Hello from the owners of ModernPolygamy.com

[ModernPolygamy]

Hello everyone, we have been lurking for a little while but have not yet introduced ourselves yet. FollowingHim suggested that we introduce ourselves.

My wife and I are the owners of the polygamy dating site ModernPolygamy.com.

We've been married for 15 years and have 5 children ranging from 2 to 9. We currently homeschool 2 and are prepping another 2 this year, which is an adventure.

We started the site because my wife and I had been looking for years and feeling like there were no sites where we felt like we really had a realistic possibility of finding what we hoped for. In the end, we decided that if we truly wanted what we said we wanted then we were going to have to make a site to allow that to happen....for us and a lot of other people that were in the same boat.

After feeling that way for years, we finally decided to go ahead in 2021 and spent the next 8 months on development as everything is 100% custom from the ground up, front end and back. We launched the site in February of 2022.

We do our best to run a tight ship. The idea has always been for it to be the site we would want to join. That guided the design and architecture behind the scenes and continues to guide how we run the site.

We are not solely focused on Christian polygamy, and welcome those that come to this decision for their life by whatever path, but the site will remain firmly family focused both because that is what best serves our members and because that is the type of site we would want to join.

Aside from this different starting point, some key points to know about the site are:

• Replying to messages is free (you can do this with a free account)
• We have a ~50% rejection rate for new profiles. Pictures and actually writing something half decent is required.
• If you have a Premium Membership and then cancel, you will still be able to keep talking with those you have messaged previously.

Premium Member benefits are:

• Being able to send initial messages.
• Appearing at the top of the search results.
• Appearing in the "Recently Online" section of each member's home page.
• Being able to upload an introduction video.

We take privacy very seriously. Profiles and images can not be accessed by search engines. Your profile images are also time sensitive and URL's will become invalid after 5 minutes.

Cancellation takes 2 clicks and is instant (a link is at the bottom of the Edit Profile page). And in case you are wondering, since it seems to be a thing now with a competing site, we don't use message bots or fake activity. It is what it is, good or bad. Hopefully good.

The 'About' page of our site is all true if you would like to know more about us and how we got here. We welcome any questions or concerns you may have.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Good luck! I hope it’s a raging success.

 

[paterfamilias]

Hello everyone, we have been lurking for a little while but have not yet introduced ourselves yet. FollowingHim suggested that we introduce ourselves.

My wife and I are the owners of the polygamy dating site ModernPolygamy.com.

We've been married for 15 years and have 5 children ranging from 2 to 9. We currently homeschool 2 and are prepping another 2 this year, which is an adventure.

We started the site because my wife and I had been looking for years and feeling like there were no sites where we felt like we really had a realistic possibility of finding what we hoped for. In the end, we decided that if we truly wanted what we said we wanted then we were going to have to make a site to allow that to happen....for us and a lot of other people that were in the same boat.

After feeling that way for years, we finally decided to go ahead in 2021 and spent the next 8 months on development as everything is 100% custom from the ground up, front end and back. We launched the site in February of 2022.

We do our best to run a tight ship. The idea has always been for it to be the site we would want to join. That guided the design and architecture behind the scenes and continues to guide how we run the site.

We are not solely focused on Christian polygamy, and welcome those that come to this decision for their life by whatever path, but the site will remain firmly family focused both because that is what best serves our members and because that is the type of site we would want to join.

Aside from this different starting point, some key points to know about the site are:

• Replying to messages is free (you can do this with a free account)
• We have a ~50% rejection rate for new profiles. Pictures and actually writing something half decent is required.
• If you have a Premium Membership and then cancel, you will still be able to keep talking with those you have messaged previously.

Premium Member benefits are:

• Being able to send initial messages.
• Appearing at the top of the search results.
• Appearing in the "Recently Online" section of each member's home page.
• Being able to upload an introduction video.

We take privacy very seriously. Profiles and images can not be accessed by search engines. Your profile images are also time sensitive and URL's will become invalid after 5 minutes.

Cancellation takes 2 clicks and is instant (a link is at the bottom of the Edit Profile page). And in case you are wondering, since it seems to be a thing now with a competing site, we don't use message bots or fake activity. It is what it is, good or bad. Hopefully good.

The 'About' page of our site is all true if you would like to know more about us and how we got here. We welcome any questions or concerns you may have.

