High Value Male

[Keith Martin]

Fathers should really teach sons this fact of marriage. It caught me completely unawares.

Amen. At the risk of referencing the secular, I think most fathers these days were themselves raised by fathers who abdicated their responsibility to prepare their sons, because those fathers had already become subservient to their wives, thoroughly demonstrating fealty to spinning the "females shall not be criticized" yarn.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The elephant in this room and probably the more important item on @MeganC ’s list is resource gathering. Most of us, me included, fail at the ability to gather the resources to make multiple women feel secure under our care.

For myself, I appreciate that my man works, but also that he acknowledges the provision actually comes from God as opportunities. Realizing we are all dependant on Him in the broader sense I think puts the focus more on maintaining a thankful attitude and everyone doing their part.
We have had our leaner times here. Building a business takes time. In the last 5 years we have done well, well enough to hire the gal who then after a year joined the family.

I'm sure it helped that this family was already supporting her in a way that let her stay home with her son. Then too she heard nothing but good back from customers, and I'm sure that didn't hurt her willingness to be associated with us either.
She liked my cooking too!

I know I was not concerned as a first wife with how much the man was earning. I grew up living frugal, and value time as a family too much to ever want my men folk working long hours.
Now they are working on developing a product to hopefully get produced and on the market that might just change our lives. I will share it if we are successful....as many people living rural may appreciate it.

I just think women would do better to see their husbands as the link or vessel that connects them to God's blessings and provision, rather then acting like the man can do that job of providing on his own.

 

[MemeFan]

The elephant in this room and probably the more important item on @MeganC ’s list is resource gathering. Most of us, me included, fail at the ability to gather the resources to make multiple women feel secure under our care.

This is not trivial matter and shouldn’t be shrugged off as shallow or materialistic.

If a woman submits to a patriarchal marriage then she is very likely to be totally dependent on that man’s ability to gather resources, not only her but her children. She would be a fool not to facto that in as a major part of what makes her comfortable with the arrangement.

Most of the actually plural men I know are entrepreneurial or upper middle class, and the majority skew entrepreneurial. Not all of them but the vast majority.

So when we talk about being high value we have to realize that our ability to provide is the biggest contributor to that. I’m the perfect example; I’m way above average in every category (yes I still struggle with false modesty, I’m working on it be patient with me) except resource gathering. I’m poor. Women appreciate my looks, my charm, my conversation, my dancing and strength. They readily admit that I’m a fantastic lover (that’s what they say, I would never say that) and a downright terrifying figure of a man. But I can’t provide for a second wife so I don’t get a second wife.

I’m the male equivalent of a fat chick with a great personality. All the men love and admire her but they’re not going to be seen dating her.

If we want to be high value we actually have to provide value, or at least valuable things.

Scripture says that a strong man retains wealth. It’s time for some of us to get a lot stronger.

Except women prefer traits which get wealth, rather than wealthy men.

 

[Keith Martin]

I just think women would do better to see their husbands as the link or vessel that connects them to God's blessings and provision, rather then acting like the man can do that job of providing on his own.

Amen! Excellently expressed!

The elephant in this room and probably the more important item on @MeganC ’s list is resource gathering. Most of us, me included, fail at the ability to gather the resources to make multiple women feel secure under our care.

This is not trivial matter and shouldn’t be shrugged off as shallow or materialistic.

If a woman submits to a patriarchal marriage then she is very likely to be totally dependent on that man’s ability to gather resources, not only her but her children. She would be a fool not to facto that in as a major part of what makes her comfortable with the arrangement.

Most of the actually plural men I know are entrepreneurial or upper middle class, and the majority skew entrepreneurial. Not all of them but the vast majority.

So when we talk about being high value we have to realize that our ability to provide is the biggest contributor to that. I’m the perfect example; I’m way above average in every category (yes I still struggle with false modesty, I’m working on it be patient with me) except resource gathering. I’m poor. Women appreciate my looks, my charm, my conversation, my dancing and strength. They readily admit that I’m a fantastic lover (that’s what they say, I would never say that) and a downright terrifying figure of a man. But I can’t provide for a second wife so I don’t get a second wife.

I’m the male equivalent of a fat chick with a great personality. All the men love and admire her but they’re not going to be seen dating her.

If we want to be high value we actually have to provide value, or at least valuable things.

Scripture says that a strong man retains wealth. It’s time for some of us to get a lot stronger.

