Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The benefits polygamy has for women

Benefits For Women Automatic childcare in a sexist society gives women more effective choice to have a career without devaluing the role of homemaker. Being able to marry men who are already married means that women can marry men who have already proved themselves, therefore minimising their risk.
Being able to marry the men who attract most women means they don't have to settle just for what's left after other women have the best pickings.
Having the possibility that a husband can remarry without divorce extends practical security to a woman. She needn't worry about losing her husband and income as she loses her looks, because if her husband is attracted by a younger woman, he doesn't even have to think about leaving his wife.


TBM said...

I can't wait for Atar_i's reaction!!!!!!!

desert darling said...

Moderation in all things.

Anonymous said...

All well and good, but your last paragraph (Barlow's in the introduction) is all too common. I know a man that had 19 wives and put most of his wives away before they were 30 years old.

Anonymous said...

barlow is just fudys alter ego. He deletes threads as well.

muggsey said...


So typical of the excuses to legitimize polygamy.

In "Banking on Heaven" the young woman who told of her experience with her father. He did not know that she was his child. He thought she was a grandchild and told her to go home. She was in the yard of her mother's house.

Wow! What a real example of the cozy family life in FLDS. Nothing put up or posed for effect. The older woman who testified that she was raped by her cousin at the age of seven. What protection and care exemplified!

I have read Ruth's posts here and thought perhaps she was a bit crazy. After hearing her testimony, her attempts to visit her children and seeing the neglect that the community has shown toward her condition, I have come to the conclusion that she and her children are the victims of a cruel and un-natural society ruled by despot who shows his charges no love, compassion, care nor gives them any hope. When he dies, and he will, either by his own hand, a fed up underling or of natural causes, who will step into the void? Will it be someone just as insane as WJ? My hope is that the people will not settle for less than a caring, upright and just leader. I hope that his real goal in life is not self grandizement but service to those he supposedly leads.

Anonymous said...

"She needn't worry about losing her husband and income as she loses her looks, because if her husband is attracted by a younger woman, he doesn't even have to think about leaving his wife."

I'm sure the FLDS men are so hot and that they NEVER lose their attractiveness as they age. This thread is just absolutely disgusting.

Barlow, I don't have to even see you physically to know that you are not attractive in any way. If iw as one of your wives, and thank goodness I am not, for one I would just commit suicide because I could not stand living with such an unattractive man. But, if I did want to live and not commit suicide I would just hope to be kicked out of the FLDS and have to repent from afar to get out of your house. I aslo would be so incredibly happy if i had a sister wife and beg for one because then she would have to sleep with your disgusting nasty self. I'm not sure that you have ever heard this, but beauty comes from the inside not the outside. Luckily for me I am both attractive on the inside and outside. You, on the other hand, are not at all handsome on the inside. Your post states it. And, if you are attractive on the outside (which I find hard to believe with all the inbreeding that goes on in the FLDS - for example Warren - not so attractive) it only last so long. Once you age a little and become not so attractive on the outisde yourself (if you even are) all that will be left for people to see will be your so unhappy ugly inside.

TBM said...

childcare in a sexist society
I think society is probably less sexist today than it has ever been before.

ATAR_i said...

I dont' want to respond to someone who deletes threads.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (8/20/2006 9:44 PM):
I dont' want to respond to someone who deletes threads.

STREET’s Reply: You just did, always doing what you don’t want to do, and saying what you don’t believe, and then making believe what you don’t even believe. Yo all over da place, giwl.

Also, every time you post, you respond to someone who deletes threads, for you are responding on every post to Admin, to his blog, and he deletes all the way up the yangy. He had deleted far more posts than Fundy and everyone else combined.

weblog administrator said...

OTS --- good to see you back and in such fine form. Now be truthful with your fellow bloggers. You know, and I know that the only posts of yours that are held in limbo are those in which you get filthy and obscene.

I understand your making a stink about this on another blog even posting some which you claim where withheld here. A list of them were forwarded to me and I found that some of the ones you claim were withheld were actually allowed on this blog. Others were never posted here in the first place.

Please, work on your truthfulness. Failing that, ask yourself, WWWD?


Weblog Admin

Anonymous said...

I know what Warren wouldnt do. Post on this blog.

muggsey said...

Why? Is he afraid of the skinning that he would receive from some of the contributors?

I think he won't post here because he would be caught repeatedly in lies and those lies exposed for what they are, lies. He doesn't want his faithful to even get a hint of the truth or especially of anyone questioning Warren's authority. If he were to do that then some of the sheeple might begin to think for themselves and send old WJ off to jail.

Thousands of people, outside the Mormon community are in prayer daily for deliverance from ignorance forced upon these good people by Jeffs and his cadre of bully-boy priesthood.

Anonymous said...

poor mugs,
You havent caught him in a lie yet, it is those who accuse him that are lying. He has way better things to do. He doesnt care if you believe, or if I believe.

ATAR_i said...

12:03 'it is those that accuse him who are lying'.

I've accused him of deleting threads - I'm actually not lying about that, he has deleted threads.

He has admitted to deleting threads, his take on this reality is that he only deletes old threads, however, he has multiple 'old threads' which have remained in the archives - so why those threads, they were still active - why them?

Isn't it rational that others might question the truthfulness of his explanation?

