Polygamy Unchecked

[peter_mary]

Found this in today's newspaper:

Court Hears Case of Polygamous Judge

PROVO, UT (AP)--A small-town judge who has three wives should not be removed from the bench because his private behavior has not tarnished the office he holds, the judge's attorney told the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Judge Walter Steed [no doubt a descendent of the famous Steed family from the "Work and the Glory" :rolleyes: ] was found to be a polygamist by the state's Judicial Conduct Commission, and the panel issued an order seeking his removal from the bench in February.

Steed's attorney argued during Wednesday's hearing that while drug abuse, for example, might be grounds for removal, Steed's private behavior in his home should not be.

Now granted, that's his attorney speaking, but I don't doubt there are many in Utah who would agree with the logic (if you can call it that). What is amazing is that there is even a question! Even though former Governor Leavitt had to be reminded (while in office) that polygamy is AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' LAW, the rest of us seem to be very aware of that fact! Why is it even a question, therefore, whether or not this guy should be left on the bench?

Would the same argument hold true if he beat his wife and molested his daughter, both of which would be his "private behavior in his home"? Good hell. Perhaps the President of Iran meant Utah should be "wiped off the map" last week rather than Israel. (Of course, Utahn's think they're Israelis anyway... :rolleyes: )

Silverfox, Mamajama, Dancinfree, Aether, Rainangel, ya'll oughta be gettin' over there to help clean house of these kinds of bastards from your home state! Ride hard and show 'em a little PostMo justice...

[darkslider]

Found this in today's newspaper:



Now granted, that's his attorney speaking, but I don't doubt there are many in Utah who would agree with the logic (if you can call it that). What is amazing is that there is even a question! Even though former Governor Leavitt had to be reminded (while in office) that polygamy is AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' LAW, the rest of us seem to be very aware of that fact! Why is it even a question, therefore, whether or not this guy should be left on the bench?

Would the same argument hold true if he beat his wife and molested his daughter, both of which would be his "private behavior in his home"? Good hell. Perhaps the President of Iran meant Utah should be "wiped off the map" last week rather than Israel. (Of course, Utahn's think they're Israelis anyway... :rolleyes: )

Silverfox, Mamajama, Dancinfree, Aether, Rainangel, ya'll oughta be gettin' over there to help clean house of these kinds of bastards from your home state! Ride hard and show 'em a little PostMo justice...

Here is the largest problem that I see with this.

After Amendment 3 passed, polygamous marriages are no longer considered valid or even recognizable.

So, they are trying to get him disbarred for being non-married to two women.

I laugh at this, because the poligs where the ones pushing for the passing of A.3. It makes it almost impossible to prosecute.

[noodle]

P_M - if my memory serves me well - which most the time it doesn't - I think it was Mike Leavitt's attorney brother that actively went after some of these polygs. You are absolutely right in that this is such a no-brainer. A polygamist judge???? A few years back it was a polygamist cop in the news. And these folks are sworn to uphold the law? Strange indeed. Perhaps we should all pack our bags and move to Idaho. Oops - do y'all still have those skinheads up north? :Crazy:

mamajama

[peter_mary]

P_M - if my memory serves me well - which most the time it doesn't - I think it was Mike Leavitt's attorney brother that actively went after some of these polygs. You are absolutely right in that this is such a no-brainer. A polygamist judge???? A few years back it was a polygamist cop in the news. And these folks are sworn to uphold the law? Strange indeed. Perhaps we should all pack our bags and move to Idaho. Oops - do y'all still have those skinheads up north? :Crazy:

mamajama

Mama-pajama,

Here's a note from the book "God's Brothel" by Andrea Moore-Emmett: "In 1998, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said he thought polygamy was a protected freedom, only to later retract that statement after being informed that it is against the law."

But then in 2001, Mike's brother David, the prosecuting attorney in Juab County, Utah, successfully brought Tom Green (spit) to a conviction, though he himself was voted out of office at the following election. I guess God looks after His own, eh? :Crazy:

And we booted the skin-heads out of North Idaho several years back, when the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully brought a civil suit against the Aryan Nations in Hayden Lake, and brought their organization down. Now, aside from a few nut-bags hiding out in the woods (look up Ruby Ridge on google...), we're much safer! And RABIDLY conservative! And getting TWO new temples!

So there ya go...

