Category Archives: Polygamy

Sister Wives star, Christine Brown reveals that polygamy turned out to be something different from expected. After over 25 years with Kody, Christine decided to leave her plural marriage with Kody Brown.

In the preview for the upcoming Jan 16 episode of Sister Wives, Janelle Brown and Robyn Brown discuss how the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the family.

Janelle admitted that she has been wondering if she still chooses the polygamist lifestyle. She said, Do I still choose plural marriage? Yeah, I still choose it. But Ive had to have that conscious decision with myself.

Janelle admitted to the cameras, My children are almost grown, and theres not a huge necessity anymore to stay. It was a wonderful way to raise children. She admitted, With Kody and I, our relationship is pretty strained. It would be really easy. Its easy to walk away.

Meri said, I havent really ever thought about, Well because Mariah is grown and out of the house, now should I leave the family.' Robyn says, I think Ive been shocked at how weve handled the pandemic. Its made me think, Why would we choose to do it how weve done this?'

However, Christine had something very different to say about what she thinks about plural marriage. She said, What I hoped polygamy to be when I was younger ended up being something very different from what I actually have lived.

Despite her marriage with Kody crumbling and her faith in plural marriage fading, she tried to be positive for the holiday season. Christine said, The thing is were heading into Christmas, and I need to be present and grateful for the family that I have. She says, I am who I am today because of polygamy because I lived it.

On Nov 2, 2021, Christine confirmed that split with Kody through a statement via Instagram. The Instagram post reads: After more than 25 years together, Kody and I have grown apart, and I have made the difficult decision to leave.

TheSister Wivesstar continues, We will continue to be a strong presence in each others lives as we parent our beautiful children and support our wonderful family.

Christines statement ends, At this time, we ask for your grace and kindness as we navigate through this state within our family. With love, Christine Brown.

In the next few episodes of Sister Wives, Christines marriage to Kody will be in the spotlight. Fans will be able to see the reasoning behind her choice to leave her plural marriage after nearly 28 years. Sister Wives airs Sundays on TLC and discovery+.

RELATED: Sister Wives: How Many Children Does Meri Brown Have?

Continue reading here:

Sister Wives: Christine Brown Says Polygamy Turned Out ...

The House of Dlamini is the royal house of the Kingdom of Eswatini. Mswati III, as king and Ngwenyama of Eswatini, is the current head of the house of Dlamini. Swazi kings up to the present day are referred to as Ingwenyama and they rule together with the Queen Mother who is called Indlovukati.[2] The Swazi kings, like other Nguni nations, practice polygamy and thus have many wives and children.[3]

The Dlamini dynasty traces itself back to a chief Dlamini I (also known as Matalatala), who is said to have migrated with the Swazi people from East Africa through Tanzania and Mozambique.[4] Ngwane III, however, is often considered to be the first King of modern Eswatini, who ruled from 1745 to 1780.[5] In the early years of the Dlamini dynasty, the people and the country in which they resided was called Ngwane, after Ngwane III.[6]

In the early 19th century, the Dlamini centre of power shifted to the central part of Eswatini, known as Ezulwini valley. This occurred during the rule of Sobhuza I. In the south of the country (present day Shiselweni), tensions between the Ngwane and the Ndwandwe led to armed conflict. To escape this conflict, Sobhuza moved his royal capital to Zombodze. In this process, he conquered many of the earlier inhabitants of the country, thereby incorporating them under his rule. Later on, Sobhuza was able to strategically avoid conflict with the powerful Zulu kingdom which was now ruling in the south of the Pongola River. The Dlamini dynasty grew in strength and ruled over a large country encompassing the whole of present Eswatini during this time.[citation needed]

The royal family includes the king, the queen mother, the king's wives (emakhosikati), the king's children, as well as the king's siblings, the king's half-siblings and their families.[citation needed] Due to the practice of polygamy, the number of people who can be counted as members of the royal family is relatively large. For example, King Mswati III is thought to have over 200 brothers and sisters.[7]

Members of the royal family, including the king himself, have courted both internal and international controversy. The king and his household have been criticized for their lavish spending in a country with high poverty rates. Reports have claimed that the king's large number of spouses and children "take up a huge chunk of the [national] budget"[8] and that "the royal family seems to live in its own world that is totally unaffected by the country's struggles".[9]

The king's siblings include Mantfombi Dlamini, the Queen of the Zulus of South Africa, while one of his in-laws is Princess Zenani Mandela-Dlamini, a member of the Mandela chieftaincy family of Mvezo, South Africa.

