Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Mormon twin sisters who share a husband

44 posts in this topic

From their brunette hair to their dress sense, twin sisters Vicki and Valerie Darger have a number of things in common.

But the 42-year-olds share more than just their looks - they are both married to the same man.

The sisters are in a polygamous marriage with Joe, 43, who is also wed to a third woman - their cousin Alina.

The Dargers, who are fundamentalist Mormons from Salt Lake City, Utah, live together in a large family home and have 24 children between them.

http://www.dailymail...ied-cousin.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most men's fantasies...... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Busy guy... but that's still just two wives, his first wive's ex had six. Makes you think how they set up their lives... it's a sexual and emotional challenge, not to talk about 24 kids... some alimony if you get a rocky divorce. :unsure2: Not my fantasy, even the bed level is "hmm maybe..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Busy guy... but that's still just two wives, his first wive's ex had six. Makes you think how they set up their lives... it's a sexual and emotional challenge, not to talk about 24 kids... some alimony if you get a rocky divorce. :unsure2: Not my fantasy, even the bed level is "hmm maybe..."

He can only be legaly married to one as polygamy is ilegal in the USA.

I can see the logic or potential advantages to this kind of lifestyle, and don't have anything against it, even though I would never do it myself. Where I do protest this particular relationship is that the wives are all related. That, for some reason, I find objetionable.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people are the lunatic fringe, not mainstream at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most men's fantasies...... :innocent:

Yes, but it could backfire.......twice the nagging...... :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it could backfire.......twice the nagging...... :whistle:

That's what they made basements for.......Only let them out when they are needed........... :devil:

Yes, that was a joke.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most men's fantasies...... :innocent:

Except..... 24 kids ............ WHEW! I do not even get lucky that many times in a year!

He looks a lot like a double murderer caught here recently - Malcolm Naden. Check it out, quite similar I thought! Reminded me of Malcolm straight away!

malcolmnaden_wideweb__470x433,0.jpg

article-2138349-12E19CD5000005DC-190_634x776.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as fundamentalist Mormons. Polygamy has been outlawed in the church for over 100 years. Anyone caught holding to such practices are excommunicated. These people have no affiliation with the official LDS church. I get so tired of having to explain it.

Edited by Totah Dine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as fundamentalist Mormons. Polygamy has been outlawed in the church for over 100 years. Anyone caught holding to such practices are excommunicated. These people have no affiliation with the official LDS church. I get so tired of having to explain it.

Who are these guys then?

Link - Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to point these guys out. I'm glad someone else did. They, or rather their leaders, are a bunch of freaks. There are so many books on this church that will horrify you. The key thing to remember is that they are a very small group. Every religion has their freaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can only be legaly married to one as polygamy is ilegal in the USA.

I can see the logic or potential advantages to this kind of lifestyle, and don't have anything against it, even though I would never do it myself. Where I do protest this particular relationship is that the wives are all related. That, for some reason, I find objetionable.

I have 2 very big issues with it. First, google "lost boys" and "FLDS." Second, because you can only legally be married to one person, every wife (with children) that is not his legal wife is, is considered a "single mom." Single moms are entitled to a lot of government aid like wellfare and food stamps. Not all take advantage of the system but many do...and it is very easy to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 very big issues with it. First, google "lost boys" and "FLDS." Second, because you can only legally be married to one person, every wife (with children) that is not his legal wife is, is considered a "single mom." Single moms are entitled to a lot of government aid like wellfare and food stamps. Not all take advantage of the system but many do...and it is very easy to do.

Well that's a great reason to impose lifestyles on other people.

I don't see anything wrong with adults choosing the way they want to live. It's not for me. I only have the emotional stability for one woman, but whatever floats their boat.

There are plenty of people in monogomous marriages that are miserable. If this makes them happy then so be it. I hate when governments or religions try to tell people how to live their lives. There are many ploygimous cultures some with plural wives some with plural husbands and they do just fine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care how many people marry each other as long as they are consenting adults.

But...boy would it help with housework... :whistle:

Nibs

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as fundamentalist Mormons. Polygamy has been outlawed in the church for over 100 years. Anyone caught holding to such practices are excommunicated. These people have no affiliation with the official LDS church. I get so tired of having to explain it.

Correct, they banned it when the US gov said they would not allow it.

Though there are still likely to be fundamentalist Mormons.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a great reason to impose lifestyles on other people.

I don't see anything wrong with adults choosing the way they want to live. It's not for me. I only have the emotional stability for one woman, but whatever floats their boat.

There are plenty of people in monogomous marriages that are miserable. If this makes them happy then so be it. I hate when governments or religions try to tell people how to live their lives. There are many ploygimous cultures some with plural wives some with plural husbands and they do just fine.

