Since you don’t understand my objection, I’ll explain.
It is clear to me that this thread is riding a very strange line. There are people who don’t believe in polygamy period. And there are those that believe polygamy can work, but the Sister Wives isn’t a good example of of good polygamy. I think the folks that are anti-poly are riding the glory of the well-given arguments of the anti-Sister Wives.
Now, I’ve read the thread closely, and I can clearly see that there are posters (well, me) saying that there are women who exist that may choose polygamy of their own free will. I felt Diosa’s sarcastic post mocked* that position as equal to thinking kids should be able to choose. I object to that.
*not that I took it personally that she mocked MY position. I’m just trying to make a point. Love Diosa’s posts, big fan, for realz, etc.
I can’t post anything in support of " (Skald the Rhymer) *Cite that incest and pedophilia are typical of “mormon” families, please?" *nor did I make any such contention. I said nothing of the sort, I made no such contention, I make no such contention about the Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka LDS. Please stop saying I did so.
I don’t expect everyone to follow my posting history in detail, and frankly if anybody does I would be surprised and a little squicked. But I’ve said on multiple occasions that I dislike rhetorical questions and prefer to avoid them. I’m sure I sometimes slip up and do so unthinkingly, which is why I wrote “prefer to avoid.”
I was, again, asking for information. Rhetorical questions are for children and Welshmen.
Well, I think if you set aside Dio, who clearly has some sort of anti-polyamory hobby horse going, you’ll find that most of the thread agrees with you. Sure, consensual polygamy is possible, even probable with grown women. Conversely, we can all agree that under-age polygamy is almost certainly non-consensual, especially if the woman is 12 or 13.
Where the gray area emerges is what to do with women who come from a closed and repressive religious society who may or may not have freedom of movement, and almost certainly don’t have the freedom of association. This is something I am still torn about. Many (or maybe most) of these women are willing participants, but we can’t separate the willing from the unwilling if they are trapped in compounds, stranded in the middle of nowhere, having their many, many children held hostage. How can we determine who is willing and who isn’t? We have to open up these Fundamentalist Mormon communities and get some sunlight in there.
Your “question”, starting with a premise that I did not make, is not a question at all. You were not asking for further info, clearly to me, you took one line out of context, changed the wording, and thereby put words in my mouth.
If you had bothered to read the thread, the question which you may be attempting to ask has been answered, complete with cites. Please read the entire thread.
When you have an actual question, come back.
No, because my opinion isn’t dependent on them. They just prompted this thread - if they were exposed as <fill in the blank with whatever> it’s about them, not about plural marriage. They would just be another example of people who are not happy with it - I was specific that my opinion is about people who are.
That’s a running theme in many people’s objections and my replies that has been ignored: the tendency to blame plural marriage itself for whatever flaws exist in this family or any other, when there’s little reason to make that leap. It’s kinda like child abusing priests: lots of people leap to the conclusion that celibacy leads to pedophilia, when that’s not really very logical or likely. What’s much more likely is that people who are grappling with sexual deviance might choose the priesthood as a means to control themselves, then find that it didn’t work and what it really did was give them unprecedented access to a vulnerable class of people they could exploit in secret. But celibacy itself doesn’t create pedophiles.
Well, plural marriage may be rife with certain behaviors and dynamics not because it is the cause of them, but because it attracts the sort of people who are already disposed to certain behaviors and dynamics.
]
.
You’re doing here what you think I’m doing: making a decision about something based on whether the Brown family can exemplify it or not. Maybe the Brown wives can’t work through it - does that seal the argumentfor whether it is possible at all? Why should it?
Having said that, I don’t reject your fundamental position, however you arrived at it, that sexual jealousy, if it is present in a person to start with, cannot be worked through. At least, not out of hand. I tend to believe that just about anything can be worked through or changed, but that it depends on the person, the method, and the reasons.
It’s also a matter of degree and situation; I think it’s entirely possible to free oneself from sexual jealousy within a plural marriage without being free of it outside the marriage. I’m not asserting that it’s been achieved here, only that it’s possible.
In the end, I’d really hate to believe that we are all forever incapable of changing our responses to things, wouldn’t you? That seems very defeatist.
And we have very fluid definitions of what constitutes a child and what children are capable of and responsible for, so your statement doesn’t mean much.
Which shouldn’t be taken to mean that I approve of fundamentalist religious communities promoting, permitting, or requiring women of any age to be married to someone that they did not choose for themselves, only that I’ve personally known 13 year olds who were more mature than 20 year olds I’ve personally known, chronological age is not a reliable indicator of much, it’s just the only convenient way we have of drawing lines that need to be drawn.
But you keep defending THEM, not the concept of Poly. Even after we have said time and time again, we are NOT attacking Poly as a form of relationship at all, just when its part of a coerced religous fanantic abusive culture.
We have not been "blaming plural marriage itself ", we have been blaming this particular coerced religous fanantic abusive culture. There is plenty of reasons to make that leap.
The main person here doing the “ignoring” is you.You are refusing to make this about Poly itself, but insist upon defending the coerced religous fanantic abusive culture whence this poor family comes from.
Once you admit you’re wrong, that this family, part of a coerced religous fanantic abusive culture- is an extremey poor example to use to show that “polygamy is an excellent way to raise a family”, then you’d stop getting much of an argument.
Stop defending these abusive religous zealots, and start defending Poly.
I too am torn. Because while my gut tells me that no one, given a choice, would choose to live like that, evidence tells me I’m wrong.
