I Have Two Husbands: A Polygamist's Diary
A modern-day polygamist explains her side of the story.
"Non-traditional." A popular catch-all phrase that seems, in common usage, to mean anything that differs from the mainstream. It also describes a large portion of my life.
My upbringing was entirely unremarkable, and certainly included nothing of this sort. I was first introduced to such alternative relationships in college when a female friend of mine and I knowingly decided to share the same boyfriend. No, not a threesome, just going out with the same guy. It was partially a matter of convenience, and partially the fact that we were close friends. We both liked him very much, didn't want to fight over him, and he wasn't anxious to choose between us. As this was my first intimate relationship and it became polyamorous, it is hardly surprising that I ended up in a polygamist marriage. My first husband was Alan.
We fell together like a couple of old shoes, somehow instantly comfortable with each other. We had similar opinions about plural relationships, and neither of us was averse to the idea. Around a year and a half after we were married, we met Eric. He and I were instantly attracted to each other and, as Alan had no objection, we began getting to know each other better. Over time, I found myself falling in love with Eric. Alan certainly wasn't blind to this, so we all got together to discuss it. This turned out to be one of the most important conversations of my life, and led to an increase in my family.
Alan and Eric let me make the sleeping arrangements, and I worked to make sure I spent time with both of them. To all outward appearances we were a married couple with a male friend living with us. While some found it awkward when the three of us occasionally attended parties and such together, very few people attempted to pry. To avoid legal troubles, I remained legally married to Alan, and we all decided a larger house was in order when we met Leslie.
Fast forward to today, and our family is now composed of Alan, Eric, Leslie, Amber, and myself, plus our children: Todd, Steve, Jennifer, Lisa, and Amber is currently pregnant. Eric and Leslie are legally married, and we've added a few rooms to the house. We have two family meetings a week, one of which is for adults only, both of which can get lively and loud. We've had our arguments over money, people monopolizing other people's time, dealing with children's issues, and so forth—like any other family—but we just have more voices in the discussion.
As far as finances are concerned, Alan, Eric and Leslie all work, and Amber intends to go back to work after the baby is born. I kind of became the head Mom and housekeeper, and we all take turns at cooking except for Eric. (We all try to keep him out of the kitchen. We've decided we like the house, and we don't want him to burn it down.) We have main household accounts for bills and home improvements, and we all have our own personal accounts as well. Alan keeps all the books balanced, as he's best at it. Amber and I both receive a kind of salary for what we do around the house.
Discussion
My biggest concern here is with the children.
How are they protected financially in case of divorce, death, disability, etc.? Are there wills about guardianship if biological parents die?
If the family "divorces," who will get the children and who will be allowed to visit them?
What outside pressures do the kids face due to living in an unusual household?
Will they be able to form monogamous partnerships when they grow up? Will their parents accept it? Will they know how to do it? Will they feel comfortable wanting it?
Lets first start with the person that left the huge post with the bible verses must have forgot Matthew 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged. I think that the writer has found love and in the world today that is a hard thing to do. I very much agree with plural marriage from what I have seen the family values are stronger in plural famlies. And yes I have met some. If people took some time to think things through and rush out to judge they would see that they live as a family unit their children are most likely taken care of better than any single parent is doing. I am not going to say that there would not be issues but that is part of life. I at 34 have never been married but I would go into plural marriage with out a second thought.
1st PAGE.
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
2nd PAGE.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.
3rd PAGE.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
4th PAGE.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
5th PAGE.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.
6th PAGE.
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.
12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.
7th PAGE.
13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.
15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.
16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.
18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.
19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
The thing that most learn with age is that nothing is as it seems. The one thing that is essential in any relationship is communication. After all, as one writer put it long ago, 'Love doesn't care about the rules' (I wish I knew who said it). I'm currently married to a guy 15 years younger than my 62 years (he's great but has bad health we haven't had a physical relationship in years and I keep telling him I want a boytoy).