Yeah, damn government telling people what they can and can't do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being "christian" to this degree would mean the sex is probably pretty boring. I'd rather have just one wife than 3 wives who are boring in bed and won't intermingle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think legall polygamy is a very civilised way to organise a family relationship. It has many benefits for all concerned. It tends to meet the needs of some men and women, as well as children, more than traditional marriage forms. Given the recognition/ legalisation of gay mariages in many jurisdictions, I believe that polygamy should also be legalised and recognised as a legitimate form of social relationship. Issues such as taxation and benefits have nothing to do with this, in that they can be apporached separately.

For example in austrlalia if a couple "Live together" and consider themsleves a couple, they are treated as a married couple for taxation purposes whether married or not. Ownership of property and the status of childen is not altered by a marriage or lack of one, within such a relationship.Eg a n unmarried woman has the same rights to property settlement as a married one, in a relationship.

My family is quite traditional, yet i jave two nieces( From my wifes side :innocent: )among many Neither has ever officially married. One has 6 children by 3 different fathers; the other, 4 children from 4 different relationships. The kids are not very well adjusted. If they had lived in a stable loving relationship, knowing their fathers, having an ongoing loving relationship with them, then everyone would be better off.

A nother niece was married once for a few months.She has 3 children from two separate relationships and now lives with a third man who is the father of none of the children.

Extended familys or clans work very well, but are not suited to the requirements of modern industry and governments who want to get women back into the work force as soon as they can, and see a family as secondary in inportance to employment and economic considerations.

Personally i have never needed, wanted, or required, a woman other than my wife; but for many men and women polygamy in a legal stable and recognised relationship would be very workable and better for the children than many existing family structures.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think legall polygamy is a very civilised way to organise a family relationship. It has many benefits for all concerned. It tends to meet the needs of some men and women, as well as children, more than traditional marriage forms. Given the recognition/ legalisation of gay mariages in many jurisdictions, I believe that polygamy should also be legalised and recognised as a legitimate form of social relationship. Issues such as taxation and benefits have nothing to do with this, in that they can be apporached separately.

*Snip*

I actually don't have a problem with polygamy at all. As long as none in the family are collecting any public services like welfare or food stamps etc. Other than that, I don't think it should be anybodies business. I say let them have a go at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I actually don't have a problem with polygamy at all. As long as none in the family are collecting any public services like welfare or food stamps etc. Other than that, I don't think it should be anybodies business. I say let them have a go at it.

Despite some recent cutbacks Australia has a very robust welfate system driven by certain policy beliefs. How do you feel about a married woman, or one in a defacto relationship receiving govt benefits, to have children, or to help pay for education etc

Is it a general anagonism to the concept of social benefits, or a problem with paying benefits to non married or polygamous couples

We basically have free education and free public health for everyone unless you want to"go private" in either, and pay for a particular school or doctor. Basically every woman in australia recieves 6000 dollars on the birth of a child and then an income stream each fortnight of several hundred dollars per child until the child is of school age. (This reduces for high income earners )Low income earners also get money to pay for rent and essential services. Until this week the income was paid until the child was older, but now the govt has switched policy from trying to increase our birthrate, to trying to get as many women as possible into the work force

A family with 4 or 5 childen can easily earn as much as a skilled worker, by making the family the basis of their "work".

No one seems to complan about this, first because until now we have all been relatively wealthy and the cost of living has been relatively low especially for the basics. But also because, without more australian children, we will have to import workers from overseas to do much of the work in a declining and aging population.

it is very tricky getting precise info from the govt becaus eit depends a lot on individaul circumsatnces but the following are the maximum payment rates for low income families This does not include other benefits. which are alos available

Maximum payment amounts

For each child Per fortnight Child, 0 - 12, each $164.64 Child, 13 - 15, each $214.06 Child, 16 - 19, secondary student, each $214.06 Child, 16 - 17, completed secondary study, each $52.64 Child, 18 - 20 completed secondary student, each $70.56 Child 21 in full time study $70.56

Supplements

Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement

You can also get an extra Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement[1] of up to $726.35 for each child, after the end of the financial year when your payments are balanced. This will happen after you and your partner have lodged your tax returns (If you and/or your partner are not required to lodge a tax return you must tell the Family Assistance Office[2]). The amount of supplement payable may vary depending on family income or circumstances.

Large Family Supplement

You may get $11.34 a fortnight for the 3rd and each subsequent child.

Multiple Birth Allowance

You may get $136.64 a fortnight for triplets or $182.00 a fortnight for quadruplets or more.

Income test

An <a href="http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_a_iat.htm">income test[3] is used to work out how much Family Tax Benefit Part A you can get.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_a_rates.htm#base

As you can see 5 kids and you are earning 20000 dollars a year on top of the original baby payment plus your own dole money /welfare of about 15000 a year, plus money for rent etc. it can be a lucrative lifestyle especaily where you have a couple of families living in one home.

