• 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.

Online dating…pointless??

frederick said:
I met my wives in two totally different circumstances; one in a Bible study and the other on a Christian forum. This world is full of men and women who are sinners so, wherever you encounter people you are encountering sinners; sinners just like yourself, with all the weird ideas mingled with religious beliefs that span the human intellect. Personally, I don't know if there is one place better than another to meet a prospective partner(s) except that, if you want to meet people with a foundation in the Bible, then Christian dating sites, forums, Bible study groups, assemblies, and social groups will probably be better than strip bars or witches covens. But saying that, we know Salmon's wife was Rahab and Boaz's wife was Ruth; both women from less than "ideal" backgrounds yet God brought them to godly men and into the family lineage from which came the Messiah. Since a prudent wife is from the Lord, the prudent woman He gives you will be His blessing - no matter where He brings her from. Keep your eyes open for that person God brings you into contact with and who knows where it will go. :)
Click to expand...

Hmm... note to self: scratch strip clubs and witches’ covens off my list of potential places to find a second woman. Geesh, that list gets shorter by the day :mad:
 
MeganC said:
When I was searching for a possible family it was like trial and error to figure out where the best place to look was. On some sites all I got were pictures of men's private parts...and these men thought this was going to attract someone. Ugh.

Then I found a poly site that was mostly into pagan poly but there were a few Christian couples and families on there. I visited with two couples and one of them was actually really nice but I still didn't feel comfortable. Then I met my family and here I am twelve years later.

I agree with the regrouping thing. Do this for yourself and get your heart straight.

Then I'd say to give it another try. But if it helps I'd concentrate on families/couples where the first person you talk to is the wife and not the man. If the wife is supporting this and you can connect with her then the majority of the big problems in poly you should avoid like jealousy, jealousy, and jealousy.

:D
Click to expand...


Second note to self: don’t send pictures of your junk, women don’t like that. Man, I’m learning a lot! Where has this thread been all my life?!
 
USDutchkitty said:
Oh I know and what I saw of Missouri, gorgeous state. If I had the chance to live there, I would. I mean, the weather alone was great compare to Georgia! At least in August! Lol
Click to expand...
Oh you know what they say about the weather in Georgia, if you don’t like it then just wait a minute and it will change.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Second note to self: don’t send pictures of your junk, women don’t like that. Man, I’m learning a lot! Where has this thread been all my life?!
Click to expand...
Just got to add the following key for understanding profiles on dating sites:
  • I'm absolutely certain @MeganC is an exception to this, but the majority of women who have in their profile an expression of disgust about men posting or sending dick pics have photos in their own profiles that leave very little to the imagination. If they're not wearing form-fitting yoga pants in a photo, they're revealing majority cleavage and usually doing so standing in front of the bathroom mirror (especially if they complain about men posting bathroom pics).
  • I like to travel means they have very little income but expect their suitors to be rich and just dying to take them all over the world.
  • Those who state that anyone who voted for Trump need not apply outnumber those who state that anyone who voted for Biden, Obama, Kerry, Gore, either Clinton, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey and Johnson need not apply combined. I love how they help me avoid wasting time.
  • "Must like dogs" means you must accept the fact that you will always play second fiddle to her dogs but will be expect to foot the veterinary bills.
  • Generous means you're basically going to be paying out the nose for sex; very often it's a straight-up euphemism for, "I'm a college girl, and I'm willing to have sex with you on a regular basis for the next 3 years if you'll pay my university tuition, room and board."
  • "I'm not high maintenance" means you better have a second income.
  • "I don't like drama" means that nothing about you should interfere with her being the center of attention in every realm.
  • Open-minded means liberal which means only open to one way of looking at things. This one is highly correlated with Trump Lovers Need Not Apply.
  • Extra points go to those who are widows, because 'Divorced' typically means (and is demonstrated in the prose of the profile), "I left him because I thought I could do better, and I'll be leaving you in short order as well and will be bad-mouthing him the way I'm now bad-mouthing my last ex." [By the way, I'm not at all opposed to marrying someone who has been divorced, but even with someone like me who doesn't see it as a strict prohibition, a great deal of caution is in order.]
  • The weight categories are rarely accurate. Curvy is most likely to be accurate but usually means at least obese. Average means obese. Fit means heavier than average. Athletic means either, well, seriously athletic or I can lift my fork. Thin means I'm usually not fat. No one likes finding out that they've been misled about their potential mate's weight, in either direction. We were just talking about this late night on Saturday of the Missouri meet-up: I encourage everyone, male or female to be conservative in making that estimate. If you're conflicted between one category and the other, go with the one that's less ideal; all you can do then is provide a pleasant surprise -- instead of a shocking disappointment.
  • Religious category listed as Spiritual means, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!"
  • "It's me time" means that it's never going to be you time. She raised someone else's kids, they dumped each other, and now she wants you to fund Fun Time, and your payoff is the privilege of providing her with due benevolence.
I had a female next-door neighbor years back when dating sites were first the vogue who told me she never went out with anyone who didn't send her naked photos. Of course, she wasn't looking for a husband, but my point is that men don't do these supposedly ridiculous things for no good reason at all. Some women respond positively. Most won't, but the men sending the dick pics aren't looking for women who frequent Biblical Families. And, having befriended many women on these sites with whom I was never going to have a romantic relationship, I've ended up learning a great deal about them. The ones with the highest standards simply don't get that they outnumber the Top Flight Guys they're seeking 1000 to 1 on dating sites -- or in the marriage meat market in general, for that matter. They pronounce their impossible-to-meet standards, then wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and then . . . every once in a while . . . out of sheer frustration with no physical contact, they knuckle under to, guess who, one of the dick pics guys, because they know they can relieve some sexual frustration without getting hooked into anything permanent, get it out of their system for a while, then they wait, and wait, and wait, and then . . . well, yes, you guessed it.

