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.
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.
TG, what did you find arousing about this book?
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
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".
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.
demandingwifey wrote:Would be nice to be valued highly for something else other than sex.
Would be nice to be valued highly for something else other than sex.
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.)
<<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.