Polygamy

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2009
Polygamy
31
Wed, 09-19-2012 - 8:47pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2012
Wed, 09-19-2012 - 11:16pm

Never read this book, but I have friends who were involved in polygamous marriages.  They all ended disasterously.  It is true that the man values sexual ability higher than all other abilities.  The primary reason my husband brought up this subject was to make a statement that, "men always want more than one wife, if one is unavailable sexually then the other ones will step up to the plate.  Which made me feel low.  Would be nice to be valued highly for something else other than sex.:smileysad:

Do we have examples of women having multiple spouses, and if we do, what will she value the most?

Stories of this nature do not get me aroused because I know how they end up.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2004
Thu, 09-20-2012 - 9:51am

TG, what did you find arousing about this book?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2006
In reply to: mirandarr8
Thu, 09-20-2012 - 10:55am
I would be willing to bet she doesn't know for certain what it is that has her aroused. I also bet it is because of the "competition" factor. This actually ups my desire as well, in the right circumstances. It doesn't last long term however.

I am not happy with the picture being painted here of sexuality and sexual performance being the highest valued commoditiy. I am hopeful that it is not being portrayed as true of all polygamous and/or polyamourous people. I know it is NOT true of my DH, nor of any of the polyamourous people that I know. In my relationship, I am the primary partner and my needs, my feelings and my place come first before any others, because his primary commitment is to our relationship. Everthing/everyone else comes secondary to that. In other polyamourous relationships I've seen it where each partner is valued for their own uniqueness, and no one is held in any higher regard (although that seems a bit unrealisitic to me.) The difference between the relationships on my radar and those that are recounted here might be that fundamentalist religions use polygamy for a different purpose than the people I know. For fundamentalists it is about controlling people (primarily women) and advantage to the powerful (men.) For people I know it is about freedom and fulfillment for ALL those involved. Additionally, truly polyamourous people know about NRE and all that it brings. I doubt fundamentalists get it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2006
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 4:41pm
I would encourage anyone who has even a passing interest to read about how true polyamorous people (as opposed to religious nutcases) conduct their relationships. There is a show on showtime about it and while I don't agree totally with what it presents it is not too bad of a reflection. There are also some good blogs out there. And of course for those of you who prefer actual books there is "the ethical slut" which I found to be very helpful when I began to navigate the tricky waters of non monogamy
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2006
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 5:21pm

I used to think I had never competed for a man too. But upon closer investigation I realized that I only thought that because I had always gotten any man I wanted

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2012
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 9:31pm

The only polyamorous relationships I witnessed were the religious nutjob ones, which pretty much influenced how I saw them.  Never saw women treated with any amount of respect in these relationships, the man could always "upgrade" to a slimmer, younger wife.  Not what I wished for me or my daughter in any respect.  Even if the man "kept" the first wife after she became older, she was subjected to witness him having his fun with the younger wives.  She was regulated to be the "boss wife" prototype, which meant that she bossed the other wives around in exchange for her not feeling as attractive as the younger women.

Miranda, I would have loved to see more of your examples of polyamorous relationships, but I still see them being "male centered".

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2011
In reply to: misslynn76
Sat, 09-22-2012 - 7:35pm

I was going to ask you which it was that you are reading  that is so interesting.

After you put posted a paragraph from that book, I knew immediately which book it was. I read that book a year ago. It was really an eye opener.

I was outrage at the abuse and brain washing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2007
In reply to: my_sex_toy45
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 5:44pm
demandingwifey wrote:

Would be nice to be valued highly for something else other than sex.:smileysad:

I see a difference between valuing someone "only" for sex or for their money and valuing someone "primarily" for sex or for their money. And I imagine that some people (like me) are tired of being valued "only" for the social status I provide or for whatever. I think we don't want what we have and we want what we don't have. (And I'm really tired of the PC crap that it's somehow diminishing for a man to value a woman primarily for sex and not primarily because of her intellect. I already have an intellect, so a woman's intellect doesn't "complete" me. Sex does.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-21-2003
Mon, 09-24-2012 - 1:42pm

<<I already have an intellect, so a woman's intellect doesn't "complete" me. Sex does.>>

I think you have every right to value sex over intellect in a partner. For my part, I NEED a partner with a matching intellect. Intelligence (or its absence) pervades all interactions. Intellectual communion is a strong bonding force for me,  intellectual disparity a distancing one. A MI (mismatched intellect) relationship would never work for me.

F.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-04-2006
Mon, 09-24-2012 - 2:14pm
I'm miranda from mismatched libidos and I endorse this message

FLM I couldn't agree more. In fact one of the primary reasons that my previous relationships have failed is due to MI

Pages