• 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.

Random Comments

I suppose I would also throw threesome's in with this. That doesn't seem like proper conduct. It just seems like a porn fantasy. I don't see the patriarchs and heroes of the Faith doing that sort of thing.

I wasn't going to reply but then I saw this. I'm going to say this needs to be a matter of choice for a family and for the women involved.

When I first joined my family the thought of a threesome was not at all on my mind. Then one night...

The experience left me feeling more connected to my sw than before and while it's not for everyone if it is within a family then it can be a very powerful thing and a good thing.

Since I'm posting I'll also say that female intimacy is a spectrum that can just be hugging and cuddling. Maybe with the occasional loving kiss. In this house it's not unusual for us to breastfeed each other's babies usually so the mother can get some sleep. It's hard not to feel some serious affection for someone else who hears your baby cry, then gets herself up at 3am, picks up your baby, and then feeds him/her for you. I'd feel weird if I didn't kiss and hug my sister for helping me get some sleep!!

I am not into full on female bisexuality but it does happen and it can happen in the most patriarchal families. I would definitely oppose it if the sw/sw relationship interfered with the husband/wife relationship.
 
It has been discussed at length many times, @Bartato, with differences of opinion, so you will find people of like mind. I don't remember what all the exact threads are, but a search I just did in the Search bar helped me discover this one:
Female Vs Male Homosexuality

and
On why female homosexuality matters

but you could also send a private message to the Webmaster, @FollowingHim, to ask him if he can provide you more pointers.

Happy hunting!

Keith
Thanks for the links. I was fairly certain such matters had been discussed. Maybe I just suck at searching. Much appreciated
 
I'd just use the search function also! I think Keith has found some good starting points for you.

Basically, the Bible doesn't ever mention female-female sexuality between wives. Not a single time. So we have no prohibition of it, nor endorsement of it. So we have to make up our own minds on what is correct based on principles.

And what a husband determines is law for his home. If he believes this to be contrary to the created order and thus wrong, then he will forbid it in his home and it would be confirmed as sin for his wives, because doing it would be disobeying their husband. On the other hand, another husband may believe differently, and as there is no clear scripture stating he is wrong, he's also entitled to that opinion (which becomes law for his home). In both cases the husband will bear the responsibility for his actions at the Judgement.

Anyway, most wives wouldn't actually be interested in it with the other wife their husband happened to choose for himself, so the likelihood of having to grapple with this question is even slimmer than the likelihood of actually finding a second wife! It's not something most people really need to concern themselves with as it's unlikely to occur, and if it ever did you could figure it out when you got there.
Thank you. As usual your response was well thought out and seems solid. Like you mentioned, it is very unlikely to be an issue. It seems unlikely that I will ever have more than one wife (but Lord I am willing and know that it will happen if it pleases You). Furthermore, I don't believe my wife, would be at all interested in that (and I wouldn't want it either).

My question isn't so much practical as it is Biblical or theological. Thanks
 
I wasn't going to reply but then I saw this. I'm going to say this needs to be a matter of choice for a family and for the women involved.

When I first joined my family the thought of a threesome was not at all on my mind. Then one night...

The experience left me feeling more connected to my sw than before and while it's not for everyone if it is within a family then it can be a very powerful thing and a good thing.

Since I'm posting I'll also say that female intimacy is a spectrum that can just be hugging and cuddling. Maybe with the occasional loving kiss. In this house it's not unusual for us to breastfeed each other's babies usually so the mother can get some sleep. It's hard not to feel some serious affection for someone else who hears your baby cry, then gets herself up at 3am, picks up your baby, and then feeds him/her for you. I'd feel weird if I didn't kiss and hug my sister for helping me get some sleep!!

I am not into full on female bisexuality but it does happen and it can happen in the most patriarchal families. I would definitely oppose it if the sw/sw relationship interfered with the husband/wife relationship.

Thank you for your insightful response. I'm sure there is a great deal of affection between SW (we would hope so, for the sake of everyone). I always appreciate your voice of experience, since this is all fairly hypothetical for many of us. My viewpoint is from the outside, so it likely offers limited insight.

