Err, no Jess, sorry, but no

It is seen by some women as a technologically convenient way to find a “part-time” husband. But the appeal of secondwife.com is driven by men drawn to the “Muslim polygamy matchmaking” site, as its British founder boasts that it has more than 100,000 users, a quarter of them in the UK.

I may or may not approve of the idea of two mothers in law but it’s not up to me to decide how others should live their lives.

Jess Phillips, a Labour member of the Commons women and equalities committee, said: “The popularity of this site worries me deeply. This site should be outlawed for UK use and follow the law in the UK which does not allow this. Women are not a commodity, they are not domestic slaves. People cannot be collected like ornaments.”

And that’s the point at which you can fuck off. For two entirely disconnected reasons.

The unimportant one is that the moment you start to ban things like this – and no, it’s not illegal – you’re also banning polyamory and the domestic lifestyles of a large portion of our own lumpenproletariat.

The important one is that it isn’t for you to decide, as with me, how consenting adults live their lives. If some wish to be second wives, or long term mistresses, or don’t, then fuck off, nowt to do with you nor me. For the aim of a liberal state is that as many people as possible get to live how they wish. That’s actually the point.

67 thoughts on “Err, no Jess, sorry, but no”

  1. It is seen by some women as a technologically convenient way to find a “part-time” husband.

    Don’t they have the State, which performs this function?

  2. @Tim – Live their lives, yes. You’re entirely correct on that point. But there are certain legal consequences to do with the institution of marriage: immigration rights, and benefits rights for the… shall we say less than economically active.

    If UK Plc starts recognising polygamy (as Sweden appears now to be doing if the polygamists are sufficiently melanined), it opens the floodgates to multi-generational chain migration, and due to the generous nature of the UK benefits system when children are involved, incurs massive cost on the taxpayer.

  3. Oh, and the UK doesn’t even have to explicitly recognise polygamy – it can simply state “any legally-concluded marriage in any country”. Thereby legalising child marriage, polygamy, and all sorts.

  4. I’m not arguing that polygamy should be recognised legally. As it isn’t at present. But banning people from looking for extra-marital nookie does seem a bit fascist to me.

  5. @Tim – absolutely.

    But since it’s billing itself as a site for finding that Koranically-approved 2nd, 3rd and 4th wife while the UK state is possibly moving towards at least tacitly recognising polygamy, it’s in a bit of a grey zone here. Hence why I’m wary of it.

    Plus, shouldn’t the lefties be screaming “PATRIARCHY!!!” at this? Oh wait, it’s an example of real, gen-u-wine patriarchy, not the “man looks at fruity younger ladies, the horror” type.

  6. And these indulgent views shows how the west is in decline.
    Meanwhile China etc. -i.e. communism is getting a firm hold everywhere.
    so gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

  7. The unimportant one is that the moment you start to ban things like this – and no, it’s not illegal – you’re also banning polyamory and the domestic lifestyles of a large portion of our own lumpenproletariat.

    That ship has sailed, I fear: they’ve already made opposition to homosexual marriage illegal in any practical sense.

  8. “I may or may not approve of the idea of two mothers in law but it’s not up to me to decide how others should live”

    1–Polygamy certainly should not be allowed let alone subsidised as it is by not acknowledging their marriages. Hoving up with more than one woman means non-admittance to the UK and marriage ( under whatever laws) to more than one should equal jail for bigamy (as it would for native British) followed –or replaced by–instant deportation of the individual and his brood.

    2-No benefits for more than one man, one woman and two kids and likewise no more housing benefit than due to house said quartet. Turn up with any more you get no more cash –and if you are married more than once the lot of you get deported if you are not a UK native.

    That should put a stop to the subsidised breeding program that the state is presently running alongside its national-death-via-imported-replacements program.

  9. I think you’re very wrong here, Tim. Sure, what people do in their own lives should be there business & no-one’s else’s. But marriage does NOT & has never been about the private doings of people in their own lives. It’s about their relationship with the wider society. It demands the society recognise & approve that relationship. It may require they’re treated differently for legal or financial matters.
    It’s not their business. It’s our business because we’re the ones required to recognise it.

  10. You’re missing what I’m saying. I’m absolutely fine with the only two people in a legal marriage thing. What Jess Philips is trying to insist is that a website devoted to providing extra marital nookie – note, not anything like legal marriage – must be banned.

  11. If it truly is a “Muslim Polygamy website” as the paper claims, then it is not about extra-marital nookie but about marriage – polygamy.

    I’m not going to visit the site and I don’t have access to the Times, so I cannot say exactly what it is. Polygamy is a disaster for the reasons mentioned above, as well as culturally.

