Meat Patriarchal wannabe catfishers

[steve]

Yes, I most certainly do. This is the monthly number of comments on the public forum, and the monthly number of private conversation messages, going right back to June 2016 (as far as the stats I have go for). The first and last months are lower as they're incomplete.

The "Users active" value really means "number of visits to the forum", it does not actually track individual users. See definition below. Again, number of visits is growing month on month.

View attachment 1159

That’s what I thought, there used to be days that had nothing posted.
We’re not in Kansas anymore.

 

[FollowingHim]

That’s what I thought, there used to be days that had nothing posted.

Just to overwhelm you with datapoints then, here are the daily numbers of posts. The last day with zero posts was the 7th of May 2017!

 

[Keith Martin]

Yes, I most certainly do. This is the monthly number of comments on the public forum, and the monthly number of private conversation messages, going right back to June 2016 (as far as the stats I have go for). The first and last months are lower as they're incomplete.

The "Users active" value really means "number of visits to the forum", it does not actually track individual users. See definition below. Again, number of visits is growing month on month.

View attachment 1159

This also demonstrates that the trends are paralleling each other, for the most part: more participants = more participation.

 

[Keith Martin]

Just to overwhelm you with datapoints then, here are the daily numbers of posts. The last day with zero posts was the 7th of May 2017!
View attachment 1160

Outlier data points always catch my attention, though: I'd be very interested in what the hot topics were during those spikes in September 2017, March 2018, late August/early September 2018, February 2019, June 2019 and July 2019.

Also, is it possible to tease from the data what topic-discussion results in increasing newbie participation versus decreasing newbie participation?

 

[Keith Martin]

How about using just three labels (keeping it really simple and easy to understand):

• Real Life: Posts calling for assistance with issues in real life. Everyone is expected to be careful to be especially compassionate.

I may be the only person who has this reaction, but when I read, "Real Life," I immediately interpret that as being something that encompass what you're putting in the General Category. Instead of "Real Life," could we call it "Life Support"?

 

[FollowingHim]

Outlier data points always catch my attention, though: I'd be very interested in what the hot topics were during those spikes in September 2017, March 2018, late August/early September 2018, February 2019, June 2019 and July 2019.

Also, is it possible to tease from the data what topic-discussion results in increasing newbie participation versus decreasing newbie participation?

No, I don't have the ability to dig any deeper than this through the interface I have. You could investigate the topics manually through the advanced search tool on the website, looking for topics later than a certain date, then looking at the dominant threads in the first conversations found in that search. Enter anything in the "Search" box top right and then click "More" to go to the advanced search interface.

 

[rockfox]

. I would contest that they were ever acceptable male behavior, but even if they hypothetically were prior to then, they were certainly ruled out as a result of Christ's new encapsulating Golden-Rule Second Commandment: "Love everyone with whom you associate, as you would be loved yourself."

You're reading modern sensibilities into it.

And it's disrespectful to women in general to assume that all of them are working under the strategy of having a hidden agenda the nature of which we have to guess

I'm not saying they have a hidden agenda, but that women communicate differently than men do. That they would is entirely in keeping with biology; almost necessary even.

I won't argue against the proposition that women often communicate through the subtext, but I will challenge that it is "just their nature." It is most definitely much more significantly a result of cultural programming and thus not based on their nature. They do it because they're taught to do it and because they learn they can get away with it. Then on top of that they complain about being subject to the ramifications of communicating covertly, wanting the rewards but not the punishments (go back and read the trajectory of her posts). It's a child's strategy, one that should be jettisoned as an adult, and we should think more of our women than to excuse them for doing it. So I pretty much refuse to feed into it -- and that's what happens when we dance around whatever indirect nonsense they're providing and then sheepishly express sympathy when they shift to guilt-tripping us for not properly responding to the information they hid from us.

I think it is their nature. But even if what you say is true, there is no point in getting mad at newcomers who behave that way because this is just how modern women often communicate now. We have to start with people where they are now, not where we'd like them to be.

If we're already guessing, we're going to tag women who are really just talking about an issue with being poor, pitiful victims who can't even get to the point.

Some things are so blatantlyk obvious that guessing isn't necessary. Besides, it's not disrespectful to ask background questions to ensure one is addressing the root cause.

At the same time, I continue to consider it collective misbehavior if a man asserts that it's OK to beat one's wife, he gets 9 likes from various men, and not one among us questions such an assertion -- because that leads to women on here (especially new ones) to very reasonably get the impression that entering into a Biblical Family or staying in one is the equivalent of requesting to be beat or otherwise abused. Hear me clearly: I'm not talking about voluntary participation in a marital system within which the woman submits to being spanked for misbehavior; I'm talking about situations in which a woman's only outlet for escaping being beaten (as distinct from spanked) or being purposefully verbally beaten down is to leave the marriage -- especially when a number of prominent men in her/our community are high-fiving her husband (perhaps this is the 1 instances to which you referred in a previous post).

This is laughable. No one will reasonably take that impression, the question is immediate controversy every time it comes up.

We can't get withing 100' of that subject without a chorus of men calling it wrong and expressing their concern about what others would think. To the contrary, when a woman expresses desire for such things there are men attacking her perspective and telling her she's wrong. Yes, I'm talking about that very voluntary participation situation you speak of; lots of pushback even there; men making it clear it's not ok. Even though such actions make those women feel attacked, unwelcome and unsafe.

