Tag Archives: marriage

Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, Oh My God, Tiger Woods!

You would think by all the hullabaloo, the prime time furor and general gossip that no one ever ever ever has cheated before. Certainly not those famous people, our modern gods: rock stars, movie stars and sports stars.

I don’t read the paper or watch TV but do listen to enough radio news (daily) to be up on current affairs. So when I’m being inundated with Tiger Woods this and Tiger Woods that, you know it’s hit a high saturation point in the media.

Past Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said that “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” And likewise, the media has no business in the bedrooms of individuals. You would think we lived in a puritan world where every marriage is sacred until death do they part, with fidelity the center, and love binding everyone close. You would think there wasn’t a divorce rate at about 50% for first marriages (higher for subsequent marriages) in North America.

You would think that every two couples who read the news would be mum or offer no comment because probably one of them is cheating. Not all divorces mean people cheat but infidelity is the number one reason for divorce. So why does everyone care about yet another celebrity caught with his pants down and another woman involved? Because, like the rubber neckers that have to stop and stare at every accident, we revel in the misfortune of others, in the dirt and the downfall of the mighty. Because we’re petty and we want to see those more successful than us fail so that we can say they’re no better than us. Of course, if it wasn’t for media and the population putting these people on pedestals in the first place, their indiscretions would not matter as much.

When it was reported that Kennedy had an affair with Marilyn Monroe it titillated somewhat but that might have been after the fact. With Clinton’s blow job or not from Monica Lewinsky, the US government spent millions investigating it, yet polls showed the majority of the public didn’t give a damn. That Tiger Woods is taking  a break from pro-golf over this is frankly, ridiculous. What does his personal life have to do with his professional life, unless he’s an emotional wreck and can’t play? If he could still play, being caught in coital indsicretions shouldn’t matter. I don’t care if he runs around in pink panties and oinks like a pig. What matters is that he plays golf. Now, overall I don’t care one iota about golf, and I equally don’t care about Mr. Woods’ private life.

But what gets me over and over again is that anytime some famous personage has been found to be doing something naughty everyone titters and gasps and is “SHOCKED.” And yet the two-faced standard is that most of those who are aghast have the same indiscretions. And really, can it even be helped when most ads for everything from clothing to booze use sex to sell these items. All you have to do is look at a billboard or a magazine to see women and men in provocative poses with sexy pouts upon their faces. You’ll be popular, you’ll have sex, the beautiful people will loooove you if you buy this product.

Does this mean we live in a culture of loose morals? To the true fundamental puritan types, yes. But it doesn’t mean those people lead any happier of a marital life. It’s just their culture might not allow divorce or for a person to have frequent sex or for anyone to be trained in how to give sexual pleasure. In all cultures and cases, whether people of fame, infamy or unknown to anyone but their friends, what happens in the bedroom should be of concern only to those in the bedroom (barring of course abuse) and anyone they’re in a partnership with.

The biggest culprit in all this is the media, creating a frenzy, and chewing over Tiger’s life, sharks in bloodied waters. It is voyeuristic in the extreme and all the “in-depth looks” at Tiger’s life, wife, mistress, the sordid interviews, the speculation should just be stopped so that we can get to real news. If the media is tittering over infidelity, then they should turn the spotlight on themselves and ask why they have such a kinky, unhealthy and unwholesome interest in his life.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, entertainment, life, news, people, sports

Love, Sex and Inanimate Objects

Just when you think you’ve seen it all, up pops another twist on the skein of life. I’m used to reading about, and hearing about different fetishes. I write erotica as well as other subjects so most of it I’ve heard of. Some of it is downright weird and some even revolting but I’ve heard of it.