    I expect Phillips is opposing this on completely different grounds to mine.

  12. This site might be used for extramarital shagging but it does seem to at least brand itself as a promoter of polygamy.

    And our Jess is right that polygamy is used in the Muslim world to oppress women. And Tim N can attest that the polyamorous relationships that Jess’s lefty chums love do exactly the same thing.

    I fail to see why we should tolerate either. You can argue it from the femmi-lefty side or (my preference) the get Islam and leftist perversions the fuck out of my country side.

  13. Tim, then they should have chosen a different name for their website. bitofnookyonetheside.com’s available

    This is the same nonsense as the same sex marriage thing. Marriage has one & only one purpose. To provide a secure basis for a couple to have & raise children. Marriage was never about the uniting of two individuals. It was always about the uniting of two families & the wider community in that purpose. That’s why the legal & financial benefits.
    We’ve been browbeaten into the same sex marriage thing highjacking this special treatment. Prepare for round two.

  14. Only 14.5 years late to notice. And the “British” owner has registered it in Dubai so banning the site in the UK is ok, but other such cultural enrichment isn’t?

    Domain Name: SECONDWIFE.COM
    Registry Domain ID: 96720240_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.enom.com
    Registrar URL: http://www.enom.com
    Updated Date: 2017-03-13T01:25:12.00Z
    Creation Date: 2003-04-11T18:03:00.00Z
    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-04-11T18:03:00.00Z
    Registrar: ENOM, INC.
    Registrar IANA ID: 48
    Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: HAFIZ SAJID UR REHMAN
    Registrant Organization: RIVERS OF HONEY LTD
    Registrant Street: PO BOX 191251
    Registrant Street: DUBAI
    Registrant City: DUBAI
    Registrant State/Province: DUBAI
    Registrant Postal Code: 191251
    Registrant Country: AE
    Registrant Phone: +1.2844945842
    Registrant Phone Ext: 000
    Registrant Fax:
    Registrant Fax Ext:
    Registrant Email: [email protected]
    Registry Admin ID:

  15. And our Jess is right that polygamy is used in the Muslim world to oppress women. And Tim N can attest that the polyamorous relationships that Jess’s lefty chums love do exactly the same thing.

    Not sure about oppressing them as such, but it certainly takes unstable or mentally-ill women, fucks them up even more, and leaves them in one hell of a state afterwards. Neither should be encouraged, even if I haven’t got a problem in principle with weirdos practicing polyamory – just keep kids out of it, and stay well away from me!

  16. And the “British” owner has registered it in Dubai

    Err, no. He has registered it in the US (with a Tucows Inc brand) with a registrant address in Dubai. Not quite the same thing.

    Interesting, in this sort of thing, so see the differences between the conservative and liberal / libertarian tendencies amongst the regular commentators.

  17. Tim

    Although your comments qualify it, what you wrote said you did not want state interference with POLYGAMY (as well as casual shagging with non-spouses) and the site name is secondwife.com.

    Fine if the state in question is some dusty hellhole in the middle east or the Stans. If here, not a fvcking chance.

    Polyamory – OK
    Polygamy – No Way

  18. If it is promoting polygamy, as its name suggests, then its promoting something illegal here, so it should be banned.

    if its actually making most of its money from people using it for affairs, then it can change its name/set up differently to keep doing so.

    Minimal state interference by only enforcing the law that polygamy is illegal (assuming its agreed that should be a law) and then let the market satisfy the demand for affairs that the site was legally providing.

  19. Of course, nobody would mind such a site existing, or being used to find second wives, if the British government hadn’t made it quite so clear to the native population that Muslims and foreigners are given a free pass to behave how they like and practice their highly questionable and often illegal cultural habits in the UK, while threatening anyone who remarks on it.

  20. Site shouldn’t be banned as it doesn’t do any harm itself. Probably impractical to close without resorting to ISPs putting it on the blacklist (the one that was only for Kiddie P0rn until it wasn’t!).

    Banning everything allows the narrative that the government knows best and allows them to push their interference into more and more places it shouldn’t be. We already know how bad they are at everything they touch so why let them have more levers to play with?

    However, anyone who subsequently commits a criminal act after using said site should be prosecuted.

  21. @Mr Yan,

    It’s probably not healthy that some of us around here (me included) suspect that the UK govt is tacitly de facto recognising polygamous / child marriages concluded In Foreign, with all the immigration and benefits consequences that entails.

    I think this story has tapped into that suspicion more than anything else, with the site essentially facilitating illegal behaviour that we suspect the UK govt is accepting.