The elephant standing outside the room with the elephant is that, as much as each individual widow (along with whatever orphan children accompany her) may fantasize about being entitled to a life of comfort as she strategizes about whether or not she's going to attach herself to a potential future mate, the reality of the situation is that your supposed lack of resources is a greater level of resources than the vast majority of women in her situation will ever be presented with being able to access. The elephant outside the room is bellowing the truth that, absent willingness to compromise on fantasies, most such women will continue living lives that combine low resources with ongoing challenging struggles to make ends meet and properly meet non-material needs of their orphan children. The elephant outside the room knows that only a very tiny percentage of women will have the luxury to successfully nab a high-resource-provider, while the rest are holding out in the deluded belief that they're entitled to just win life's lottery.

As men, we're collectively responsible for all of these women. While we mistakenly fall prey to being convinced that we must simply continually up our games, millions of women remain without covering as they fail to up their games or even acknowledge what men already bring to the table. My argument is two-fold: on the one hand, leftover women do not deserve extraordinary men; on the other hand, while we're wasting time, energy and even resources proving ourselves worthy and/or building up our resources, leftover women remain . . . leftover.

Are they better off alone and poor with their fantasies? Or better off under the covering of men who will protect them, provide them due benevolence and very likely -- no matter how resource-poor they are -- even improve their material security simply due to economics of scale?

@The Revolting Man, what I say next I say with the full authority of having had numerous exposures to the actual Revolting Man and Windblown household: don't kid yourself; while many women would indeed turn their noses up at you simply because your resources are supposedly below average, the vast majority of them would look down their noses at over 90% of men, anyway -- they're not perpetuating their misery because men don't have enough resources; they're doing so because their expectations are unrealistic, because they value social approval over sanity, and because they are typically abominable at self-reflection. You are most definitely not too poor to have another wife. If it isn't just women being foolish, then it's a matter of an unnecessary barrier you're placing in your own path. You are a tremendously resourceful man, and, despite your imperfections given that you're not Yeshua, all of your children and stepchildren are testaments to that fact. I wouldn't even begin to doubt that you're a great lover, and every woman who would shy away from joining your family because you're officially 'poor' is depriving herself of that, so isn't a woman who makes that choice the responsible party for choosing deprivation of lovemaking over the possibility of life being rough in between the great sex? Should someone rape or rob or murder her and/or her children, would she be better off because she wasn't living with you? -- and I assert she would not, because it seems highly unlikely anyone would be fool enough to come after her on your property!

Acquiring and retaining wealth is indeed a good thing, but is it more important than a woman being covered by a man? It seems clear to me that Scripture is much more heavily weighted toward asserting the latter than the former.

I think it's time for soft women to start watching Little House on the Prairie episodes again.

The whole men-just-have-to-keep-demonstrating-increasing-worth conversation is a Big Lie, and, as men, what we're responsible for is whether or not we continue to reward women for having that delusion. All it's done is make life worse for men and women.

 

[MeganC]

Megan is extraordinary.

I'm a screeching hot mess is what I am. But thank you!

Megan C was actually among that very rare breed of female who was actually concentrating on becoming a subsequent wife in a plural marriage

Bear in mind that the factor I referenced above had a lot to do with my reasons for seeking out poly.

When I was eighteen I was recovering from a trauma, I was coming from a shattered family, a reasonable man would have demanded I get a full physical exam and pass a drug screening before touching me (which is what Steve did), I was most definitely not a Christian, I am in the autism spectrum and some aspects of this are very difficult for me in social situations, and etc.

I was hardly the 'unicorn' some people would say I was. In fairness I was at best a nice car that needed a little work...

 

[Joleneakamama]

I think it's time for soft women to start watching Little House on the Prairie episodes again.

Reading about life 100 years ago is great for perspective!
Just realizing the blessing of running water and a wood stove to heat it on is HUGE.
Having a man you'd rather spend time with then nag about that water heater you already know he wants to build.....is also a HUGE blessing.
So I didn't complain.

 

[Joleneakamama]

@MeganC you are too hard on yourself!
There but for the grace of God go ALL of us. We get dealt different hands, you have played yours very well!!

 

[FollowingHim]

The elephant in this room and probably the more important item on @MeganC ’s list is resource gathering. Most of us, me included, fail at the ability to gather the resources to make multiple women feel secure under our care.
...
Most of the actually plural men I know are entrepreneurial or upper middle class, and the majority skew entrepreneurial. Not all of them but the vast majority.