The baby bonus scheme introduced by the Federal Government of Australia in the 2002 budget was aimed at offsetting the expenses associated with bearing a child. The scheme was also introduced as a means of increasing Australia's fertility rate and to mitigate the effects of Australia's ageing population.[3] In the 2004 budget the bonus was raised from $3,000 effective 1 July 2004 to $4,000 payable in 2007 but indexed to inflation so that in October 2007, the amount receivable per eligible child was $4,133.[4] The bonus was paid in a lump sum to a nominated financial institution. From January 1, 2009 the payment is paid in 13 fortnightly installments. The receivable amount from July 2010 is $5,294[5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus

Because this is indexed for inflation i beleive it is now about $6000 per child One of my nieces received 12000 dollars when she had twin boys. And of course all hospital and medical expenses are free for low income earners, and pharmeceuticals are about 4 dollars per script.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totah dine is correct about polygamy being outlawed in the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. thank you for posting that, totah dine. i appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Despite some recent cutbacks Australia has a very robust welfate system driven by certain policy beliefs. How do you feel about a married woman, or one in a defacto relationship receiving govt benefits, to have children, or to help pay for education etc

Is it a general anagonism to the concept of social benefits, or a problem with paying benefits to non married or polygamous couples

You do bring up a valid point here but I have a moral issue (for what that is worth.) In apes, as in humans, the family construct is made up based on resources. If there are vast resources, we often see polygamy but if resources are lacking we often see monogamous relationships. Islam has a great view on this concept. Their view is that a man can have as many wives as he can support (and they add standards of what “support” is.)

By this reasoning a man is able to support all of his wives based on the resources (or money he makes.) For this reason, they should not receive government benefits because they do not need them, but many take them. The FLDS communities drain millions out of the government every year. They call it “bleeding the beast.” If they need government aid, the man obviously has too many wives.

In addition to that, the male to female ratio in births of humans is about 1 to 1. This means there are as many males as there are females. If every man has 2, 3, 4, or 5 wives, the same numbers of men do not have wives. This is the reason the FLDS gets rid of young men…they have too many of them and they are competition. There have been cases in history where kings have harems of thousands of women and it got so bad that only the few rich and powerful men were able to have sex or have wives. This is a numbers issue. I know most men would “welcome the competition” but you are either delusional, or a prick. I do not see how depriving a large number of men from females would help the society. Also, do not say I am being sexist because the argument would be the same if we were talking about women having many husbands…

Now Australia is a weird situation…maybe it makes sense for them…maybe the country is messed up. Not passing judgment either way but it is a very different situation than we have in the U.S.

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

name='HuttonEtAl' timestamp='1336223276' post='4285013']

You do bring up a valid point here but I have a moral issue (for what that is worth.) In apes, as in humans, the family construct is made up based on resources. If there are vast resources, we often see polygamy but if resources are lacking we often see monogamous relationships. Islam has a great view on this concept. Their view is that a man can have as many wives as he can support (and they add standards of what “support” is.)

I agree there is a moral issue but its not about resources, its about what is the "moral" form of relationship between men and women. I dont think govts should have much of a role in this. In this century men do not support women They work as partners. In a modern country women are expected to contribute to the economy just as much as men. Hence the govt pays maternity leave for all women workers for a few months and then expects them to get back to work, The concept of the individual wealth of a man determining how many wives he can have is no longer relevant nor is it workable in a modern society. The concept of a man supporting a woman is fairly antiquated and also tends to demean many women and restrict their role in society. (says he whose wife has not worked since marriage and who has supported her without an ygovt benefits for nearly 40 years ) But I am the exception in modern australia It s almost unheard of for a married woman to not work once her children are a few years old. (except for those who make a living from breeding babies) :innocent:

By this reasoning a man is able to support all of his wives based on the resources (or money he makes.) For this reason, they should not receive government benefits because they do not need them, but many take them. The FLDS communities drain millions out of the government every year. They call it “bleeding the beast.” If they need government aid, the man obviously has too many wives.

In australia all are given some govt benefits eg free education and health care, but the poorest people get the most. This does tend to create a welfare dependency in some but at least it means that only the mentally ill or willfully delinquent need be poor. The govt here doesnt expect a man to provide for his family but does expect a family to provide for itself as far as possible by having men and women working. On the other had the govt is trying to increase fertility. Like all western countries our fertility is well below replacement level and most women have a average of only 1.6 children, not enough to repalce a man and a woman the govt is providing incentives to try and get tha t average up to at least 2.2 (replacement level) or a bit more if possible.