Several members of the royal family have been educated abroad: King Mswati III spent several years at Sherborne School, in Dorset, England, and his eldest daughter Inkhosatana Sikhanyiso Dlamini has studied at St Edmund's College, Ware, in Hertfordshire, and Biola University, in California, United States.[10]

The current official residence of the royal family is the Ludzindzini Palace in Lobamba; other royal palaces exist for the queen consorts. He has received criticism for his "lavish" spending habits.[11]

Follow this link:

House of Dlamini - Wikipedia

Sister Wives star Kody Brown may have multiple wives, but that definitely doesnt mean hes in love with all of them. But now, fans are actually curious whether or not hes genuinely in love with any of them.

These days, having plural wives seems to be more about the religion than love in the Brown household. On a Reddit thread, many Sister Wives fans started debating whether or not there could be romantic love in polygamist families.

The Reddit thread is titled, Do polygamists not marry for love? and brings up some very important points.

Kody said he never loved Meri, was not in love with Christine when they got married, and is not in love with Janelle & never really had a romantic relationship with her. Robyn is the only wife hes ever been in love with and he no longer advocates polygamy, the original poster says.

So do most polygamists just hire (marry) sister wives to perform specific duties within the family and thats all they are brought in for? Is a successful, functional polygamist family meant to be structured more like a business than an actual family where love isnt really in the equation?

Many of the comments seem to echo the OPs thoughts, but others brought up interesting points as well.

I think there is some history rewriting on Kodys part, especially about Meri, said someone else. Keep in mind that Meri was his first wife, so there likely was some level of romantic relationship there. Even if Kody says otherwise.

Agreed I am reading the book right now and he said that he was taken with Meri and couldnt get her off his mind, etc., someone else chimed in. It feels like once he met Robyn, he decided he never really had a good relationship with the other wives

Do you agree with their points? Let us know what you think in the comments.

We already know that Christine left the family. Will any of Kody Browns other wives follow suit?

We dont know much right now, but there are always circling rumors online. Meanwhile, Meri Brown is happily engaging in some much-needed self-care routines. She even sent herself flowers on Valentines Day.

At the end of the day, only Kody Brown knows if theres any real love in his polygamist family. Be sure to keep following us online for the latest Sister Wives news. Well keep you filled in as soon as we have more information on the family.

Nikole Behrens is a 2017 graduate of Ball State University where she finished with a degree in creative writing and a minor in Japanese. Today she is a professional writer for various companies and really enjoys contributing to TV Shows Ace.

More here:

Kody Brown's Family: Is There Any Love In Polygamy? - TV Shows Ace

The Shakers, who reached the peak of their popularity in America between 1820 and 1860, loathed the institutions of marriage and family for the sinful natural affections that accompanied them. Getty Images

Disconsolate after his beloveds marriage to another man in 1837, a young seminarian named John Humphrey Noyes declared in a bitter, anti-love poem to his ex:

I will not give you back your heart,

Ive wooed and fairly won it,

And sooner with my life Ill part,

You may depend upon it.

Not content with mere verse, Noyes would go on to turn his emotional anguish into a theological critique of the institution of monogamous marriage itself (or as he once called it, Egotism for Two). Condemning monogamy as simple and replacing it with a more heavenly, polyamorous version that he called complex marriage, in 1848 he founded a religious sect based on his teachings: the Oneida Community in upstate New York. There, people would be stripped as much as possible of their worldly I-spirit and have it replaced with the godlier we-spirit of genuine Christian fellowship. Only with this kind of radical reorientation, Noyes held, could believers experience community, family and marriage in the way that God had intended them.

For individuals feeling down about a lack of romantic fulfillment or a recent break-up this Valentines Day, Noyes story serves as a reminder that those unlucky in love are hardly alone eitheramong their contemporaries in 2022 or throughout human history. Three 19th-century American sectsthe Oneida Pantogamists, the Shaker celibates and the Mormon polygamistswaged wars against the so-called selfishness of monogamous marriage. All viewed romantic exclusivity as sinful, a hindrance to creating a more universal love for a community of fellow believers.

Monogamy, of course, won out. Experiments like Noyes commune now seem distant, strange and historically specific. Yet there is something familiar and universal in them.

We all search for meaning in the universe, and we all long for human intimacyto know our place in the bigger picture and to share that story with someone. These dual human drives are as old as the human species. Take the Book of Genesis, for example. Before God created Eve, Adam knew his cosmic significance and walked with his creator in Edenyet was still lonely and bummed out.

Noyes could relate. The next thing that a man wants after he has found the salvation of his soul, he wrote, is to find his Eve and his Paradise. When his first love renounced their shared faith and then announced her engagement to another man, his universe came crashing down around him.

