-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Mating in Captivity
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
Good grief you lot. All so holy huh? If you're marrying a women only to have sex with her, it's a pretty bad idea. If you're marrying her because you want to look after her and also have sex with her, that's a much better idea.
As a woman, I would be rather upset if I was brought into a family only because the husband wanted to care for me and protect me, and didn't want to have sex with me. In fact, isn't that kind of the point of PM? Because there's plenty of other ways that the church looks after and cares for single women. PM provides a way for a guy to do that meets all her needs.
As a woman, I would be rather upset if I was brought into a family only because the husband wanted to care for me and protect me, and didn't want to have sex with me. In fact, isn't that kind of the point of PM? Because there's plenty of other ways that the church looks after and cares for single women. PM provides a way for a guy to do that meets all her needs.
That's what I like about the model of the adown. Biblically you could have several different types of covenants to have different levels of responsibility depending on the woman and her needs.
It all comes down to who's under your covering. Is there room for a handmaiden who will end up marrying your son? Is there room for an older woman who is a widow indeed? What about the familial widow? (One who is related so is ineligible to be a sexual partner). God arranged it so that all of them could come under covering. That's what it is all about. Does He leave us a choice? Always! Will a choice outside of His will have negative consequences? Usually!
A steward is to be found faithful with whatever his master entrusts him. Whether he gets to have sex or not.
It all comes down to who's under your covering. Is there room for a handmaiden who will end up marrying your son? Is there room for an older woman who is a widow indeed? What about the familial widow? (One who is related so is ineligible to be a sexual partner). God arranged it so that all of them could come under covering. That's what it is all about. Does He leave us a choice? Always! Will a choice outside of His will have negative consequences? Usually!
A steward is to be found faithful with whatever his master entrusts him. Whether he gets to have sex or not.
I think one of the truly beautiful aspects of PM would be if all involved truly became family, and in that case some needs usually filled by a husband could actually be met by other members of the family.....without it weakening the family as a whole.
For example, I have a sis in law married to a very quiet man. She calls my hubby, at times to visit, because she craves conversation. This is a need easily met by a co-wife while making dinner, or folding clothes, or a number of other activities wives could do together.
So while the husband could meet all her needs, it might not stay that way, just like a mom can meet all her children's needs, but thankfully doesn't have to, as they grow up, and learn to interact with each other.
heh. Well seeing to needs would be my primary purpose. My blood is plenty red, but I basically do not like women enough on their own merits to allow that to be much of a motivation. Pretty little doses of cyanide... bah.
I'm not sure if that counts as holiness...
The church does do many things... but I'm not sure if any are really prescribed as much as either marrying a good man or else staying in their father's house. I tend to think that many things the church does is so they do not have to worry overmuch about what the bible advises.
Mic drop....
I do think when it gets to the topic of sex and polgamy our tendency is to become too defensive. The world says it's all about sex (and good Christians emotionally feel sex is dirty so polygamy is clearly bad). So we, still having the same emotional reaction towards sex because of our upbringing (even when our logical mind disagrees), jump to the other extreme and say "no, it's not at all about sex, here's a whole host of other reasons, we're really just wanting to help people". Which is also true, but really is only part of the picture.
Marriage is about helping people, serving God, raising kids, etc, AND sex. It's part of the package. It's a perfectly reasonable desire, alongside the other things. It's one of the many reasons to marry someone. It is most certainly one of the reasons I married Sarah, I very much wanted to get her into bed, and I'm quite happy to admit it! And it would no doubt form part of the reason for me to marry another woman also. If it was the sole reason, or if I never intended to do it and it was none of the reason, either way I'd be looking for serious trouble. We've got to have the right balance, not be extremists...
Just being honest here. It's just a fact. And it's "very good", as a much wiser individual than me said when he put the first two naked people together and commanded them to start breeding.
Marriage is about helping people, serving God, raising kids, etc, AND sex. It's part of the package. It's a perfectly reasonable desire, alongside the other things. It's one of the many reasons to marry someone. It is most certainly one of the reasons I married Sarah, I very much wanted to get her into bed, and I'm quite happy to admit it! And it would no doubt form part of the reason for me to marry another woman also. If it was the sole reason, or if I never intended to do it and it was none of the reason, either way I'd be looking for serious trouble. We've got to have the right balance, not be extremists...
