Sadly no.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Guidelines for posting an introduction
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
Sadly no.
Here's my shorthand take on how to revolutionize this (please forgive any repetitiveness from previous comments):
1. Do not try to replace the already-existing dating sites.
2. However . . . make every effort to avoid worrying about whether anyone thinks we're a dating site, including removing all the statements about how we're not a dating site, because those statements inhibit legitimate behaviors while accomplishing nothing positive, because no legal entity is going to come after us, because we're just not big enough to attract the right attention (in fact, I would argue that, if we were ever to become big enough to attract legal scrutiny, it would be the kind of problem that would, on the whole, be a blessing).
3. Create an online mission statement that commits people to at least doubling their rates of encouragement for pursuing relationships as compared to their rates of discouragement.
When it comes down to it, most real courting, etc., goes on face-to-face, anyway.
I believe most of what will create improvement will occur simply by removing all the "Warning: we're not a dating site!" messages from Biblical Families.
Or, we should also have prominently-placed the other following messages:
Here's the link to the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
1. Do not try to replace the already-existing dating sites.
2. However . . . make every effort to avoid worrying about whether anyone thinks we're a dating site, including removing all the statements about how we're not a dating site, because those statements inhibit legitimate behaviors while accomplishing nothing positive, because no legal entity is going to come after us, because we're just not big enough to attract the right attention (in fact, I would argue that, if we were ever to become big enough to attract legal scrutiny, it would be the kind of problem that would, on the whole, be a blessing).
3. Create an online mission statement that commits people to at least doubling their rates of encouragement for pursuing relationships as compared to their rates of discouragement.
When it comes down to it, most real courting, etc., goes on face-to-face, anyway.
I believe most of what will create improvement will occur simply by removing all the "Warning: we're not a dating site!" messages from Biblical Families.
Or, we should also have prominently-placed the other following messages:
- Warning: we do not sell heroin or crack!
- Warning: this site does not promote prostitution!
- Warning: this site will not condone putting bald eagle eggs in your omelets!
- Warning: do not expect anyone here to offer to make your bed!
- Warning: objects are closer than they appear!
- Warning: results may vary!
Here's the link to the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
C
Cap
Guest
If I remember correctly, polygamy.com is run by a Muslim.
C
Cap
Guest
Once the sisterwives site was for sale. Could be again.
We are well past the size needed to attract significant legal attention. It only takes 2 or 3 people participating in something, in relative secret, on a hot button enough of an issue, to attract a full court press by the feds.
I think the current warning and posture is strategically wise.
Yep, because those Deep Staters are just overwhelmed with concern about sex trafficking. More likely to me is that this was a hot button issue that Congress couldn't just completely look the other way about, so they passed a law and shuttled back to Jeffrey Epstein's island.
Excuse me, but the nervousness about getting in trouble under a sex trafficking law reminds me VERY much of the anxiety that lots and lots of people had back in the 80s about how the feds were supposedly going to come after even small gatherings of people who played taped copies of rented VHS tapes. I mean, hey, look at the warning. It says so. It says Interpol and the F B I are going to come after us!
I've known involuntarily committed schizophrenic women convinced they were the Bride of Jesus who weren't as paranoid.
Excuse me, but the nervousness about getting in trouble under a sex trafficking law reminds me VERY much of the anxiety that lots and lots of people had back in the 80s about how the feds were supposedly going to come after even small gatherings of people who played taped copies of rented VHS tapes. I mean, hey, look at the warning. It says so. It says Interpol and the F B I are going to come after us!
I've known involuntarily committed schizophrenic women convinced they were the Bride of Jesus who weren't as paranoid.
@Keith Martin, bear in mind that the above "guidelines" post is carefully worded to not actually restrict anything. I have specifically stated "We won't stop you from posting advertisements", and as evidence of that you yourself have posted your own dating profile here and it has not been moderated at all. All the guidelines post says is that this is not a dating website - because it is not a dating website. But nor is a shopping mall, a church, or a workplace a dating venue - yet people meet there and end up marrying. People are welcome to meet here and end up marrying. However, this is not set up as a dating website. That is all.