So he picked up the pieces and created a new one, without that sinful institution that had caused him so much pain: monogamy. Rather than becoming some kind of perpetual, quasi-religious orgy, the Oneida Community was highly controlled. Prospective sexual partners had to arrange their liaisonsor fellowships as they called themthrough the ministrations of a third party, sleep separately after the fellowshipping had concluded, and strive not to have the same partner too often in order to prevent the relationship from becoming exclusive. As Noyes knew from experience, the desire for exclusivity is one of the most powerful emotions that romanticized and sexualized human love can engender. Such passion could only bring spiritual ruin.

The Shakers, who were founded in mid-18th century England and reached the peak of their popularity in America between 1820 and 1860, similarly loathed the institutions of marriage and family for the sinful natural affections that accompanied them. Shaker villages were to be believers new families, complete with spiritual mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers all living together in harmony, worshipping the Lord, working hard for their bread and waging a communal war against the flesh by abstaining from sex.

Over the Shakers, too, loves pain hovered. Mother Ann Lee, the groups founder, had tragic and traumatic experiences in childbirth, losing all four of her newbornsa fact to which later commentators point as the psychological source of her hatred of all sex.

The story of Steven Sutton, a new convert living in the Shaker village at Canterbury, New Hampshire, in the 1780s, illustrates just how painful this struggle against exclusive love could be. His wife was an amiable woman, and I loved her, he wrote. But after joining the community, now I must hate her The leaders said, She was my god. Separating the family proved to be too much for her, and when she was buried, Sutton continued, I was ordered to cover the earth over her coffin, to show that I had no natural affections; this I did, when at the same time, I felt as though I should pitch into the grave with her.

For Mormon polygamists, the message was largely the same, even if the remedy was assuredly not, with religious leaders especially targeting women in their crusade against selfishness. I am sure that, through the practice of this principle of plural marriage, Elder George Q. Cannon wrote, we shall have a purer community, a community more experienced, less selfish and with a higher knowledge of human nature than any other on the face of the earth.

The words of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, plural widow of Joseph Smith and later apologist for Mormon polygamy, indicate that she had internalized this logic. Plural marriage will exalt the human family, she wrote in an 1882 letter, and in the place of selfishness, patience and charity will find place in [plural wives] hearts, driving therefrom all feelings of strife and discord.

As with the Shakers and Oneidans, selfishness was the real enemy of the Mormon polygamistsan impediment to personal godliness and communal unity that could only be slain (for the plural wives) through the sacrifice of their exclusive claim to their husbands. These sacrifices were often truly painful for the adherents of all three sects, which is why leaders needed mechanisms of control to enforce the communities practices whenever individual discipline wavered. Although faithful, the believers struggled profoundly to extirpate the special love they had for othersa love they were told was selfish and sinful.

Why did Mormons, Shakers, and Oneidans all target even the exclusive romantic love found in the time tested, biblically sanctioned and socially accepted institution of monogamous marriage?

For starters, perhaps that institution was not so biblically bulletproof as its defenders might have imagined. All three groups used the same verses from the Bible to attack it. The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, Jesus proclaims in Luke 20:34-35, but those worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Both the Shakers and the Oneidans referred to this straightforward proof text often in defending their decision to abolish monogamy.

For polygamous Mormon Saints, who place the institution of marriage and the obligation of reproduction through sex at the center of their story of eternity, it was a little different. They believed that more wives would mean more children for the paterfamilias both on earth and in the afterlife. Mormons countered those selfish, complaining plural wives who wanted to be their husbands one and only with a heightened commitment to religious duty.

What also bound these three sects together was the time and place in which they rose, institutionalized and fell, relatively simultaneously. In the 1830s, the federal government was weak, the American frontier seemingly endless, and the opportunities for sectarian start-ups equally boundless. By the 1880s, however, the federal government was strong and getting stronger, the frontier was rapidly disappearing, and the majority of Americans were increasingly intolerant of sexual and marital arrangements they believed corroded the nations morality.

By 1881, the Oneida Community had dissolved, the Shakers were losing members at an alarming rate (and, obviously, failing to spawn new ones), and many Mormons were actively choosing monogamy over polygamy. The external environment that had once nurtured religious sexual experimentation had indeed turned from tolerable to toxic, and the internal desire of many sectarians to reject monogamy for something else had waned as well. Having originally condemned romantic exclusivity as sinful, over time more of them nevertheless wanted it.

We still grab at the romantic ring today, and it is understandable that we do, especially coming out of the shared solitary confinement we have all been through for the past two years. Adam wanted an Eve. John Humphrey Noyes wanted his lost beloved. My wife wants me to up my romantic game. If this Valentines Day you, too, are feeling particularly fired up by romantic disappointment, you can always take a page from Noyes, and write a poem about it. Noyes verse continues:

You say your heart is still your own,

But words will never prove it.

What God and you and I have done

Will stand; the world cant move it.