I have a few questions
- is it possible to mark someone so as to keep them from coming up in results? Not block communication but to not see a person again you have determined is not a potential match
- is there a discussion forum?
- what would you say the ratio of single women to couples is at this time?
- how are you managing to keep the polyamory/swinger types awsy?

 

[LDremoved]

I have a few questions
- is it possible to mark someone so as to keep them from coming up in results? Not block communication but to not see a person again you have determined is not a potential match
- is there a discussion forum?
- what would you say the ratio of single women to couples is at this time?
- how are you managing to keep the polyamory/swinger types awsy?

I was about to tag you!

 

[frederick]

Welcome to Biblical Families and thanks for the intro.

 

[ModernPolygamy]

I have a few questions
- is it possible to mark someone so as to keep them from coming up in results? Not block communication but to not see a person again you have determined is not a potential match
- is there a discussion forum?
- what would you say the ratio of single women to couples is at this time?
- how are you managing to keep the polyamory/swinger types awsy?

1. It is not, though this is a good idea and I have noted it for consideration in the future. We'll need some sort of management page so you could always review who you've hidden in case you change your mind, but it's something to consider down the road.

2. There is not. Others have suggested this but I just don't see the point and don't think it would get enough activity to attract people when you already have here, r/Polygamy on Reddit, and some very limited Facebook groups.

3. Pulling the data now, we're at 27% single women since launch and 28% in the last 60 days. That's profiles that were approved, not total registrations before the 50% rejection rate.

4. I can not get into certain operational aspects, but we explicitly state in our TOS that it is not a swinger's site and you will have your account terminated for treating it as such.

Our site content is also somewhat repelling to "polyamory" aligned people, being somewhat normal, logical, and based in reality.

We have seen very clearly what losing your direction did to other sites. We have no intention of making the same mistakes.

I hope that helps to address some of your questions and I welcome any others you may have.

 

[paterfamilias]

1. It is not, though this is a good idea and I have noted it for consideration in the future. We'll need some sort of management page so you could always review who you've hidden in case you change your mind, but it's something to consider down the road.

I would definitely consider this notion. I expect that from the development side it can be occasionally difficult to see it from the user point of view who lacks the developer context and who simply wants to use it and go about their business. Using one of your larger competitors by way of an example... I don't feel like I want to spend as much time on the site if the majority of the results are ones I would explicitly exclude or who would explicitly exclude me. Give me a check box or radio button to hide the profile and pretty soon the profiles I see are a smaller number but ones where I can see the value in spending timeon the site. One can also go ahead and hide the profiles where they have never replied to a polite introduction. If they are not interested in me, why should I continue seeing them in my results?

2. There is not. Others have suggested this but I just don't see the point and don't think it would get enough activity to attract people when you already have here, r/Polygamy on Reddit, and some very limited Facebook groups.

Oh that is easy. I will go back to my recent references to time on site and that means engagement. Engagement means people resubscriptions for those who have not found their spouse yet. Using again the other site I referenced, they took their forums off the site. I personally made a point of envigorating the forum there by starting several topics and then replying when others participated. I engaged and got feedback from both families and singles how it was nice to have the conversations with others who think in terms of plig life. There my be lots of other places for discourse...yeah, and? So what? Your explicit goal I am presuming is to get families together. To help build families...not just your own or to have a nice additional income stream but to be an advocate and a matchmaker. To have that happen there needs to be engagement right there not off site. You have been in this sphere for a good while by your own words, you know the ease with which conversations end and potential opportunities are missed. Push people off site and they will make or not make their connections elsewhere. When they fail to make that connection...and we all know how hard it is to make those connections, the site will be seen as in part to blame.
Conversations and discussions gets matches to happen and allows all the more opportunities.

3. Pulling the data now, we're at 27% single women since launch and 28% in the last 60 days. That's profiles that were approved, not total registrations before the 50% rejection rate.

Good metric to know. Thanks

4. I can not get into certain operational aspects, but we explicitly state in our TOS that it is not a swinger's site and you will have your account terminated for treating it as such.

Our site content is also somewhat repelling to "polyamory" aligned people, being somewhat normal, logical, and based in reality.

Just a suggestion from some random guy on the internet but we all have our drum to beat... having not been on the site I don't know if this is an issue pro or con but I would Never use the term poly. The degenerate swinger types have been 100% successful in usurping the term. I would use plural marriage or polygamy/polygyny but lean on plural marriage. All about the branding. The creepy orgy people have handed us our asses on branding by stealing a march on poly and we are painted (stained by my lights) with the same brush by association. Don't think many of us wish to be viewed in those terms, so I advocate for the use of plural marriage until someone comes up with something shorter and snappier. Just mu two cents.