  22. I think this story has tapped into that suspicion more than anything else, with the site essentially facilitating illegal behaviour that we suspect the UK govt is accepting.

    Exactly, you put it better than I did.

  23. Social Justice Warrior

    Immigration rights from polygamous marriages were addressed in the Immigration Act 1988 which, grandfather (grandmother?) clauses aside, provides that each British man can confer right of abode through marriage on only one woman.

  24. I certainly wouldn’t be in favour of “banning” the site. For a start that’s in practise impractical & freedom of speech ‘n all that. But I’d toy with the idea of prosecuting anyone promoting it. Incitement to a criminal act etc.

    @SE
    “Interesting, in this sort of thing, so see the differences between the conservative and liberal / libertarian tendencies amongst the regular commentators.”

    But how are you classifying them? I think I’m liberal because I oppose “liberal” shite being compulsorily rammed down people’s throats.

  25. I don’t think polygamy is about oppressing women, it’s about producing large numbers of young men (three quarters of them) who have nothing to lose by jihad.

  26. But how are you classifying them?

    So the “polygamy – no” is a conservative attitude.
    The “I don’t care what people do / call their relationship” is a liberal attitude.
    There is a difference between, as has been discussed here many times on numerous topics (most recently abortion) a huge difference between “what is not dis-allowed” and “what is actively government supported”.

    Potentially on a less contentious topic – I don’t want official limits on the number of children a woman has. But, also, I’m happy that benefits / tax breaks / whatever taper off after a certain number. What that number might reasonably be is good for discussion over a beer.

    I’m personally convinced that the correct number of mothers-in-law is ∈ {0,1}.

  27. So there is Islamophobia in the Labour Party.
    I’m roughly with RLJ.
    Tell a fifteen year old boy he can have four wives and he’s delighted. Especially when he sees that all the older men have four wives. Tell him he’ll get endless sex if he dies in battle, and approval for rape if he lives and he enthusiastically goes to fight the neighbouring tribe. Half the time he dies. The other half he gets his four wives after spending half his life single.
    The Tribe’s reproduction is the same, and offspring all come from successful warriors.
    It’s a recipe for eternal conflict.

  28. I think your problem there, SE, is you’re treating this as a binary issue when it isn’t binary. You’re talking about conservative/ liberal, when in fact this, like many issues, is conservative/liberal/progressive. Where the progressives want to make their “liberalism” compulsory on conservatives & liberals.

  29. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    For the aim of a liberal state is that as many people as possible get to live how they wish. That’s actually the point.

    Which is fine when you have a reasonably ethnically and/or culturally homogeneous population, but – as we’ve found out – not in a multicultural one where aggressive minorities are completely opposed to said liberal order, and in particular liberal democracy cannot survive polygamy – whether it’s technically legal or not.

    I’m not even picking on the Mahoundans here, polygamy is a particularly baleful social cancer in any religious context.

    But, yes, getting upset at a website is more pointless displacement activity like being annoyed by burkhas. The symptoms aren’t the disease.

  30. ‘The popularity of this site worries me deeply.’

    ‘Women are not a commodity, they are not domestic slaves. People cannot be collected like ornaments.’

    Make up your mind, dude.

  31. “I may or may not approve of the idea of two mothers in law but it’s not up to me to decide how others should live their lives”

    It is up to all of the native people of the UK to decide who gets to live here though, and so far none of us have ever been asked.

    And most of us do not agree that having the country flooded with Muslims and Africans is a good thing. But flooding of the country with 3rd world people is exactly what is happening.

    Under such conditions making liberal arguments that it is not up to you how people should live their lives is both ridiculous (if done without thinking) and potentially disingenuous (if not).

    “it isn’t for you to decide, as with me, how consenting adults live their lives. If some wish to be second wives, or long term mistresses, or don’t, then fuck off, nowt to do with you nor me.”

    Who are the consenting adults here? How did they come to be consenting adults in a continent to which they have no birth right, and with which their ancestors have been at war since the year dot? This argument is stupid when talking about these people. They shouldn’t be here, period.

    “the aim of a liberal state is that as many people as possible get to live how they wish”

    Are the British people getting to live how they with, with all of this demographic change? Do the British people want Britain to be changed irreversibly into another place with a different culture and different people, many of whom are opposed to everything that Britain and the British have ever done?

  32. The problem with the liberal ‘it’s OK to do what you want and go where you want unless you’re harming others’ attitude is that the harm is not immediately evident.

    For example, when Mohamed rocks up all bright-eyed and eager to take part in Our Island Story, it would be terribly racist to prevent him. When he wants to bring the cousin that he’s married over here – who could deny that? And surely you’re not going to prevent him from having a family? That’s evil!

