they start into this "double standard" mental excursion.
Morgaine, you hit the nail on the head, lol. Fishing trips, watching games together, "what's for dinner, honey? We're hungry..", my imagined polyandry utopia has become a nightmare, thanks to your insight!!
Yep. You see, the thing is when you really start to boil it down to a serious day to day responsibility, it's damn hard work and most people are just not up to it. Just like Brigham said, It will damn more people that it will save.
Give me monogamy any day.
Ok.. You can have it. Enjoy. It really is better for most people, that's the truth. I mostly only just have a problem when people start blaming polygamy for all the same stuff that would happen in "relationships 101" across the board to complicate peoples lives. iwo, most of the same things that would make your monogamy delightful, would also work the same in a plurality.
I gotta say you have been a pretty good sport though.
very truly yours, wurks
|
|
|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Mar 4, 2010 21:28:46 GMT -5
I laughed my butt off when Bill said, "...A man needs to know that his woman is his!". I was thinking wtf? And who does Bill belong to? The whole state of Utah? Bill knows his way of life is centered around his own needs, that is why he always uses religion to justify everything. It was funny to me too, how it didn't even register to Bill what Anna's point was about the double standard. Yes in his little circle his stance on the subject works... But for most people it sounds nuts. Bill needs to understand that most people just don't see things the way he does.
|
|
dsc6
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by dsc6 on Mar 5, 2010 3:16:27 GMT -5
Wurks, I think you have a peculiarly smarmy view of women.
Yin/Yang being a nice theory that I obviously haven't tried--what are you talking about? Yin/yang is a way of describing reality, not something to 'put into practice'. A person playing some kind of game pushing himself into being one or the other would be doing an unnatural act. We all have both in us--no one is one OR the other. And no one is only one combination--that is fluid also. You seem to see people, certainly women, in a strangely pigeonholed kind of way.
The temple prostitute comment is a good example of both the above points. When I envisioned polyandry, the whole temple prostitute ambiance never came to mind, and your comment is demeaning. As though you just can't see women in any way outside of being (sex) objects--polygamy is pure, polyandry is prostitution. Sexual, and bad sexual at that. You think 'temple prostitute'--did 'high priestess' ever occur to you? Of course not. There are only priests in your world. And, listen up: high priestess does NOT = Medusa. You have really limited yourself in your world view. There are alot of ways of being a woman between the extremes of all-yin and raving. At no point have I 'gone Medusa' in any of my comments.
Who said anything about platonic? That doesn't mean you get to stick your nose in my imagined polyandry. Stay out of my bedroom(s). And I DON'T want to go into yours--and your hints about your sexual prowess make me want to gag, OK? Not because of anything you might or might not do in your relationships, but that you are referring to it in a public forum. Just yuck.
There is absolutely nothing that you have said that indicates to me that you know all that much about what women want. One would have to understand women first--but you have limited yourself to some strange stereotypical view of women that meshes with your man-in-the-center world view.
Oh, BTW, making unclear and cryptic references in posts is not charmingly mysterious. You need to try to express yourself more clearly. One tends to think 'WTF?!' after reading your posts.
|
|
|
Post by wurks on Mar 5, 2010 12:17:09 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about prowess, but about celibacy. Actually I hold women in very high regard. I did consider priestess, in fact, I was just hacking on you a bit. Don't lose your sense of humor. I've noticed on these boards and other comment forums that people tend to hijack the high moral ground who really have no claim to it ... even less than the FLDS in a lot of cases. I have this deliberate cryptic way of just turning the pie the way you cut it so you get the piece you intended for me. It's pretty funny right? Until someone does that to you. My smarmy view of women compared to your man hating feminism? It's your own double standard that you are the most blind to. You should be thinking WTF, Medussa, If that is true my work is done here. Maybe in your clinical profession there is no yin/yang but perhaps you should study some of the more esoteric works. By whatever name you want to call it there is unquestionably some interesting phenomenon and polarity in relationships, both intimately and spiritually. www.reuniting.info/wisdom/yin_power_female_orgasm_lloyd_karezza(don't let that url scare you. Some people just try to put the whole meta tag into the url ... it helps the search engines) This may be a good start. (if you have any interest) There's a lot of interesting stuff on this Reuniting.info site. I found it when I was doing some research on continence. (not prowess .. lol ) very truly yours, wurks
|
|