So when we talk about being high value we have to realize that our ability to provide is the biggest contributor to that. I’m the perfect example; I’m way above average in every category (yes I still struggle with false modesty, I’m working on it be patient with me) except resource gathering.

I just saw myself in that description. The great thing about being entrepreneurial is the freedom and the potential to be successful. The problem is that it's a high-stakes game and there is also the potential to be unsuccessful! We have great ideas, but they don't always turn out as successful as we thought.

Maybe all of us independent-minded men are quite similar really in mindset, and those whose entrepreneurial ventures are more successful end up with the women also, rightly, because they can provide for them.

 

[MeganC]

Except women prefer traits which get wealth, rather than wealthy men.

This is what I really like about you is this kind of wisdom. It isn't the wealth that attracts good women (as opposed to gold diggers) it's the attitude that can create wealth, or a prosperous family, or whatever else. Wealth is sometimes a byproduct of the traits we like but it's the attitudes and values that are most attractive.

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm a screeching hot mess is what I am. But thank you!

You remain an extraordinary screeching hot mess.

I was hardly the 'unicorn' some people would say I was. In fairness I was at best a nice car that needed a little work...

Point well taken; yes, you came with baggage, but you were still at least a unicorn in large part just because you were seeking polygyny and were smart enough to know it was best for you.

There is a reason why cars like the one you've shared with us continue to be on display: they are the ones worth remembering.

 

[NBTX11]

Bottom line. In monogamy only, high value man and high value woman usually find each other. In polygamy, in a monogamy culture, high value woman won't entertain PM due to social stigma. High value married man is left rummaging through leftover, lower value woman who generally have difficulty finding partners to care for their 4 babies from 4 daddies and similar pasts.

I get that these women need covering and husbands. However, the general notion that the high value married man will obtain single, no kids, no drama, no past high value woman is pretty much void.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Amen! Excellently expressed!

The elephant standing outside the room with the elephant is that, as much as each individual widow (along with whatever orphan children accompany her) may fantasize about being entitled to a life of comfort as she strategizes about whether or not she's going to attach herself to a potential future mate, the reality of the situation is that your supposed lack of resources is a greater level of resources than the vast majority of women in her situation will ever be presented with being able to access. The elephant outside the room is bellowing the truth that, absent willingness to compromise on fantasies, most such women will continue living lives that combine low resources with ongoing challenging struggles to make ends meet and properly meet non-material needs of their orphan children. The elephant outside the room knows that only a very tiny percentage of women will have the luxury to successfully nab a high-resource-provider, while the rest are holding out in the deluded belief that they're entitled to just win life's lottery.

As men, we're collectively responsible for all of these women. While we mistakenly fall prey to being convinced that we must simply continually up our games, millions of women remain without covering as they fail to up their games or even acknowledge what men already bring to the table. My argument is two-fold: on the one hand, leftover women do not deserve extraordinary men; on the other hand, while we're wasting time, energy and even resources proving ourselves worthy and/or building up our resources, leftover women remain . . . leftover.

Are they better off alone and poor with their fantasies? Or better off under the covering of men who will protect them, provide them due benevolence and very likely -- no matter how resource-poor they are -- even improve their material security simply due to economics of scale?

@The Revolting Man, what I say next I say with the full authority of having had numerous exposures to the actual Revolting Man and Windblown household: don't kid yourself; while many women would indeed turn their noses up at you simply because your resources are supposedly below average, the vast majority of them would look down their noses at over 90% of men, anyway -- they're not perpetuating their misery because men don't have enough resources; they're doing so because their expectations are unrealistic, because they value social approval over sanity, and because they are typically abominable at self-reflection. You are most definitely not too poor to have another wife. If it isn't just women being foolish, then it's a matter of an unnecessary barrier you're placing in your own path. You are a tremendously resourceful man, and, despite your imperfections given that you're not Yeshua, all of your children and stepchildren are testaments to that fact. I wouldn't even begin to doubt that you're a great lover, and every woman who would shy away from joining your family because you're officially 'poor' is depriving herself of that, so isn't a woman who makes that choice the responsible party for choosing deprivation of lovemaking over the possibility of life being rough in between the great sex? Should someone rape or rob or murder her and/or her children, would she be better off because she wasn't living with you? -- and I assert she would not, because it seems highly unlikely anyone would be fool enough to come after her on your property!

Acquiring and retaining wealth is indeed a good thing, but is it more important than a woman being covered by a man? It seems clear to me that Scripture is much more heavily weighted toward asserting the latter than the former.

I think it's time for soft women to start watching Little House on the Prairie episodes again.

