Open Relationship (COMM on Topic)

[Weasel]

While riding along the back roads of Alabama today (I bought a barn in North Ala and I'm in the process of tearing it down and moving it down South) I listened to the radio and being it was Sunday, most of the stations had Church Services going on.

While listening, (can't ride without some type of noise) I heard a person talking about what a person (man) should do if his brother died and left a wife and kids. From what I got, he is expected to marry his brothers wife and raise the kids. (<Subject number 1>)

While I would help raise my brothers kids and help support his wife (even to the point of her remarrying) I just cannot see myself marrying her.

One: I see this as a disgrace against my brother. Hard to explain.
Two: I believe in focuings my attention on one person.
Three: I can only see this situation leading to one being submissive to the first, something I cannot see eye to eye with.

[Gwalchmai]

This might be interesting, if my brother's widow was hot. Even so, I'd have to ask my wife first....


But more seriously.... This seems like an idea that's about two or three centuries out of date. I don't think this would even be considered very far outside of rural Alabama or other backwoods places in the deep south. You're more of a city-boy, aren't you?

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwalchmai But more seriously.... This seems like an idea that's about two or three centuries out of date. I don't think this would even be considered very far outside of rural Alabama or other backwoods places in the deep south. You're more of a city-boy, aren't you?

I admit to thinking this was outdate. and I have no brother and my wife has no brother...so I would be stuck with my sister and my wifes sister. Welcome to Deliverance.

Hard to believe ..I was raised in the country side. Lucky (or sadly for some) my parents were not that religious. After school though, I became a city-boy. Now I regress to country-boy for the second time in my life...will I survive?

[C Elegans]

Passages saying that a brother should marry his brother's widow if the brother dies, exist in both the bible and the quran. In times where a single mother had no means to support herself and her children, for instance in an agricultural society where land could only be inherited by males, this arrangement makes perfect sense. Same thing with the idea that if you brother dies childless but has a wife, you should conceive a son with her. These rules are aimed at preserving the heritage within the family, and at the same time take responsibility for the wife who has been taken into your family. It is still practised in many cultures who live under similar circumstances.

However, it should not be necessary even in rural Alabama Rather, in semi-nomadic cultures where the life-style requires that men and women live split for periods and a single mother would not be granted enough security without a husband of some sort since she can't be in two geographical areas at the same time.

Regarding open relationships in general though, I agree with a friend of mine "Two wives - twice as much problems", but if everybody agrees and you are prepared to put that much energy into your romantic/sexual relationship, I think it does not differ from monogamous relationships. Each relationship is separate, it's just as with friends or children: you love them for their unique qualities, and loving one does not dimish the love to another, since love is not a limited quota - if you have one child and get another, it's not like you can't love child no 2 because your love is occupied by child 1.

[Tower_Master]

...Whoever said that needs mental help. You can support your brother's family w/out marrying his wife...that's vaguely wrong, in some way...Seriously.

And, what do you mean, COMM on topic?

[C Elegans]

@Tower Master: the idea in the Old Testament that they must marry was because the children would have no right to inherit otherwise. Since only males could inherit land and significant property, the widow would not inherit her husband. When the brother marries her, the son's (if there were any) would inherit him. For the fundamentalists though, it doesn't matter that these marital laws were created to suit an agricultural society 2000 years ago - what is written is interpreted literally, and should be followed to every letter also today.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans Passages saying that a brother should marry his brother's widow if the brother dies, exist in both the bible and the quran. In times where a single mother had no means to support herself and her children, for instance in an agricultural society where land could only be inherited by males, this arrangement makes perfect sense.

In fact, in MidEastern cultures through at least the period of the European Renaissance, the standard familial unit was the extended model. A man was expected to extend paternal protection, advice and promotion to a nephew, in lieu of the presence of the actual father. The uncle literally and legally was the father, under those circumstances. This model also helps explain the enormous initial success of the Islamic international merchant, who spread as quickly as the religion. While some of this can be credited to the universality of Arabic and Islamic law, which made settling in a lot easier, a lot was also due to the tight-knit families that zealously trusted and supported their own.

Same thing with the idea that if you brother dies childless but has a wife, you should conceive a son with her. These rules are aimed at preserving the heritage within the family, and at the same time take responsibility for the wife who has been taken into your family. It is still practised in many cultures who live under similar circumstances.

The wonder is that a preacher in the rural South could recommend this despite the complete cultural disconnect between a 4000-year-old Arab nomadic society, where such tribal customs were essential to survival, and a modern American community, where it has no relevance whatsoever.