My gut impression is that physical expressions of affection between sister wives would be similar to that between other family members (other than one's husband). After all, the women are all married to the man but not each other. I hug my mom, my sister, my dad, brother, nieces and nephews, even aunts and uncles.

Obviously some connections are closer than others. For example, two sisters might cuddle or snuggle more closely watching a movie, or sitting by the fireplace (while I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that with anyone other than my wife). Two sisters that were twins might even be more inclined to physical displays of affection (but obviously in a nonsexual way). It just seems to me that sister wives would hopefully have a very close connection like two sisters might. Thanks again
 
I suppose I would also throw threesome's in with this. That doesn't seem like proper conduct. It just seems like a porn fantasy. I don't see the patriarchs and heroes of the Faith doing that sort of thing.
I saw Megan quoted this part and it made me think about it a bit more.
Solomon had 1000 wives. Think about that. There are just not enough hours in the day to have one at a time.
 
I saw Megan quoted this part and it made me think about it a bit more.
Solomon had 1000 wives. Think about that. There are just not enough hours in the day to have one at a time.

Solomon's 1000 wives didn't work out too well. While David didn't violate Deuteronomy 17, Solomon did.

I don't know what the maximum number of wives is, but it is less than 1000.

A man had got to know his limitations.
:)
 
Virgins as white elephants?
Wikipedia
White Elephant
A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value.[1]

Was King Solomon a greedy so-and-so, or was he a victim?
His problem was that every podunk mayor or local leader sent virgins to the king, and he was a popular king. He couldn’t sell them or give them away.
Food is a consumable, one good party and it’s gone.
Women don’t have an expiration date, even when they get long in the tooth.
They probably wouldn’t appreciate being considered White Elephants, but what else were they?

Pity the circumstances that he found himself in.
 
Virgins as white elephants?
Wikipedia
White Elephant
A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value.[1]

Was King Solomon a greedy so-and-so, or was he a victim?
His problem was that every podunk mayor or local leader sent virgins to the king, and he was a popular king. He couldn’t sell them or give them away.
Food is a consumable, one good party and it’s gone.
Women don’t have an expiration date, even when they get long in the tooth.
They probably wouldn’t appreciate being considered White Elephants, but what else were they?

Pity the circumstances that he found himself in.

Yeah, if you look at the parallels of different empires during history, ones that had multiple wives or concubines, if you were presented with such, yeah, it is easier to put them into your home than reject them, as it would be a grand slant against the presenter. I mean, during the time of the Ottomon Empire, especially Suleiman the Magnificent, what brought him into significance is that he married one of his concubines that caused a tizzy in the kingdom. You think he or other Kings had relations with them all? Nope. A lot were servants to higher class wives/concubines until the King "takes a shine" to one.
 
Virgins as white elephants?
Wikipedia
White Elephant
A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value.[1]

Was King Solomon a greedy so-and-so, or was he a victim?
His problem was that every podunk mayor or local leader sent virgins to the king, and he was a popular king. He couldn’t sell them or give them away.
Food is a consumable, one good party and it’s gone.
Women don’t have an expiration date, even when they get long in the tooth.
They probably wouldn’t appreciate being considered White Elephants, but what else were they?

Pity the circumstances that he found himself in.
Fortunately for Solomon, he had a large enough income to feed, clothe, and shelter his large family.
 
Fortunately for Solomon, he had a large enough income to feed, clothe, and shelter his large family.
But one has to wonder how large his "family" actually was. We know he had a huge harem. What makes me wonder is one of his faults was letting his wives worship other gods, which often involved child sacrifice. Between possible infanticide and probable... (scratch that) ABSOLUTE limitations in how many wives he could manage to be with while they were fertile, the lack of a long list of his progeny may not be an oversight.
 
I suppose I would also throw threesome's in with this. That doesn't seem like proper conduct. It just seems like a porn fantasy. I don't see the patriarchs and heroes of the Faith doing that sort of thing.

Just to add to this I did a little research and seems to me most porn fantasies are one man and one woman. Does that mean a 1m/1w marriage is a porn fantasy?
 