The sensible route would be to assess the marketplace much more honestly, recognize that one isn't Princess Charming oneself, and dial the expectations down a notch or two -- and perhaps find a mate for life.

This, though, is philosophy for the single person. I would love for someone to provide me with some similar insights about plural family dating. I've certainly been striking out in that regard, but, boy, oh, boy, if I ever end up a widower and also decide to limit myself to monogamy, the things I've learned . . .
 
Keith Martin said:
They pronounce their impossible-to-meet standards, then wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and then . . .
Click to expand...
Then, as Kevin Samuels says, they get a dog and die alone.

Accepting someone of your own status is not settling, it is being reasonable, rational, and logical.
As opposed to waiting for a guy/family that is in the top 1% of income, looks, etc.
 
USDutchkitty said:
Oh right now the weather is bipolar.
Click to expand...
This year has been bipolar here in MO. It has been a rainy year. I like it, it reminds me of Portland OR.
 
Keith Martin said:
I'm absolutely certain @MeganC is an exception to this, but the majority of women who have in their profile an expression of disgust about men posting or sending dick pics have photos in their own profiles that leave very little to the imagination. If they're not wearing form-fitting yoga pants in a photo, they're revealing majority cleavage and usually doing so standing in front of the bathroom mirror (especially if they complain about men posting bathroom pics).
Click to expand...

I have some revealing pictures with me wearing a bikini but is that immodest? I don't think so.

I will admit to having learned the embarrassing life lesson of why you wear a one-piece and not a bikini when you water ski. :eek:

But I would never post a picture of myself in a bikini as part of a profile. It just seems wrong.
 
MeganC said:
I have some revealing pictures with me wearing a bikini but is that immodest? I don't think so.

I will admit to having learned the embarrassing life lesson of why you wear a one-piece and not a bikini when you water ski. :eek:

But I would never post a picture of myself in a bikini as part of a profile. It just seems wrong.
Click to expand...
Your body belongs to your husband, what he wants to share of it with the rest of the world is his decision.
Before you were married, it was called advertising. If your body is your bait, then use it as you decide.
 
The distinction lies partly in the realm of whether one believes that sharing one's Yah-given beauty is an invitation to revel in the glory of His Creation or an open invitation to consider oneself the owner of what is being shared. I lean heavily toward the former. I do not believe it is immodest to be revealing; my earlier comment was designed to point out the hypocrisy of those who condemn it for one gender but accept it in their own. The hijab is the extreme of holding the belief that a woman revealing part of herself gives any man the right to consider her rape bait. We've discussed this before, I believe in a thread started by @windblown: what is immodest is not the degree of clothing but the intention behind it that behavior reveals only slightly more than does what a woman signals with her eyes. We all know what a come hither look is; that can be and is done in a hijab. Conversely, a woman in a sheer bikini may share with the world almost every detail of her naked body, but if she puts out no signals of availability, no man has any more right to covet or force himself upon her than he would have if she were encased in concrete.
 
MeganC said:
But I would never post a picture of myself in a bikini as part of a profile. It just seems wrong.
Click to expand...