[hamar]

Found this in today's newspaper:



Now granted, that's his attorney speaking, but I don't doubt there are many in Utah who would agree with the logic (if you can call it that). What is amazing is that there is even a question! Even though former Governor Leavitt had to be reminded (while in office) that polygamy is AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' LAW, the rest of us seem to be very aware of that fact! Why is it even a question, therefore, whether or not this guy should be left on the bench?

Would the same argument hold true if he beat his wife and molested his daughter, both of which would be his "private behavior in his home"? Good hell. Perhaps the President of Iran meant Utah should be "wiped off the map" last week rather than Israel. (Of course, Utahn's think they're Israelis anyway... :rolleyes: )

Silverfox, Mamajama, Dancinfree, Aether, Rainangel, ya'll oughta be gettin' over there to help clean house of these kinds of bastards from your home state! Ride hard and show 'em a little PostMo justice...

Now let us keep in mind puleez, that this attorney is being paid very well to defend this poor maligned soul. His defense is pretty limited here so he has to grab whatever limb he can grasp. Noted, this limb is very weak, and will likely fail, but it is probably the only thing he has to grab onto at the moment and better a weak limb than none at all. After all it is the difference between getting paid and not getting paid, when all is said and done. WTF!? :duh

[silverfox]

Found this in today's newspaper:



Now granted, that's his attorney speaking, but I don't doubt there are many in Utah who would agree with the logic (if you can call it that). What is amazing is that there is even a question! Even though former Governor Leavitt had to be reminded (while in office) that polygamy is AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' LAW, the rest of us seem to be very aware of that fact! Why is it even a question, therefore, whether or not this guy should be left on the bench?

Would the same argument hold true if he beat his wife and molested his daughter, both of which would be his "private behavior in his home"? Good hell. Perhaps the President of Iran meant Utah should be "wiped off the map" last week rather than Israel. (Of course, Utahn's think they're Israelis anyway... :rolleyes: )

Silverfox, Mamajama, Dancinfree, Aether, Rainangel, ya'll oughta be gettin' over there to help clean house of these kinds of bastards from your home state! Ride hard and show 'em a little PostMo justice...

I've been watching this story for a couple days. The logic is of course F*ed up big time. Allowing him his "privacy" to practice something illegal will only open up a can of worms.

We'd have to allow way too much to accomodate his sappy ass.

What is so mind blowing is we are talking about the LAW and he is a JUDGE. YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!

:Puking :Puking :Puking

[noodle]

[QUOTE=peter_mary]

Here's a note from the book "God's Brothel" by Andrea Moore-Emmett: "In 1998, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said he thought polygamy was a protected freedom, only to later retract that statement after being informed that it is against the law."
Lord have mercy. Let's hope that Leavitt has researched bird flu a little better. :Crazy:

And we booted the skin-heads out of North Idaho several years back, when the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully brought a civil suit against the Aryan Nations in Hayden Lake, and brought their organization down.
Yee-ha! Make room P_M ! I'm moving up there!

And RABIDLY conservative! And getting TWO new temples!
:confused: ::sigh:: ....nevermind...
mamajama

[lunaverse]

I hate to be unpopular here... But I have to speak my mind...

I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy *in and of itself*. People should be able to marry who ever they want, as many times as they want, of whatever gender they want. Why is it legally ok to be sexually promiscious so long as you don't get emotionally attached or commit to more than one?

However, with that said, it is wrong to: Suppress and abuse women, to marry young teenagers, to force (or coersively persuade) women into marriage with you, to kill or banish young men in the group so there are more young girls for old men leaders, to create an environment that fosters sexual abuse, to force women into sex even if you're married to them, to have dozens of kids you can't support, and all the other problems we've seen specifically with Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy (and oldschool mainstream Mormon polygamy).

So on the very base principle of the thing, anyone should be able to have as many wives (or live-in girlfriends or boyfriends or whatever current laws and your situation allows) and still be a judge or policeman... so long as actual abuses are not occurring.

I think the many problems we're seeing in S. Utah, etc., are due specifically to religious fundamentalism mixing with polygamy, not with poly* itself. (Where * is all the poly combos -- polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, polyfidelity, and polywannacracker).

... I think I'll just go back to my closet now ...

Luna

[aether]

Way to go, Lunaverse. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing... but I'm young and have on occasion been called too immature and inexperienced to comment on such matters.