    Now we have 3m and rising fellow citizens who have no respect for our laws or our culture and just want to recreate the hateful shithole they emerged from, only with central heating and shiny stuff, paid for by us.

    Actually, I wrote that the harm is not immediately evident. It was evident from the start, but people who objected were shouted down for being thick. racist. pricks.

    Christ, it’s not even that I object to a bit of immigration, even from those who differ on the dulux chart. A smattering of Indian Hindus & Sikhs, Chinese, Japanese would do (and indeed has done) Britain no harm.

    Actually I’d swap all the muzzas and metro liberals for 5m Japanese in a trice.

  33. “Christ, it’s not even that I object to a bit of immigration, even from those who differ on the dulux chart. A smattering of Indian Hindus & Sikhs, Chinese, Japanese would do (and indeed has done) Britain no harm.”

    There is nothing wrong with limited numbers of immigrants from useful/compatible places. In such cases there needs to be a case made to the people for immigration, a political process to decide whether we actually want it, and if so, a beginning and an end to it.

    But a never ending stream of people from places where they hate our culture and with to supplant it with their own (Muslim countries), or where the people are unable to contribute successfully (African countries) begins to look like a purposeful and hateful attempt to destroy Europe.

    Which is what it must be, given the timing, scale and nature of it.

  34. “Now we have 3m and rising fellow citizens who have no respect for our laws or our culture and just want to recreate the hateful shithole they emerged from, only with central heating and shiny stuff, paid for by us.”

    And naïve liberals seem to support them in re-creating the ILLIBERAL nature of the shithole they crawled from as well, which is insane.

  35. “And naïve liberals seem to support them in re-creating the ILLIBERAL nature of the shithole they crawled from as well, which is insane.”

    The insanity is that the CM/MC think that vibrancy isn’t going to affect them or–even more bizarrely–their offspring. Everybody and every institution else will be vibranted to death but their nice lives will continue from everlasting to everlasting. Somehow.

  36. Re the above comments:
    You are of course entirely correct. Liberalism in this instance is demanding a rape victim lay back & cater to rights of the rapist to have a fuck. It’s insane.

  37. Where the progressives want to make their “liberalism” compulsory on conservatives & liberals.

    Agreed. Absolute and unconditional govt support and overt public genuflection towards polygamy (for our approved non-white minorities only*) = “progressive”.

    * e.g. don’t think this will be allowed to apply to those evil Mormons.

  38. Widespread polygamy led to Boko Haram kidnapping an entire school of girls.

    I think the main reason is that they are viscous savages.

  39. “The insanity is that the CM/MC think that vibrancy isn’t going to affect them or–even more bizarrely–their offspring. Everybody and every institution else will be vibranted to death but their nice lives will continue from everlasting to everlasting. Somehow.”

    I guess they think they can continue in gated communities, expensive places where poor people can’t afford houses, small European principalities where the rules are blurred, that kind of thing. Unfortunately there comes a point where “diversity” gets so high, that these kinds of refuges begin to break down. When that happens, people start getting killed, simple as that.

    So of course with a little thinking it is clear that they will not escape in the long term, and so some of them must have actually convinced themselves that it is a good thing. They must hate themselves that much. They wish to erase themselves (and us) from history.

  40. Since it doesn’t look like it is going to stop, the question becomes, what is the best survival strategy for your children, and their children?

  41. @ Andrew M
    NO
    They were kidnapped because they were *Christian* girls (and they were being educated in something other than learning the Koran).
    Religious persecution *does* exist.

  42. Apart from a few odds and sods living in the wilds of Utah, there are almost no polygamous Mormons any more. And any that do practice it are subject to excommunication.

  43. Apart from a few odds and sods living in the wilds of Utah, there are almost no polygamous Mormons any more. And any that do practice it are subject to excommunication.

    Yes, exactly (although there are a handful in Canada, too). A surprisingly large number of people seem to think mainstream Mormons practice polygamy.

  44. MC really has it here. It’s not the presence of different cultures, minority cultures, happy to rub along with everyone else, that cause the problem. It’s just one of those cultures that is pre-programmed to subordinate and eventually subdue and eradicate every other culture it comes into contact with. Something it’s done remarkably successfully across almost a third of the planet’s land area.

    The progressive answer is cultural suicide, submission to that culture, the conservative answer is to ignore it and hope it goes away. I’m not sure what the (proper) liberal answer could be.

  45. Not allow it into the country so that it cannot destroy your freedom to live how you want? Deport or imprison believers?