We have seen very clearly what losing your direction did to other sites. We have no intention of making the same mistakes.

I hope that helps to address some of your questions and I welcome any others you may have.

Thanks for the reply

 

[ModernPolygamy]

I would definitely consider this notion. I expect that from the development side it can be occasionally difficult to see it from the user point of view who lacks the developer context and who simply wants to use it and go about their business. Using one of your larger competitors by way of an example... I don't feel like I want to spend as much time on the site if the majority of the results are ones I would explicitly exclude or who would explicitly exclude me. Give me a check box or radio button to hide the profile and pretty soon the profiles I see are a smaller number but ones where I can see the value in spending timeon the site. One can also go ahead and hide the profiles where they have never replied to a polite introduction. If they are not interested in me, why should I continue seeing them in my results?

You make a good argument for it. I recall the same issue with a competing site and it did result in me using it less because you might only have a couple of new faces but have to sort through "the usual".

We are going to introduce an expanded search functionality in the not distant future. After your comments, I think this should be integrated into that update as we can just include a tick-box to include results you've chosen to hide in the past or not.

Oh that is easy. I will go back to my recent references to time on site and that means engagement. Engagement means people resubscriptions for those who have not found their spouse yet. Using again the other site I referenced, they took their forums off the site. I personally made a point of envigorating the forum there by starting several topics and then replying when others participated. I engaged and got feedback from both families and singles how it was nice to have the conversations with others who think in terms of plig life. There my be lots of other places for discourse...yeah, and? So what? Your explicit goal I am presuming is to get families together. To help build families...not just your own or to have a nice additional income stream but to be an advocate and a matchmaker. To have that happen there needs to be engagement right there not off site. You have been in this sphere for a good while by your own words, you know the ease with which conversations end and potential opportunities are missed. Push people off site and they will make or not make their connections elsewhere. When they fail to make that connection...and we all know how hard it is to make those connections, the site will be seen as in part to blame.
Conversations and discussions gets matches to happen and allows all the more opportunities.

For me, I had the opposite experience. I saw their forum as too dead and it made the site look more dead than it was so that was something I wanted to avoid here.

I can see your point, but what would be the advantage over someone just posting to r/Polygamy on Reddit (where we moderate)?

It would seem that the more central/busy it was the better and I don't think we're going to get more eyes on it than that. But I'd like to understand your view (and that of anyone else that has an opinion on this point) in case I'm not seeing it right.

Just a suggestion from some random guy on the internet but we all have our drum to beat... having not been on the site I don't know if this is an issue pro or con but I would Never use the term poly. The degenerate swinger types have been 100% successful in usurping the term. I would use plural marriage or polygamy/polygyny but lean on plural marriage. All about the branding. The creepy orgy people have handed us our asses on branding by stealing a march on poly and we are painted (stained by my lights) with the same brush by association. Don't think many of us wish to be viewed in those terms, so I advocate for the use of plural marriage until someone comes up with something shorter and snappier. Just mu two cents.

Absolutely. We use the term a single time deep down on the homepage and link to an article that is critical of it for SEO reasons...it is unfortunately needed as Google's AI is absolutely certain that they are related and needs to appear to some degree to show up well in results for polygamy.

I say this having run the data analysis. If it wasn't for that, the term would not appear at all on the site, even in negative light.

But, given the requirement, blog articles that include the subject cast it in its correct light...rebranded swinging based largely on political ideology.

The branding issue is really a thing as we get people that want to pursue actual polygamy and they end up referencing being interested in a 'poly' relationship because they are new and it just causes confusion. It would be wonderful if we could get some more media exposure showing things in the right context and using the correct terminology.

Thanks for your feedback!

 

[Bartato]

Welcome

While your site is not Christian specific, I assume by polygamy you mean only polygyny (which worldwide is what people have historically understood polygamy to mean).
Christian
Muslim
Jewish
Mormon
Nonreligious
Other
Polyandry, polyamory, etc are wicked, and should not be promoted in any way.

 

[paterfamilias]

You make a good argument for it. I recall the same issue with a competing site and it did result in me using it less because you might only have a couple of new faces but have to sort through "the usual".