But I like the idea of being able to marry whoever I want without any limitations. The government should have no say in who I love and want to marry. What if I want to have two husbands? Who are they to say I can't? *grumble*

[why me]

Way to go, Lunaverse. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing... but I'm young and have on occasion been called too immature and inexperienced to comment on such matters.

But I like the idea of being able to marry whoever I want without any limitations. The government should have no say in who I love and want to marry. What if I want to have two husbands? Who are they to say I can't? *grumble*
Well...aether you are too young and immature to be commenting on something as serious as polygamy... :D Could you say something on teenage dating and its current trends and directions? Thanks!! :cool:

[silverfox]

I hate to be unpopular here... But I have to speak my mind...

I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy *in and of itself*. People should be able to marry who ever they want, as many times as they want, of whatever gender they want. Why is it legally ok to be sexually promiscious so long as you don't get emotionally attached or commit to more than one?

However, with that said, it is wrong to: Suppress and abuse women, to marry young teenagers, to force (or coersively persuade) women into marriage with you, to kill or banish young men in the group so there are more young girls for old men leaders, to create an environment that fosters sexual abuse, to force women into sex even if you're married to them, to have dozens of kids you can't support, and all the other problems we've seen specifically with Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy (and oldschool mainstream Mormon polygamy).

So on the very base principle of the thing, anyone should be able to have as many wives (or live-in girlfriends or boyfriends or whatever current laws and your situation allows) and still be a judge or policeman... so long as actual abuses are not occurring.

I think the many problems we're seeing in S. Utah, etc., are due specifically to religious fundamentalism mixing with polygamy, not with poly* itself. (Where * is all the poly combos -- polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, polyfidelity, and polywannacracker).

... I think I'll just go back to my closet now ...

Luna

I agree. I have no issues with the exception that this is a judge breaking a law. The laws need to be changed. My hubby is a cop. Oaths are taken and it's very serious. He takes his job very seriously.

What I don't get is why do they acutally "marry" and why are those marriages even considered "legal". They must be performed legally and paperwork must be created to support it??

It appears that he didn't think the "marriages" would even be considered legal. Guess it depends on who's watching.

Regardless, in his very public role in the community this is questionable behavior, IMO. What if he is presented with a case of forced polyg marriage? Would he be able to make fair decisions? (just thinking out loud)

It would be like having a crack head judge rule on a junkie's illegal behavior.

[aaronlfa]

I use to get so embarrassed every time the subject of Polygamy would come up in conversation or made public in the media. I hated telling people that I am from Utah because I could see in their eyes that they speculated that I must be a polygamist or come from a polygamist background (the latter being true, great grandma I think was #4 wife to great grand pappy).

Now, I actually like every time a polygamy conversation comes up or a polygamy case is made public. The LDS church continues to try and pretend like it never happened to get acceptance by the general population. The more strange cases that come public (“I am a judge and I got three wives at home”), the more the LDS church has to admit to the truth that they practiced this very strange LAW for almost 70 years. And, sorry, but I have to disagree with Luna and Aether, as a married man, I have to say that there is no room in a marriage for another emotional relationship with a third human being in the mix of trying to keep a family together (unless it is Angelina Jolie :)).

I watched a very interesting documentary about one of the polygamist cults in Southern Utah that actually exiled many of their sons from the community because there wasn’t enough girls to go around for all the men to have polygamist relationships. Talk about being messed up. These boys didn’t know what to think. It was all very sad and could have been me if Brigham Young had is way.

[peter_mary]

I hate to be unpopular here... But I have to speak my mind...

I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy *in and of itself*. People should be able to marry who ever they want, as many times as they want, of whatever gender they want.

Luna
On the face of it, I don't disagree. I can join with the ACLU on this one, and make the argument that the constitution protects the right of Americans to believe whatever their conscience dictates.

However...

The courts of this land (ironic in the current situation) have also drawn a line between "what you believe privately" and "what you actually practice." Nobody can tell someone, for instance, that they "can't" believe in tossing your first-born male child into a pit of fire...but they CAN, and rightfully DO, tell you that you can't actually do that and not go to jail. Sometimes healthy societies have to draw a line in the sand between what you think and what you do.

See, here's how I make sense out of the anti-polygamy thing. If a couple of grown-ups get together and say, "Hey, we all dig each other, and we all want to live together, and we want to say we're one big happy family," then I say, "Whatever."

