• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Should polygynous families live under one roof or two?

Should polygynous families live under one roof or two?

  • Two roofs on one property are best.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Two roofs on two properties are best.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

Kojent

Member
Male
The title really says it all, but please note that this question presupposes a family with only two wives, hence there are only options for up to two roofs.

As a lurker on BibFam, I've occasionally seen comments recommending that polygynous families ought to live under one roof or two. I'd like to take a poll from you fine folks and understand who holds which view and why, all in one thread for the benefit of future lurkers and members alike.
 
Last edited:
I am sure there could be reasons for separate homes....but I would never want that. I LIKE help and company in the kitchen, I like that we are one family and my 16 year old son is loved by her 19 month old son. Yes, siblings can be bossy, or bratty, but we do life TOGETHER. Today my 14 year old daughter went with the other mom to town...and they did some fun shopping for yarn. They both love to knit. More influences and examples of maternal relationships, and marital ones too. We have two sons and a daughter married now.
 
In Genesis 31:33-34 we read that Jacob had his own tent, and each of his four wives also had separate tents. They were on a journey back to the home country however, separate spaces seems to be the practice with wives. Solomon made a separate house for his wife, who was Pharaoh's daughter (cf. 1 Kings 7:8).

Whatever people decide to do is their business. I'm not concerned about how others might decide to operate.
 
Last edited:
I am one of the most pervasive beaters of the one roof drum.

More than one roof makes the idea of separate families all the easier.
No thank you.

No separate families, no competition, no my kids vs her kids. None of it.

One family, one roof and all children are loved and cherished equally.
Nobody should be given the slightest excuse to be able to claim redheaded stepchild pity party points or to resent another wife.

I look forward to wwatching how the results come out as more people participate in the poll
 
In Genesis 31:33-34 we read that Jacob had his own tent, and each of his four wives also had separate tents.
I can think of at least one reason to have my room separate and movable AWAY from other's rooms IF it had ZERO aucoustic insulation! We camped by my sister when her first daughter was just 10 days old. We heard "puppy sounds" all night long.
In my folks trailer house I could hear my dad's snoring through the wall. In this old house you can almost hear what people are saying through the floors.....that we plan to insulate. *nods*
 
There's a country song I heard once that had the lyric "love grows best in little houses, with fewer walls to separate."

I respect that others may have different arrangements, but part of the beauty and attraction to this for me is community, shared goals and teamwork, and to do that, I want my home to be as connected and unified as possible. Part of the modern aspect of even monogamous relationships I've noticed and don't care for is this tendacy to build walls, isolate or maintain an "independence" that isn't cohesive to the created intent of marriage and family, so why encourage physical manifestations of that?

I'm not getting married, once, or again, to be in a commune of autonomous units.
 
I'm not getting married, once, or again, to be in a commune of autonomous units.
I sold some fruit trees a few years back to a man and his son who were from the middle east. The younger man's wife was also from that culture and thought it was strange that here in America people spend so much time in isolation in "their room." There it is still multi-generational homes and families.
Their family in America seemed to be following another trend though...the older man had many siblings, and each generation had fewer children and less interest in having them at all.
I think what "kingdom" someone's heart is in is apparent by the values.
 
I sold some fruit trees a few years back to a man and his son who were from the middle east. The younger man's wife was also from that culture and thought it was strange that here in America people spend so much time in isolation in "their room." There it is still multi-generational homes and families.
Their family in America seemed to be following another trend though...the older man had many siblings, and each generation had fewer children and less interest in havimg them at all.
I think what "kingdom" someone's heart is in is apparent by the values.


It' not just a kingdom.

It's objectively harder today to raise bigger family.

You can start with cost of living crisis. Starter home are way expensive than few decades before. It times more salaries now to afford home than before.

Capital gain taxes combined with inflation plus raised mortage rates means seniors staying in multiple bedroom houses instead of selling them to younger families.

Housing also got hit with more regulation generally. Enjoy more higher prices.

Don't forget equality issue where certain groups of people are prosecuted enough and send to jail. So now city center when everything is relatively close are off limits due to crime and eveybody moves to suburbs. Enjoy paying for car and eveything taking more times.

Social relationships got commericalized. What way before social favour and social currency was replaced with money. Advice from friend was replaced by therapist, gradma by nanny. What came before free, now costs money.

So young people face higher costs and they have less social support.

And people have become less accepting of children in public. They misbehave, are loud etc.. Other people in public have to watch/listen parents trying to control their children. If parents see looks of disapproval, it will negatively influence decision for next child.

My favourite reason is this BS:


qyl129vajbnsab0vkin3.png

While they do save individual children, 3rd child means buying bigger car. So actually more parents decide not to have 3rd child than are saved by child car seat in accidents. They prevent more births than save from car accidents.

And some countries force you to drive in child in child car seat till they are seven.