Or maybe try launching an entirely new religio-sexual community, complete with a cosmology, hierarchy, institutions and disciplinary apparatus. And buy my new book, Sex and Sects. It will show you how.

Stewart Davenport is an associate professor of American history at Pepperdine University, specializing in the period from 17501890. His second book, Sex and Sects: The Story of Mormon Polygamy, Shaker Celibacy, and Oneida Complex Marriage (UVA Press, 2022), is due out in March.

Recommended Videos

Read the rest here:

The Sects That Rejected Sex in 19th-Century America - Smithsonian

Photo taken in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

If you've perused Bumble or Tinder lately, you may have noticed "ENM" in some bios. ENM, or "ethical nonmonogamy," is the practice of having multiple relationships in which all parties are aware of what is going on - so no, it's not cheating. Though it's referred to as "polyamory" in some circles (having intimate relationships with more than one person at the same time) and often conflated with "polygamy" (being married to multiple partners), the term "poly" may seem tainted to some, conjuring up "Sister Wives" TV show drama and the disempowerment of women. My partners and I prefer to use the term "ethical nonmonogamy" since it truly embodies what we're about: mutual respect, intimacy, and exploring multiple partnerships.

I currently have a husband and a girlfriend. My husband and I first began exploring this lifestyle during our long-distance relationship before we were married. Frequently traveling 6,000 miles between our homes in Hawaii and Florida was not feasible, but we knew we wanted to be together for the long haul. Though we had a rich relationship through FaceTime and over the phone, we both craved in-person connection. I also identify as bisexual and found myself desiring a deeper woman connection. We decided to open our relationship - something neither of us had thought of as a possibility before.

In the beginning, we didn't ask about the dating or physical intimacy we were experiencing with others outside of our relationship. But after a few dates, we realized sharing what we were doing and how we were feeling actually helped dispel jealousy and brought us even closer. Sure, I felt heart pangs when he went on dates, and I sometimes felt guilty meeting a potential partner at the beginning, but as we worked together to create our own definition of a relationship, I watched us grow closer. I've never trusted anyone more. When I finally moved to join him in Florida a year and a half later, we expanded by opting to meet one another's partners during the beginning of their relationships. We found this built trust and understanding between us and made our partners feel more comfortable, too. No one had to worry about deceit or ill intentions; it was all up front. We didn't have to be friends necessarily, but a few of his previous partners are now my closest friends.

Story continues

My husband is considered my primary partner - we've chosen to cohabitate and marry, make financial decisions together, and raise a dog. (We've decided not to have children, though we have heard about successful ENM relationships who choose to coparent.) Our partners, while traditionally termed "secondaries," are anything but. They are a part of both of our lives. My past boyfriend was originally my husband's best friend, and these days we spend time with my current girlfriend both together and separately. We have a weekly trivia team, attend dinner parties, and go out together. We have shared friends and carved out a space in one another's circles, developing unique and separate friendships complete with strings of meme-filled text messages. We take care of one another. It's become a community.

Related: How to Take the Sexual Blueprint Quiz From Sex, Love & Goop, Because We Know You Want To

When some people first hear I'm in an open relationship, they are quick to quip, "I could never do that! I'd be too jealous"; "So you're not really in a 'real' relationship or committed"; or "You're just doing this so you can have sex with multiple people." I understand the ENM lifestyle is not for everyone, but having a husband and a girlfriend (and in the past, a boyfriend), has allowed me to continue to explore my fluid sexuality while developing deep, intimate relationships with my partners and expanding my capacity for love. It isn't just about sex. In fact, I've had partnerships void of physical intimacy. For me, it's about building deeper relationships and not limiting what they look like and how they grow.

It isn't just about sex. . . . For me, it's about building deeper relationships and not limiting what they look like and how they grow.

Through the years, our openness has looked different. We work together to set boundaries around what we're comfortable with, such as how much time we spend with another person or traveling with another partner. Some ENM relationships place boundaries around physical acts outside of the primary relationship. For us, making sure we both feel valued and full in our relationship is our first priority. Ensuring our external partners are also comfortable and have their needs met is important, too. We understand these boundaries can shift; they're always up for discussion as needed. There are times we've stepped back from our external partnerships to focus on growing our own relationship - especially as newlyweds - and there are times we've had to end an external relationship because it was no longer healthy to our shared connections.

Breakups still hurt, even when I know my primary partner is still there for me at home. I'm currently working through the heartbreak that comes with losing a boyfriend because he was someone I valued spending time with, grew very close to, and considered one of my best friends. Someone I loved. But as with any relationship, we have to know when to move on when one or both parties are hurting. Because of my openness throughout it all with my husband and my other partner, having their support and listening ears has helped me heal.