But in the practice of religious polygamy, that runs afoul with the first children that born of that kind of arrangement. Sure, maybe their parents were consenting adults, but if you are a child raised with fundamentalist Mormon parents telling you that if you don't participate in plural marriage you cannot achieve salvation, have you now lost your freedom to be a "consenting adult" yourself? In theory, of course the answer is "no." But in practice, I think the answer is a resounding "yes."

And while we can argue that it's all okay in the absence of abuse of women and children, is it realistic to expect that it can happen in the absence of abuse? Take my hypothetical child above, for instance. What is the likelihood that she'll be married off to someone EARLY to prevent her from escaping once she realizes she MIGHT have choices? From my reading on polygamy, the likelihood is almost 100%.

Furthermore, virtually all fundamentalist polygamy makes no bones about the belief that men are the "gods" of the household, and women and children are his possessions. That again diminshes the rights and freedoms of women in such unions, and the very belief, whether they themselves participate in it or not, is abusive. We want to rescue women who find themselves in co-dependent relationships with abusive men. They are often too unhealthy to leave, despite the fact that it is clear to the rest of us that they are being harmed. They may even subscribe, as many Muslims do, that it is the husband's God-given duty and obligation to beat his wife if she makes mistake or sins against God. Well, polygamy places women in the very same situation, and even though they themselves might believe it is essential for their salvation, it's still sick, twisted and wrong.

There is a very real difference between "free love" that might be expressed in non-traditional family units of consenting adults, and the practice of "fundamentalist polygamy." People can live with whomever they choose. Call it "an open marriage with live-in partners," if you want. But with fundamentalist polygamy, it MUST be the case that the next generation perceives itself to be OBLIGATED to the practice, and they DON'T get to choose without some awful consequences resulting. And that's why it's wrong.

Think about how hard it was for each of us to leave the Church...and most of us live in cities and towns where there is some diversity of religions (albeit some of us live in towns with less diversity than others... :rolleyes: ), with structures in place to support someone who leaves their religion. Now what about someone who lives in Colorado City, Arizona? Or Pinesdale, Montana? Or Hilldale, Utah? Places where all the city leaders, all the support systems, the schools, the police, everybody, is in place to ensure that the "sacred principle" of polygamy is safely practiced? Now how hard is THAT to escape? It makes my own look like child's play.

So while I agree with Luna and Aether that in an ideal world, people should be free to explore their sexual/marrital/living relationships in whatever manner makes sense to them, that ideal world breaks down as soon as you introduce the twin complicators of children and religion.

And I, for one, don't think it is therefore in any way condusive to healthy living, healthy individuals, or healthy communities.

At least, that's how it appears from here in Outer Darkness...

[lunaverse]

Regardless, in his very public role in the community this is questionable behavior, IMO. What if he is presented with a case of forced polyg marriage? Would he be able to make fair decisions? (just thinking out loud)

It would be like having a crack head judge rule on a junkie's illegal behavior.

Perhaps the ethical thing to do when any judge is involved with any controversial matters in his personal life, to stand down on any case that has anything to do with those matters.

The crack analogy isn't a good one, btw, because crack has actually been shown to impair mental ability... whereas polygamy has not. Fundamentalism has though!!.... so maybe it is a good analogy! hehe

Luna

[lunaverse]

And, sorry, but I have to disagree with Luna and Aether, as a married man, I have to say that there is no room in a marriage for another emotional relationship with a third human being in the mix of trying to keep a family together (unless it is Angelina Jolie :)).


My current take on the matter is that for *some* people, monogamy is the right thing. For others, it is not. I know many people who are married or in long-term serious relationships who also have secondary partners... and they live very balanced and happy lives. I also know of a few happy triads (where three people are all in relationships with one another).

If you look at the statistics, monogamy in humans *and* animals is the exception, not the rule. (Even animal species once thought to be monogamous, they have found have offspring by non-mates. This includes the old mainstays -- geese and wolves.)

Most people just hide the fact that they are having affairs, which is very, very unhealthy, IMO. Polyamory specifically seeks to open lines of communication between partners, and if there's a desire to seek other experiences, that can be discussed rather than suppressed, only to be later expressed in destructive behaviors.

But I do not invalidate those who have found happiness in monogamy, that this is the right thing for them. It's sort of like being hetrosexual or homosexual.... It's not "right" or "wrong", it just is how people are. The important thing, in my mind, is to figure out how you are, accept it in yourself, and respect the choices of others to do the same.