You keep calling it a "warning" post. But it's not a warning - it doesn't forbid anything, nor warn people that there will be punishment if they do something. It's just a clarification of what this website is designed and managed to facilitate.
At the end of the day, can anybody name a single couple who have met on this forum and ended up marrying? Serious question, has it ever actually happened in the many years this forum has existed? I can't think of a single example myself - meeting at retreats doesn't count, I'm talking about the forum.
If people don't meet here anyway, then even if we completely banned posting dating advertisements, no harm would be done. But we haven't even banned them at all.
This ministry is already large enough that I expect it has been actively monitored by law enforcement for years, I would actually be quite surprised if at least one active member is not associated in some way with a law enforcement agency. And that's ok, because we're completely above-board. On this, once again, I'd prefer to be overcautious than undercautious, because it is very important to demonstrate to whoever is watching that we are happy to comply with laws that are intended for the protection of people. Because a good part of our own mission is also protecting women and children, by helping to improve marriages and thus reduce the likelihood of abuse. I'd prefer to demonstrate over-compliance than under-compliance. Particularly when, as outlined above, this demonstration of over-compliance doesn't actually prevent people from naturally meeting each other anyway.
You keep calling it a "warning" post. But it's not a warning - it doesn't forbid anything, nor warn people that there will be punishment if they do something. It's just a clarification of what this website is designed and managed to facilitate.
At the end of the day, can anybody name a single couple who have met on this forum and ended up marrying? Serious question, has it ever actually happened in the many years this forum has existed? I can't think of a single example myself - meeting at retreats doesn't count, I'm talking about the forum.
If people don't meet here anyway, then even if we completely banned posting dating advertisements, no harm would be done. But we haven't even banned them at all.
Loosely worded laws like this are used not to actually fix the issue that is the topic of the law, but to create a cloud of laws against all manner of different things so that everybody is technically a lawbreaker, somewhere. The laws themselves aren't actually intended to be enforced strongly. But if an individual regulator or law enforcement officer wants to shut down a particular individual or organisation for whatever reason, they just need to browse through the list of badly worded laws and pick which ones they can pull them up on. You can virtually guarantee everyone's broken at least one of them because there are so many it's impossible for any individual to know them all in order to comply.
This ministry is already large enough that I expect it has been actively monitored by law enforcement for years, I would actually be quite surprised if at least one active member is not associated in some way with a law enforcement agency. And that's ok, because we're completely above-board. On this, once again, I'd prefer to be overcautious than undercautious, because it is very important to demonstrate to whoever is watching that we are happy to comply with laws that are intended for the protection of people. Because a good part of our own mission is also protecting women and children, by helping to improve marriages and thus reduce the likelihood of abuse. I'd prefer to demonstrate over-compliance than under-compliance. Particularly when, as outlined above, this demonstration of over-compliance doesn't actually prevent people from naturally meeting each other anyway.
C
Cap
Guest
Besides the actual upfront cost of purchasing a software package what do you think would be the regular maintenance and upkeep costs that something like that would entail? What is the possibility of members wanting to pay a fee for a service that is God centered to help defray cost and weed out scammers?
On top of the software, other costs would be around $5-50 a month in hosting costs (depending on the provider and how big the site grew), $30/year for a web address - that's all I can think of off the top of my head. The biggest actual cost would be the time it would take to set up and run it. And any marketing you did to help people find it.
It's worth noting that there are a number of monogamous dating sites for Christians, and they're all an option if someone's looking for their first wife.
It's worth noting that there are a number of monogamous dating sites for Christians, and they're all an option if someone's looking for their first wife.
You'd have to charge members. But all dating sites charge in some way, that's expected. With good software you could let people sign up for free but have to pay to share contact details.