Just heard this in a commercial, for the second time this hour on the radio: "You've just ordered the one and only drumstick blizzard with penis."
 
I Am Not Colored White
By Deborah C. Tyler
The American Thinker

June 3, 2021

Twenty twenty-one is the year for canceling back.

Canceling back, as I practice the art, is not about retribution. It is about either strengthening or eliminating connections by asserting the highest truth I can perceive and requiring my viewpoints based on that truth to be respected in the relationship. My views on the questions of the day, such as the significance of race, are based on efforts to integrate unchanging truth given by God with the knowledge given by man. My views are considered transgressive by dominant mainstream America. I had largely accepted keeping my beliefs, including those about race, hidden from all but my closest connections. I will no longer do that.

For example, I was recently contacted by a 68-year-old physician, who is a friend of a friend. She wanted me to do something for her, and by way of introduction, she sent me pictures from her same-sex engagement party. She was proud that the other woman was much younger. I responded, "I want to help you, but I will not be opening the attachment because I do not believe that God sanctifies same-sex marriage. This is a deeply considered viewpoint in a difficult question that I have studied for years. I am going to send you some discourses, which I think beautifully summarize why I do not support same-sex marriage. I would like you to read them carefully so we can build an authentic connection based on integrity and mutual respect." I never heard from her again.

Here's an example of canceling back in a more important connection. I have been in a friendly relationship with a high school classmate for many years. This is a person of high intelligence and compassion. In 2021, I said to him, "I must speak out on the pain that your wife's racial bias against the people in the neighborhoods where we grew up has caused me. I have listened for years to her disparage the 'whiteness' of these people. In truth, they are the best of New York City. They are the people who risked their lives on 9/11. They are the people who risk their lives every day for her, and I can no longer bear her ingratitude in silence. I am going to send you highly researched material as to why I believe my vote was stolen. Yes, there will be a test. I need you not only to read it, but I need your heart to break as you understand what I foresee for our grandchildren in the aftermath of America."

Now I am embarking on a multidimensional project to cancel back the word "white," because today it is a term of racist abuse. It dehumanizes by obviating the historic religio-cultural diversity and connections to ancestral homelands of people who are reduced to the color label "white." Henceforth, on my canceling back adventure, I insist on being called Anglo-European American, in those instances when I am being boxed into a racial typology, as in this questionnaire by an insurance company:

"Ethnicity (optional): [ ] African American [ ] Asian American [ ] Native American [ ] Pacific Asian [ ] White, non-Hispanic [ ] Other_________________"

Each group is afforded cultural and national identity except for the last, identified by skin color only. When you purchase a pedigree dog, you can specify the fur color: "I want a black lab or a fawn pug or a parti-color poodle." Human beings should not be classified by color. It is unnatural, ignorant, and divisive. American Indians are not red, Asian-Americans are not yellow, African-Americans are not black, and European-Americans are not white. The last group is the only one that corporate America is gratified to degrade in such a way. Inevitably, black and white groups are in eternal opposition. The racial group labeled black arose in the 1960s specifically to denote opposition to the majority-European Americans. Through the decades, the connotation of the word "black" has come to mean victimhood and "white" as racist victimizer. Like Native, African-, and Asian-Americans, European-Americans are a heterogeneous group of ancestral cultures, religions, and physical characteristics. The degradations spewed at them in pseudo-psychology like "white privilege" and "fragility" could not have been inflicted had not all the descendants of European immigrants, from Ireland to Greece, from the Azores to the Russian Steppes, been congealed into a color code designation of "white."

In psychiatry, an idée fixe is a thought that so dominates the mind that it becomes the pivot of an obsessive mental illness. The public conversation in the United States is an obsessive insanity built around the idée fixe of "white" racism and "of color" resistance. Why have the leaders of government, education, and corporations become deranged babblers of this fixation? Here's why. They needed a lie so gigantic that it could enable them permanently to get away with crimes against this nation and her people.