Luna

[lunaverse]

Well, polygamy places women in the very same situation, and even though they themselves might believe it is essential for their salvation, it's still sick, twisted and wrong.

There is a very real difference between "free love" that might be expressed in non-traditional family units of consenting adults, and the practice of "fundamentalist polygamy." People can live with whomever they choose. Call it "an open marriage with live-in partners," if you want. But with fundamentalist polygamy, it MUST be the case that the next generation perceives itself to be OBLIGATED to the practice, and they DON'T get to choose without some awful consequences resulting. And that's why it's wrong.

Hi PM!

I don't think we disagree much at all, except perhaps on a few semantics. *Polygamy* doesn't place women in a bad situation, Mormon Fundamentalism does.

I wholeheartedly agree that Mormon Fundamentalism, by and large, is extremely dysfunctional and causes all the problems listed above. (With perhaps the exception of a California group I heard about which went the liberal/hippy direction, but I haven't studied them much...)

We don't have to wait for an ideal world to see what poly* is like without the cult mindset. There are polyamorous communities all over the world, and while they are not without their flaws, their problems aren't even of the same type of those of M-fundies.

These people are primarily (with some exceptions) open-minded and fair. They practice their beliefs not out of a moral pressure (with heaven/hell as the reward) but out of an express desire to be themselves. It is not a moral imperitive, it's an innert choice. Respect of others and their choices & beliefs is also held in high regard. (Again, with some exceptions -- there's not much respect for Republicans. :) But I'm sure if an honest Rep. ever happened into one of these groups, and stood up for themselves, respect would quickly follow.)

As such, they pass these concepts on to their children... Children are not forced to marry anyone. Women are not abused. There are few absolutes of right and wrong, and declaring a belief contrary to the community ideals (i.e. recycling is wasteful!) will not get you shunned.. People might think you a little weird, but they will remain your friends with full acceptance.

This proves in my mind that poly* is not the deciding factor, but that the cult mindset is... whether it be in an ideal world, or the reality we now live in.

Luna

[peter_mary]

Hi PM!

I don't think we disagree much at all, except perhaps on a few semantics. *Polygamy* doesn't place women in a bad situation, Mormon Fundamentalism does.

Luna
No, I'm sure we're actually pretty aligned on this one...it's just that I am inclined to leap to the Mormon version of polygamy when ever the word is used, and step back to Islamic or other fundamentalist version if someone says, "Nope, not talkin' about the Mormons."

And particularly because this thread began with a discussion of a Mormon, polygamous judge in Utah, this was the space my head was functioning in. So...no disagreement on the possibilities, but I tend to err on the side of cautious because my own exposure to poly-whatever has been in the context of religion...which tends to sour most things for this old reprobate! :D

[free thinker]

Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon PolygamyMormon
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Joseph Smith
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy
Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy Mormon Polygamy


ft

[lunaverse]

And particularly because this thread began with a discussion of a Mormon, polygamous judge in Utah, this was the space my head was functioning in. So...no disagreement on the possibilities, but I tend to err on the side of cautious because my own exposure to poly-whatever has been in the context of religion...which tends to sour most things for this old reprobate! :D

Sure, sure. :) I just wanted to clarify to the board that the lifestyle (and similar lifestyles) itself is not the problem. :) You know, so my silence would not be taken for consent and all.

Luna

[aaronlfa]

My current take on the matter is that for *some* people, monogamy is the right thing. For others, it is not. I know many people who are married or in long-term serious relationships who also have secondary partners... and they live very balanced and happy lives. I also know of a few happy triads (where three people are all in relationships with one another).

If you look at the statistics, monogamy in humans *and* animals is the exception, not the rule. (Even animal species once thought to be monogamous, they have found have offspring by non-mates. This includes the old mainstays -- geese and wolves.)

Most people just hide the fact that they are having affairs, which is very, very unhealthy, IMO. Polyamory specifically seeks to open lines of communication between partners, and if there's a desire to seek other experiences, that can be discussed rather than suppressed, only to be later expressed in destructive behaviors.

But I do not invalidate those who have found happiness in monogamy, that this is the right thing for them. It's sort of like being hetrosexual or homosexual.... It's not "right" or "wrong", it just is how people are. The important thing, in my mind, is to figure out how you are, accept it in yourself, and respect the choices of others to do the same.

