# Polygamist clothing



## Beachcomber (Apr 6, 2008)

Just saw this on Drudge, the women from the Texas polygamist sect have launched a line of clothing. It's all handmade here in the USA and they have some natural fiber offerings. Seems to be mostly children's stuff now, but they might expand - perhaps we could convince them to start making flap pocket OCBDs and other hard-to-find trad garments. Not sure that these clothes could be properly called trad, but they are certainly traditional and very American (what could be more American than a fundamental Mormon polygamist sect). I plan to buy my two little girls some of the pastel dresses and do my part to help these folks earn an honest living - it's my little way of giving the Texas authorities the finger for breaking up these peacable families.

Here's the link to their store,

https://fldsdress.com/index.php

and here is the link to the story of Drudge

https://www.sltrib.com/ci_9737603

Happy Fouth to All!!!


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

I'm hoping they open a hair salon, too.

Scott


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

if polygamy is illegal then are they really married - i mean in the church yes but not recognized by the state - i dont really understand


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I'll bet this couple's clothing is all made in the U.S.A., too.

That dosn't make it trad.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Topsider said:


> I'll bet this couple's clothing is all made in the U.S.A., too.
> 
> That dosn't make it trad.


i'm so glad his shirt is long - i was afraid scrolling down the page when i saw this - LOL


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Why would you support these people? Maybe my response should be in the Interchange, but what conceivable reason can you have for wanting to give money to this group. Just because Texas didn't do their homework before going in to the compound doesn't mean that they aren't violating laws, forcing young girls into marriages with old men and basically running a cult.

I'd much rather give my money to the two hippies than the FLDS! At least in that case I know it'll probably just go to buy pot or organic food.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Beachcomber said:


> I plan to buy my two little girls some of the pastel dresses and do my part to help these folks earn an honest living - it's my little way of giving the Texas authorities the finger for breaking up these peacable families.


I hope you are joking when you talk about helping these monsters have more money to carry on abusing children, which is a basic tenet of their "faith." There is nothing "peacable" about a group that encourages adult men to have sex with 11, 12 and 13 year old girls, even if their brainwashed mothers allow it to happen.

The screw-ups of the Texas government in remedying the abuse is a separate issue, and shameful for its own reasons.

I'll end there and leave the rest for the Interchange, where this thread belongs.

**Edit: while writing this, Bradford beat me to the punch and posted very similar thoughts. I guess I'm not alone in my feelings on this group.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Beachcomber said:


> I plan to buy my two little girls some of the pastel dresses and do my part to help these folks earn an honest living - it's my little way of giving the Texas authorities the finger for breaking up these peacable families.


That'll show 'em.


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

If you really want to spite the Texans, maybe you could just send your daughters down there. I suspect they're about marryin' age (assuming they are out of onesies and in dresses these sickos seem to be interested). Even if they don't want to get married, they'll find them a husband who can make room for them in his harem.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I have my lay buddhist black robe in the closet. I've long admired the simplicity of Amish dress and I believe the Cumbrland General Store still offers mens clothing for that sect. The problem is I can only imagine dressing in these articles while watching a Little House on the Prairie marathons ( diabetics, please heed the warning about content before viewing.)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Looks like a great way to stick it to the man!

BTW, if these people are so bad, where are all the prosecutions? I've heard a lot of fantastic allegations, but who has the state actually convicted? Keep in mind that the same authorities making these (apparently baseless) allegations:

1) Went into the compound with their "evidence" being prank phone calls from a 30-something-year-old black woman from Colorado who has a history of making similar prank calls alleging sexual abuse--AND HAS BEEN PROSECUTED FOR IT;

2) Wrongfully identified many adult women (including one who was approaching 30, IIRC) as being minors and kidnapped them; and

3) Ripped more than 400 children away from their parents, for more than TWO MONTHS, on a _preposterous_ legal theory that was (thankfully) promptly *****slapped by every Texas appellate court that heard the case.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

They are pretty clearly forcing underage girls into marriages. The state just messed up their evidence. 

Anyone on the right using this as evidence of government abusing its subjects is messed up.

A lot of these girls have children and are not 16 yet. They are not legally married. Someone is at least committing statutory rape. Or do you feel that older men taking advantage of young teenage girls is really no ones business.

