KinkPodcasts.com - podcasts about BDSM, Fetish and Kink    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "Is it too much to expect?" 1 2 3 4 Is it too much to expect? (37) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. Fri 22 May 09, 11:23 AM PolygamistTestament US, 2 yrs It is my hope to discuss in this thread the moral questions as opposed to the practical issues. Edited Tue 9 Jun 09, 5:49 PM by PolygamistTestament 25 May 09, 11:18 AM Hawklord UK, 6 yrs Wow you have posted so many times I didn't know which one to reply to lol! But here's a bit of extra: PolygamistTestament wrote: "Plural marriage evolved out of the concept of heavenly sealings, where a man and woman can be married for eternity as well as for time."[1] to want more. The notion of heavenly sealings is romantic. In Pagan spirituality one can be "handfasted" for a "year and a day", or "so long as love shall last" or "as long as we shall live" or eternity. I am handfasted to one of my slaves for as long as we shall live, which means that even after I am dead my slave will be true until she dies. Finding the balance between slavery and Pagan marriage was not easy. Handfastings are always tuned to the couple. She now wears a steel ring with a little D-ring on it! So now I have more than one slave but only one is handfasted. I don't know much about Christianity but I do know that the principles of more than one wife, and of female slaves are well supported in the various versions of the bible and in the Koran if often shrouded in euphemism. ~~ H Sic volo. sic jubeo. stat pro ratione voluntas 25 May 09, 11:35 PM MasterPJ UK, 2 yrs <rant> Forgive my mentioning this, but can't you use the edit function instead of posting again and again and again and again... it's considered rude on forums to do this and just seems like you're attempting to increase your post count. </rant> Ahh, feel better now that's off my chest. Carry on, nothing to see here... move along! Owner of nika. She is mine and I love her dearly. 27 May 09, 4:10 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs If you could kindly expand on what you are trying to say here I would gladly appreciate it. 27 May 09, 4:51 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: MasterPJ wrote: Forgive my mentioning this, but can't you use the edit function instead of posting again and again and again and again... it's considered rude on forums to do this and just seems like you're attempting to increase your post count. I'll think about it MasterPJ. The post count is a nice bonus. The algorithms are simplistic. One of the reasons why I would disagree with your feelings on the matter is that most are unable to do what I do. They don't have it in them. They are empty and that is why you often do not see this sort of behavior. I have much to say. With the Edit button the magic can be and often is lost because it is a different instant in time. I assure you I bombard my friends with e-mails as well and they have tried to reform me, Why can't you just put it in a digest? Just doesn't work. Furthermore, if I were to use the Edit button it is likely that I would exceed some arbitrary character count limit. I have achieved this on occasions. I would be more sympathetic to your cause if I was merely copying and pasting from what other people have written. With the Edit button I managed added the following text. It was autogenerated! LOL PolygamistTestament wrote: ... that is why you often do not see this sort of behavior. This comment might seem disorienting for some. The Internet is actually fairly evil. One of the problems with the Internet is that people are jaded and there is little in the way if innocense. Without that you can't have a relationship, but that also seems to be the point. You have criminals on phishing expeditions and all sorts of nasty things. Ah, but what is it to be jaded? What does the dictionary have to say?[1]: 1 : fatigued by overwork : exhausted 2 : made dull, apathetic, or cynical by experience or by surfeit End Quote A prostitute can be fatigued by having been overworked. It's just not all that exciting to her any more. Now surfeit is a good word[2]. It is pronounced sir-fit: 1 : an overabundant supply : excess 2 : an intemperate or immoderate indulgence in something (as food or drink) 3 : disgust caused by excess End Quote Ah, there is a feeling that they have had an over indulgence of me which has resulted in a feeling of disgust caused by the excess. Little me? I can't believe that. I remember someone who was complaining about how porn used to get them off, but doesn't do it for them any more. What he was complaining about was that he was jaded. It is one of the reasons why I try to de-emphasize sex. The Internet gives us an overabundant supply of text. I think what I am really getting at is the cynical aspect that no one really has anything of value to contribute, that it is just all junk. I think I have something of value to contribute. You see, I have managed to expand my vocabulary, all at your expense. Second Edit I am giving the forum my time and attention. That should ensure me a dominant position. Third Edit I may be a little too shy with using the Edit button in that it can be helpful as it concerns what is needed to perfect an argument. It is, however, a hassle. It is in this regard that it makes sense. To reduce the post count that doesn't make much sense. Even if I were to do everything I could to reduce the post count of this thread I would still likely have managed to end up with enough to have put this thread at the top. The use of the Edit button would become artificial and would make quoting me awkward in that nothing would be bite sized. With multiple posts the result is more readable and is likely the real cause of disdain. I managed to suck you in followed by that feeling of horror. Fourth Edit