Being in an open relationship has allowed me to step fully into my sexuality, and it has brought me deeper connections with my husband and other partners. Even if you're not into the idea of ENM, the concepts of honesty and communication taught in these circles can be applied to any relationship. We're not seeking a warm body to fill a hole in a relationship. Instead, we are expanding our vast capacity to love each other and our external partners, continue learning and growing, and break the mold of what society claims a marriage "should" look like. We have a solid foundation of trust and clear channels of communication. We don't fear infidelity or replacement. With our mutual understanding, safe boundaries, and willingness to truly listen to the needs of others, I've never felt closer to my husband.

Link:

I Have a Husband and a Girlfriend - This Is Why Ethical Nonmonogamy Works For Us - Yahoo Lifestyle

Nick Cannon has shared his belief that monogamy is not "natural," adding that such relationships veer into the territory of "selfishness and ownership."

The TV personality, 41, has had seven children with four women over the years, sharing his first two with ex-wife Mariah Carey. It was also recently revealed that he's expecting his eighth child, with Bre Tiesi, bringing the total number of mothers to five.

Cannon, who welcomed four children over a span of 14 months, has now revealed that he feels more comfortable living a polyamorous lifethough he stressed that the women who have had his children believe in monogamy.

Making an appearance on The Language of Love podcast with Dr. Laura Berman on Wednesday, The Masked Singer presenter Cannon said that he only considers somebody to be "not single" if they are married.

"Married is not single," he said, per People. "When you allow the government and paperwork to come in and say, 'This is a bond, this is a covenant' ... you're not single."

He went on: "You can still make covenants without getting the government involved, where two people say, 'We choose to be monogamous because we value this so much, we don't want anyone to be a part of this energy we have,' and I don't feel like that's healthy.

"I don't think monogamy is healthy. I feel like that gets into the space of selfishness and ownership."

At the top of the interview, the San Diego-born star said that the women with whom he has had his children "don't want any parts of any polygamy," though he admitted that the "world knows" that he has sexual relationships with other women.

When asked during his interview if all of his children were planned, Cannon said: "I'm going to take full responsibility. Any woman that I know that I have unprotected sex with, there's the potential to have a child.

"So I feel like if I have unprotected sex with anyone I knowbecause one, I value everything about me so much, if I've gotten to that point where I say, 'I can take off this condom,' I'm gonna say, 'She could be the mother of my child.'"

The Wild 'N Out star stressed that he doesn't engage in unprotected sex with everyone, as he described himself as "the biggest germ freak in the world."

He said: "Every woman that I have a child with, there is definitely a conversation about, 'Wow, how amazing would this be?' I feel like every woman I have a child with are amazing mothers, and there was a thought process going into like, 'Man, she would be an amazing mother, she's desired children, I can't wait to see what type of mother she would be.'"

"So, in saying that, I would say that they're all planned," added the talk show host.

During the interview, he also singled out Carey, from whom he was divorced in 2014, saying: "Mariah and I co-parent very well. She and I are really great friends and she's kind of taught me so much. That's family."

He described his friendship with Carey as "a different setup" to the relationships he has with the other mothers of his children.

Cannon shares 10-year-old fraternal twins, Moroccan and Monroe, with Grammy-winning singer Carey; four-year-old son Golden and 14-month-old daughter Powerful Queen with Brittany Bell; and twin sons Zion Mixolydian and Zillion Heir, whom he welcomed with Abby De La Rosa in June 2021.

His youngest son, Zen, whom he shared with model Alyssa Scott, passed away at 5 months old in December 2021 after a brain cancer diagnosis.

In January, it was revealed that Cannon was expecting his eighth child, with Tiesi.

See the rest here:

Nick Cannon Calls Monogamy Unhealthy, About 'Selfishness and Ownership' - Newsweek

Like any chronicle of widespread migration across a continent, the history of the American West is a story about mixing cultures, languages and peoples. Beginning with the first French and English explorers, whenever whites encountered Native peoples, they fought, they traded goods, and inevitably they intermarried.

Anne F. Hyde's "Born of Lakes and Plains" seeks to bring this legacy of families sharing white and Native blood out of the shadows of our historical understanding. At certain times and places, intermarriage was a common practice. Native people simply extended this time-honored tool of diplomacy and trade between, say, Ojibwe and Menominee to whites.

Among Native peoples, marriage was often considered a temporary alliance, and polygamy accepted. Likewise, French fur traders seeking commercial contacts would claim a Native "country wife" on the frontier in addition to the femme back in Montreal. Their offspring faced uncertain futures, either as Natives or, less likely, as whites. Straddling cultures, they often served precarious roles as interpreters and go-betweens.