What I have not heard of, or didn’t until yesterday, was objectum sexuals. It doesn’t exactly roll of the tongue and seems a blend of Latin and English but perhaps that’s to be expected from a self-proclaimed, very limited group of people who classify themselves as in love with or having intimate relations with inanimate objects.

love, inanimate objects, objectum sexualis, crazy people, marriage

Erika married the Eiffel Toweer (from http://blkandred.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html)

The article listed here from The Globe and Mail mentions a woman, Erika, who had a special feeling when she was at the Eiffel tower. She continued to visit it, again and again, touching it, spending all day with it. Eventually she performed a commitment ceremony with the tower, and friends as witnesses and changed her name to Erika Eiffel. The picture shows she wears an Eiffel tower necklace and has the tower tattooed between her breasts.

swordHer past relationships have been with an archery bow, a bridge and a sword (is that another euphemism for rough play?). I wonder if she’s ever had a relationship with a person and if she did so at the same time as dating the bridge. Was she then cheating on both partners, the animate and inanimate? And if she’s with a female object, is she then a lesbian? Ms Eiffel began a group called Objectum Sexuality Internationale (Latin, English and French in that name?) for people who love inanimate objects.

The article goes on to mention the man who is dating two soundboards and keeps them in his pocket, and fondles and kisses them. Is he cheating or just polyamorous? There’s a woman who is going to marry a roller coaster. Which denomination will perform that marriage or will it be a justice of the peace? But almost all religions require that both people give consent. These are not two people but woman and thing, however the thing cannot give its consent. I doubt that that marriage will be legal in the eyes of the law.

So okay, these people get a warm fuzzy glow about some thing but to marry or have a commitment ceremony with it? If I take these people seriously in their choice of partners, then I have to ask, how do they know that that bridge or tower or roller coaster wants to marry them or have a commitment ceremony with them? Aren’t they forcing their affections on something that can’t object? If they also are married or date people, then aren’t they cheating? What if the bridge wants a monogamous relationship? How do they know?

And what if the Eiffel tower already had a ceremony with someone else? Is it cheating? Do they know if the tower is monogamous or polyamorous? Maybe it’s saying in its quiet metallic voice, “Don’t touch me there. Get away from me. I’m sick of all you people spitting on me, pissing on me, dropping your gum and garbage all over my surface. Just leave me alone.”

Although a third of these self-identified objectum sexuals are supposedly diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome or autism (where it is sometimes hard for people to form relationships, but not always) there are only 100 people in this group, or at least those who have “come out.” That’s not even one percent of any population. Still, how can a person form a relationship with something that doesn’t feel, though Erika claims they are animists, therefore believing in a spirit in everything. There are animist religions but they don’t marry the objects in their religion (usually). What does it say when a person dates an object so that there are no discussions, no arguments, no objections to any behavior? Is it a sign that that person wants to control all aspects of a relationship?

Should I just turn a blind eye if I see a guy screwing a Volkswagen Beetle in a parking lot? After all, he can’t have it in to his place and he needs to maintain the relationship. In fact, in the US, men (or women I suppose) can buy neon colored, silicon testicles to hang from the back of their cars. Is this a form of penis extension or pumping up the image of masculine virility, or is it more objectum sexual? I’m not sure I want to know.

If I see a woman semi-naked and rubbing herself against a building, should I just presume it’s a normal relationship with her lover? So what’s next? Hmmm, dead people are inanimate. Should the deceased’s partner be able to maintain intimate relationships with the newly dead? Should there be a business in renting out preserved dead folks for loving relationships? We usually call this necrophilia.

I love chocolate but I suppose I’m a murderer as I tend to eat it. I love the color turquoise but I’m not about to get all intimate with every turquoise item I see. Maybe I should just lick and fondle it. That might be enough for both of us. I love my bed. I sleep with it every night. Maybe we should get married.

Still, for all this weird little piece of life makes me shake my head, I guess it doesn’t harm anyone, unless you consider the feelings of the objects.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, entertainment, humor, life, news, people, relationships, sex

What’s in a Name, and Changing It

Back around 1000 CE, surnames were not as common or set as they are now. Someone might just be known as John or Mary. If a second Mary showed up then you might be known as Mary of Kent, or Mary the weaver. John the smith or Liam of the potters’ field or Elizabeth from Gower got shortened in time to John Smith, Liam Pottersfield and Elizabeth Gower.