The whole men-just-have-to-keep-demonstrating-increasing-worth conversation is a Big Lie, and, as men, what we're responsible for is whether or not we continue to reward women for having that delusion. All it's done is make life worse for men and women.

Thank you Keith, those are wonderful things to hear but I’ve actually started building some wealth (minor) this year and I’m livid at myself for not having been doing something similar for years. At my poorest I could have stacked a few silver dimes a week and had thousands of dollars put back. I have had a poor man’s mentality for 4 decades, I didn’t think I could invest so I didn’t even look for ways to prepare for the future. That’s an inexcusable failure in my part.

You are perfectly right though, while I can be hard on myself, most women need to re-examine their assumptions about the manner they expect to be kept. The poverty, just the financial poverty, of single women is staggering. A man wouldn’t have to provide much to be them in a much better place.

 

[windblown]

I think it's time for soft women to start watching Little House on the Prairie episodes again

I’m reminded of the Amish-inspired, plural family we met this past retreat. They live without electricity, cars, etc. The two wives (and 3 little girls) wear matching cape dresses that they sew themselves. I assume they live on meager means, and that the second wife brings to the table more resources than she takes away. God, they were beautiful.

 

[windblown]

I get that these women need covering and husbands. However, the general notion that the high value married man will obtain single, no kids, no drama, no past high value woman is pretty much void.

Smooth seas never made good sailors.

 

[windblown]

@The Revolting Man took on a single mom with 3 children and 2 baby daddies.

And saved my life.

PS I don’t care about what old beater I get to drive as long as I’m able to pick up my Azure order. Plus it’s going to be useless once the EMP hits.

 

[Bina]

To be honest I didn't really think this deeply about my choice when I was making it.

At the time my requirements were few.

• I wanted to feel safe.
• I wanted to be part of a stable and drama-free family.
• I wanted to have children.

That's it. But even with such a short list of very basic requirements it seemed that most couples or families I chatted with or met fell short. There was one family that reminds me very much of the Pease family who were really nice people and then there was the family I joined.

The other couples/families gave me warning bells on some things. One couple was very interested in what kind of income I could contribute to them, another saw me as a sex toy, and the couple that reminded me of the Pease family didn't seem to agree on what they wanted from poly.

If I were asked what my requirements are now this is what I'd say and in this order:

1. A family that demonstrates Faith
2. A man who is an obvious leader
3. No drugs and no alcohol abuse
4. Debts are few and not a concern
5. The home already has room for another wife and more kids
6. Finances look good
7. Drama is at a minimum

I would also add : The first wife is completely on board with having a co wife/wives. Some women assume a posture of cooperation yet are secretly agonizing this process. This secretive disdain for adding a wife to the household could manifest into a serious subtle undercurrent of communication /household sabotage.

 

[NBTX11]

Smooth seas never made good sailors.

It's not the idea that married men shouldn't take on women with mistakes in their past, such as multiple babies by different fathers that I am getting at. There's a difference between a mistake and a lifetime pattern of behavior. I'm good with mistakes and sins that are truly repented of. We all make them.

It's the idea that there are women, for a lack of a better term, sowed their wild oats, played the field, and racked up a high body counts, much of which while claiming to be a Christian, and now expect married man to come rescue them and provide a lifetime commitment after they now realize they are out of options.

There's a difference.

 

[Keith Martin]

@The Revolting Man took on a single mom with 3 children and 2 baby daddies.

And saved my life.

I'm glad I patiently waited for you to bring this up.

The testimony you gave me the last time I visited was, to put it bluntly, moving. He's married to a remarkable woman, but no matter his bluster, you are truly married to a remarkable man who has already mastered sufficient humility.

I love you guys.

 

[Keith Martin]

It's the idea that there are women, for a lack of a better term, sowed their wild oats, played the field, and racked up a high body counts, much of which while claiming to be a Christian, and now expect married man to come rescue them and provide a lifetime commitment after they now realize they are out of options.

There's a difference.

There certainly is.

This is where conditions come into play. Rather than crossing such women entirely off our lists (which turns polygyny into a structure for maximizing our own life's wonderfulness), it's entirely appropriate to present them with a list of conditions you expect them to meet. Those conditions, in a scenario such as the one you describe, could include:

• Functionally repenting for past behavior.
• Demonstrating an ability to refrain from sexual interactions for a set period of time.
• Engaging submissively in whatever discussion you need to have to establish confident trust that she's capable of pair-bonding without adultery.
• Dressing modestly.
• Refraining from posting even remotely-provocative photos on social media.
• Perhaps living with your family for a significant period of time without romantic interaction between you and her, during which she's required to assume chore responsibilities and work outside the home to bring income to your family.
• etc.

