Is PM a calling or a gift from God?

[Mojo]

which most men lack is simply being masculine and in charge enough to handle the women. Most guys can't handle one much less two. They are as yet untested by that fire.

Now there are a number who think they can and may have a 'great marriage'. But too often that just means low conflict and is because they are pushovers who go along with what wifey wants all the time or are very nice or bland enough in tastes to have never rock the boat. This type will rarely contradict the wife, wouldn't dare do anything that makes her jealous, or would avoid making her do something that displeases her. For such if you throw a second wife in the mix, or even just voice that desire, look out. So they've never had a power struggle to sort out their hierarchy. She's likely never had to temper her jealousness, possessiveness, or control.

edit: I'm not saying the second set necessarily lack balls. Sometimes yes, but some people's personalities are more easy going and not very demanding of their wife and so the relationship has not gone through the same trials. It depends on the person.

I'm not saying you are saying so, but masculinebehavior in marriage (monogamous or otherwise) isnt necessarily defined by how much overt dominance a man has. Submission can be achieved by showing care and servanthood.

A famous saying in leadership/education is: "people won't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." In our modern societies, where women have been trained in dominance, it can be tweaked to say "the woman won't care how manly you are until they know how much you care." In my experience, people are easier to lead when you show them that the path you want to lead them on is honestly in their best interest, not just yours. It builds trust. And when you've earned trust, through honesty, submission is so much easier.

How that applies to plurality, I'm not sure. I'm not a practitioner. I think it would play a huge role in making things work, as opposed to contributing to failure.

 

[rockfox]

Thanks @andrew. Ya I grasped that differentness with respect to society. It is more the internal dynamics of the relationship I wasn't sure about. To me it just seems like more of the same, just stepped up an order of magnitude or two or three in difficulty; with the caveat that some folks like in my previous description may not have had to struggle in those areas previously. I get what you're saying.

No I didn't intend a black & white thing. People are complicated and exist on a spectrum. But what I described is all to common in our modern day. And boy do I get really tired of these so-called Christian marriage teachers and councilors who brag about their perfect low conflict marriages and then you listen to the details and realize he walks in fear of her and never dared challenger her a day in his life.

Oh your opening paragraph re: vacationing in Canada vs. Syria; there's a good counting the cost analogy for your book for opening the chapter about fools wondering where immortals fear to tread and are you really sure you want PM?

 

[Mojo]

"Happy wife, happy life" is what most modern Christian marriage counsellors stress. It's gross.

Single to plural is not just moving up a level or two in difficulty. Again, I'm not a practitioner, but came awful close once. It's the proverbial chess and checkers analogy, but you're battling two queens that can move in any direction, not just one!

I'll leave it at that. I don't want to wade into areas I'm not qualified.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Mojo, you are an “Ascended Member”?! Are writing from the third Heaven?!!

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, you are an “Ascended Member”?! Are writing from the third Heaven?!!

It just means I'm a space cadet.

 

[rockfox]

I'm not saying you are saying so, but masculine behavior in marriage (monogamous or otherwise) isnt necessarily defined by how much overt dominance a man has. Submission can be achieved by showing care and servanthood.

A famous saying in leadership/education is: "people won't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." In our modern societies, where women have been trained in dominance, it can be tweaked to say "the woman won't care how manly you are until they know how much you care." In my experience, people are easier to lead when you show them that the path you want to lead them on is honestly in their best interest, not just yours. It builds trust. And when you've earned trust, through honesty, submission is so much easier.

Different men have different levels of dominance sure. But in general, dominance is a masculine trait and attractive to women whereas submissive nurturing servanthood is not, being feminine traits. I reject the teaching in vogue today in churches that men should be 'servant leaders' by which they mean, be a good submissive servant of her to make her happy and don't do anything to upset her nor order her around. Instead I say we serve by leading towards the common purpose we've set the family on.

Women are drawn by attraction first, then stick around when they know you care and can be trusted. But if you lack the attraction, it doesn't matter how caring you are. Clearly raising children requires a lot of sacrifice, service, and nurturing from both parents. But if you live life like her servant, that is a recipe for trouble. Christian servant leadership as taught in practice is little more than an apologetic for flipping the hierarchy on its head and making women the heads.

 

[Mojo]

Different men have different levels of dominance sure. But in general, dominance is a masculine trait and attractive to women whereas submissive nurturing servanthood is not, being feminine traits. I reject the teaching in vogue today in churches that men should be 'servant leaders' by which they mean, be a good submissive servant of her to make her happy and don't do anything to upset her nor order her around. Instead I say we serve by leading towards the common purpose we've set the family on.

Women are drawn by attraction first, then stick around when they know you care and can be trusted. But if you lack the attraction, it doesn't matter how caring you are. Clearly raising children requires a lot of sacrifice, service, and nurturing from both parents. But if you live life like her servant, that is a recipe for trouble. Christian servant leadership as taught in practice is little more than an apologetic for flipping the hierarchy on its head and making women the heads.