My brother, when he had two children, drove me in regular car. I was sitting between two child car seats. Now, he has three children, had to repla e regular car with SUV and I don't to be placed in trunk. In good old times 4 persons could be placed in back seats, nobody cared, now you earn fine by police.

I have found stories of Americans remembering how they used to roam neighboorhood and find their own fun in 90s. Now, that is visit by child protective services. So now you have to organize play dates with other parents so that children can play. See, before children did find their own fun, now that parent's duty.

So if child requires constant watching, if each child has different hobby, you have to hire a nanny.

And don't get me started on Boomers who prefer cruises over watching grandchildren.

And church failed in another way. Before, you could hire young (usually teenage) girl as nanny for pocket money. Desire to keep reputation in church and community was guarantee of acceptable level of service.

Now, you can't count on that. So pay for proffesional nanny. And maybe you finish responsible for her W2 employment form.

And since USA is in decade long economic stagnation, social mobility start to die off, so parents, naturally, prefer less children so that each child can have more educational resources. Otherwise, child will fall to lower social class and no parents wants that.

So solution is to rebuild social fabric to have real communities, nuking regulations and taxes and government budget and restoring intermediate organizations. Nisbet, in his work "Quest for Community" basically say totalitarianism in West was impossible thanms to intermediate organizations. They were larger than individual and smaller than state.

They matter because they provided social cohesion and mutual help. Snd protected individuals against state. Church used to provide that. Good church with several hundred regulars should be able to provide a llllllloooooootttttt of help with children.

We can start with other children for playing, other parents who can be counted not to harm your children (so your children can sleep over there, don't require constant attention, you do owe favour too), somebody who already faced similar problem with their children (behaviour, medical issues)
 
It' not just a kingdom.

It's objectively harder today to raise bigger family.

You can start with cost of living crisis. Starter home are way expensive than few decades before. It times more salaries now to afford home than before.

Capital gain taxes combined with inflation plus raised mortage rates means seniors staying in multiple bedroom houses instead of selling them to younger families.

Housing also got hit with more regulation generally. Enjoy more higher prices.

Don't forget equality issue where certain groups of people are prosecuted enough and send to jail. So now city center when everything is relatively close are off limits due to crime and eveybody moves to suburbs. Enjoy paying for car and eveything taking more times.

Social relationships got commericalized. What way before social favour and social currency was replaced with money. Advice from friend was replaced by therapist, gradma by nanny. What came before free, now costs money.

So young people face higher costs and they have less social support.

And people have become less accepting of children in public. They misbehave, are loud etc.. Other people in public have to watch/listen parents trying to control their children. If parents see looks of disapproval, it will negatively influence decision for next child.

My favourite reason is this BS:


View attachment 12536

While they do save individual children, 3rd child means buying bigger car. So actually more parents decide not to have 3rd child than are saved by child car seat in accidents. They prevent more births than save from car accidents.

And some countries force you to drive in child in child car seat till they are seven.

My brother, when he had two children, drove me in regular car. I was sitting between two child car seats. Now, he has three children, had to repla e regular car with SUV and I don't to be placed in trunk. In good old times 4 persons could be placed in back seats, nobody cared, now you earn fine by police.

I have found stories of Americans remembering how they used to roam neighboorhood and find their own fun in 90s. Now, that is visit by child protective services. So now you have to organize play dates with other parents so that children can play. See, before children did find their own fun, now that parent's duty.

So if child requires constant watching, if each child has different hobby, you have to hire a nanny.

And don't get me started on Boomers who prefer cruises over watching grandchildren.

And church failed in another way. Before, you could hire young (usually teenage) girl as nanny for pocket money. Desire to keep reputation in church and community was guarantee of acceptable level of service.

Now, you can't count on that. So pay for proffesional nanny. And maybe you finish responsible for her W2 employment form.

And since USA is in decade long economic stagnation, social mobility start to die off, so parents, naturally, prefer less children so that each child can have more educational resources. Otherwise, child will fall to lower social class and no parents wants that.

So solution is to rebuild social fabric to have real communities, nuking regulations and taxes and government budget and restoring intermediate organizations. Nisbet, in his work "Quest for Community" basically say totalitarianism in West was impossible thanms to intermediate organizations. They were larger than individual and smaller than state.

They matter because they provided social cohesion and mutual help. Snd protected individuals against state. Church used to provide that. Good church with several hundred regulars should be able to provide a llllllloooooootttttt of help with children.

We can start with other children for playing, other parents who can be counted not to harm your children (so your children can sleep over there, don't require constant attention, you do owe favour too), somebody who already faced similar problem with their children (behaviour, medical issues)

Great insights. But the chances of my children ever having a sleepover or roaming the neighborhood are zero.

While we've always lived in a fallen world, it seems to be getting worse.
 
So a tangent question could be- Does wealth come BEFORE a family is created (so dad can AFFORD several wives) or after where many hands make light work?
 
Back
Top