Just being honest here. It's just a fact. And it's "very good", as a much wiser individual than me said when he put the first two naked people together and commanded them to start breeding.
With this I completely agree. You can marry a woman, or you can offer her something else. As I see it, marriage involves sex. But you don't have to marry a woman to provide for her needs, and the familial widow is a very good example of that. So is a woman you adopt as a daughter, care for temporarily until she is able to become the wife of another, or even hire as a domestic servant but don't marry (here I'm thinking of other cultures more than our own). These are all valid options as well - they are broader than marriage, yet are related to it in that they are different parts of a family structure.
Well here at the Austin homestead we like to raise brown chickens and brown cows. But only so we can serve single women by giving of our largesse and providing for their needs. It's a ministry really. We're just givers.
Feels like while we were passing the telescope around so everyone could get a good look, somehow we got the thing turned around and now we're looking through the wrong end.
When this thread started, it was not about being too holy to want sex, or being defensive about it, or trying to prove anything about what we're doing here, really. It was about what to make of a guy who is pursuing a younger woman as a second wife that tells his first wife that men (all men, men generally) were created (blame God) to crave sex with multiple women, like that justifies his pursuit, and even if his first wife were a hot super-model he would just 'have' to have sex with other women (what's he really saying there?...), and the biological imperative is supposed to make everything okay, and she can just deal with it.
I call bullshit.
There's been a lot of talk here around the general topic of sex and marriage and other relationships men and women could have, along with all motivations being equally okay and balancing our view of sex, but is anyone really defending the idea that all men crave multiple sex partners (by God's design), can't help it (presumably also by God's design), and their first wives just have to get over it? Can we not agree that that's not an optimal approach to this life?
When this thread started, it was not about being too holy to want sex, or being defensive about it, or trying to prove anything about what we're doing here, really. It was about what to make of a guy who is pursuing a younger woman as a second wife that tells his first wife that men (all men, men generally) were created (blame God) to crave sex with multiple women, like that justifies his pursuit, and even if his first wife were a hot super-model he would just 'have' to have sex with other women (what's he really saying there?...), and the biological imperative is supposed to make everything okay, and she can just deal with it.
I call bullshit.
There's been a lot of talk here around the general topic of sex and marriage and other relationships men and women could have, along with all motivations being equally okay and balancing our view of sex, but is anyone really defending the idea that all men crave multiple sex partners (by God's design), can't help it (presumably also by God's design), and their first wives just have to get over it? Can we not agree that that's not an optimal approach to this life?
Thoroughly agree!
Yep. Tru dat Andrew. Sex is a great part of it but should never be the primary reason or excuse.
I sure cannot speak for men at all, or even men in general, as I am not one. What I do know is my own hubby is not unsatisfied with one wife, and while he would be willing to marry another, and even raise a second family, he is not "chasing tail," or trying to hunt up another woman to romp with.
If men while younger develop the habit of sleeping around, or "date" (usually means sleep with) a lot of women, even if they marry their habits of thinking about, and being on the look out for their next partner, are likely going to persist, and such men may see poly as a way to keep the new and exciting aspect of new love going, after the new wears off with the first, second, or so on. Of course marriage has to have more foundation then a fling to last, so the man that builds too quickly (adds wives casually or carelessly) may find his house topples in the wind.
Sex is addictive. Some men are just used to indulging where they shouldn't, and don't want to change.
I still like the way Bob Halstrom stated it in his polygamy study he basically said "Marriage is God's solution for lust, and a man allowed to marry (polygamously) will at some point have enough marriage to keep him from looking for more."
But maybe this statement is assuming a man who uses his thinker for making decisions.
I think I've rambled enough. Lol
Right... whatever Solomon was using to amass his thousand woman army, it should not properly be called a functioning thinker...
Absolutely agreed @andrew!
I'm not so sure about that. I think he may have been rather calm and calculating about the whole thing and actually put more thought into it than we realise.