Hyde tries to corral her unwieldy narrative into the stories of five white men and their extended families ranging across North America from colonial times into the 20th century. (Intermarriage between white women and Native men was rare.)

William Bent, for example, married Mistanta, daughter of a Cheyenne clan leader, and built a successful trading post on the Arkansas River early in the 19th century. In keeping with Cheyenne custom, he also wed her two sisters and had children with all of them. One relative, George Bent, "began the [Civil War] as a white man but ended it as an Indian."

After serving in the Confederate Army, he joined with Black Kettle's Cheyenne band, who, despite surrendering, were massacred at Sand Creek in 1864. George survived only by hiding under a pile of bodies.

In the Northwest, fur entrepreneur Alexander McKay sired half-Chinook children by three wives. At the end of the 19th century, his grandson, William Cameron McKay, a physician, was barred from voting because he was considered 9/16ths Native and therefore not a citizen. Never mind that he had previously been elected to a local government position.

Henry Schoolcraft emerges as Hyde's villain. His wife Jane, half-Ojibwe, tried to adapt to white culture while keeping close ties to her Ojibwe roots. It was harder to remain close to Henry, who often went off on speaking tours, posing as an expert on Native peoples, while dismissing them as incapable of complex thought.

Unfortunately, as Hyde jumps from one large extended family to another, it's impossible to keep the names straight, let alone discern what makes any of them tick. In the effort to convey the wide variety of fates encountered by mixed-descent people, she has offered a huge, and hugely confusing, cast of characters. Family tree charts would have been a help.

By the age of reservations, mixed-descent people were forced to identify with one culture or the other. Both was not an option. Being called "mixed" was nothing but a slur.

Dan Cryer is the author of "Being Alive and Having to Die: The Spiritual Odyssey of Forrest Church."

Born of Lakes and Plains

By: Anne F. Hyde.

Publisher: W.W. Norton, 442 pages, $40.

View original post here:

Review: 'Born of Lakes and Plains,' by Anne F. Hyde - Minneapolis Star Tribune

MaKhumalo makes debut on the Real Housewives of Durban.

One of KZNs most favourite polygamy wives, Thobile MaKhumalo Mseleku, has made her eagerly anticipated debut on Showmax series The Real Housewives of Durban.

MaKhumalo is no stranger to the publics gaze. In addition to her appearances on uThando Nesthembu and Mnakwethu, shes a radio personality on Vuma FM and an in-demand motivational speaker, among other things.

The announcement of MaKhumalo joining the series flooded Twitter with excitement and concerns of her showing her yellow brick Umzumbe house on the show, along with concerns of her outshining her sister wives.

Expect to see the same MaKhumalo, but more of her as an individual and not in a polygamy marriage. I cant shy away from polygamy because I am polygamist, but now people will get to know me as an individual, as Thobile.

Thobile MaKhumalo Mseleku

Weekend Witness caught up with MaKhumalo to find out what we can expect from her this season.

Expect to see the same MaKhumalo, but more of her as an individual and not in a polygamy marriage. I cant shy away from polygamy because I am polygamist, but now people will get to know me as an individual, as Thobile, she said.

When asked what she thought about people saying they dont want to see her Umzumbe home on the show, she replied, If people dont want to see my yellow Umzumbe home, then it means they dont want to see MaKhumalo. Being in a reality show means that I have to be me, and I wouldnt be me if I dont show my Umzumbe home, because that is where I come from and that is who I am.

I dont believe that I have to forget who I am and where I come from when I go on to greener pastures, and if anything, the producers of the show are the ones who wanted that element of Umzumbe on the show, it is what they wanted, she said.

On outshining her sister wives, MaKhumalo said that people are looking at it the wrong way.

We are a polygamous family, and there are certain values and cultural things that could be compromised if you go into a show like this. As happy as he was for me, he had to raise some concerns. We did discuss everything and agreed on certain things, but other than that, he was in full support.

Thobile MaKhumalo Mseleku

We believe in growth and in supporting each other. Everyone [the sister-wives] is shining in their area of excellence and we support each other because we have to represent each other well, she said.

According to MaKhumalo, her husband and family were very supportive of her joining the show. Although, like every husband would, Musa Mseleku had some concerns.

We are a polygamous family, and there are certain values and cultural things that could be compromised if you go into a show like this. As happy as he was for me, he had to raise some concerns. We did discuss everything and agreed on certain things, but other than that, he was in full support, said MaKhumalo.

She is one of three new wives featured this season; songstress Londie London and wife of former kickboxer Calven Robinson, Jojo Robinson, made their debuts when the first episode of season two started, taking the show straight back to the top of the Twitter trends charts.