The taking of a surname started in the south and slowly spread north as cities and villages grew. The gentry were the first to take surnames and only around the 14th century did surnames become the norm for the common people.

When John Smith and Mary Kent married, she did not become Mary Smith but retained her name. Names became a little more standardized and were passed down in the family. No longer was there Erik son of Anders, and Bjorn son of Erik. They went through a transition of Erik Andersen and his son was Bjorn Eriksen. This is still done in the Scandinavian countries but I’m not sure if it changes per generation any more but there will be a Sigrid Eriksdottir and a Bjorn Eriksen, depending on your gender.

As far as English speaking, European culture went, the surnames stabilized. When John Smith and Mary Kent married, she did not become Mary Smith but retained her name, for a while. This was common practice but seems to have shifted somewhere between the 17th and 18th centuries, though it is hard to pin down when this change happened. There is some indication it was happening earlier. In  other cultures women may never change their names or take on hyphenated or other joined surnames.

Being that European culture of the time (and still) ran on a patrilineal system it’s no surprise. It’s been argued, but in most cases, it is a woman’s choice. In my mother’s era women were no longer entities of their own but became part of the man, Adam’s rib, so to speak, with marriage. Mary Kent became Mrs. Smith, but even moreso, she was Mrs. John Smith. No longer did she have a name or identity of her own. Mr. Smith remained the same, no matter if he was married, single or divorced. Miss Mary Kent advertised her availability with that honorific and that she belonged to someone when she took Mrs.

Because I believe so much in equality, I don’t think it’s right or fair that a woman always takes the man’s name. But “always” is not the way it is anymore. Rock stars, movie stars and doctors often keep their birth names, not changing when they marry. Married women might be Ms. now instead of Mrs.

The rules change in different countries and I was aghast to see that in England today (according to the website on name changes) a woman is still referred to as Mrs. John Smith as is “correct” and “traditional” according to the site. Because it’s tradition to have slavery, or to beat spouses or to throw out working TVs does not make it right. Traditions change. Some of the argument against keeping one’s birth name (if a woman) is because it will cause consternation, people won’t accept it and it will be difficult. In other words they’re saying, don’t rock the boat and be happy we let you vote.

I’m single but were I not I would not take my husband’s last name. I would keep my name or might consider hyphenating it. I know one couple that chose a brand new name for themselves and another couple that did the same but combined parts of their birth  names. But why should I change my identity and he assume that he doesn’t have to? Why do I have to become the posession of a man. I certainly would never ever become a Mrs. John Smith. I remember my mother and women of her era having trouble getting credit cards in their own names once they divorced, because the companies presumed they were with men and issued the cards in Mr. John Smith’s name.

In Canada, the rules change province by province. I believe certain human rights pertain across the country but what costs in name changes will change. In BC, each person can keep their birth name, the woman can take the man’s or the man can take the woman’s. Should they want to hyphenate or use both names, that becomes a legal change of name for which they must pay. But otherwise, they can keep their name or change to it at a later date, only paying those costs associated with getting new ID, like driver’s licenses or passports.

In Alberta, it’s mostly the same but I believe a man must pay if he changes his name to his wife’s. There is another example of something not being fair. It’s assumed a woman will change her name and a man will not. A woman doesn’t have to pay but a woman does. I just wonder when the world will see women as equal human beings. It happens in some places and in others, women have limited rights.

I’m not saying one shouldn’t change a name but I think each person should think before they do so: is it necessary? Why me? Why not him/her? Will my identity change? Do I have to belong to someone? Should we choose a completely new name? It goes on. I just think that people changing their names because “it’s always been done” is not reason enough.