Much of this would be unacceptable to someone who is more committed to being rescued than to being a wife.

 

[Keith Martin]

I would also add : The first wife is completely on board with having a co wife/wives. Some women assume a posture of cooperation yet are secretly agonizing this process. This secretive disdain for adding a wife to the household could manifest into a serious subtle undercurrent of communication /household sabotage.

Yes, indeed it could, and this can be confidently asserted because those of us in Biblical Families have watched it happen, repeatedly.

I will add two things:

1. Caution to men: think twice before enacting a counter-scriptural vow to your 1st wife in which you promise that you will never take on a 2nd wife until she, the 1st wife, is fully on board. If you make such a vow, two things are near-certain as long as the vow remains in place:
   • She will never be fully on board; and
   • You will never be the actual head of your household, no matter how patriarchal the two of you make it look on the surface.
2. We've addressed this in the past, and it can be found at: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/...arriage-your-get-out-of-jail-free-card.16178/ [TLDR/CAMERA warning]

Practicing polygyny is most definitely not a requirement for every man who would be a patriarch (although I would argue that YHWH expects most patriarchs to demonstrate the generosity of being willing to have more than one wife), but no man can truly be a patriarch if he is held hostage by his 1st wife to stop him from taking on a 2nd. Submission (respectful cooperation) is not submission if it's only exhibited in circumstances in which one's wife cooperates when it's what she was going to do anyway.

I'm not arguing against the common sense of making a good-faith effort to give one's 1st wife some breathing room to, in good faith, come to grips with having to share her husband, but this process by necessity has to have a time limit applied to it. If a man's unwilling to, at some point (months; not years), assert, "You've had every opportunity to ask every question and present every challenge; now I'm giving you this much more time [again, weeks or months; not years] to decide if you're in or out," then that man needs to have the self-respect to acknowledge that he doesn't wear the pants in the family. The same thing applies if the man sets a time limit but doesn't follow through on it when it expires.

Polygyny is one of a limited number of core issues in regard to biblical patriarchy. YHWH wasn't just messing about when he made his numerous exhortations for all widows and orphans to be taken care of (the fate of Onan is but perhaps the most stark example) -- the only way for that to transpire is for a lot of patriarchs to be entirely willing to assume responsibility for multiple women. Entirely, in this case, requires the absence of anyone having veto power over his decisions.

We're all capable of coming up with excuses for letting our wives lead us around by nose leashes. Is it insistence that the next woman immediately fit in perfectly with our vision or our wife's current comprehension of that vision, as if that itself didn't take years to develop? Is it fear that our 1st wife will leave us, which is itself evidence of idolatry demonstrated toward that wife? Is it fear that she will use the legal system to steal our children from us? Many have used these excuses, most notably in the case of openly proclaiming that last one -- so I assert this: on top of putting one's male headship on hold until the children reach adulthood, what is it you'll be faced with once your kids are no longer kids? What further damage to your headship, your manhood, the example you set for your sons, will be compounded by whatever amount of years pass by while you continue to reward your wife for dominating you? What magic trick will you then use to turn that around? Or will you end up in the most statistically-common scenario: thinking you're shielding your children from divorce only to have your wife walk right out the door after they're grown up anyway and she's ready to shrug off even the pretense of being submissive?

Sorry, @paterfamilias, for once again somewhat hijacking your thread. I guess, though, that the following is what I would write to head back to the initial path you defined: can it ever be just a matter of learning how women define a high-value male? isn't it imperative that we also assess whether the MBLs (marital bucket lists) they have are even congruent within themselves? and isn't it perhaps a significant clue that we men should never bend to their MBLs when those supposed criteria contain expectations that indicate, directly or indirectly, that prospective mates are expecting to dominate us in one or more significant manner?

Would a real high value man need to be told by a woman how to be a high value man? Or, would a real high value man alter either his personality or his vision to increase his 'chances' with a woman who would ask him to do so?

I believe the answer to either question is, 'No.'

*************

[Sometime in the next couple days I'll be starting a new thread somewhat relevant to this discussion; it's based on a Substack article I published last night. It, too, gets the TDLR/CAMERA warning, because it's not for the SAS faint-of-heart, but at least it's shorter than Thelyphthora!]