We are going to introduce an expanded search functionality in the not distant future. After your comments, I think this should be integrated into that update as we can just include a tick-box to include results you've chosen to hide in the past or not.

Check me out being a part of the solution
Ladies? Anything?
I don't hear applause...
Tough audience

For me, I had the opposite experience. I saw their forum as too dead and it made the site look more dead than it was so that was something I wanted to avoid here.

Ah well, that is easy enough to explain...there is a secret ingredient.
Me.

Lol...of any other talkative blatherskite who will not cease to beat his drum and engage others. Won't claim I got the other joint jumpin by any means but it went from essentially sweet FA to a fair amount of posting here and there. It would have been more but to be honest, some of the topics that were being discussed had some overtly silly-assed notions and/or claims. I politely chose not to dunk on them as it is not a forum for slogging matches. Being super duper perceptive. I have noticed that woman don't tend to clamber for the attention of dorks online who can win arguments that might go against their political leanings. Plus to be frank I was hoping that some others would take up the banner a bit. End result was that while it was a bit busier I and a couple of others I spoke to who participated were getting Waaaay more messages. I credit the activity on the forum.
I figure that woman are interested in interesting guys. How in the expletives deleted are you supposed to get noticed and be interesting if you will not open your bloody flap? Good ideas or lumpheaded ones, you get your ideas out there and some crazy woman is bound to think...hey, this Pater guy is just absolutely fascinating (please form an orderly queue girls, we don't want anyone getting trampled in the rush) even if he looks like a poorly shaven gorilla with a smirk. I ass-about but it is true and I suspect the ladies will bear out the opinion. Before bringing me adult beverages, feeding me grapes and lavishung me with praise naturally.
Ladies? Little help? You know you want to
Sounds to me like you need to presalt the forum if you were to adopt one, with the dulcet tones of a prosocial bigmouth.

I can see your point, but what would be the advantage over someone just posting to r/Polygamy on Reddit (where we moderate)?

Er...I don't wish to seem pedantic here but the goal is to whip up activity on the site no?
I don't know about the other sites you referenced as I have not spent time on them. Maybe I should, insert shrug. I have however not met anyone who has found success on either. Have you? You are in a better position to know. I would think however that by the nature of them just being public forums where anyone can poke their head in out of curiosity, it says to me that they are more informational as opposed to being intended to literally match people. I could be way off base however. I figure people like to have all needs met in one location.

Absolutely. We use the term a single time deep down on the homepage and link to an article that is critical of it for SEO reasons...it is unfortunately needed as Google's AI is absolutely certain that they are related and needs to appear to some degree to show up well in results for polygamy.

I say this having run the data analysis. If it wasn't for that, the term would not appear at all on the site, even in negative light.

But, given the requirement, blog articles that include the subject cast it in its correct light...rebranded swinging based largely on political ideology.

The branding issue is really a thing as we get people that want to pursue actual polygamy and they end up referencing being interested in a 'poly' relationship because they are new and it just causes confusion. It would be wonderful if we could get some more media exposure showing things in the right context and using the correct terminology.

Thanks for your feedback!

Understood and good to hear it. I am way out of date having not worked in IT for a long time but I do understand the basics still and the need for the dirty word to be uttered at least once and the need to get the attention of the fascists at Alphabet for inclusion in results. Glad it is not a theme however.

 

[ModernPolygamy]

Welcome

While your site is not Christian specific, I assume by polygamy you mean only polygyny (which worldwide is what people have historically understood polygamy to mean).
...

You would assume correctly. Polygamy in the form that it would have been understood from the very earliest recorded human history, now split off as polygyny. I just refuse to use the term as it seems like having a newly created sub-definition hoisted over on you...the same as the polyamory crowd having 100 different sub-terms that they obsess over defining.

Not that I have an opinion on that.

 

[ModernPolygamy]

Er...I don't wish to seem pedantic here but the goal is to whip up activity on the site no?
I don't know about the other sites you referenced as I have not spent time on them. Maybe I should, insert shrug. I have however not met anyone who has found success on either. Have you? You are in a better position to know. I would think however that by the nature of them just being public forums where anyone can poke their head in out of curiosity, it says to me that they are more informational as opposed to being intended to literally match people. I could be way off base however. I figure people like to have all needs met in one location.

Right, and that is my issue with it. I don't see a forum as so much a meeting place, minus other couples being able to meet like minded people and network (which is nice).