Here is a thesis on the changing of women’s surnames.

http://www.bsu.edu/libraries/virtualpress/student/honorstheses/pdfs/C692_1991CoxDinaM.pdf

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, family, history, home, life, people, relationships

Incest, Betrayal and Genetic Sexual Attraction

CBC Radio today had a program talking about Genetic Sexual Attraction and how there was a certain need with some people who shared genetic material to be more than just brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son, and take it into sexual fulfillment. This raised my hackles, because I was victim of incest.

I have never hidden the fact that my father abused me and when my parents divorced when I was 12, that I never saw my father again. He died two years ago and it was nothing but a relief. Stating this will probably cause some grave repercussions with my family members. But my father was never made to pay for what he did. Why, is a complicated matter, which I can’t get into. To say I hated my father would be an accurate description of my emotions.

Two years ago two people betrayed me, in separate situations. I was absolutely devastated and depressed by this erosion of trust. I came to realize that part of the reason the betrayals knocked out my foundations was because the first betrayal of trust happened when I was four, with my father. I did not necessarily understand cultural moires and taboos at that time but I knew it was wrong and that I felt uncomfortable with what he did or tried to do. I’m sure that set up certain patterns in my conditioning.

One aspect of that conditioning is that I am absolutely, adamantly against incest and am disgusted by the thought of it. I read a fiction novel a year or so ago (The Blood of Angels by Stephen Gregory, winner of the Somerset Maughm award) about a man who in the course of the book becomes attracted to and consummates his relation with his sister. His life becomes more of a shipwreck to disastrous, horrific endings. It was a riveting book, well written, compelling and making no judgment but letting the tale tell itself. I was intrigued and felt both repulsion and compassion for the characters. That’s the sign of a good writer who can delicately pull in the reader’s emotions.

So I try to look at some things through other’s eyes. But there are strong taboos against such ideas as incest or sexual relations with family members. Yet, some cultures supported incest, such as the ancient Egyptians who kept their royal bloodline within the family, brother marrying sister and even the gods practiced incest. But then many gods did, such as the Greek and Roman ones, keeping divine within the group and then spreading it amongst select mortals.

The physiological problems of incest is of course inbreeding. But more, this program talked about a genetic attraction, which was stated as a normal thing. I did not hear all of the program but I question “normal.” What is normal is that most humans have a range of thoughts that can encompass taboo subjects, such as murder, suicide, indulgences, crimes, incest. What is not as normal is that most people do not act upon taboo thoughts.

There is a GSA site, http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/ which is supposed to be a support group for people in this situation. It stringently says this is for biologically related people who are mutually attracted where there was no “power over” (my quotes, not theirs) the other. Barbara Gonyo, who started the site, states that it is support on a subject that to most is:

1. misunderstood
2. shocking
3. to some unbelievable
4. taboo to society.

And…However, GSA is:

  • NOT an incest site as we have always understood the subject of incest
  • NOT a place to fantasize
  • NOT for incest victims of childhood abuse or their abusers
  • Not a porn site

That is a good thing to know and I believe there are some very conflicted people who must hide the relationships they have embarked upon. One member of the site stated that she wished people would leave them alone because they’re not hurting anyone. And in essence, this is a fundamental belief of mine, that a person can do what they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

But part of me thinks, having read a few messages on the site, that people are looking for justification for their acts, that they “are not alone” and therefore it’s okay. Maybe it is. But then I read about a mother and son who were caught kissing by her husband, or by two siblings who get together and requite their relationship from time to time even though one or the other is married to someone else and I can’t help but wonder about the aspects of right and wrong and how those boundaries have been breached. Not one of these people mentions the aspect of just plain ole cheating in what they’re doing. It seems that because they already have a special taboo relationship of  “genetic sexual attraction” that this negates all other things, relationships and constrictions of trust.