    Also shell the Libyan coast, patrol the Med, sink any boats found? Declare war on Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Annexe North Africa and send all the people there South, then lay lots of land mines along the coast? All sorts of things we could do.

  46. I think the main reason is that they are viscous savages.

    How viscous are they? Are they 20W-50? Or even more viscous than that?

  47. ‘Everybody and every institution else will be vibranted to death but their nice lives will continue from everlasting to everlasting.’

    Decadence of the Left.

  48. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    I’m not sure what the (proper) liberal answer could be.

    A big, beautiful wall.

  49. Between them, abacab, BiSp and Steve nail it.

    I’d add that two-thirds of the (at least!) 10m immigrants to the UK since 1990 came from the third world. We simply don’t need most of these people: with few skills and/or sub-saharan IQs, they are a burden, not an asset.

  50. “We simply don’t need most of these people: with few skills and/or sub-saharan IQs, they are a burden, not an asset.”

    That is a feature of the plan, not a bug.

  51. So Much For Subtlety

    If some wish to be second wives, or long term mistresses, or don’t, then fuck off, nowt to do with you nor me.

    Actually it does. Polygamy does not happen in a vacuum. It comes as part of a package. Every country that does it also has purdah, late marriage for men – usually in their thirties or forties – early marriage for women – usually 12 to 16, a lack of democracy, and widespread violence.

    This is not, or not just, a religious thing. It was as true in pagan Greece as it was in Hindu India or in Confucian China.

    There are massive externalities for polygamy. It imposes enormous social costs on the rest of us. Which is precisely why these people are fleeing the Dirt World for functioning monogamous First World countries. We have every possible interest in banning it in so far as we can.

  52. Marriage has one & only one purpose. To provide a secure basis for a couple to have & raise children. Marriage was never about the uniting of two individuals. It was always about the uniting of two families

    Nope, BiS. That’s a dopey argument that opens too many avenues of attack from the marriage revisionists. Should people too old to have children not be allowed to get married is what they argue. If not then why can’t gays get married? Also, in Christian tradition, not about uniting families at all.

    “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”. From Genesis, but reaffirmed in the Gospels.

    If you don’t like the Biblical interpretation, then perhaps dowries. Payments for taking the daughter off the family books. Marriage has never been about uniting families.

  53. On point, no, a website devoted to finding 2nd brides shouldn’t be banned. Never support a measure that might someday be used against you. State control of what can be written and read should be opposed no matter what.

  54. “promoting polygamy”

    You can’t ban the site, or anyone promoting the site, any more than you would try and ban a web site (or those promoting it) that proposed raising the motorway speed limit to 100mph.

    “But it could be regarded as incitement to break the 70mph speed limit?” The potential danger there is that one is banning any campaign to have the law changed.

    Surely the correct response is to enforce existing law, and tell those promoting such nonsense to go rigorously fuck themselves, regularly and merrily?

  55. “Marriage has one & only one purpose. To provide a secure basis for a couple to have & raise children. Marriage was never about the uniting of two individuals. It was always about the uniting of two families”

    “Nope, BiS. That’s a dopey argument that opens too many avenues of attack from the marriage revisionists. Should people too old to have children not be allowed to get married is what they argue.”

    Oh fuck off, Ltw. You only have to look at some of the marriage customs to understand how marriage worked. Proof of virginity of the bride. Non-consumation as grounds for annulment. Father-in-law. Mother-in-law.
    It was a contract that bound the two families with the intention of safeguarding the raising the joint progeny of both. Bride becomes a member of the husband’s family, groom the bride’s. Brother-in-law. Sister-in-law. Transfers of wealth. Inheritance laws.
    Yes there were marriages between couples who might not be able to produce offspring. But that wasn’t the norm.
    It’s a very sound institution for a society where the exercising of rights & the safeguarding of wealth are more the preserve of individuals than an all encompassing state. Even the marriage ceremony, conducted before the eyes of the community. That question. “Does any here know of any reason…” is to bind the wider community into recognising the contract.
    And it really hasn’t changed much today. Amongst the vast majority of normal people. Weddings as events for families & close friends. Networks being set up. But I wonder how much familial bonding goes on when two bum-chums splice the knot? More like a lot of people standing around, feeling distinctly uncomfortable & looking forward to the day being over, in a lot of cases I’d imagine. What’s in it for them? No prospective uncles & aunts with nieces & nephews to dote on. Bit of a dearth of cousins to be added.

  56. BiS, I’m on your side, dickhead. Just trying to point out that you’re ceding the argument by arguing on civil/societal grounds. Fight on their turf, you’ll lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *