Wife History

Wife History
Blocked because of Malicious Activities
Reference ID: 13213655306319d04e8e644

Topics
Content Types
Blogs Videos Lists Thought Leaders Subscribe

The History of Marriage

Published: April 26, 2017

SAGU - 1200 Sycamore St., Waxahachie, TX 75165
1.888.YES.SAGU (1.888.937.7248)
INFO@SAGU.EDU
Privacy Policy Back to top
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, NKJV)
The bond between man and wife is considered by many to be the closest tie possible for two human beings, closer even than that between blood relatives. But in many societies through history, two people might share both the marriage bond and blood kinship. Generally, modern Americans find the idea of marrying a blood relative to be disgusting. Such was not the case, however, among some ancient peoples. In some periods, for example, it was accepted practice for an Egyptian pharaoh to marry his sister. The reason had to do with keeping the royal line pure by not allowing other families to marry in.
Other ancient societies did much the same thing, although the blood connection might not always be so close. The patriarch Abraham’s wife Sarah, for example, was his half-sister. Whether this was common among the early Hebrews is unclear, but both Isaac and Jacob got wives (Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah) from their cousins.
The ancient Greeks also preferred their young people to marry family members. Their reasons, however, seem to have been primarily economic. By marrying cousins or other relatives, farmland was kept in the family, and the clan never saw its ancestral lands end up in the hands of outsiders.
Americans and Europeans up through the early nineteenth century were not always opposed to marrying within the family. European royal families, in particular, tried to find marriage matches from a very restricted group of prospective mates.
At some point, however, the desirability of keeping a line pure or holding onto family property runs head-on into the need for a bigger gene pool. Genetic health problems caused by breeding among relatives can be devastating. A clear example of this was the hemophilia carried in several of the related royal houses of Europe, such as the Russian Romanov family.
Not only who a person marries, but how he or she finds that mate has varied greatly in different times and places. Among tribal people, ancient and modern, capturing women from enemies has been a time-honored way of procuring wives. In Roman mythology at one point in their early history, Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, and his followers wanted to marry the daughters of a neighboring tribe, the Sabines. When their request was rejected, the Romans decided on a stratagem. They held a great religious festival and invited the Sabines and other neighbors. At a prearranged signal during the festival, the Romans grabbed the Sabine maidens they wanted and hurried away with them, fighting off any Sabine men who tried to interfere. Eventually, Romulus convinced the women to accept legal marriage, and the two groups peacefully integrated.
A similar situation occurred in the Book of Judges, when the other tribes of Israel decimated the rebellious tribe of Benjamin in war. Their brother Israelites felt sorry for the few surviving Benjamite men and helped them capture girls from another tribe at a religious festival, in order for the Benjamites to produce children and continue to exist as a tribe.
In more modern times, the Comanches and other Plains Indian tribes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries regularly captured women from other tribes and from American and Mexican settlements and made them their wives. Similar examples of gaining wives by capture are fairly common in parts of central and southern Asia. Credible reports of forced marriages of Christian women to Muslim men in Egypt and elsewhere show that the practice is still very much alive.
A different method of obtaining a wife throughout much of history has been by an arranged marriage, with money passing between the parties. The marriage is arranged between the groom or his family and the bride’s family. The two types of money exchange, dowry and bride price, work in different ways. Some societies follow one of the two practices while other societies may use both.
The dowry is money or property that the bride brings from her family into the marriage. It often gives the young couple a start, something to build their household upon, but in other situations, it is simply kept in reserve. Muslim women in some societies wear their dowries around their necks in the form of coin necklaces. In cases where a dowried marriage ends in divorce, the bride takes her dowry and goes home to her family.
The bride price is just what it sounds like. The groom must pay an agreed sum to the bride’s family for the privilege of marrying her. An example of this from the Book of Genesis is Jacob’s years of unpaid work in order to marry Leah and Rachel.
Marriage based simply on the desires of the bride and groom has become almost universal in the Western world only in modern times, but such marriages for love seem to have always existed in individual circumstances. Folklore and traditions in many countries tell of love as the main driving force of marriages—the story of Romeo and Juliet was apparently not an anomaly.
One thing we can all probably agree on is that there’s a lot of disagreement about what properly constitutes a marriage. Although it’s clear that God instituted marriage, in the beginning, there have been differing views about whether weddings are primarily religious or secular events. For much of the early Christian Era, the Church stayed out of weddings and let the state handle the union of man and woman. Finally, sometime after 800 AD, the Church began to perform weddings, and a few centuries later the Catholic Church made marriage one of the sacraments.
Catholic and Protestant differences in their view of marriage became clear from the beginning of the Reformation. Catholics had long seen marriage as somewhat less godly than singleness, and during the Middle Ages it is estimated that 40% or more of men and women remained single, either for spiritual reasons or economic necessity. Martin Luther, however, held the view that marriage was the normal, proper condition of men and women, and it became almost universal among his followers and other groups of Protestants.
Polygamy has been widely accepted in many societies since ancient times. But what exactly is polygamy? Most people have the idea that it means one man has multiple wives at the same time, but polygamy is more generic than that. It means one person (man or woman) having multiple spouses of the opposite sex simultaneously. The term polygyny (literally, “many women”) refers to a man with multiple wives, but in a very few societies, a woman can have multiple husbands at the same time. This latter practice is called polyandry (literally “many men).
One type of marriage that is less prominent now than in the last century is common-law marriage. Basically, a man and woman living together and wanting to consider themselves married, even though they had never gone through a marriage ceremony, would be legally married under common law. Few couples today seem to want the status of marriage unless they have actually gone to the trouble of having a legal ceremony.
A final aspect of marriage that applies to only a very limited group of people is the responsibility for a marriage to produce an heir. We’re not talking about a family’s heir, but rather an heir to a country’s throne. In other words, this situation involves royal families only. Possibly the most famous such situation occurred in the early 1500s with England’s King Henry VIII.
Henry’s father (Henry VII) had been the final winner in a bloody series of civil wars known as the Wars of the Roses, in which two branches of the English royal family fought it out over which of its members would finally be the unanimously approved monarch. The problem all along had been that no one person had the clear-cut best claim to be the rightful king. To avoid another potential civil war over the throne when he died, Henry VIII wanted to make sure that he had a son. That way, there would be no doubt about who was the rightful heir to the throne. When his first wife, Catherine, couldn’t seem to have a son, Henry started down the road that would eventually bring him to six wives and the country to a new brand of Christianity.
Three centuries later, young Queen Victoria of England faced her own situation of having to produce an heir. Although she didn’t really want to marry, the law actually required her to do so to produce an heir, or she would have lost the throne.
Marriage has had a multitude of faces during the time that mankind has been on earth. One thing seems certain, however—if marriage was important enough for God to invent at the very beginning, then it must be here to stay.
*ThoughtHub is provided by SAGU, a private Christian university offering more than 60 Christ-centered academic programs – associates, bachelor’s and master’s and doctorate degrees in liberal arts and bible and church ministries.
ThoughtHub is a collection of knowledge to help you learn more about your favorite topics. Here you’ll find a variety of articles on subjects such as business, ministry, archaeology, communication, psychology, education and many more.