What does it matter if a sister cheats with her brother on her husband when her brother is just family? It is a love so strong, an attraction so deep that it matters most of all. Yet, people have felt these attractions throughout the ages and most not for their family members. And, throughout history, marriages have ended when a new attraction began. That, is in fact, human nature.

I’m not a psychologist so all that I’m stating here is just my opinion and obviously I’m biased. But I just feel that there is a matter of self-control and restraint that is overridden by these people. Yes, that happens to people who are not genetically related as well. But letting it come between an existing relationship is indulgent. I don’t condone cheating either. I would hazard that in some cases, where two family members have been reunited after a long separation (as in adoption), that there just might be a strong psychological need for that belonging and love of the biological parent or sibling that had been missing throughout life. It doesn’t have to be acted upon sexually but seems it sometimes is.

Is it right? Not by most cultures’ standards. Is it hurting anyone? Only if someone is in an existing relationship and cheating. Or if they have a child because it increases the risk of genetic abnormalities for that child. Do I like it? Absolutely not. I fear that if this was too openly accepted as one of the norms, that we would see people saying, why oh yes, we have always loved each other. But in fact there would be the brainwashing of say, a sibling by a parent over years, and in fact a power over that would keep the one member in line, believing this was normal and of mutual acceptance. Case in point, there are the religious groups who believe a man can have numerous wives and marry them as young as 14, when those young girls can be influenced and brainwashed that this is what they want and that they always have wanted, knowing no other life.

I caution against believing that this genetic sexual attraction is normal and should be acted on. Often there are still repercussions for relations and of course the pressure of society can be great. But maybe I’m missing some crucial aspect. I’m waiting to be convinced.

15 Comments

Filed under Culture, family, life, people, relationships, sex

Auctioning Virginity

A twenty-two-year-old woman in the US plans to auction her virginity to pay for her college education. She hopes to get a million dollars for it. Ebay wouldn’t touch this so the Moonlite Bunny Ranch, a legal Nevada brothel is fronting it.

What we get down to in the most basic sense of the action, is prostitution. Whether you’re selling sex on a street corner, in a brothel or on the internet, it’s still prostitution. I’m all for legalizing prostitution (like Nevada and Amsterdam) as it would solve many problems, especially if there were state-regulated brothels. Just some of the problems that could be eliminated, controlled or cut down on (in relation to prostitution) are no pimps, drugs, street crimes, women being abused and murdered, litter from condoms, johns being harassed and making neighborhoods unsavory, as well regular health check ups to keep STDs at bay, and keeping underage boys and girls out of the business.

But what I’m not for is such blatancy of prostitution and if this woman is for real and hasn’t already lost, given or sold her virginity (if I was a bidder I’d ask for a certified doctor’s note that she is a virgin), that she’s using the money to pay for her education. Okay, I actually don’t mind someone making money from their body to pay for education but a million bucks and the attention seeking advertising? I know education is expensive and that a masters or doctorate can run a person up to $100,000 (in Canada) but a million means she’s hoping to cash in on her experience. Well, why not? People should make a profit at their jobs.

So what we have is really in-your-face prostitution. This woman says it is empowering for her, but let’s look at what is really going on. A woman, a female, selling not just sex, but selling virginity. We already have this age-old problem of women being treated unequally because of their gender and physical strength. Though men can be raped, there is a far higher percentage of women raped by men or otherwise sexually abused. We have cultures that denigrate women to this day. There are cultures or religions that hurt women (or even kill them) if they aren’t virgins at their marriages. Yet, the men have no such onus nor a way to prove whether they’re virgins or not because they don’t have hymens.

In this sense, this woman isn’t doing something that’s empowering but perpetuating the double standard of a woman’s virginity being different/other/special and needing preservation or a higher price/dowry put upon it. It says that a woman is still property and should be in pristine condition for a man, no matter where he has been or dipped his wick. If we keep flagging such gender differences as virginity, we’ll continue to have gender intolerance and prejudice.

