Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

A Little Too Freudian for Me [Dan Collins]

And he walked on down the hall:

Over the last six years, hundreds of teenage boys have been expelled or felt compelled to leave the polygamous settlement that straddles Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah.

Disobedience is usually the reason given for expulsion, but former sect members and state legal officials say the exodus of males — the expulsion of girls is rarer — also remedies a huge imbalance in the marriage market. Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives.

28 Replies to “A Little Too Freudian for Me [Dan Collins]”

  1. Fat Man says:

    The difference between our home grown loonie birds and the Islamic polygamous world, is that ours kicks the boys to the curb. Islamic surplus boys are trained to do something useful — blow themselves to smithereens so that they can get laid (It only makes sense if you believe in tinker-bell)

    And that, my children, is why gay marriage is a bad idea, because if we accept gay marriage, we are bound to accept polygamy and in due course, suicide bombers.

  2. Darleen says:

    Didn’t you know, Dan? This is prima facia evidence that Patriarchy hurts men, too.

  3. ExUrbanKevin says:

    The Arizona Republic did a good story on this about 3 years ago as well, (http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special45/articles/0801polygamy-lostboys01.html).

    The good news is that Warren Jeffs is about to face man’s justice for what he did to the lives of hundreds of his followers.

    The judgment of his God will have to wait for a while, but I suspect it will not turn out quite like Warren thinks it will…

  4. B Moe says:

    “Mr. Jeffs, 51, is in the Purgatory jail in southern Utah…”

    I am sorry, but that is funny.

  5. Ardsgaine says:

    “And that, my children, is why gay marriage is a bad idea, because if we accept gay marriage, we are bound to accept polygamy and in due course, suicide bombers.”

    That’s a nice spoof of the slippery slope fallacy.

  6. Fat Man says:

    Ardsgaine: No, its a nice summary of what awaits us if we fall for the gay marriage scam.

  7. McGehee says:

    That’s a nice spoof of the slippery slope fallacy.

    Because of course there’s never been a case of something bad getting worse.

    But I do believe Fat Man’s original comment is a parody. Maybe not intentionally…

  8. Jeffersonian says:

    But I do believe Fat Man’s original comment is a parody.

    That depends…a lot of the defenses of same-sex marriage out there can easily fit polygamy into them, too. I’m a proponent of SSM, but not polygamy, and I’m distressed that we are opening the door for something far more pernicious in the process.

  9. Fat Man says:

    McGehee: The fiery pit of hell has opened in front of us. You may stick your head in it, if you wish. I want to stay here, on top of old slippery. Please do not mistake a certain insouciance in my writting for a genuine belief in anything that anyone might consider to be “politically correct”.

  10. McGehee says:

    I’m on record as believing that SSM would effectively abolish any logic against polygamy (including in a comment thread within the last week or two). I just don’t believe suicide bombers lies at the bottom of this particular slope.

    The slope leading to suicide bombers is PC dhimmitude, not SSM. IMHO.

  11. Swen Swenson says:

    Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives.

    Three wives? All at the same time? Jeez, you would have to be some sort of saint, later day or otherwise.

  12. Swen Swenson says:

    And I still want my biblically endorsed concubines!

  13. Dan Collins says:

    Some assembly required.

  14. JD says:

    And I still want my biblically endorsed concubines!

    Has there ever been a better endorsement for John Deere tractors than this?

  15. JD says:

    Who in the world would want 3 wives simultaneously? In the end, you would have to give away half three times, leaving you with a negative half. Plus, their cycles would sync up and then you would get 5 days of pure hell, surrounded by 26 days of pseudo-hell.

  16. Fat Man says:

    Polygamy produces a numebr of loosers for each winner in the sexual sweepstakes. Assuming that the rules are followed, there will be three unmarried young men for each married man. The unmarried will not even see a woman, as all women are held in purdah. Because the rules favor the older and richer men, the society will have a large number of poor young men who have no prospects.

    The way Islam dealt with this problem is to send them out on jihad. If they died, they went to paradise and collected their 72 virgins. If they were victorious, they could buy their way in.

    In the modern world jihad is a less promising source of wealth — no more caravans. But, the invention of the suicide belt has allowed jihad to improve as a social release mechanism. The winners go to paradise too.

    Polygamy leads to suicide bombing.

  17. JD says:

    FatMan – I think I am with McGehee on this one. The unmarried in Utah that I have met were more concerned with getting air on their snowboards than with strapping on the Allah vest.

  18. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Polygamy produces a numebr of loosers for each winner in the sexual sweepstakes.

    Why are you assuming that polygamy necessarily means more women than men in the relationship?

    It doesn’t.

  19. Fat Man says:

    “Why are you assuming that polygamy necessarily means more women than men in the relationship?”

    Because it only works where there is violence to enforce it, and men are source of violence.

  20. Slartibartfast says:

    We are THE source of violence, man! Scratch me, and violence practically spurts out of me.

  21. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Because it only works where there is violence to enforce it, and men are source of violence.

    What?

    I know several groups of poly people. They’re gender-balanced (or nearly so), and I don’t recall any “violence” being involved.

    Yes, polygyny has historically been more common than polyandry (although polyandry is far from unknown in traditional societies). It’s also historically been to have 15 children if you can support them (or even if you can’t). Children are an economic asset in an agricultural society.

    Hint: that’s no longer the case.

  22. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Because it only works where there is violence to enforce it, and men are source of violence.

    What?

    I know several groups of poly people. They’re gender-balanced (or nearly so), and I don’t recall any “violence” being involved.

    Yes, polygyny has historically been more common than polyandry (although polyandry is far from unknown in traditional societies). It’s also historically been to have 15 children if you can support them (or even if you can’t). Children are an economic asset in a traditional agricultural society.

    Hint: that’s no longer the case.

  23. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    (sorry about the double post, guys)

  24. Parker says:

    There is a terrible, traditional punishment for polygamy.

    You have multiple wives.

  25. Slartibartfast says:

    Yep: two or (gasp, shudder) more sets of day-we-met anniversaries, our-first-date anniversaries, wedding anniversaries, birthdays, and all that junk.

    Now, ideally, you could delegate that sort of thing to wife #2, but in reality, I think you’d just be screwed. But not in a way that would have you craving a smoke, after.

  26. Fat Man says:

    “Yep: two or (gasp, shudder) more sets of day-we-met anniversaries, our-first-date anniversaries, wedding anniversaries, birthdays, and all that junk.”

    The only way it can be done is with violence.

  27. McGehee says:

    Because it only works where there is violence to enforce it, and men are source of violence.

    You’ve obviously never seen two women fighting over a man.

    Then again, since they were fighting over a man, I suppose one could argue the man was the source of the violence…

Comments are closed.