Joseph Smith Polygamy - Women as Victims?

[_Gazelam]

"It is the duty of a husband to love, cherish, and nourish his wife, and cleave unto her and none else; he ought to honor her as himself, and he ought to regard her feelings with tenderness, for she is his flesh, and his bone, designed to be an help unto him, both in temporal, and in spiritual things; one into whose bosom he can pour all his complaints without reserve, who is willing (being designed) to take part of his burden, to soothe and encourage his feelings by her gentle voice. it is the place of the man, to stand at the head of his family, and be lord of his own house, not to rule over his wife as a tyrant, neither as one who is fearful or jealous that his wife will get out of her place, and prevent him from exercising his authority. It is his duty to be a man of God (for a man of God is a man of wisdom,) ready at all times to obtain from the scriptures, the revelations, and from on high, such instructions as are necessary for the edification, and salvation of his household. - And on the other hand, it is the duty of the wife, to be in subjection to her husband at all times, not as a servant, neither as one who fears a tyrant, or a master, but as one, who, in meekness, and the love of God, regards the laws and institutions of Heaven, looks up to her husband for instruction, edification and comfort." (Elders journal 1:61-62)

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hi SWSU...

There were many victims. The husbands sent on missions so Joseph could marry their wives, they were victims. Emma, and the first wives of the other polygamous apostles were victims.

EXCELLENT point!

In addition, ALL the girls were victims/survivors.

The adult women who agreed to be used by Joseph Smith most likely did so for a variety of reasons.

Even today, we hear of those women who do not think it would be all that bad to be part of a harem. So absolutely there could have been those who enjoyed the liaison for whatever reason.

~dancer~

Well I think it's fairly obvious, usually, why women choose to do this. They get some sort of validation as being worthy of something all the while using the only thing they hold of value (their sexuality) as a tool to get whatever they desire out of the relationship.

Wondering if they are victims of the man that chooses to use them, even if they're willing, or more so the culture that puts emphasis upon girls/women that they have no worth outside of the bedroom?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Well I'm not thinking about excusing him from his poor behavior. No doubt he acted poorly.

I was just thinking about mistress issues (we have one on the board now) and wondering whether or not women that choose to be in those relationships could be looked upon as being a victim. Or even always as being used?

I have these knee jerk reactions and think of women as victims often and wonder if it's warranted.

And I agree with you. Some were willing, like our resident mistress. That doesn't mean that the man (Joseph Smith or the mistress's Mormon man) wasn't using them.

Well absolutely being used was part of it. However if the mistress/wife is seeking something from the man is it always a fair trade? Now I don't really think that because obviously if a woman sees no worth in herself outside of her sexuality then that doesn't seem to be a fair deal. Not certain what I think about this actually!

[_barrelomonkeys]

They were not wives. They WERE victims. The husbands were victims. There is no other way of describing them other than this.

Okay, let's call them mistresses, shall we? If a few wanted to be a mistress/lover to Joseph Smith and desired this does it make them a victim of him? I can see being a victim of the subculture. Of course he created the subculture! So perhaps it just all does come back to rest upon his head.

However we can look at power dynamics in relationships in pretty much every culture today and there are women that flock to powerful men for different reasons. Are these women victims of the men or the culture that enforces the view that women can find worth by the men that they are attached to?

[_barrelomonkeys]

"It is the duty of a husband to love, cherish, and nourish his wife, and cleave unto her and none else; he ought to honor her as himself, and he ought to regard her feelings with tenderness, for she is his flesh, and his bone, designed to be an help unto him, both in temporal, and in spiritual things; one into whose bosom he can pour all his complaints without reserve, who is willing (being designed) to take part of his burden, to soothe and encourage his feelings by her gentle voice. it is the place of the man, to stand at the head of his family, and be lord of his own house, not to rule over his wife as a tyrant, neither as one who is fearful or jealous that his wife will get out of her place, and prevent him from exercising his authority. It is his duty to be a man of God (for a man of God is a man of wisdom,) ready at all times to obtain from the scriptures, the revelations, and from on high, such instructions as are necessary for the edification, and salvation of his household. - And on the other hand, it is the duty of the wife, to be in subjection to her husband at all times, not as a servant, neither as one who fears a tyrant, or a master, but as one, who, in meekness, and the love of God, regards the laws and institutions of Heaven, looks up to her husband for instruction, edification and comfort." (Elders journal 1:61-62)

Hi Gaz, did that address my concern?

[_barrelomonkeys]

one intersting point that I read is that those who favored plural marriage were most likely the queens of Salt Lake City in the late 1800's. When they wrote about the "celestial law" and how happy they were they were really old and would not likely say anything else. At the time most all the leaders of the Church were in jail or in hiding and it was a big issue and the U.S. Government was Darth Vader. They knew Joseph or were married to him at one time therefore they were holy ground.

When I read In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton, I came away thinking that these women got screwed a bad deal. The Patridge sisters etc. and the list just goes on and on. I wish he would have had the insight to tell them what was going to happen during the marriage. If you look at it, he had many of these girls/woman at the mansion house. They were maids first and then he secretly marries them and then who knows what goes on until Emma starts thinking that these two are spending way too much time together and then all hell breaks loose. If he was a seer you would think he would look into the stone to see what was coming up in the future. He was constantly flirting; only god know how many letters he sent; most were likely burned as that was his instruction - to burn them and tell no one of the communication.

Well I don't think there's any question that many women after finding themselves in polygamous relationships certainly were not well kept! My question relates more to those that are coerced vs. those that choose to go into the relationship. Women make poor choices about men all the time and yet we don't really call them victims if they choose to participate in the relationship. Right?

[_mormonmistress]

For what it's worth (which is probably not much to most of you!) I don't believe I am a victim of my lover. We are two grown consenting adults. I haven't been coerced in any way, shape or form to enter into or continue my relationship with him. If he's using me, so what? I'm using him too.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Is a girl a victim who gets back-stage passes and ends up getting laid by a rock star? If she's truly star-struck and throws herself at him, then she's a willing participant, but it cannot be denied that she's been used.

Hi Sethbag, I've been thinking about the above statement. Why is it obvious to you that she's been used? Do we assume that a woman that goes into a sexual relationship with a man that she is 'star struck' over or for whatever reason does not also use the man for some purpose? If both participants take something from the liason are either using the other?

Are we assuming here that women do not enjoy sex or flings? I think I've rather thought that in the past - and not precisely certain why. Because obviously women can enjoy sexual liasons as much as men. So why is she the one being used in the above scenario?

[_barrelomonkeys]

For what it's worth (which is probably not much to most of you!) I don't believe I am a victim of my lover. We are two grown consenting adults. I haven't been coerced in any way, shape or form to enter into or continue my relationship with him. If he's using me, so what? I'm using him too.

Oh! I just addressed that to Sethbag.

I think often we assume that when women enter these relationships that the man is the only one gaining sexual/intimate satisfaction from the relationship. That's just not alway accurate.

[_mormonmistress]

I think often we assume that when women enter these relationships that the man is the only one gaining sexual/intimate satisfaction from the relationship. That's just not alway accurate.

Why would a woman enter a relationship like that if she wasn't going to get sexual/intimate satisfaction from it?