But let’s look at another part of this–the outright creep factor. Some lithe young thing is auctioning sex and virginity to some unknown bidder. The type of guy who is going to clamor and slaver over deflowering some young woman and bid maybe up to a million bucks is not going to really care much about who she is or if he’s gonna give her a good time. A guy with that kind of money isn’t going to be a cute young college guy. In essence, this woman could be deflowered for money with a crude rapelike thrust. Nice. Or say, a bunch of guys throw money together, or the winner owns a couple of sports teams. She could become the employee benefit: sign up and get a free ride.

But hey, she’s paying for her education and planning to do a masters in family and marriage therapy. She may well need it before she can ever get married. That is, if this isn’t all just a ploy to do a masters thesis, to see what people do when someone offers to auction their virginity. I’m just glad I gave my virginity to my equally virginal boyfriend, who I loved at the time. But then, maybe I’m just sentimental.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSP12411420080911

2 Comments

Filed under crime, Culture, drugs, family, life, news, people, relationships, sex, shopping

Polyamory: I Love You and You and You

In the poly world there is polyamory, polyfidelity, polyandry, polygyny and polygamy. Yesterday I talked about the last three. Mostly I talked about polygamy and its use in religion, or under that guise for older men to take women like chattels and often to abuse young girls.

Because of this, there are laws against polygamy. At one time there was probably as much if not more behind the morality of it than the fact that women were were being abused. And maybe in some areas, and some religions and in some economies it was necessary and worked well and everyone preferred it that way. I’m sure if you asked most FLDS members they would say they prefer it the way it is. And if there really were a surplus of women it means that they would have the security of a home and a protector. If a woman was not desirable for certain reasons in our society, there is a guarantee that she’d still find a mate in this polygamous setting. Most extreme religions or fundamental sects seem to hide a more sinister side and keeping women dressed in old fashions, at home, constantly pregnant, well…that’s close to my idea of hell.

But there is another side to polygamy. It’s more commonly called polyamory, loving more than one person, or polyfidelity, being faithful, or committed to more than one person. It’s common enough in North American society but still under the covers, so to speak.

Because of marriage laws, there is no multiple marriage and in many cases three or four people may all live together but none be married. In other scenarios there may be a married couple where one or both have another partner, girlfriend or boyfriend who doesn’t live with them, but in some cases may. It may be that several people date, but all live in their own places. The permutations are endless.

I have known a man who lived with two women. When they left him to form their own relationship, he ended up with two more women. I’ve known a married woman whose boyfriend moved in with them. I know three married couples, where the man from couple A is dating the woman from couple B and the man from couple B is dating the woman from couple C, and the man from couple C is dating the woman from couple A. The woman from couple C is now pregnant by the man from couple A plus has her own children with the man from couple A.

All three couples live separately in different cities. They maintain fairly good healthy relationships with their spouses as well as their other lover. It’s complex but everyone has a choice in all of the above mentioned relationships. No one is coerced and it’s much more honest and up front than cheating.

How successful are poly relationships? As successful as monogamous marriages. Which means, some work and some don’t. I don’t know if any stats have been done on such relationships because many people keep them secret, fearing reprisals from friends, families or jobs. There is still a strong conservative, Christian element to North American society and disapproval and misunderstanding keep most poly people quiet.

As far as I’m concerned, you can love whoever you want and as many as you want. As long as no one is hurt (no rape, abuse, coercion, etc.), and full knowledge and communication is used, then it’s no one else’s business. This is the other side of the coin to the widely used “polygamy.” Since polygamy means more than one marriage partner and in most cases there are laws against that, then trying to outlaw how many people a person can love and live with gets more nebulous. In the case of polyamorous relationships, religion is most often not a factor though a person’s spiritual or religious beliefs may include or not be against such relationships.

There is already legal discussion that to charge someone for polygamy would not work because they could claim it as part of their religious freedom or rigths. Charging someone for sexual or physical abuse is much more straightforward in the courts. Like I said, the poly world is complex but not all of it is injurious.