The rest is here:

Getting to know MaKhumalo as an individual on screen - News24

Ask a simple question, get a complicated answer. This certainly applies when you ask, who was St Valentine?

While records are sketchy, many historians have reached several conclusions about this elusive saint: 1. He was likely to have been a Catholic priest, and therefore, single; 2. He rebelled against Roman authority in order to protect others; 3. He was martyred for his faith.

As such, the type of love that St Valentine personified was nothing like the commercialised romantic love we celebrate today. Instead, he was an example of heroic love for the Lord and his church.

There are three likely candidates for the real St Valentine.

Very little is known about the first candidate, apart from a historical record of a man named Valentini who died on February 14 during the third century. He is believed to have died as a martyr in Africa along with 24 soldiers.

The second candidate was a Roman priest and physician. He comforted Christian martyrs during a time of persecution under Emperor Claudius II Gothicus. Eventually, St Valentine was also arrested, condemned to death for his faith, beaten with clubs and beheaded on February 14, around AD 270.

And the third candidate was the Roman Bishop of Interamna (now Terni, located around 100km from Rome). He too was arrested and decapitated during the time of Emperor Claudius II, dying on February 14, around AD 270.

As the last two St Valentine candidates share such similarities, many scholars believe they are, in fact, the same person.

The most common narrative about St Valentine and the one that links him to romantic love is that he was a priest who married couples during the reign of Claudius II. This is significant because, at that time, marriage between young people had been outlawed in an attempt to keep soldiers focused on war rather than wives.

Meanwhile, polygamy was rife in that society, as one Catholic priest noted in an interview with CBN. And so, by continuing to wed couples in secret, St Valentine was upholding the Christian churchs belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman for life.

Another well-known story about St Valentine revolves around an incident when he was under the custody of an aristocrat (and perhaps a judge) named Asterius. While under arrest, Valentine took the opportunity to try to convince Asterius about the truth of Jesus and his Christian faith.

Asterius challenged Valentine to prove it. He presented Valentine with his blind daughter and said if Valentine could restore her sight, he would convert.

Apparently, Valentine placed his hands over the girls eyes and chanted: Lord Jesus Christ, en-lighten your handmaid, because you are God, the True Light. And the girls sight was restored.

Its believed that Asterius then broke all the idols around his house, fasted for three days and became baptised, along with his family and entire 44 member household.

Some sources say it was this incident that led Emperor Gothicus to order Valentines execution. Others think it was his continuing attempts to convert people to Christianity or his crimes of marrying Christian couples and aiding Christians being persecuted by Claudius in Rome. Or it may simply have been that Valentine refused to renounce his faith. Whatever the reason, Valentines gruesome demise is another cause for his recognition as a Catholic saint and martyr.

Valentine was sentenced to execution by beating and finally decapitation. And while the year of his death is open to debate (it was around AD 269/270), sources record February 14 as the date.

Another legend about St Valentine stems from his day of execution. It says that St Valentine created the first-ever Valentines card when he wrote his final words in a letter to the daughter of Astertius and signed the letter from your Valentine.

St Valentine is believed to have been buried on the Flaminian Way an ancient road extending from Rome in the north of Italy to Rimini. Later, Pope Julius I (333-356) built a church at the site of this St Valentines tomb. However, in the thirteenth century, Catholic sources say his relics were transferred to Romes Church of Saint Praxedes, where they remain today. These sources also claim that archaeological digs in the 1500s and 1800s have found evidence of the tomb of St Valentine.

The origins of Valentines Day are obscured by the lack of historical details.

Some suggest that St Valentine never actually existed and the celebration is a Christian cover-up of the more ancient Roman celebration of Lupercalia in mid-February.

However, according to other sources, it was the Benedictine Order that maintained the church of St Valentine in Terni during the Middle Ages who were so affected by the man himself, that they continued to spread the cult of Valentines Day in their monasteries in France and England.

There is little doubt that somewhere along the way, the truth of St Valentine has become embellished and distorted.

The link between Valentines Day and lovers was solidified a thousand years after St Valentines death, when Geoffrey Chaucer, author of The Canterbury Tales, decreed the February feast of St Valentinus be linked to the mating of birds in his Parlement of Foules. This was based on a popular belief during the Middle Ages that birds mated midway through February, and hence February 14 seemed the perfect date.

Soon, nature-minded European nobility began sending love notes during the bird-mating season. For example, the French Duke of Orlans, who spent some years as a prisoner in the Tower of London, wrote to his wife in February 1415 that he was already sick of love (by which he meant lovesick.) And he called her his very gentle Valentine, writes Lisa Bitel in The Conversation.

In the following centuries, February 14 became known as the date to send notes to loved ones. And of course, with industrialisation and commercialisation, retailers jumped on the opportunity to expand this expression of love to chocolates, flowers and other romantic gifts.