C
Cap
Guest
True for first wives but most, if not all the Christian monogamous dating sites would delete a user in a second if they found out someone was married.
Biggest upfront cost is getting the software put together. The biggest long term cost will be bandwidth, how much depends on how big you get (can be significant).
But the biggest challenge isn't costs but conceptual. Dating sites are good at giving women attention but bad at actually creating relationships (in part because they're so good at getting women attention) and worse at creating lasting relationships. Most women get too much attention and most men too little. And there are never enough women.
But the biggest challenge isn't costs but conceptual. Dating sites are good at giving women attention but bad at actually creating relationships (in part because they're so good at getting women attention) and worse at creating lasting relationships. Most women get too much attention and most men too little. And there are never enough women.
C
Cap
Guest
I don't know for sure but do dating sites give the ability for women to join for free and couples or men to be charged?
Also, what if the idea of quality in those who participate is more important than volume. I don't know if the concept of long term search would do will in today's environment of flipping through prospects on a minute by minute bases would work but it is reality.
Also, what if the idea of quality in those who participate is more important than volume. I don't know if the concept of long term search would do will in today's environment of flipping through prospects on a minute by minute bases would work but it is reality.
Accounts are indeed free for women on most dating sites. The cost is usually around $20 per month for a basic membership that’ll allow a man to actually interact with ladies rather than just browse. Sisterwives.com isn’t a bad site imo... there is a huge hurtle avoided simply by way of the fact that ladies on the site have already decided they want poly or are strongly interested.
C
Cap
Guest
I do agree that the sisterwives site is pretty good. The people on the forum there do try to interact some. It's just there is a very large non Christian group there. It seems to have fluctuating stages. Some periods lots of new people. Then not. I some times sign up for a month or two. Then leave it alone. Then come back later. I view it as a pasttime.
I've cut-and-pasted the only section of your original post that includes bolded text:
Including varying text sizes, most of the section above is not only larger, but the part about what the Introductions Section is is not bolded, whereas what it is not is not only bolded but has a capitalized NOT intoducing the bolded statement. If it wasn't intended to be a warning, it certainly comes across as a warning.
I get that it was carefully worded to not actually restrict anything (I guess), but this sounds like plausible deniability to me. Writing in a smaller text size that you won't stop us from posting advertisements while having already written, "This introductions section IS NOT for posting advertisements looking for a wife" is more akin to being fine print than assurance that one won't be further discouraged.
And, please hear me, I did not post my profile for the purpose of inspiring dating, nor do I believe it will create that result; I shared it to add additional perspective to the various ongoing conversations here about dating sites. In fact, the result has been just as I predicted it would be: devoid of expressed romantic interest but instead including further discouraging comments from fellow brothers intent on dissuading me from believing I could possibly convince another woman to join our family (iow, successful flypaper).
And, given that I've been asked to point out examples of discouragement outweighing encouragement related to forming plural families, I assert that this part of your initial paragraph is such an example. Of course, caution is always in order, but such statements that label people fools are not only embarrassingly discouraging, whatever truth they contain seem to be repeated around here far more often that the percentage they represent within all the myriad of truths one could potentially write to provide advice related to seeking new partners. An old saw is, "If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." I think that's extreme, but would it be too much to encourage each other to share at least two positive encouraging pieces of advice about how to seek new wives for every piece of discouraging advice? Or to at least sprinkle in an encouraging comment every fifth slam or so?
Good points Keith. I'll try and tone it back sometime soon, if I haven't by the weekend feel free to remind me.
How about a thread devoted to practical tips or words of encouragement for finding a partner? Maybe for both males and females who might want tips or encouragement.
I’ve been told that some couples sign up on sister wives as a single lady so they don’t have to pay to contact. The young lady that told me that said that she kept being approached by “single” women, only to find out that “they” were contacting her. Needless to say, their dishonesty with the site was considered a good indicator of their character in other areas as well.