I'm not sure we are on the same page in defining servanthood, or if you understand where I am coming from. It's not worth a fight, but I will stand by my statements.

 

[Nikud]

I got you @Mojo

Galatians 5:13

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another

Mark 10:43

But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

John 13:13-17

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and L-rd, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your L-rd and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

 

[Mojo]

I got you @Mojo

Galatians 5:13

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another

Mark 10:43

But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

John 13:13-17

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and L-rd, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your L-rd and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

You obviously have more time on your hands than I do right now....j/k

 

[Nikud]

You obviously have more time on your hands than I do right now....j/k

Yep just, preparing kids torah lessons and activities for Shabbat, a lesson for Sunday school on perseverance, working on weds bible study, We're studying the transformation of the Pharisaic Zealot Shaul to the Messiah Zealot Apostle Paullus. Oh yeah my Rabbi voulentold me to help organize a city wide Passover Seder that's being held at the civic center for 400 people that I'm working on. Then the normal day to day stuff, work, wife, kids, volunteering at a soup kitchen when I dont have anywork. I have plenty of time. So what are you doing that's eating up your time. This is where I come to relax.

 

[andrew]

Nope. Not implying you said that. That's the problem I have with the initial premise, not you.

<snip>

Under a lot of stress right now (just standard life stuff) so maybe my wording is off.

Nah, your wording is fine. Afm&mh quoted me, and he and I have kicked some ideas around and are on the same page. You just happened to post right after me, so I wasn't sure whether you were responding to me particularly or the thread generally. All good.

It was the admixture of the difficulty of PM in our modern, Western society that I saw as unnecessary to a discussion of the biblical gifts. It is counter cultural and requiring of a stiff spine and stones, but not necessarily any special spiritual gifts not already included with monogamy.

Yeah, I think we're all on the same page at this point, more or less. Some people are going to be specifically led to do this, but it's not a requirement. There is no 'gift of plurality'. Most of what it takes to make this work is Discipleship 101: patience, forgiveness, a sense of humor, perseverance, self-discipline, humility, etc. Is that about it?

 

[Mojo]

Nah, your wording is fine. Afm&mh quoted me, and he and I have kicked some ideas around and are on the same page. You just happened to post right after me, so I wasn't sure whether you were responding to me particularly or the thread generally. All good.


Yeah, I think we're all on the same page at this point, more or less. Some people are going to be specifically led to do this, but it's not a requirement. There is no 'gift of plurality'. Most of what it takes to make this work is Discipleship 101: patience, forgiveness, a sense of humor, perseverance, self-discipline, humility, etc. Is that about it?

Squared

 

[andrew]

And when you've earned trust, through honesty, submission is so much easier.

24K Gold.

I agree with @rockfox's analysis of female attraction, but I don't see the sides you guys are advocating as mutually exclusive. Not either/or but both/and.

Possible breakthrough, at least for me: Are women attracted to dominance, or competence? Women are attracted to a man that is capable, strong, and provides leadership and vision, and it doesn't hurt if he's on the hunky side. But dominance as in bossing her around just to be bossing her around isn't the attractive part. I think this is where some guys get it wrong. (Not you rockfox; I'm just thinking out loud here.)

The kind of dominance we should be showing females is kicking ass and taking names in our field of endeavor, whatever that is and however that's measured. I think some guys (I know that some guys) think that the dominance thing has more to do with bossing around their families, playing a role, being the dictator, being "taken seriously", and most sinister, assuming that any difference of opinion or perspective between them and their wives is a call to arms, a conflict of wills that must end in the submission of the woman to superior firepower.

The kind of dominance women respect (the kind of women you'd want to marry, anyway…) has more to do with being right a lot, being the kind of guy who knows what he's doing, has a clear vision, gets stuff done, does what he said he would do, and is succeeding at life. Bad boys and @$$holes need not apply.

In fact, some guys in my opinion compensate for relative failure or at best mediocrity in their 'outer' life by lording it over their women and children. Never ends well.

Anyway, kinda went off there, more to think about, but a guy who is generally successful in life won't have to boss his woman around much, because she'll respect and trust him based on what she sees.

Final thought: What that success looks like can vary wildly, because life plans vary wildly. The main thing is whether a guy does what he said he would do and accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish.

 

[andrew]

True story: My first wife (now ex-wife) and I met as undergraduates. After we had been married several years (and before things went sideways, so it was funny at the time), she told me once, "You know, back when we were in college, one of the things that attracted me to you was that whenever we were in a group of people talking, it just seemed that you were right all the time. I didn't realize that when I married you I would have to deal with that!"

That was before I learned that there are more important things than being 'right' all the time, and there are ways you can win an argument and lose a relationship.

 

[andrew]

No I didn't intend a black & white thing. People are complicated and exist on a spectrum.