For another look, Donald Kingsbury once wrote an award winning, science fiction novel titled Courtship Rite. It’s now out of print but can still be found. It looks at a different world where the society practices ritual scarification and the ultimate perfect relationship is seven people. This ideal is rarely attained and everyone must date anyone being brought into the group marriage. A fascinating read.

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, family, life, news, people, relationships, religion, sex

Polygamy: I Do I Do I Do

Polygamy is defined as a person having multiple spouses but is most often referring to polygyny, a man with more than one wife. The even rarer polyandry is a woman with more than one husband.

Several polygamist communities have been in the news of late: El Dorado, Texas and Bountiful, BC. The Texan community fell afoul of the law and 400 children were removed but recently returned. Bountiful is under police scrutiny; the courts are debating charging them. Over and over again, the media talks about the polygamist marriages where men in their 40s seem to have many wives, some as young as 12 years of age.

It’s polygamy that gets mentioned most of all but really there are two other issues here. The first is that of child abuse and rape. The second, harder to prove if all those 14-year-old girls have hit the age of consent and marry a 45-year-old man, is that of coercion, subjugation and good ole fashioned brainwashing.

Let’s take a look at equality. If you google pictures of the El Dorado Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints sect, you’ll get many shots of women in frumpy Holly Hobby outfits all with the same peter pan collar, button-down demure front, and sleeves neatly buttoned at the wrist. Oh, and with a good ankle length cut. Although blue seems to be a favorite color, there was a woman in pink and one in purple, and even one in business brown. And the hair, ohmigod, the hair, all coiffed in the same sweep, no matter the shape of face or age. Can you say Stepford Wives, moreso than they ever were portrayed in the movie? Though I think there is something scarily in common with these fundamentalist sects and the The Stepford Wives.

But where are the men, you ask? Men? Well, yes, obviously there are fewer of them. After all, every man has several wives. You can probably blame the media for going for the more high profile pictures. After all, any pictures of the men (and there are very few) seem to have them in fairly standard jeans and shirts, even if they are buttoned at wrist and neck. But perhaps there are fewer men because, when the authorities raided the Texas compound, those ole guys went into hiding. And one has to wonder if this particular brand of polygamy is not just another word for pedophilia hiding under the guise of religion.

Bountiful’s pictures are not as…bountiful and there are the same pictures of women in outdated dresses (with running shoes, mind you) and yet some of women in modern dress. Winston Blackmore, the BC sect’s leader is shown with women in traditional dress and all those women and daughters in modern dress. Always, there are a lot of women, and girls. One has to start to wonder if the law of averages with both genders shows up in Bountiful, or if there are more girls born. After all, they’d be more of a benefit to such a man who needs at least three wives. You don’t want any mating wars with other vying males either.

So, why aren’t the women collecting several husbands? I’m sure the men could answer this. I’m sure the women could too, because they’ve probably been schooled since they were young on what they should or shouldn’t do and to “keep sweet,” as Bountiful’s motto goes.

Even though the FLDS sects are part of Mormonism, the larger body of Mormons these days do not follow polygamy, and most of the FLDS groups get around the law by actually only having one married wife and the rest as just secondary wives. And there are enough groups, religious or not that follow polygamy.

I always have a hard time with any group or faith that requires different things from men or women. Whether one gender must wear something or another gender is not allowed to do something, I get suspicious. It usually means there is some inclusion/exclusion based on gender that gets past all sorts of human rights because it is religion. And after all, whichever gender has the restrictions, they’re usually told it’s god’s will, so therefore it’s right. And the only thing that sticks in us as much as how family styles us is how we’re styled by religion.

There is another side to polygamy, and I’ll cover that tomorrow.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy65.html

Many articles exist on the above. You just have to google one of the many tags to read up on it.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, family, life, news, people, relationships, religion, sex, spirituality