[Chanak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable The wonder is that a preacher in the rural South could recommend this despite the complete cultural disconnect between a 4000-year-old Arab nomadic society, where such tribal customs were essential to survival, and a modern American community, where it has no relevance whatsoever.

People can be ridiculously gullible. It reminds me of the little story I once heard about the woman who cut the ends off of a roast before she placed it in the oven. When asked why, her reply was, "My mother always did it this way." The mother, when asked why she did this, replied "Well, the roasts were always too big for the pan I used, so I would trim some off the ends so it would fit."

[frogus23]

I think that in the days post-incest as a social norm, there is no duty to marry your brother's wife instead of marrying any other widow, and since as a culture children are not seen as a dwindling commodity and women are not an inferior race, there is no need for that either. Load of bollocks.

Open relationships are a bizarre situation, and one which I have had a rather surreal bunch of experiences with...my best (male) friend M has a long standing girlfriend A...they are deeply in love, practically live together and seem to be a fairy story couple. But, due to M's very modest sex-drive, and A's rampant lustiness, I have become embroiled in sexual encounters with A more than once, in M's presence.
M is not jealous - we are closer than ever. He knows I wasn't trying to steal his girlfriend.
A was like a Sheik of two wives, one a lover and partner, one a pleasure slave. It worked!

However, I don't think that polygamy is at all possible if the partners are supposed to all be on an equal emotional standing. Two wives can work if they are Prime Wife and Secondary Wife. But two prime wives would tear a husband in half.

[Audace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans @Tower Master: the idea in the Old Testament that they must marry was because the children would have no right to inherit otherwise. Since only males could inherit land and significant property, the widow would not inherit her husband. When the brother marries her, the son's (if there were any) would inherit him. For the fundamentalists though, it doesn't matter that these marital laws were created to suit an agricultural society 2000 years ago - what is written is interpreted literally, and should be followed to every letter also today.

I agree, and to extrapaolate a bit, the practice of marrying your brothers widow is highly correlated with the position of a woman in society. Where my brother to pass away and I'd suggest the arrangement to his widow, she'd either laugh at me in my face or she'd think I was making some sort of sick joke.

A 100 years ago this might have been different considering the fact that marriage was more of an economic contract/decision. After all even in Holland women have only become legally 'wilsbekwaam' (the power to make your own legal decision, including buying a television, without having to refer to a guardian aka your husband) in the '60. A lot can change in a short time.....

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanak People can be ridiculously gullible. It reminds me of the little story I once heard about the woman who cut the ends off of a roast before she placed it in the oven. When asked why, her reply was, "My mother always did it this way." The mother, when asked why she did this, replied "Well, the roasts were always too big for the pan I used, so I would trim some off the ends so it would fit."

And a sensible decision, taken out of context, becomes a rote action that makes no sense, at all. That's about right.

The role holy books have played in creating cultural blocks is interesting, isn't it? Because they're written down and associated with deific communication and some legendary time of faith, these books exercise a curious power over human beings--similar in many respects to psychological blocks incurred at an early age of development. The family structure of the MidEast so many thousand years ago somehow becomes the expected norm in a technologically advanced, modern US/Europe. The injunction to "be fruitful and multiply," need to strengthen the tribe back then, still creates huge families in poverty at a time when the earth's resources are stretched to the point of breaking. An attitude of self-righteous anger and utter pitilessness is appropriate when dealing with people who espouse ideas who opposes, because that's the way old testament figures thousands of years ago acted. Perhaps the most extreme example I can think of along these lines is a Castillian bishop in the 16th century (sorry, I've forgotten the name, and will have to reread the entire work to find it) who refused permission on regional lands for a dam, because "If the good Lord had meant us to build dams, they would have been in the holy Bible."

I have to wonder if the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah hasn't also exercised a large and generalized impact on the treatment of homosexuals over the years. Not that homophobic cultures wouldn't have looked with suspicion on gays in any case, but whatever guilt or shame might be felt for causing such treatment could be ignored since the holy books approved it.

[Audace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I have to wonder if the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah hasn't also exercised a large and generalized impact on the treatment of homosexuals over the years. Not that homophobic cultures wouldn't have looked with suspicion on gays in any case, but whatever guilt or shame might be felt for causing such treatment could be ignored since the holy books approved it.

Off topic...but hey

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

You are right in your last statement....religion is often abused to justify emotions and actions not related to the religion.