For an individual looking to get attention and interest, I think the energy is much better spent on a good profile, lots and pictures, and maybe an introduction video. If that won't do it, it's not happening.

I say that being able to see the stats on the back end. The message/reply rate for accounts that check those boxes off is about 3x your average account.

Understood and good to hear it. I am way out of date having not worked in IT for a long time but I do understand the basics still and the need for the dirty word to be uttered at least once and the need to get the attention of the fascists at Alphabet for inclusion in results. Glad it is not a theme however.

I see you understand the game well.

 

[NickF]

How many members are signed up on your site?

 

[James Pease]

I'm not interested in the dating world myself, but what's your subscription price? Just one level or multiple?

 

[The Revolting Man]

You would assume correctly. Polygamy in the form that it would have been understood from the very earliest recorded human history, now split off as polygyny. I just refuse to use the term as it seems like having a newly created sub-definition hoisted over on you...the same as the polyamory crowd having 100 different sub-terms that they obsess over defining.

Not that I have an opinion on that.

And the phrase polygyny just isn’t known. If you were ModernPolygyny.com very few people would look at it.

 

[Bartato]

And the phrase polygyny just isn’t known. If you were ModernPolygyny.com very few people would look at it.

I've pretty much only heard the word polygyny used in Christian polygamy circles, and those are pretty small circles.

 

[paterfamilias]

And the phrase polygyny just isn’t known. If you were ModernPolygyny.com very few people would look at it.

This is part of why I beat the plural marriage drum. Polygamy gets all sorts of assumptions involving child brides and compounds...silly but we will have likely all encountered the reaction, polygyny gets a confused face, poly gets assumptions i would prefer bot to contemplate. Plural marriage for the win. It is clear and concise plus it explicitly is about marriage.

 

[NickF]

@ModernPolygamy, how many members are active on your site currently?

 

[paterfamilias]

Right, and that is my issue with it. I don't see a forum as so much a meeting place, minus other couples being able to meet like minded people and network (which is nice).

Never heard of you or your site before you started the conversation here...in the discussion forum. See my point? We are not making a match obviously, we are however having a conversation and other people are participating as well. Some of them are women. Some of them might think either of us are interesting enough to get to know. Without that extra bit then there is less likelihood that either of our profiles on a generic dating site will get noticed.

For an individual looking to get attention and interest, I think the energy is much better spent on a good profile, lots and pictures, and maybe an introduction video. If that won't do it, it's not happening.

Lol. Dude...maybe it is just our different perspectives but women almost never write more than a couple of sentences for a profile and the couples look at couples profiles out of curiosity more than women bother to look at couples. Yeah I don't see the metrics but I have been doing this a while as well and I have had success...Likely more than I deserve and unfortunately none over 7-8 years (really shooting for that forever) but the point is that I am not just talking from the point of view of inexperience. I could say all sort of amazing things about myself and even be a reclusive former tech guy billionaire showing off my mansion on a private island and they would never know. Even the ones that you message rarely bother to look at profiles much less reply. Nearly every woman mad enough to be interested in me in the plural marriage context has been because of my writing on a forum, in a chat or in a blog post. They see that I have things to say and that gets me noticed far more often than just being yet another photo of some stranger with a nonsense user name.

I say that being able to see the stats on the back end. The message/reply rate for accounts that check those boxes off is about 3x your average account.

Maybe if I had the opportunity to see stats my mind would change but I am 100% convinced at this stage that talking, interaction and participation is what gets you noticed. In real life women tend to go with the guys who have the high general factor of personality. They are not as apt to note that high GFP in a profile they never visit. Seeing that activity and participation drives them to the profile unless I am completely off my nut.

Would not hurt my feelings to have some of the ladies weigh in...if I am wrong then I wish to be corrected as I prefer to be correct in my ideas and how I am seeing a problem.
Ladies, in the context of a plig dating site, what motivates you to look at a profile initially?

 

[frederick]

Nearly every woman mad enough to be interested in me in the plural marriage context has been because of my writing on a forum, in a chat or in a blog post.

It's interesting you would say that as I met my wife through answering a question she posted on a Christian forum. I saw her question, read the answers being posted, and decided to write an answer from a more accurate biblical foundation. It was through that simple question and answer we started our communication leading to her becoming my second wife.

I've commented in the past that forums may be better places to "meet" potential spouses because you're interacting with people on topics they and you are already interested in or concerned about.