Being in a relationship/s (not based on the institutionalized religions creeds) become difficult when others demand we all be the same. I credit those who have multiple partners with knowing their own needs. Sadly too many can't get along so the need to isolate, segregate, blame, or condemn is easier than letting individuals have a choice of life style. Many can accept having many friends but can't accept a person having more than one spouse or having a same gender spouse. It seems it is easier for the majority to be small minded rather than being happy that others are fortunate enough to love more than one person in a 'marriage.'
Kudos to the the author who worte this. I love the fact that i (finally!) found a woman who was in a polygomy marriage and isn't religious!
i almost thought this didn't exist!
While most would find this appauling, I find this to be very interesting. think it's great that you can do this and be so open about it. I hope that someone who happened to read this that their mind will be less narrowed, and close-minded as before they read it.
There is no one definition of "normal". Everyone has their own definition of normal, and as log as they're not hurting anone with their view of normal, then it should be accepted by those who love them the most.
Kudos to you!
Love,
Mama Jk
Polygamy is one husband with many wives. Polyandry is just the opposite. Polyamory is many loves. It seems like this relationship was polyamorous.
My sweetie and I have been in a polyamorous relationship for about twelve years witha very kind loving man.. It is a "V" type as she has sex and spends quality time with each of us, but the males don't. We have had tremendous growth as a couple and a trio. We sometimes play and enjoy each other together but distance makes it difficult to spend more time together. I, as her legal husband, spend the most time with her but I have no problem with her spending more and she has done so. We have a very loving relationship and have been married for over thirty years
Like it has been posted, these relationships are not for everyone but society needs to recognize that there many ways to cohabit if one does not let religion dictate just one way.
Actually polygamy means several spouses of either gender. Poly means many, gamy is from greek meaning marriages. It simply means many marriages (thanks Liberal Arts education!)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamy
polyandry means having many husbands, and polygny means more than one wife. But since polygamy as a word encompasses both terms it is acceptable to use here.
It's always interesting to hear about how other people make it work! I hope we can hear more from you around this site. We have lots of articles on the topic.
Wow! It's really interesting how this article has been majorly edited to give it a more sympathetic spin (all the criticisms aimed at another author's article cut out). Complete with a brand new author (formerly Jenny Block) and all the original comments deleted in just 2 days! Apparently you folks at YourTango don't think anyone is paying attention. I won't be returning to this site anytime soon.
Anthalia, this article is new to the site. It is not an edited version of another article. And all the comments were not deleted. Perhaps this is the article you were referring to?
http://www.yourtango.com/20087235/open-marriage-is-not-a-fad
If you have any concerns about editing or comment moderation, please reach out to me by messaging me on the site or emailing me at lyz (at) tangomag (dot) com! That goes for everyone on the site!
Yes! Yes! Yes! It totally makes sense and totally normal!! NOT!!! Soon you will think having sexual relationships with children and animals will be normal. Get a grip you idiots.
Thanks for writing this. Awesome article. We need more people to be open about different styles of relationships.
DrSteve, you are absolutely right! We did once live in long houses in extended family settings with shared responsibilities! But the cultures that did reside that way didn't share everyone. Kind of like my life.
There's a mild polygamist factor in my current family dynamic and it works great. It's hard for one person to fulfill the needs of another and sometimes there are things that you can't do for eachother in a relationship.
My life is based loosely on the dynamics of a traditional native family unit. We all put in our fair share so we all have less to do.
And to the earlier comment in regards to children? My daughter has 3 very strong male influences. Child services were contacted by another closed minded individual such as yourself and all they determined was that she has more resources to help her develop into a phenominal person. Why would I deny my child the love and affection of yet another person that cares for her?
one more thing:
do I dare say this?
I remember so vividly the college years. All the young men were slobs and of course horney as demons. They all needed someone to turn their mess into a home.