The country people hereabouts say, "Scratch a liar, and you find a thief." The Clintons, the Bidens, the hundreds of thousands of left-wing government apparatchiki have thrown the huge, malodorous blanket of "white racism" over their lies, their thievery, and worse. (The Obamas were not thieves because they didn't have to be. Countless millions are thrown at them just for being they. They didn't have to go out and do an honest day's graft like the Bidens.) The left gets away with decades of misdeeds through the diabolical device of calling the victims of its crimes racist.

Be honest about where you live and why you choose that place. Every place has its own ways of wisdom. Learn them. Where I stay, a total stranger is likely to call you baby, or momma, or maybe sweetheart. A while ago, I was talking with a woman who was a sharecropper's daughter, one of fourteen children, raised in a house that was run down a hundred years ago. She, as well as her brothers and sisters, earned a fantastic advancement in wealth in their lives. Nothing held them back. But she chose to live on the family land in a rambling, rundown house. One day, she told me that the back of the house was falling into the dust. I said, "Oh, that's terrible! Are you going to call in a historical architect?" She looked at me as if I were insane and exploded into laughter. "Historical architect?" she gasped. I started to laugh, too. Since that time, we laugh together. I laugh a lot more now.

Here's a lesson from the tall skinny pines swaying outside the rooms within the hours of my life. I followed a rowdy family argument that raged on for three weeks, about whether Tyreeq had put the rice out after Pastor left. One faction hollered, "He's running fool." The other defended him with equal vigor. Before the fighting was over, a sidestream developed about the time Aunt Sammie took the wrong purse home. Finally, Ty's momma put an end to it. "Get Tyreeq name out of your mouths!" I watched this with appreciation. These folks do not email discourses after ruminating about moral dilemmas for six years. That's how they stay close.

Biden, get the words of color code out of your lying, demented mouth. Oprah Winfrey, get whiteness out of your race-baiting mouth. The pathetic, billionaire heinie-sniffers, Harry Whineser and Markel — she a loose-tailed heifer — get the word "white" out of your mouths. All of you who have stolen our nation's happiness and brotherhood to control the people with your hateful lies, get the white-shaming out of your mouths. We are not white-colored people. Cancel back any liar who calls you white.
 
Transferred here from another thread, because my response would be at cross purposes to the original poster's request:

So it's 2008 and I'm watching TV one day and the news is about the raid on the FLDS ranch in Waco. Everyone else was all shocked-face about the polygamy and I was fascinated with the idea that none of the women had to be alone with a man. That was a big deal to me then and to some extent it still is. The FLDS have bad taste in fashions :p but at least they looked clean and their kids looked happy aside from the storm troopers in their homes.

That got me interested in poly and when I got my computer for my 18th birthday I started looking around. Dating sites were a bust because all I got was a lot of pictures of men's private parts. Amazing that these men can't figure out why women don't like them!

I found the SacPoly Yahoo group and mostly lurked...hate to say like I did here for a long time too. I met some people for coffee and then visited with two couples. In both cases it seemed like the men were all down with the idea and their wives not so much. o_O

Then I met Christie and we had coffee like two or three times. Then I visited the house. At that time the family was Steve, Shari, and Christie and Shari's three daughters and Christie's boy. After that I moved in as a helper but that was really like a chance to see if everyone liked me and if I was okay with everything. And I was. And here I am! :)

In 2008 I was researching the raid for a persuasive essay I had to write for college. I went in with an anti-stance and came away quite confused. ;)


After it was all over the raid was just a waste of time and a massive violation of civil rights. o_O
Just to clarify something not all that important in regard to the subject matter, but the FDLS YFZ Ranch was not in Waco but instead was out in West Texas in Eldorado. Waco was the site of the Branch Davidian raid.

No kidding it was a violation of civil rights, and had several participants not admitted to having sex with underage girls, it could have become a landmark case in support of polygamy.

I just read that the State of Texas took possession of the property 5 years ago and some Dallas outfit purchased it 2 years ago to turn it into a military and law-enforcement training base.

Or so they say! I bet it's just a front for some Satanic bestiality cult!
 
Back
Top