I have observed a phenomenon where what I wrote will cause a form of amnesia or blindness. Where it is in front of the person, but they do not see it. They may also be playing out here. In other words I'm suspicious of the motives. Fifth Edit It will be interesting to see how things progress. Sixth Edit I am unable to fully respect the objection. It may have some limited merit, but I require better intel. Seventh Edit I am sufficiently prolific as a writer that I could easily dominate all the threads in the forum. I have since noticed that the forums are slow moving. So consider it a blessing that I am focusing my attention on this one thread for the time being. Just think what might happen if I wasn't contained? End Notes [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jaded [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surfeit Actually I was refering to this reference. 27 May 09, 4:52 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: Usage. Polyamory means anything goes. I prefer the term polygamy. Any arguments concerning usage will likely to be vacuous in that the arguments will likely be purely semantic. I use the terms husband and wife, because those are the ideals. My notions of love are idealistic. I was going over the life of Joseph Smith. His first wife Emma clearly regarded herself as HIS wife. "Smith's wife Emma Smith was opposed to plural marriage and lived until the age of 74."[1] It seemed to me that it is entirely possible that a marriage consists of one husband and one wife, but in polygyny, the wife is a plural entity. It isn't I am his wife. It is we are his wife. Emma apparently coped with it through denial though it is possible that she had been his only wife. "Plural marriage evolved out of the concept of heavenly sealings, where a man and woman can be married for eternity as well as for time."[1] Very romantic! If it is we are his wife as opposed to I am his wife, one would imagine that there could be a period of adjustment where the ego has to make accommodations which could be painful. If the woman regards it as an infidelity, it is known that it is possible to cope with it through denial. To use this as an argument against polygamy is offensive in that it is dismissive of the suffering I go through, for example, due to loneliness as if loneliness is not real. It is painful to the ego. Is it sufficient that it is merely painful to the ego, that it is to be regarded as morally offensive? The odds that I will find two wives is as equally great as it is to find one wife. The knee jerk reaction will likely be, "Oh, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Surely, he is wrong." What is the best way I can put it? Two times zero is still zero. As such I have no rational cause not to open myself up to the possibilities. I require something that will help mend my broken heart. That it would involve a sacrifice on the part of my wives, would help a great deal. Warning entering Christian argument: Christ suffered for the world and thereby demonstrated his love for us. End Christian It is through sacrifice that we show our love to each other. In a marriage the sacrifice often involves having remain sexually faithful to one's partner or partners. Thou shalt not mount another dick or thou salt not touch another pussy. A sacrifice, or stated another way consideration, is always given. This notion is embodied in law, in philosophy and theology. In alchemy this is taken as a universal principle. What is usually taken as morally offensive is not whether a consideration is given, but as to the nature of the consideration. I can see how polygyny is romantic. It is everything I could possibly want and yet at the same time it won't be what most men would want. For most men a wife is someone you take vacations with. She is someone who cooks dinner and so happens to share your bed with you. It is romantic to want more. The notion of heavenly sealings is romantic. End Notes [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage This one in particular needs more discussion. 27 May 09, 5:11 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: It is like in the film Ghost Busters, "Do not cross the streams." My Dearest Spok, Infact if My memory serves Me correct that is how the big marshmallow guy was conquered? 27 May 09, 6:01 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: Master_SL wrote: PolygamistTestament wrote: Usage. Polyamory means anything goes. I prefer the term polygamy. Any arguments concerning usage will likely to be vacuous in that the arguments will likely be purely semantic. I use the terms husband and wife, because those are the ideals. My notions of love are idealistic. I was going over the life of Joseph Smith. His first wife Emma clearly regarded herself as HIS wife. "Smith's wife Emma Smith was opposed to plural marriage and lived until the age of 74."[1] It seemed to me that it is entirely possible that a marriage consists of one husband and one wife, but in polygyny, the wife is a plural entity. It isn't I am his wife. It is we are his wife. Emma apparently coped with it through denial though it is possible that she had been his only wife. "Plural marriage evolved out of the concept of heavenly sealings, where a man and woman can be married for eternity as well as for time."