Luna

OK, look at that, you go off and make me think. You make some excellent points.

I see where you are going and I guess I do agree with you to a certain extent. I think I was in the same boat as P_M; whenever I hear the word Polygamy it makes me sick, but I guess it has to do with my only exposure to the practice being through Church History study. I am going have to discuss this one with my wife. :)

So many people in long term relationships break up not because they don't care for each other, or someone did something wrong in the relationship, but because the relationship lost passion. IMHO People need expect that in most relationships this is very normal and it is OK. This is just my expereince though.

Maybe there would be less divorce if people were just honest about it and consider options for keeping passion in thier life somehow even if it doesn't include with your life partner all the time. This is all new to me so I have to chew on this more.

For whatever reason I continnue to have a picture of becoming friends with a couple who are swingers and me and my wife getting a proposition to switch mates and that still doen's sit well with me . . . yet :)

[lunaverse]

So many people in long term relationships break up not because they don't care for each other, or someone did something wrong in the relationship, but because the relationship lost passion. IMHO People need expect that in most relationships this is very normal and it is OK. This is just my expereince though.

Maybe there would be less divorce if people were just honest about it and consider options for keeping passion in thier life somehow even if it doesn't include with your life partner all the time. This is all new to me so I have to chew on this more.

Exactly... the average length of marriage today is 7 years... the same as it was 250 years ago. Back then though, your partner tended to die off rather than leave you.

What little reading I've done on the chemical make-up of relationships is that the initial high of falling in love is caused by dopemine. The long-term "cuddle" chemical is acetylcholine(sp).

A recent article Psychology Today recommended going out and trying new activities to keep the fire of dopemine going, as this chemical is stimulated by newness. It fit my paradigm of what polyamorous people call "NRE" -- new relationship energy, and how sometimes when a relationship with a long-term primary is starting to fade, feelings from an exciting new relationship will spill over into the primary relationship, rejuvinating and bringing the couple closer together.

For whatever reason I continnue to have a picture of becoming friends with a couple who are swingers and me and my wife getting a proposition to switch mates and that still doen's sit well with me . . . yet :)

And don't feel you "have" to just because I'm extoling the virtues of the lifestyle.. :) I'm not trying to convert anyone. Do whatever works and makes you two happy! That is so important.

Also I should clarify the subtle difference between swingers and polyamory (these two groups do NOT get along well)... Swingers are adament that it's only about sex -- no emotional involvement! Poly people are adament that it's all about the emotions, and sex isn't even necessary...

Great... the level of knowledge I'm showing on this topic is sure to out me!! But I'm only dating one person right now, honest!!! *blush*

Luna

[aaronlfa]

Wow, the things I am so naive about scares me. Thanks for the education, er I mean post! :)

[flotsam]

For whatever reason I continnue to have a picture of becoming friends with a couple who are swingers and me and my wife getting a proposition to switch mates and that still doen's sit well with me . . . yet :)

Well, you know, with pecks like those, I'd bet both of them would want you. :D

[flotsam]

I'd suggest to all y'all that you pick up a copy of "Women of Principle" by Janet Bennion. She's an anthropologist who lived in a Mormon fundamentalist town for a year. She presents a portrait of these people (the women especially) that is quite provocative, and ultimately paradigm upsetting.

Her basic thesis is that women are ironically empowered by the patriarchal system. For example, a divorced woman with children will find only a marginal place in mainstream Mormon and American society. But, if she marries into a fundamentalist situation, she can suddenly be the wife of a high-ranking priesthood holder. She's suddenly on her way to the top tier of heaven. And she has a husband. And she has a close-knit network of sister wives and neighbors, who provide much better companionship and support than any of her friends in the "outside world" did.

And, there are power structures for women there too. They're informal, just as they are in mainstream Mormonism, but they exert a definite influence. Women are indispensible to these cultures. If you are a woman, and you prefer the company of women over the company of men, and you want life centered around a strong concept, and you want to be indispensible, marry into a fundamentalist group. You may go to an early grave through overwork and child bearing, but you will go knowing that you were engaged in the difficult, but ultimately rewarding work of preparing the kingdom of God.

Sounds better than scraping by on three jobs, paying through the nose for day care, having zero time for relationships, and listening to church leaders tip toe around you situation.