Is that because you believe that having a profile that emphasizes that the primary purpose of one's profile is to maximize the ability to engage in casual sex? I ask that because it seems clear to me in the majority of such postings that the women aren't particularly looking for a long-term commitment type of encounter. Is what they're doing wrong, given that the dating site makes posting such a casual-sex profile acceptable? I don't know the answer to that, but I do lean toward believing that, if the venue supports such endeavors, then directly advertising for them is no more wrong than the freedom to indicate that one isn't looking for a ring. Again, the men posting their bathroom selfies and sending dick pics aren't doing it for us, but they're doing it for a large enough segment of the population that it's far from being a waste of their time -- and they're no way going to get upset by being chastised by the women they don't want to waste their time on anyway, because they're looking for far-shorter-time-frame relationships, as are many of the women.

Years and years ago, in response to a personals ad, a woman mailed me multiple photographs of her not only naked but engaged in sex acts with her husband, requesting that I reply by sending similar photos and indicating just what I wanted to do with her in front of her husband. My response didn't inspire any further communication with her -- or any in-person meeting -- but I saw no reason to be offended by her having sent the photos. In fact, I'm sure I still have them somewhere around here in one of those boxes I haven't unpacked since 3 moves ago . . .
 
Keith Martin said:
Is that because you believe that having a profile that emphasizes that the primary purpose of one's profile is to maximize the ability to engage in casual sex?
Click to expand...

I guess my first feeling is that it's just wrong. Like I won't post a picture of the sole of my foot either because it's just kind of weird and wrong.

Can't speak to the casual sex thing but I will say when I was looking for a family I didn't want to send the wrong message with the wrong picture because the kind of people who would like that sort of thing were not the people I wanted to be with. If that makes sense.
 
Keith Martin said:
The distinction lies partly in the realm of whether one believes that sharing one's Yah-given beauty is an invitation to revel in the glory of His Creation or an open invitation to consider oneself the owner of what is being shared. I lean heavily toward the former. I do not believe it is immodest to be revealing; my earlier comment was designed to point out the hypocrisy of those who condemn it for one gender but accept it in their own. The hijab is the extreme of holding the belief that a woman revealing part of herself gives any man the right to consider her rape bait. We've discussed this before, I believe in a thread started by @windblown: what is immodest is not the degree of clothing but the intention behind it that behavior reveals only slightly more than does what a woman signals with her eyes. We all know what a come hither look is; that can be and is done in a hijab. Conversely, a woman in a sheer bikini may share with the world almost every detail of her naked body, but if she puts out no signals of availability, no man has any more right to covet or force himself upon her than he would have if she were encased in concrete.
Click to expand...
I would agree that there is no set standard of modesty and that we all should be able to control our thoughts and no matter the temptation but married women need to at least be cognizant of their status. Adultery is a sin of thought as well as deed for both men and women.

I agree entirely with @steve though that an eligible woman is free to advertise as much as she’s comfortable with.
 
MeganC said:
Can't speak to the casual sex thing but I will say when I was looking for a family I didn't want to send the wrong message with the wrong picture because the kind of people who would like that sort of thing were not the people I wanted to be with. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

It makes complete sense. In general on dating sites, it's best to just entirely ignore that which you would entirely ignore in real life. The energy we expend focusing on what we disapprove of has some small potential to help hone our values, but for the most part it just distracts our focus away from successfully seeking that of which we approve.
 
The Revolting Man said:
married women need to at least be cognizant of their status.
Click to expand...
MeganC said:
Something I need to remember. My head is not exactly wired to think that way all the time.
Click to expand...

For us men, that's the advantage of taken/married women having a ring on that finger of theirs. If she has a ring I make a conscious point of not looking too long and definitely not thinking... . No ring; I look longer and think a lot. ;):rolleyes:
 
The Revolting Man said:
I think most women don’t realize how visual men are, even after they’ve heard and seen it all. Hell, we don’t even need visuals half the time. We just struggle with wanting every woman, especially other men’s women.
Click to expand...
Double Like
 
The Revolting Man said:
I think most women don’t realize how visual men are, even after they’ve heard and seen it all. Hell, we don’t even need visuals half the time. We just struggle with wanting every woman, especially other men’s women.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty aware of men and visuals. Even though Steve has seen it all he still gets noticeably interested every summer when the sundresses, shorts, and tank tops come out around here.

Just my own opinion here but I do believe that men get more excited by wondering what's under a woman's top than in actually seeing what's under that top. It's an ironic twist on the visual thing that it's what they don't see that gets most of their interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top