Remember me
Not recommended on shared computers

Wife's sexual history before marriage...ouch!

I understand the reaction of women to this issue is different - so what do you think ladies?
the fact that she limited your marital sex life to plain vanilla for so long is SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS.
I might have the wrong poster, but I believe you've posted elsewhere about a fairly promiscuous past and also that you don't believe it's your h's business what you did or who you did it with, and you tend to mock anyone who believes that their partner's sexual history (in a marriage or serious relationship) is any of their business.
A bunch of irrelevant words based on false assumption about who I am
So the idea is that his wife thought he wouldn't be receptive to her telling the OP the real truth about how she felt about him; yet she thought he would be receptive to being insulted and demeaned by her for the entire marriage? And somehow that would be his fault, because in her mind, she resented him for possibly not reacting like a complete doormat to being told whatever the truth really is?
50 is promiscous? I read the average female has 9 partners and I question that as well. What do the numbers mean, someone had lots of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Big deal, I like expierenced women that know what to do in bed. They didn't get that way by reading cosmo and listening to Dr. Ruth, who cares about numbers. Sheesh!
My rule is never ask a question to which you may not want to know the answer. The past is gone. It's best left in the past.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Or sign in with one of these services

By
TiredFamilyGuy, September 10, 2012 in Marriage and Life Partnerships

After sixteen years of marriage and two children, only in the last six weeks has my wife opened up to actually talk with me about anything except everyday stuff. Should you be curious about what prevented communication and what I did to make it happen, there's another thread about that.

The talking has been going well. I always wanted it and now it's going feel I have no choice but to try to know her mind on everything under the sun, else risk being blindsided again.

Better yet, all this sharing has helped create intimacy, and as a by-product we've been having a lot more sex. That's good, and I've been wanting to make it even better by asking my wife what she really truly likes best in bed, as up until recently it's all been straight vanilla missionary.

To get to the point, in my humble quest for knowledge, I asked my wife how many partners she had before marriage, and who was her first. The answers to both were ... quite a surprise. I am trying to take it on the chin here but quite honestly I am having a bit of difficulty with the answers.

As for number of partners: fifty. And two threesomes.

My reaction to that? Well partly to damn myself for a fool for asking. But mostly kind of, oh ****. Of course I knew she'd had relationships - we married at 32 - but I had somehow assumed that hers were somehow like my relatively mere eight (which bar two were serial serious relationships). Well, she was young and attractive and getting hit on, and it was before I knew her, so it would be ridiculous to feel hard done by. But it does rather bother me that our histories are so different.

I realize, the surprise is entirely my fault for not having asked before we were married, or for asking at all without being better prepared for the answer. I'm also thinking, at least I should have asked for her number first then, I don't know, tripled my number or just winked mysteriously at her when it was my turn to fess up. What a dope.