Come on.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, we're all about gay marriage these days, it seems. Why not polygamist marriage too? And if you recall, marriage is a defense to statutory rape. At least, it is in this state.

Arranged marriages have been around for a long time, and they worked a lot better than today's marriages do, much less today's "thug/babys momma" relationships. I'd rather the girls be married off at 15 and have someone to take care of their kids, than get knocked up and go on the dole because they want someone "who will love them unconditionally" like a pet.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Polygamy and gay marriage doesn't bother me. Marrying off young girls to men twice their age does.

That said, I'd love to see a _woman_ who has five husbands. It would piss off a lot of people.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, we're all about gay marriage these days, it seems. Why not polygamist marriage too? And if you recall, marriage is a defense to statutory rape. At least, it is in this state.
> 
> Arranged marriages have been around for a long time, and they worked a lot better than today's marriages do, much less today's "thug/babys momma" relationships. I'd rather the girls be married off at 15 and have someone to take care of their kids, than get knocked up and go on the dole because they want someone "who will love them unconditionally" like a pet.


Polygamist marriage is the traditional form of marriage in just about every society worldwide.

As far as I know, bigamy is mostly illegal in the US, but polygamy is not discussed in the law.

So what is stopping someone from marrying two people at one time?

It seems that what is illegal is consecutive active marriages, not one marriage that at once combines three or more people.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jovan said:


> That said, I'd love to see a _woman_ who has five husbands. It would piss off a lot of people.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toda_people

Why do you feel polyandry would piss a lot of people off?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Because oh noes, it's a WOMAN. And she has POWER. 

What you're referring to is not really in our society. Maybe it is, but no one hears about it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Because oh noes, it's a WOMAN. And she has POWER.


You have obviously never been married. 



Jovan said:


> What you're referring to is not really in our society. Maybe it is, but no one hears about it.


I did not realize you requested examples in our society.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Polygamist marriage is the traditional form of marriage in just about every society worldwide.


Except for ours, right? We associate it strongly with savagery or decadence. For some reason.



> As far as I know, bigamy is mostly illegal in the US, but polygamy is not discussed in the law.


Uh...?



> So what is stopping someone from marrying two people at one time?


The definition of "marriage."



> It seems that what is illegal is consecutive active marriages, not one marriage that at once combines three or more people.


Yes, very clever. You should consider becoming a judge. With things looking good for Obama, the market for that special sort of judge is about to break wide open.

Thing about it is, though, that almost none of them consider the women to be married to each other.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Overlooked in the zeal to protect underage girls are the underage boys. This cult has a nasty habit of expelling young men with little formal education or skills for the workplace. it's the old lion syndrome of fearing younger coompetition.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Bogdanoff said:


> Polygamist marriage is the traditional form of marriage in just about every society worldwide.


I really have no desire or intention to get into the politics of this issue (just clicked over from the main menu because the title sounded interesting)...

...but what Bogdanoff says as quoted above strikes me as odd. 
I recently had an anthropology teacher saw the exact thing, and upon my further research (essentially following wikipedia's links) it appeared to be wrong (I'll ask her about it next fall).
From what I could gather, a small majority of societies (regardless of size) had allowed polyganous marriages, but they were never widespread, and mainly accepted only among nobility or the wealthy.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Exactly true. Of course it's not been the usual form-- how could it be when there's roughly equal numbers of men and women?

Now, it's true that in particularly, uh... noble... societies, it is/was pretty common, but only because the men killed each other so much.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"They are pretty clearly forcing underage girls into marriages"

First I should point out that each of the groups seems to run their communities differently. What one may or may not have done has nothing to do with what these folks do.
Second I would like to see one shred of evidence that has been made public at this point to support your opinion. While I have heard one lie after another from the state of Texas about what they want everyone to believe, they have not produced evidence to support any part of their position.
Third, I should point out that this is yet another method in this free country to undermine the rights of individuals. The implication, as it stands at this moment is that one's rights can be stripped from them without credible cause, their children held for ransom and then and only then go looking for incidental discovery of evidence to try to convict them for something.3B As an aside, they now have to deal with psychologists and social workers who are there to warp the minds of the children at the expense of the state. Scum.

Fourth I doubt they have anything my size that I could buy so all I can do is offer moral support...and the advice that they quit selling the polyester dresses.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You have obviously never been married.