[1] Very romantic! If it is we are his wife as opposed to I am his wife, one would imagine that there could be a period of adjustment where the ego has to make accommodations which could be painful. If the woman regards it as an infidelity, it is known that it is possible to cope with it through denial. To use this as an argument against polygamy is offensive in that it is dismissive of the suffering I go through, for example, due to loneliness as if loneliness is not real. It is painful to the ego. Is it sufficient that it is merely painful to the ego, that it is to be regarded as morally offensive? The odds that I will find two wives is as equally great as it is to find one wife. The knee jerk reaction will likely be, "Oh, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Surely, he is wrong." What is the best way I can put it? Two times zero is still zero. As such I have no rational cause not to open myself up to the possibilities. I require something that will help mend my broken heart. That it would involve a sacrifice on the part of my wives, would help a great deal. Warning entering Christian argument: Christ suffered for the world and thereby demonstrated his love for us. End Christian It is through sacrifice that we show our love to each other. In a marriage the sacrifice often involves having remain sexually faithful to one's partner or partners. Thou shalt not mount another dick or thou salt not touch another pussy. A sacrifice, or stated another way consideration, is always given. This notion is embodied in law, in philosophy and theology. In alchemy this is taken as a universal principle. What is usually taken as morally offensive is not whether a consideration is given, but as to the nature of the consideration. I can see how polygyny is romantic. It is everything I could possibly want and yet at the same time it won't be what most men would want. For most men a wife is someone you take vacations with. She is someone who cooks dinner and so happens to share your bed with you. It is romantic to want more. The notion of heavenly sealings is romantic. End Notes [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage This one in particular needs more discussion. Again I will need something more specific to go on because I discussed a whole lot of related things. I am again in a position where I have to guess and just see what comes out of my mouth. It may help if I pulled together an outline of the above post. Usage followed by the quote "Plural marriage evolved out of the concept of heavenly sealings, where a man and woman can be married for eternity as well as for time."[1] In a later post I went on and discussed how Christian thought appears to be tied to Physicality, but when you begin to discuss the spiritual additional possibilities become possible. One of the dangers of this is that it can become wholly ungrounded. An extreme example of a divorce from physicality I suppose would be the Heaven's Gate cult. What they taught and lived was a heresy. Christianity in general does not make this mistake in that it is believed that both the spirit and body are significant. This keeps it grounded. One is not to mutilate the body as the body is Holy. There is a theoretical basis for most or all the taboos. Christianity also teaches that you should never beat your wife (only your neighbor may, just kidding) because it would be bad, but this is a development of other competing considerations. That we are all brothers and sisters, and such. I can't image Christ beating a woman, for example. As odd as it may seem civilization is not entirely natural to this world, nor is mankind. People have noticed this going back a long while. It is not entirely civilized to beat one's wife and many have taken this as the very sign of civilization. Some have theorized that mankind must have been seeded here by extraterrestrial civilizations. It is what you would call an alternative explanation for why is it that it seems that mankind is not entirely natural to this world? For time is the here and now. Eternity is what we experience at the end of time. I wrote: It seemed to me that it is entirely possible that a marriage consists of one husband and one wife, but in polygyny, the wife is a plural entity. It isn't I am his wife. It is we are his wife. Emma apparently coped with it through denial though it is possible that she had been his only wife. End Quote I'm theorizing here. Apparently based on the article, it is inconclusive whether or not Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy. There is reason to believe that he had sexual relations with some, but not all the women who had been sealed to, but that does not hardly constitute a marriage. I hope this helped. ok ok gotcha but what about these hot topics; *quoted from another source "As a Christian believer what I see the main pluses of plural marriage is: 1. You can marry whom you love and whom God leads you to marry 2. You can have more children that will grow to love Jesus 3. You can minister to other plural families that have perhaps been marginalized by the Christian church. 4. You can learn to be more loving and understanding because of the added responsibility you shoulder in these types of situations. " My personal additions 5. You can...ah not gunna go there 27 May 09, 6:17 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: Master_SL wrote: PolygamistTestament wrote: It is like in the film Ghost Busters, "Do not cross the streams." My Dearest Spok, Infact if My memory serves Me correct that is how the big marshmallow guy was conquered? This is a foundational argument for the lifestyle. You are told not to cross the streams because by doing so would give you power and that power is to be held by others and not by you. Another quote from Ways of the Strega, page 247, would be useful here: The sexual power of a man or woman is the strongest power that may be raised from the body. The Christians teach that sexuality must be repressed, and thereby rob the people of their personal power. End Quote Spock? Does that make us rebel geeks from Vulcan? Spock's father did not approve at first that he should join Star Fleet. Oh, that Spok was a rebel. He disobeyed his father. You can't get more serious than that. On the other hand: http://sithsigma.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/say-no... No, I'm not referring to the "other universe". I'm referring to Single Point's of Knowledge and how they can cripple your company if not actively managed. SPOK's are individuals in a company who have a certain skill set, knowledge or unique ability that no one else has, and if they left, could seriously harm the company. Examples include: A technical person who is the only one that knows how a mission critical piece of software/hardware works. A sales person who brings in an inordinate amount of sales for the company. A CEO, whose personal qualities are key to the businesses success. This could be because of sales relationships, deal-making ability, contacts, vision, public image, charisma or management ability. If any of these people were to leave the company, it would have devastating effect to the company, more so than 1 person should be allowed to have. End Quote Why thank you Master_SL. If no one person should be allowed to have it, it follows that it must be shared, with women! I can't be logical all the time. Thank you for the response. Can you please explain what "it" is as you refer to "it" quite frequently and I lose "it" in translation. Furthermore are you insinuating that I think Spok to be a geek...possibly it was a compliment that you have misinterpreted. "Live long and prosper and a nanu nanu to the family. 27 May 09, 7:32 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs PolygamistTestament wrote: Master_SL wrote: ok ok gotcha but what about these hot topics; *quoted from another source "As a Christian believer what I see the main pluses of plural marriage is: 1. You can marry whom you love and whom God leads you to marry 2. You can have more children that will grow to love Jesus 3. You can minister to other plural families that have perhaps been marginalized by the Christian church. 4. You can learn to be more loving and understanding because of the added responsibility you shoulder in these types of situations. " Sounds good to me. Where do I get to sign up? Number one is troublesome for me. I'm uncertain God has led me to marry anyone. For me sex is a theoretical concern, something to think about, "To do it? You're got to be kidding." I'll have to tell all my wives that on our wedding night. Naturally, they'll have to seduce me given that I'm shy. Husband, "Please don't rape me." Wife, "Husband, it's ok. It isn't that bad." As I pointed out earlier to begin a polygamist relationship from scratch, though ill advised for technical reasons, does avert the potential moral difficulty with attempting to convert an existing wife. It is the opinion of some feminists groups that polygamy is not inconsistent with feminism. Number two that's easy. Three well that could be troublesome too. With my unruly ways? I would be the one who would need to be ministered to. What I have is God's reassurance that he believes in me. It is a matter of faith. Number four I have already explored. The language is just different. Hardship and responsibility often go hand in hand. When you have responsibilities you can also screw up. When you have responsibilities others can be critics, but couldn't carry the responsibility that you shoulder. I really am a nice package, though a bad boy in my own way, "I'm low maintenance." Hmm, is this the way to acquire slaves? Like I said, I don't fit into any conventional paradigms. I'm not a toy Master either, so don't get any ideas. A valuable contribution to the thread Master_SL. The wikipedia article was difficult and did not lend itself to pro verses con discussion which in retrospect was likely intentional. I am glad that the discussion has become lively, albeit a civilized lively. Ok Polysporin (yes I am refering to you as an ointment)tighten your Moses sandles and remove your toga cause you will love this... Abraham had indeed the most blessed family and he was a polygamist, it's not conducive to furthering our spiritual path. Not to mention Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, is the father of the 12 tribes and that if one wishes to enter into the city of heaven (ie Revelation 21) one must pass through one of 12 gates. On top of each of the 12 gates is the name of one of the 12 sons of the polygamist Jacob (Israel). To forget in the New Testament Christ identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob over and over would be detrimental to understand Christ Himself. He most certainly could have identified himself as the God of Bob, Jack and Steve, but He did not do that. He clearly identifies himself with Abraham's family. So, yes, while it may be a natural configuration of marriage, Polygamy starts in the first book of the Old Testament and winds up in the last book of the New Testament. To put aside the fact it was written by polygamists for the families of polygamists (the House of Israel)(Israel's House = 4 wives, 12 sons, and a pretty awesome daughter Dinah) is doing a large disservice to everyone. It is not inherently Christian - but inherently it is biblical. The descendants of Hagar are still practicing it I think,apparently they have some preconceived notion of a covenant that was given to Ishmael. While they are not Christian, they certainly adore Abraham in a way that most Christians abhor. It appears God addresses the issue of polygamy every time he uses the word Abraham, Jacob (Israel), Tribes, Moses, David, Solomon, etc.. and also clearly when showing the city of heaven everyone wants to get in to, cracking jokes about St. Peter standing at the gates thereof - gotta walk under the name of a polygamist child to enter in... I wonder if while reading this beligerant tossle of verbal diarrhea you are somehow aroused. disclaimer...these are not the beliefs of this Master but a reflection of disdain He has for idiocy and rhetoric. 27 May 09, 7:51 PM Master_SL CA, 5 yrs Did you wash your hands before typing that? Next page