Now, you state that anyone who accuses him is lying. And of course that lovely little blanket comment is equally as true as the statements his detractors make that 'all fundy does is lie'. Neither is completely true.

muggsey said...

How would we know otherwise? Everything that I have heard, and I have listened to his infamous tape concerning those individuals he refers to as inferior, low, unworthy because their genetics happens to come from a line of persons with dark skin.

When is he going to circulate his "I AM GOD" credentials to back up his idiotic claims? I can't wait to see who signs his certificate.

onthestreet said...

TAR: We're not talking about Fundy here. This is a reference to the Prophet (3:17 AM).

ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

So wj doesn't lie either?

Do you consider him absent of sin, or incapable or sinning?

Either you consider him God, or you consider him a man (and then bestow upon him whatever status you will, like prophet).

So is he God (incpabable of sin) or is he man (sinful)?

If he is God, then you are a heretic.

If he is man, he is capable of lying. (since you're at the public library, you're not with him 24/7 and you don't know whether he's lying or not.

If you believe he's not - great. But that is not a fact, it's a belief.

onthestreet said...

If something is a fact (gravity, sunshine, eternal laws, and such), and you believe it, then that is just your belief, not a fact, RIGHT?

ATAR_i said...

No that's called intelligence.

muggsey said...

One other FACT that you have overlooked. Warren Jeffs is a fugative from jutice and in no way should he be considered as GOD.

GOD IS LOVE. Warren Jeffs has demonstrated no love, just judgement and theft, debauchery, lust and sin. GOD CANNOT SIN. Neither will GOD stand the presence of sin in HIS presence. Whe sin presents itself it will be imediately destroyed.

GOD IS FORGIVNESS. Warren Jeffs is revenge.

GOD IS REDEMPTION. Warren Jeffs represents his father satan, the father of lies. Jeffs has perfected this inherited trait and FLDS suffers the consequences.

In summary: Warren Jeffs is just a loathsome wretch pretending to be divine. He definately is not GOD. He is not SPIRIT. GOD is a SPIRIT, and they that worship HIM must worship him in spirit and in truth. For the FATHER seeks those who worship HIM.

Truth has eluded the presence of Warren Jeffs. Therefore, his being produces the product of his father satan, father of all lies.

onthestreet said...

Yes, the Jews said all this about Jesus, your Lord. Do the accusations prove any truth. You only accuse, completely ignoring the strictness of God's Word, the destruction of the wicked, the judgements of God, the thief of His coming ("as a thief in the night"), "taking revenge on the wicked", all this you accuse the Prophet Warren of, and God Himself says He will do the same. So you yourselves make him God, when in fact the Prophet has always taught that he is not.

You sad, sad people.

onthestreet said...

You idol worshippers.

ATAR_i said...


Anonymous said...

onthestreet said...
Yes, the Jews said all this about Jesus, your Lord.

Street who is your Lord?

muggsey said...

Good question. I've been trying to get him to commit for over a year. He just goes round the mulberry bush, avoiding truth or commitment. An anarchist at heart.

onthestreet said...

MUK Said (8/28/2006 4:33 PM):
Good question. I've been trying to get him to commit for over a year. He just goes round the mulberry bush, avoiding truth or commitment. An anarchist at heart.

STREET’s Reply:
2 Sam. 5:23. And when David enquired of the LORD, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.

24. And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the LORD go out before thee, to smite the host.

In Hebrew, “Mulberry” is “Baka”: A shrub which drips sap when it is cut. Weeping, Lamentation.

muggsey said...

Who's caring about mulberry trees?
The purpose of the verse is to instruct David to surround th enemy. Refer to Joshua 8:12.

Once again you depart from anything relative to the discussion.

onthestreet said...

Mulberry is mulberry. It has a meaning, and as anyone not stuck in the MUK can see, it applies well. So it is "ring around the mulberry bush", with the truth that stings. It has to do with war, weaping, and lamentation, the wages of sin, having rejected Christ in actual fact, having not brought forth works of faith, and repented of your sins.

Ahh, see? Who is missing the point, and dancing so feverishly around a mulberry bush that you'd think he was a drunk Indian, caring nothing about the mulberry and its meaning: War, weaping, and lamentation.

muggsey said...

Whoop-de do!

Let him without sin first cast a stone.

Mulberry trees grow in several locations within out town. some are as tall as 20-25 ft. They produce a purple fruit that is a favorite of birds who, having eaten and digested the berry leave a purple colored deposit everywhere that choose to roost.

Mulberry trees grow fast and tend to have shallow root systems. The frutiless mulberry is a favorite in the desert of West Texas because it provides shade more quickly than other varieties. Is is also prefered because it doesn't bear fruiit, thus no purple residue.

Unknown said...

Do the polygamist wives in Short Creek have careers?
Do the majority of FLDS women go to college? Do they learn trades? Do they finish school?
Do polygamist women choose husbands, or are they assigned to husbands, as the news media reports?
If a woman marries a man who attracts the most women (which sounds like the women select the men) doesn't that mean that she accepts a future of diminished resources for herself and her children, as he must support the other women and all their children as well?
This business of kicking men out of the priesthood and reassigning their wives does not sound like a benefit to a wife who 'gets reassigned' instead of selecting a husband.