For instance, "I'm a terribly busy man with an enormous number of buildings to keep sorted, and need a tonne of servants. When I find one I don't want her marrying someone else and disappearing, making me have to find another, I don't have time for job interviews. Also, I want sex, but have very little free time and don't want to waste time hunting for one of my wives in an enormous household. So why don't I get a tonne of housemaids, make them all my wives, then they'll be in it for life and fully focused on getting the job done without being distracted by other men. And whenever I am horny I can grab whoever's nearest (they're all mine anyway) and pop into a room for 30 minutes on my way to the next meeting. I never need to take a wife with me traveling because everywhere I go I've got wives already.".
Ok, I'm not saying that he actually thought exactly like that, my point is simply that it is possible to think of logical reasons (not necessarily "good" reasons, but logical and therefore requiring a "thinker" to come up with them) to have a thousand wives if you're a very rich king.
Don't try this at home...
This is disturbing, and has more to do with modern feminism than biblical families.
Marriage was instituted by God as his solution for the "it is not good that the man should be alone" problem. Meanwhile, the idea that men generally are raging lust monsters is basic "rape culture" feminist dogma.
Due to Solomon being the first of four men listed biblically as being the king over the whole earth (1Kings 10:23-25) I think it is far more likely that the majority of the multitude of women were the results of political alliances, especially as 700 of them were listed as princesses.
The other three are Ahab (1 Kings 18:10) Nebuchadnezar (Jer 27:6,7) and Cyrus (2 Chron 36:23)
Last edited:
Joleneakamama said: ↑
I still like the way Bob Halstrom stated it in his polygamy study he basically said "Marriage is God's solution for lust, and a man allowed to marry (polygamously) will at some point have enough marriage to keep him from looking for more."
Maybe I'm just missing your point here, or maybe we have different understandings of lust. There are several words in Greek translated lust in English. The one Jesus used discussing adultery is defined as to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise) covet, desire, would fain, lust (after). Obvious to someone familiar with biblical marriage, this could ONLY be adultery if the woman was married, or betrothed. (some other Greek words translated lust have a more negative meaning, as in they mean desiring something forbidden)
I pity the woman who marries a man who never set his heart on her, desired her, or longed for her, and the man who marries a woman he doesn't desire.
To me the point of the quote was that marriage was what God ordained, not using anyone who's "putting out" until you are ready to "settle down."
The man who is not satisfied with one woman, and marries again, is going to have twice as much responsibility, or then three times as much. He's also going to have that "duty of marriage" with multiple women to keep up with, eventually reaching a point where his responsibilities, and privileges, are sufficient, and he does not desire more.
Marriage was solving the "It's not good for the man to be alone" but God didn't give Adam a guy friend to hang out with.
I met a man once who's wife had left him many years before. He would not think of marrying again because of the scripture instructing women to remain single or be reconciled to their husbands. He was applying this to men as well, and dooming himself, through ignorance, to the alone state that God originally observed was not good. This same man also looked at all marriage as a necessary evil of sorts, and something to be avoided if possible. He was a vegetarian too, because he found it decreased his libido, and made his celibate state easier.
To me the feminist dogma is that all men should be happy with just one wife. Obviously some (including my husband) are, but others may not be. Over the years I have talked with people on poly sites, I have read posts and even chatted with people having widely different reasons for wanting polygyny. Some women have practically no drive, and would welcome a church that taught that sex was "for procreation, not recreation." One woman was wanting a sisterwife so her hubby would leave her alone! (Were I a single woman I would steer clear of that man, just in case HE was the reason she felt that way....you might get a sex starved stud there......but you could get a dud !)
The man who is going to feel like a "raging lust monster" (or at least that his wife sees him as such) is the man who's wife has no desire to be intimate, and shuns his advances. I have a cousin who's wife is seriously overweight. He may as well have no wife for how little interest she has in being intimate with him.
Absotively Posilutely agree! I think optimal would be everyone wanting God's will in their life, and being willing to go with whatever that was.
There is a country song that sings "If she wants a man, who'll take a ring off of his hand, and then turn around and say that he'll be true, she deserves you!"
People have so many different ideas now of what marriage is, and how it is defined. Some think you have to have a legal marriage for it to be real and valid, some don't even use the terms husband or wife, but are truly committed to each other for life.