In addition to that, the male to female ratio in births of humans is about 1 to 1. This means there are as many males as there are females. If every man has 2, 3, 4, or 5 wives, the same numbers of men do not have wives. This is the reason the FLDS gets rid of young men…they have too many of them and they are competition. There have been cases in history where kings have harems of thousands of women and it got so bad that only the few rich and powerful men were able to have sex or have wives. This is a numbers issue. I know most men would “welcome the competition” but you are either delusional, or a prick. I do not see how depriving a large number of men from females would help the society. Also, do not say I am being sexist because the argument would be the same if we were talking about women having many husbands…

This is an interesting point and might be significant if every one was polygamous but with only a percentage being so it has little effect. Also males die from conception onwards much faster than women and by middle age there is a considerable shortage of men The reality with sex is that men and women have considerably different sex drives and needs. Once a modern society disallows a married mans right to have sex whenever he wants to, the discrepancy in sexual requirements is quite marked. Polygamy better meets the average sexual needs of men and women. Plus a high percentage of women, and many men, never marry nor ever have a sustained sexual relationship. But my main point was that we already have tragically dysfunctional familys I would prefer polygamous stable families for child rearing than the serial semi monogamous ones practiced by many today A large percentage of the children I teach neither live with their fathers nor even know who they are. Polygamy is better than that form of family.

Now Australia is a weird situation…maybe it makes sense for them…maybe the country is messed up. Not passing judgment either way but it is a very different situation than we have in the U.S.

Australia is not weird :innocent: It has a tradition of mateship and egalatarianism which combines a capitalist system with a very good social welfare system. And it is lucky to be able to afford this and still balance its budgets. Every australian over about 65 is entitled to an aged pension, if they do not have an adequate personal retirement fund, for example. Most people, like myself, combine elments of personal investment and govt pension

America tends to a more individualistic system. We find the opposition to a unversal health system in the USA weird, for example. I had a triple by pass and two weeks of hospital care with a week in ICU and it never cost me a penny, for example.

All australians who work contribute a levy to this on top of basic income tax, and everyone can acess it if they wish. It provides world class medical care. You can have a heart lung transplant or a baby, and never have to pay a cent.

Ps i just looked up the statistics. Approx 23% of males and 19% of females in australia neither marry nor form a defacto relationship. Ie 20 to 25 percent of the pop NEVER enters into a long term physicla or emotional relationship with another person

also

The probability of people ever marrying has declined as the rates of marriage have declined. Based on the nuptiality tables, 79% of boys born in 1985–1987 would get married; by 2000–2002, this proportion had fallen to 69%. For girls, the decline was from 86% to 74%. In other words, if 2000–2002 nuptiality rates were to prevail into the future, 31% of males and 26% of females would never marry in their lifetimes.

The decline in the proportion of married people would most likely have been less pronounced had there been no emergence of couples living in de facto marriages. De facto marriages have risen steadily in the Australian population over the past 15 years. According to the 1991 Census 4.3% of the total population aged 15 years and over were in a de facto marriage. The proportion increased to 5.3% in 1996, 6.4% in 2001, and in 2006, 7.7% of the population aged 15 years and over were in a de facto marriage.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/26D94B4C9A4769E6CA25732C00207644?opendocument

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Despite some recent cutbacks Australia has a very robust welfate system driven by certain policy beliefs. How do you feel about a married woman, or one in a defacto relationship receiving govt benefits, to have children, or to help pay for education etc

Is it a general anagonism to the concept of social benefits, or a problem with paying benefits to non married or polygamous couples

*Snip*

If I was young and single and had problems taking care of myself, I shouldn't take on a non-working wife, let alone have children. That just becomes a burden on society if social services are used.

If multiple people want to have a polygamist marriage and they can pay their own way for all of the bills, housing, costs of raising children, etc. I don't have a problem with that. It shouldn't be anyone's business.

Australia and the United States have very different systems.

Edited by Euphorbia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker,

Just wanted to correct myself on a point. I did not mean to imply that Australia is weird or that it is wrong, just different. I worded that poorly.

That is interesting how the fertility rate of Australia is lower like that. You guys need to come over and give our high schools some lessons…

You make a good point about women contributing as much as men. I guess I just still have an issue with polygamous families receiving government funding. I guess maybe it’s because of the politics and finances behind marriage. It’s like they get the benefits of being married but then get the benefits of not being married. I just feel like it is taking advantage of the system.

I don’t know if I would agree that polygamy best suits the “different” sex needs. There are also jealousy issues. I mean I guess if that’s what works for them, fine. My wife watches Sister Wives and I must admit there is something to be said about a man that can convince a number of women to let him have sex with them and other women, with them being okay with it. He deserves some admiration. My wife also supports the idea of polygamy but when I asked her about me getting another wife of having sex with another girl, she was strongly opposed…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.