But the more I think about this, the less it bothers me: she was young and hot. Considering her basket of other emotional issues, I even suppose a period of promiscuity should not surprise. I responded "Gee, that's ...quite a lot. But thank you for being honest with me." and we had sex again. So, I am telling myself, get over it.

The answer to the other question bothers me much, much more. Turns out her first was the guy who introduced us, - we have met regularly socially throughout our marriage, and he is now married himself. Now, I knew that he was a former boyfriend. But I also remember asking way back, feeling a bit uncomfortable for some reason around him, asking whether he was her first, and she said no. Turns out he is. Now he is a fine fellow, I owe him for the introduction, and he lives far away. But we recently met up and formed vague plans to go, as two married couples, on vacation together. Can't see that happening, the way I'm feeling now.

I really don't want to beat her up about it, especially as what I want to do is get her to talk to me honestly about stuff, and she is doing it. But I mind about the lie, feel a loss of intimacy and want to make it clear to her, that it is the lie that bothers me rather than anything else. She says, she just did not want to cause upset and appears to regard it as no big deal.

Any advice people? To help me process this stuff and also make my point.

I understand the reaction of women to this issue is different - so what do you think ladies?

BTW I think I need to lighten up so feel free, make some fun also, I feel like a prize idiot here.

I don't know if I have a particular 'female' reaction to this, but as you say yourself I would be more worried about the lies than about her sexual past. It's not good that she views that as 'no big deal'. On the other hand, with the kind of situation you are describing, I doubt that there have been any feelings between the two of them for a very long time.

For what it's worth, I guess I've been in a somewhat similar situation - I had a lot more sexual experience than my H when we got married. He had close to zero and while my so called number isn't as high as your wife's, it's probably high enough to scare a good chunk of men. Unlike the two of you, we had this conversation before marriage rather than after and he was at first very uncomfortable with it. I let him talk through his discomfort and answered all his questions, and this went on for a good while - then I eventually got to a point where I kind of said 'either you need to be able to accept this as part of who I am, or we need to part'. He got over it and we moved on.

I briefly read your other threads in the past although I did not respond. It seems like the two of you have made a breakthrough with regard to meaningful communication. I would focus on continuing that work, and let her know that it's really important that she is honest with you, and that the discovery of this lie makes you wonder whether there have been other things she has been hiding from you. Tell her, at the same time, what you have said here: that you feel that this process of the two of you opening more up to each other has been really helpful in different ways and so on, so that she understands that opening up and her being honest is a crucial step in rebuilding your relationship.

About her past 'numbers', etc - it kind of is what it is. She can't go back and redo it, and you can't go back and discover that information prior to marriage rather than after 16 years. I don't really know that else to say about that.
I would be more bothered about the 3'somes really.

The talking has been going well. I always wanted it and now it's going feel I have no choice but to try to know her mind on everything under the sun, else risk being blindsided again.

Better yet, all this sharing has helped create intimacy, and as a by-product we've been having a lot more sex. That's good, and I've been wanting to make it even better by asking my wife what she really truly likes best in bed, as up until recently it's all been straight vanilla missionary.

To get to the point, in my humble quest for knowledge, I asked my wife how many partners she had before marriage, and who was her first. The answers to both were ... quite a surprise. I am trying to take it on the chin here but quite honestly I am having a bit of difficulty with the answers.

As for number of partners: fifty. And two threesomes.

My reaction to that? Well partly to damn myself for a fool for asking. But mostly kind of, oh ****. Of course I knew she'd had relationships - we married at 32 - but I had somehow assumed that hers were somehow like my relatively mere eight (which bar two were serial serious relationships). Well, she was young and attractive and getting hit on, and it was before I knew her, so it would be ridiculous to feel hard done by. But it does rather bother me that our histories are so different.

I realize, the surprise is entirely my fault for not having asked before we were married, or for asking at all without being better prepared for the answer. I'm also thinking, at least I should have asked for her number first then, I don't know, tripled my number or just winked mysteriously at her when it was my turn to fess up. What a dope.

But the more I think about this, the less it bothers me: she was young and hot. Considering her basket of other emotional issues, I even suppose a period of promiscuity should not surprise. I responded "Gee, that's ...quite a lot. But thank you for being honest with me." and we had sex again. So, I am telling myself, get over it.

The answer to the other question bothers me much, much more. Turns out her first was the guy who introduced us, - we have met regularly socially throughout our marriage, and he is now married himself. Now, I knew that he was a former boyfriend. But I also remember asking way back, feeling a bit uncomfortable for some reason around him, asking whether he was her first, and she said no. Turns out he is. Now he is a fine fellow, I owe him for the introduction, and he lives far away. But we recently met up and formed vague plans to g
Candid Nudist Workout
Eat Sperm Cuckold Gangbang
Mini Stripper

Wife History

Report Page