To me there are two types of people, (not that Christ cannot change someone from one type to the other) but there are the serious kind that marry, and the kind that avoid marriage, but have many uncommitted relationships. Some that marry divorce, but do end up stable and happy on their third marriage, some just never figure out what it takes to make a choice and commit, and then stick it out. Being equally yolked is important, and pretty amazing. It tends to make one picky, not too interested in anything less......and very, very, thankful!
I still like the way Bob Halstrom stated it in his polygamy study he basically said "Marriage is God's solution for lust, and a man allowed to marry (polygamously) will at some point have enough marriage to keep him from looking for more."
Maybe I'm just missing your point here, or maybe we have different understandings of lust. There are several words in Greek translated lust in English. The one Jesus used discussing adultery is defined as to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise) covet, desire, would fain, lust (after). Obvious to someone familiar with biblical marriage, this could ONLY be adultery if the woman was married, or betrothed. (some other Greek words translated lust have a more negative meaning, as in they mean desiring something forbidden)
I pity the woman who marries a man who never set his heart on her, desired her, or longed for her, and the man who marries a woman he doesn't desire.
To me the point of the quote was that marriage was what God ordained, not using anyone who's "putting out" until you are ready to "settle down."
The man who is not satisfied with one woman, and marries again, is going to have twice as much responsibility, or then three times as much. He's also going to have that "duty of marriage" with multiple women to keep up with, eventually reaching a point where his responsibilities, and privileges, are sufficient, and he does not desire more.
Marriage was solving the "It's not good for the man to be alone" but God didn't give Adam a guy friend to hang out with.
I met a man once who's wife had left him many years before. He would not think of marrying again because of the scripture instructing women to remain single or be reconciled to their husbands. He was applying this to men as well, and dooming himself, through ignorance, to the alone state that God originally observed was not good. This same man also looked at all marriage as a necessary evil of sorts, and something to be avoided if possible. He was a vegetarian too, because he found it decreased his libido, and made his celibate state easier.
To me the feminist dogma is that all men should be happy with just one wife. Obviously some (including my husband) are, but others may not be. Over the years I have talked with people on poly sites, I have read posts and even chatted with people having widely different reasons for wanting polygyny. Some women have practically no drive, and would welcome a church that taught that sex was "for procreation, not recreation." One woman was wanting a sisterwife so her hubby would leave her alone! (Were I a single woman I would steer clear of that man, just in case HE was the reason she felt that way....you might get a sex starved stud there......but you could get a dud !)
The man who is going to feel like a "raging lust monster" (or at least that his wife sees him as such) is the man who's wife has no desire to be intimate, and shuns his advances. I have a cousin who's wife is seriously overweight. He may as well have no wife for how little interest she has in being intimate with him.
Absotively Posilutely agree! I think optimal would be everyone wanting God's will in their life, and being willing to go with whatever that was.
There is a country song that sings "If she wants a man, who'll take a ring off of his hand, and then turn around and say that he'll be true, she deserves you!"
People have so many different ideas now of what marriage is, and how it is defined. Some think you have to have a legal marriage for it to be real and valid, some don't even use the terms husband or wife, but are truly committed to each other for life.
To me there are two types of people, (not that Christ cannot change someone from one type to the other) but there are the serious kind that marry, and the kind that avoid marriage, but have many uncommitted relationships. Some that marry divorce, but do end up stable and happy on their third marriage, some just never figure out what it takes to make a choice and commit, and then stick it out. Being equally yolked is important, and pretty amazing. It tends to make one picky, not too interested in anything less......and very, very, thankful!
Last edited:
I can say that when Moriah came around that it really helped me deal with lust. When suddenly I could have other women (within the Biblical framework) a lot of the desire was mitigated. I may be displaying flaws in my own character though. There are a few of those that show up from time to time.
Its all fun when its forbidden and unobtainable. When the reality stares you in the face though and you realize that you're not desiring to spend a little time getting some thrills but that you're desiring to be responsible for her for the rest of your life, suddenly some of the eroticism goes out of it. It certainly changes the kind of women you're attracted to.
Its all fun when its forbidden and unobtainable. When the reality stares you in the face though and you realize that you're not desiring to spend a little time getting some thrills but that you're desiring to be responsible for her for the rest of your life, suddenly some of the eroticism goes out of it. It certainly changes the kind of women you're attracted to.