I was joking about how some people still have a stigma associated with women who carry power in some way. It's getting pretty outdated as an attitude. But yeah, I am not married. I don't plan to be any time soon... much too young for that. :icon_smile_big:



Wayfarer said:


> I did not realize you requested examples in our society.


It would be interesting to see the media's reaction, to say the least. I have never once heard of people with multiple husbands besides the examples you noted.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Many societies allows/ed polygamy but only the affluent men in the societies could partake especially with having more than 2 wives because Polygamy in the true sense requires that the man had to feed, house and clothe the women and children equally so it wasn't because it wasn't allowed but because many couldn't afford it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

They're selling clothes for children--children who presumably spend most of their time doing things other than watching television or playing on the computer...like running around outside or, uh, making clothes to sell on the internet...


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Pedantic Turkey, Your insistence that other societies practice plural marriage, both presently and historically, is flawed. Many societies practiced human sacrifices too. Does that mean we should emulate them? 90% of the nations in the world have a ruler who isn't democratically elected. Should we go for that too?

If anyone here wants to step forward and say that they think it's OK for adult men to have sex with girls in their early teens, let me know. THAT is the issue here.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You might take a second to read the thread more closely. I find the idea distasteful. In fact, unlike most people these days I actually believe that some cultures are better than others, though I have to admit that I think ours at present is about as reprehensible as has existed since the Romans were ****ing slaves and exposing infants.

But my point remains. Arranged marriages, teenage brides/older husbands, multiple wives-- it's hardly unheard of, and the first two were in fact the usual case in our society up until maybe a hundred years ago. And I only brought it up, because, let's be honest here- it's tough to justify our existing exceptions to statutory rape when the usual exceptions result in more harm to the teenage girls and their children.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Our society, our culture and nation state is and has always been one of slow enfranchisement to an ever wider range of people; different 'races' sex, sexual persuasion, economic stratum and religion. This enfranchisement has been both legal and the social tolerance, if not full acceptance of one another. Our society has safegaurds for the weak; the elderly, mentally ill and children. We do this, because they cannot. If a 12 year old child can enter marriage, then by extension she is an adult and we must give full enfranchisement; voting, making contracts, going into the workplace, joining the military, drinking alcohol, carrying a concealed firearm, driving big rig trucks and donating organs.Throw in serving on the police force, running for political office. acting in pornographic films and posing for PLAYCHILD magazine. Also plan on adult trials with capital punishment and taxation.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

A 12-year-old can't even buy a pack of gum in a supermarket, much less get married...

...without parental permission, that is. If they have permission, the only thing stopping a minor from getting married is the minimum age requirements of the marriage statute.

Which I'm sure is a violation of equal protection, right, judicial activists?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> Our society, our culture and nation state is and has always been one of slow enfranchisement to an ever wider range of people; different 'races' sex, sexual persuasion, economic stratum and religion. This enfranchisement has been both legal and the social tolerance, if not full acceptance of one another. Our society has safegaurds for the weak; the elderly, mentally ill and children. We do this, because they cannot. If a 12 year old child can enter marriage, then by extension she is an adult and we must give full enfranchisement; voting, making contracts, going into the workplace, joining the military, drinking alcohol, carrying a concealed firearm, driving big rig trucks and donating organs.Throw in serving on the police force, running for political office. acting in pornographic films and posing for PLAYCHILD magazine. Also plan on adult trials with capital punishment and taxation.


I'm not aware of any states that extend voting rights to minors who have been emancipated by marriage.

For that matter, even adults are prohibited to possess and consume alcoholic beverages until age 21. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a right granted to a segment of the population has actually been taken away. Thus, it is not accurate to say that we've had a consistent pattern of expansion of rights over time.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Are you serious? That's the only example of a right you can think of that's been taken away?

Like the right to use mind-altering drugs?

The right to refuse vaccination?

The right to educate your children in the manner you see fit without government interference?

The right to contract your own terms of employment? Etc., etc.

Or how about the right to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, religion, disability? The right to own slaves?

Get real.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Are you serious? That's the only example of a right you can think of that's been taken away?
> 
> Like the right to use mind-altering drugs?
> 
> ...