But I have an enormous bias against organized religion of almost any and every variety, and not least because the vast majority of it is misogynist to one degree or another, so it’s probably a good thing that I don’t make the decisions about other people’s religious practices.
I haven’t seen any evidence that these people are part of a fanatic abusive culture. The closest that anything has come is some gossipy stuff in Star magazine from “sources” about the church they supposedly belong to.
Apart from that, all other reports and evidence point to a poly family that is definitely Mormon, and that’s about it. The overriding theme from the people attacking them has appeared to be that we can jump to the conclusion that they are part of a fanatic abusive culture because they are poly, that their poly lifestyle is the evidence of their supposed participation in an abusive fanatic religious cult.
And that’s the very definition of a circular argument.
I’ve read everything, I’ve watched all seven episodes of the show, the Nightline interview and Oprah, and if these people are part of a fanatical abusive religious cult they have done a stellar job of hiding it. Even Sarahfeena finally came around to realizing that the real power in that family lies with the women, unequal marriage options notwithstanding.
They have all (except Janelle) been raised in Mormon communities that accept polygamy, so yes, they would certainly be more open and accepting about it than people who have not been. But abuse? Coercion? Zealotry? I havent’ seen it.
Your gut is right, the evidence presented on the show is biased, slanted and one sided. There is scads of evidence outside that show that proves that the coerced religous fanantic abusive culture they belong to is nigh choiceless for the women.
Next- they are not part of Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka LDS. Thus, they are not Mormon. I don’t know how many times I have to say that.
"As a fundamentalist Mormon family, belonging to the Apostolic United Brethren Church,[13] the Browns’ faith does not align with the mainstream Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Since the practice of polygamy has been officially banned within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1890, the Browns have no affiliation with the church."
You may call them “fundamentalist mormon”, but they are not Mormon as that term is properly resevered for the Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka LDS. I even posted a link and cite that said that is the proper usage.
Thus, we have proof that they are members of an abusive fanatic religious cult, as all fundamentalist Mormon groups are abusive fanatic religious cults- to one extent or another. The Browns group is related to the worst of the worst- the FLDS. We have provided you with tons of solid cites which show that the FLDS is an undoubted abusive fanatic religious cult.
Now, yes, we know less about the Brown’s particular branch, and certainly it doesn’t appear to be as bad. Still their lifestyle come purely from their being a “fundamentalist Mormon family, belonging to the Apostolic United Brethren Church”. Thus, there’s no circular argument. We KNOW that the fundamentalist mormon groups are abusive fanatic religious cults, there’s solid evidence of that. The Browns *admit *they belong to a fundamentalist mormon group, they do not claim they are members of the Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka LDS.
There are no “Mormon communities that accept polygamy”. The Mormon Church does not allow or accept polygamy.
Well, then I think you’re obviously watching the show through your own filter. And interestingly enough, your filter has the opposite bias from mine, and your conclusion about this family is opposite from mine! As I said, we all have bias.
Sure, maybe. But joining the priesthood and molesting kids isn’t really a good answer to pedophilic tendencies, and likewise, maybe if people have intimacy issues and trust issues and self-esteem issues, they’d be better off working them out with a shrink instead of self-medicating as it were with this kind of relationship.
Well, given that you’re holding this family up as an excellent example of a poly family that has it all figured out, I’d hate to see how those who aren’t as balanced and stable deals with it.
Well, I don’t really believe that we are incapable of that, but I also think that there isn’t really a compelling reason that I can see to do so, especially when working through it seems to cause so much trouble.
No, not really. I think, yes, as I said, the women conspire to make the man somewhat ineffectual as a husband. But there are other power dynamics going on. The women aren’t a united front; the power doesn’t lie with him, but it doesn’t lie with any one individual woman, either. They need each other to keep him where they want him, but that doesn’t mean any one of them gets what she wants.
But what’s more important, and has more to do with the religion itself than the household dynamic, is what are the social and religious pressures they get to stay put if things aren’t working for them? I don’t know anything about this church of theirs. It’s not the LDS, it’s not the FLDS, but seems to be some gray area in between. It’s clearly still a male-dominated religion, and I don’t know what will happen to any of them if they want to leave.
I think that polygamy could work, and maybe sometimes does work. But if the polygamy involves a big gender imbalance and arises in the midst of a culture that esteems polygamy, it’s very hard to figure out where choice ends and cultural pressure (and sometimes more insidious things than “pressure”) begins.
It’s one of those things where you could read it in fiction and the author could create a situation where you can read what each character is thinking and feeling and therefore be confident that in the world of the book it’s all freely chosen. But in real life, we don’t get to read minds. Um, at least I don’t. So we’re left with our brains and our eyes and our gut reactions and a whole bunch of cultural baggage and expectation and filtering to boot.
I’m not a cultural relativist who says all choices are equally beneficial for the individual or society. I’m not interested in preventing women from being “sister wives,” but I don’t have to admire it or hold it up as an ideal, either.
And since the male-female demographics are close enough to 50-50, I’ve never understood just what is supposed to happen to the men who can’t marry.
On the contrary. We have bright line legal definitions for what constitutes a child. what they’re capable of consenting to and what they’re responsible for.
You’ve been doing just that by defending this “family.”
This is delusional, and it’s what every creeper says who likes to bone 13 year olds.
Are you of the opinion that it’s ok to bone really mature 13 year olds?
But I’ve said on multiple occasions that I dislike rhetorical questions and prefer to avoid them. I’m sure I sometimes slip up and do so unthinkingly, which is why I wrote “prefer to avoid.”