I figured as much. It was still useful to look at the two broad types, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

Oh your opening paragraph re: vacationing in Canada vs. Syria; there's a good counting the cost analogy for your book for opening the chapter about fools wondering where immortals fear to tread and are you really sure you want PM?

I'm really trying not to write a book, but I guess I should start keeping a list of suggestions….

"Happy wife, happy life" is what most modern Christian marriage counsellors stress. It's gross.

Sickening, really. Another one I remember from decades ago: "A man is the head of the home, but the woman is the neck, and the neck turns the head." Add the oft-heard phrase "my better half" (or "your better half") and we're on our way to making a list of all the ways church culture (let alone the world outside) has beat down men and conditioned us to think a certain way about male <cough, cough> "headship".

 

[andrew]

Mojo, you are an “Ascended Member”?!

It's official! @Mojo is the first non-staff member to hit the 240 trophy points mark, obtaining the hitherto unknown but now greatly coveted rank of "Ascended Member"! The previous step up the ladder was "Esteemed Member" at 120 points. Be thinking about what we should call 360 trophy points, and I'll open a thread for a naming contest at some point.

 

[rockfox]

I'm not sure we are on the same page in defining servanthood, or if you understand where I am coming from. It's not worth a fight, but I will stand by my statements.

Eh, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just talk. I'm not sure exactly that we disagree anyway. We really can't be all that too far apart since we're of the same mind about "Happy wife, happy life".

That one really aggravates me. 'Let me ask the boss' is another rich one I hear far too often; why that would ever pass the lips of a Christian husband is beyond me.

Possible breakthrough, at least for me: Are women attracted to dominance, or competence? Women are attracted to a man that is capable, strong, and provides leadership and vision, and it doesn't hurt if he's on the hunky side. But dominance as in bossing her around just to be bossing her around isn't the attractive part. I think this is where some guys get it wrong. (Not you rockfox; I'm just thinking out loud here.)

I think women are biologically attracted to power as a basic survival & reproductive instinct (i.e. protection of her and her children). Dominance and competence are evidences of that or tools towards that end. Competence allows one to climb hierarchies to achieve greater social power, resources or physical power. So competence is a proxy for power. It can also be an indication of future potential power in much the same way women seek men of higher educational attainment as a proxy for intelligence and future earning power (wealth providing both power and resources).

Many women are attracted to pure dominance (though often evidenced in much more subtle ways than giving orders). What doesn't work is a man who nags, doesn't speak with authority, or lacks competence. This is much like how women like competence and self confidence but are repulsed by ignorant arrogance.

Being bossy... well, leadership necessarily involves some level of being the boss, giving orders. The question is one of degree, use and substance. By bossing around, I don't think you mean simply giving orders, but what would be called domineering or micro-managing. Am I correct?

Some of this comes down to dwelling with understanding. Some women won't handle that well. Others, like or need a certain amount of that. A rare few even demand it.

The problem is in our feminist culture women are assumed to be in charge and any attempt by the man to exercise leadership or preference is construed as domineering. At the same time women suppress their natural tendencies because feminism teaches them they are wrong.

 

[andrew]

By bossing around, I don't think you mean simply giving orders, but what would be called domineering or micro-managing. Am I correct?

Yes, sir. Exactly.

Some of this comes down to dwelling with understanding. Some women won't handle that well. Others, like or need a certain amount of that. A rare few even demand it.

Agreed.

The problem is in our feminist culture women are assumed to be in charge and any attempt by the man to exercise leadership or preference is construed as domineering. At the same time women suppress their natural tendencies because feminism teaches them they are wrong.

Agreed^2. In an odd moment of free association, I'm reminded of the time period, seems like it was a couple decades ago, when "controlling" and "control freak" first hit common currency. Just about everybody could name five people they were convinced were "control freaks" (mostly bosses, husbands, boyfriends, etc). More recently "gaslighting" and "narcissism" get used a lot. A whole lot. All. The. Time. But more often to describe acts and personalities and relationships that haven't earned that denotation in a clinical sense. Seems everybody's a psychologist these days….

All just part of a systematic and escalating assault on the male. Good times….

 

[Mojo]

@rockfox , I hope my statement didn't imply that I thought you were itching for a fight. I really meant that these topics often devolve into two sides and the MGTOW topic.

I can't agree more that manly behaviors and looks are attractive to women. But at some point, that will only get a man so far. It will get you in the door, get you the interview, and maybe the job. But if a man wants the submission he seeks, then earning the respect of a woman who knows that come hell or high water that her man is committed to a cause (God's and their own) it will keep her at his side itching to follow as far as he can take her.

Beauty is only skin deep...and so often the machismo!

 

[rockfox]

Wholeheartedly agreed @Mojo; was just trying to clear potential misunderstandings.

who knows that come hell or high water that her man is committed to a cause (God's and their own) it will keep her at his side itching to follow as far as he can take her.

That right there is the power of visionary leadership.