And while Valentines Day is now synonymous with cupids, hearts and sentimentality, Catholic Education asserts that this celebration still has a Christian message that should be remembered: The love of our Lord is a sacrificial, self-less, and unconditional love. Such is the love that each Christian is called to express in his own life, for God and neighbour. Clearly, St Valentine, no matter which one, showed such a love, bearing witness to the faith in his dedication as a priest and in the offering of his own life in martyrdom.

On this Valentines Day, looking to the example of this great saint, each person should offer again his love to the Lord, for only by doing so can he properly love those who are entrusted to his care and any other neighbour. Each person should again pledge his love to those loved ones, praying for their intentions, promising fidelity to them, and thanking them for their love in return. Never forget Jesus said, This is my commandment: love one another as I have loved you. There is no greater love than this: to lay down ones life for ones friends (Jn 15:12-13). St Valentine fulfilled this command, and may we do the same.

Valentines fun facts

Why not send this to a friend?

Share

Read the rest here:

The real St Valentine: single, a rebel and a martyr - Eternity News

OPINION:

As we end National Marriage Week (Feb. 7-14), is it unreasonable to ask if well be celebrating it in five years or in 10?

Theres no way to sugarcoat it: Marriage is fast becoming obsolete in America. In 1970, 70% of American adults were married. By 2018, that figure had fallen to 50%.

It gets worse. Among adults in their prime childbearing years (18 to 24), 45% were married in 1960, compared to only 9% today.

Were marrying later in life and having fewer children. Increasingly, were not marrying at all. Perhaps thats why our fertility rate is now well below replacement currently 1.78, with 2.1 the number of children the average woman must have in her lifetime to replace the current population.

In 1968, 13% of children lived with an unmarried parent; today, its nearly one-third. You can see the consequences in the schools and the streets.

Opinion polls bolster these findings.

According to a Pew Research survey, among 18-to-25-year-olds, 78% believe cohabitation is acceptable, even if the parties dont plan to marry later on. In a December 2020 Gallup survey, only 29% said it was very important for a couple to marry to have children down from 38% in 2013.

One of the strongest cases for marriage comes from an unlikely source. In an opinion piece published in 2010, 1970s sex symbol Raquel Welch wrote: Im ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it (marriage) is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy. Now thats the type of sex education that should be taught in our schools.

Married couples are happier, healthier and better off financially than their unmarried counterparts. Being single has been called one of the greatest health risks people can voluntarily take. Husbands and wives are 10% and 15% less likely to die prematurely than the unmarried.

Theyre also safer. In a 2012 report, DOJs National Crime Victimization Survey found that the rate of victimization was 13.5 per 1.000 for those who were married, 37.0 for the divorced and 40.7 for individuals who have never been married.

On every index, children who grow up in a family with their married, biological parents are better off less likely to drop out of school, commit crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol and engage in sexual activity at an early age.

The what is easy. The why is more complicated.

For more than half a century, there has been a relentless war on marriage. Adolescents have been told they dont have to marry to have sex or even live together.

Marriage has been described as the relic of a bygone era. Opponents ask: How can words spoken at a ceremony and names on a piece of paper somehow sanctify a union and ensure bliss?

The increasing popularity of marriage substitutes including cohabitation, domestic partnerships and same-sex unions further undermines marriage. Last year, Cambridge, Massachusetts (home of Harvard University), took the next logical step by redefining domestic partnerships to include two or more unrelated individuals. Can polygamy be far behind?

Professor Robert George of Princeton University says that historically, marriage has required permanence, fidelity and exclusivity. For good measure, throw in complementarity the union of males and females.

More than politics, popular culture has changed attitudes about marriage. Once upon a time, even married couples couldnt be shown in bed together in movies. TV sitcoms of the 1950s featured intact families like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show and Ozzie and Harriett bound by love and tradition.

The Mary Tyler Moore Show celebrated singleness, and One Day at a Time single-parenting, while Married With Children presented the grotesquely dysfunctional as typical. Today, the nuclear family is an endangered species. A happy exception is the Netflix reboot of Lost in Space.

In the 1950s, viewers wanted normalcy. Today, Hollywood pushes the aberrant, the bizarre and the downright ugly. Is it so surprising? Movies are made by people on their third marriage, with a few potential harassment suits lurking in the background.

Real marriage is good for couples, children and society and essential if were to have a future. However, if we want to keep it, well have to fight for it.

Maybe National Marriage Week should be renamed Stand Up for Marriage Week. Stand up against an army of detractors, marriage alternatives and increasingly hostile culture.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer and syndicated columnist.

Continued here:

National Marriage Week may soon be a thing of the past - Washington Times