Now let's imagine a young woman who wants college and can't afford it all. So she becomes the "queen bee" in an apartment. She maintains the house keeping and "entertains" 5 guys who pay for all of her living expenses -- rent, food, a little something for personal hygine items -- even perhaps some help with buying school books and special project money.
IF they would all just share her and avoid other partners no one would get STD's, everyone would have a better life, she get's the expenses handled (which I think is better than having sex for porn producers to cover the expenses) and when it's over 4-years later she's had her experience and gets to work and finds a monogamous relationship.
odd but -- a solution that works for those who will absolutely agree to it. -- and there's no question that women are sexually superior and can easily wear out 5-male athletes daily and end the day saying "I want MORE."
sn
It's VERY traditional. It's very "tribal" and IF people really did live as long at 100,000 or 50,000 or 25,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago (according to the archiologist) I'm sure a lot of them lived in a "long house" and traded partners, shared meals, shared child care, shared the food they grew, gathered or hunted and --
it's as natural and normal as humanity. No, it doesn't exactly fit today's theology but it's "forgivable" and it makes better sense than ever in an economy on the brink of collapse.
or -- should we prefer more millions homeless, hungry and miserable?
If you spread a bit of brotherly and sisterly love around in bed and in the kitchen (send Eric outside to the BBQ) what's the harm? Or should we prefer more civil strife in the name of "religious traditional values?"
Yes I loved the story and the author's voice makes it much more sensible than scandelous.
Get free health information and a lot of good thinking at www.SteveNewdell.com
I think our ancestors had plenty of hunger and misery to go around. Certainly more than we do in modern America.
I wouldn't like to live in a traditional society. It was never good for women. Individuality didn't really exist. We look back and think it looks good, but most of us would run screaming from a traditional community-type society if we had to live in one.
I think the idea that if we spread more sex around we'd get along better is naive. Humans get jealous and sometimes even violent.
I think that this is an interesting lifestyle, and while it certainly wouldn't work for everyone, if this works for this particular family, then really, who are we to judge? I can certainly see the benefit of having multiple partners (though this certainly wouldn't be a choice I would make). If they are all happy, then I think that's wonderful - happiness in this life is hard to come by sometimes. :)
I'm not sure the author has taken a "we're better than you" stance. It sounds like they have the situation figured out for them. For such an arrangement to work, there has to be rules. Has to.
But I do take umbrage with the writer's claim that their arrangement is not mulitiple wifes: who is Amber 'married' to? Who's baby is she having? There are more women here than men. I guess I'm just nosy, and not worried about asking an uncomfortable question. :)
Power to you for living this way. It would be too hard on the head for me.
Everyone deserves happiness, I do wish you all that!
"We also don't consider the political jockeying, the backbiting, and the attempts to get more of the husband's attention or money, to be loving behavior."
Umm no one considers that to be loving. But it happens in any relationship. It doesn't matter gay or straight, at some point we are all insecure. At some point we try to get at the money. At some point we back bite our SO behind their back. I agree with Mango, she is making her situation sound TOO perfect. I would believe this story more and be more open to understanding polygamy if it was presented in a REAL light. Not this fake, "We're better than you" way.
I agree, the article presents her family as too perfect to be true. I've lived in communal households before and the meetings are no fun. I'm sure they're more intense if you're also sleeping together and raising each other's children.
I also think that trying to get more of the husband's love and money is the norm in traditional polygamous relationships. How else could it be with only one husband and multiple wives who need sex, financial support, and help with the kids?
Polygamy has a long history and it's an ugly one. Polygamy was invented as a way for one guy with power to get all the females. It is the ultimate in patriarchy. Polygamy was never an equal opportunity thing. It's profoundly undemocratic. Feminists who live in polygamous societies complain about it. It can be a source of violence and cheating as the men left without wives try to get women.
You are being too judgemental. What the writer is saying is that her marriage is just like a normal marriage, just with more people and they do it because it works for them. Just like monogamy works for some people. Except judging by infidelity rates it doesn't work....