Hey PT, you forgot one, the right to spank an erring child.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> ...Or how about the right to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, religion, disability? The right to own slaves?
> 
> Get real.


yeah thank god at least we can still discriminate against [email protected] in most places -


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

But what if those folks discriminate against you??


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Kav said:


> Overlooked in the zeal to protect underage girls are the underage boys. This cult has a nasty habit of expelling young men with little formal education or skills for the workplace. it's the old lion syndrome of fearing younger coompetition.


I remember watching a Dateline special type of show (it may have been 48Hours) about these boys. Some of them escaped on their own but as you said, others were expelled. They would end up as drifters/street people in cities throughout the West.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Are you serious? That's the only example of a right you can think of that's been taken away?
> 
> Like the right to use mind-altering drugs?
> 
> ...


Turkey, I should be getting tired of this, but I'll try again. Reread the post. My statement related to rights that were "granted to a segment of the population". I imagine you consider that the things you list as "rights" are inherent to a free people, not granted to them.

You may be aware that as recently as the late 1960's or early 1970's the drinking age in most states was 21. In the early 1970's most states reduced that age to 18 based on a variety of arguments, including the fairness argument ("If they're old enough to be sent to Vietnam they should be old enough to drink") and the public safety argument that keeping the age at 21 encouraged under-age drinkers to travel to states where the drinking age was lower, and then drive back home after they got drunk. This right was taken away by the states after passage of federal law in 1984, which tied the states' receipt of federal highway money to the states' rolling back of the drinking age to 21.

Now, can you think of another example in which a right, granted to a segment of the population by one legislative enactment, was taken away by another?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I could go for some nice Amish clothing.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I could go for some nice Amish clothing.


I used to buy Amish clothes from a place in northern Indiana called Gohn Brothers. I especially liked their broadfall work pants. Believe it or not, they have a web page, although there's really nothing on it. Maybe they'll start taking web orders.

https://www.gohnbrothers.com/index.html


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I was actually surfing the net yesterday looking for Amish clothing (and reading a little about the Amish lifestyle) just out of curiosity. Very interesting. I admire the people.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Turkey, I should be getting tired of this,


_Really_? No offense here, pal, but I have no idea where that comes from. You should go re-read the 2nd amendment case threads if you think you're somehow ahead in this one.



> but I'll try again. Reread the post. My statement related to rights that were "granted to a segment of the population". I imagine you consider that the things you list as "rights" are inherent to a free people, not granted to them.


I would definitely agree that rights are not granted, but I'm not sure what the point is, other than that you liberals are very loose with your use of words like "granted" or "right."



> You may be aware that as recently as the late 1960's or early 1970's the drinking age in most states was 21.


Wasn't there no "legal drinking age" prior to the turn of the century, anyway?



> In the early 1970's most states reduced that age to 18 based on a variety of arguments, including the fairness argument ("If they're old enough to be sent to Vietnam they should be old enough to drink") and the public safety argument that keeping the age at 21 encouraged under-age drinkers to travel to states where the drinking age was lower, and then drive back home after they got drunk. This right was taken away by the states after passage of federal law in 1984, which tied the states' receipt of federal highway money to the states' rolling back of the drinking age to 21.


Well, I'm from Louisiana. As far as I know, the drinking age there was always 18 (although I could be completely wrong about this). Hell, it still is in practice.

But let's not forget what we're talking about here-- the "drinking age" is really the age that you can _buy_ alcohol. Do you have a _right_ to buy alcohol? I don't think so-- You certainly don't in Mississippi-- something like 20 counties are still dry, and the state prohibits alcohol sales on Sundays and after a certain hour depending on the license type.

In fact, the Constitution guarantees this very authority to the states.

So is it a "right"? No, I don't think so. It's a privilege that has long been subject to regulation that goes a lot farther back than the turn of the century.



> Now, can you think of another example in which a right, granted to a segment of the population by one legislative enactment, was taken away by another?


Remember what we're talking about here-- they said you can buy alcohol at 18, then changed it to 21. Is that a "right" "granted" to someone? No, of course not. It's a regulation on a certain commercial transaction that's been adjusted slightly. Hell, once upon a time a commercial plant had a "right" to put X amount of lead into the water. Now it's Y amount-- let's say, I dunno, 1/7 less than X.

Is that the example you wanted?


----------