In cases like this there isn't a problem with people not speaking up to say it's not ok, they do, the real problem is you don't like the topic at all because it offend your sensibilities. Just like the masculinity is judged by the number of children thing you think oodles of men here teach yet near as I can remember hasn't even been talked about.

 

[Keith Martin]

Are you sure you didn't just find the label on your door scared away the women too much, so needed to be dispensed with if you were to have any hope of becoming a successful polygamist?

Actually, when I was a psychotherapist, transference was much more of a problem.

And the last time I had two women in my life simultaneous was when I was still a therapist. You'd be surprised how being one draws women like paper clips to a magnet.

When my third wife (who had multiple personality disorder) left me (for those who don't know me, Kristin, my wife now of 32 years, is my 4th wife), she informed me that she had only let her secondary personality marry me because she wanted free therapy -- and once I had assisted her with integrating her personalities she no longer had any use for me! I would have stayed with her forever. If nothing else, it was an efficient way to be a polygamist.

 

[FollowingHim]

You'd be surprised how being one draws women like paper clips to a magnet.

No, I'm not surprised at all. I mean, they're coming to your office to sit on a couch and talk intimately with you, it's not a large jump from there to other activities... I can imagine the life of a psychotherapist could get very interesting... I was just trying to find an excuse to post that cartoon.

This is laughable. No one will reasonably take that impression, the question is immediate controversy every time it comes up.

Keith is picking extreme examples for the purpose of illustration. His point, I believe, is that 9 likes on a post that gives the impression of being oppressive (even if we all know it is not in context and just appears that way in isolation), may be offputting to women. This I believe could be a serious issue.

But even if what you say is true, there is no point in getting mad at newcomers who behave that way because this is just how modern women often communicate now. We have to start with people where they are now, not where we'd like them to be.

Completely agree. We need to understand all newcomers as they are, and work with them from that point, even if they shouldn't be there.

 

[Keith Martin]

You're reading modern sensibilities into it.

It's certainly much more modern than Deuteronomy!

I'm not saying they have a hidden agenda, but that women communicate differently than men do. That they would is entirely in keeping with biology; almost necessary even.

No doubt. In fact, in the nature vs. nurture debate, I solidly land on the nature side of the equation and always have, in opposition to most of my behavior theory and social services peers, who want to see themselves as having more impact on people than they do.

Men and women are and by necessity need to be distinctly different. Men are from Mars; women are from Venus, and all that. But passive-aggressiveness has been empirically studied, as have young children, and it isn't among the gender behavior markers that show up at early ages. In fact, it doesn't really come into play until after the onset of puberty, when gender differences result in females having something males are freshly interested in and let them bargain with. Now, there's some human nature!

We have to start with people where they are now, not where we'd like them to be.

Of course, and that's where I started. Go back and read the entire thread if you don't believe me. I only got testy with her after she combined finally getting honest with us with acting as if she'd been victimized.

Besides, it's not disrespectful to ask background questions to ensure one is addressing the root cause.

As I said, so we're agreed -- and further indication that it wasn't appropriate for her to act like being asked respectful questions was disrespectful.

This is laughable.

Speaking of laughable, @rockfox, I do find it amusing that the man who finds a feminist conspiracy under every emoji is now defending a woman's right to guilt trip men into displaying sympathy when she has combined beating around the bush with unsubstantiated allegations.

No one will reasonably take that impression

Now there's a statement that reflects a typical fly in your ointment: you rely too much on anecdotal evidence. To assert that something is laughable and then base it on the incredibly small sample of people you've observed on Biblical Families through your particular filter on the threads that have attracted your attention (which I suspect are most threads but clearly couldn't be all of them, because you are under the illusion that . . .

masculinity [being] judged by the number of children . . . near as I can remember hasn't even been talked about.

. . . and I've observed at least a minimum of a dozen times when such comments have been made) is not the functional use of logic for which you are generally known around here. I'm tempted to wonder if the reason why you haven't observed what I'm talking about is because you might not even notice when it happens because it wouldn't bother you, given how insistent you are on ensuring that no taint of feminism ever gets reflected in your being, but I have no evidence for that, and that makes me think I'd probably be barking up the wrong tree if I started doing serious wondering along those lines.

And, again, don't turn this into a black-or-white thing (i.e., all-or-nothing), nor would it be appropriate for you to make another attempt to paint what I'm saying as supposedly applying to either . . .

oodles of men

. . . or even anything close to a majority of men. I know you hate straw man arguments and red herrings, so don't pull them on me. I have only observed a decidedly very small minority of men in Biblical Families whose sum participation creates the impression that they think being reproductively prolific is more important than whether they treat their wives with respect or stay on top of their addictions or hold their marriages together long enough to really get to know all their children, but I've had the occasion over the past year to observe two such men showing out in this way, and even more disturbing to me when that was happening was: (a) that no one else publicly called them out on it, and (b) that after I did confront one of them the wagons got circled.

The circled man in question was done no favors, because what was going on behind the scenes never got addressed (and talk about no need to even have to read between the lines), and the episode left the impression that such an approach is at the very least not unacceptable to Biblical Families folks. And, @rockfox, you can call it laughable or assert until the cows come home that there's nothing to this, but this particular issue (which, by the way, isn't the only example of types of unsuitable male behavior I've mentioned) is one that I didn't first come across on my own. Instead, I went to look into it only after more than one single woman with whom I was communicating pointed it out to me. My first response was to assert that they have every right to confront that themselves, but the response each woman had was to say that they don't mind getting into heavy discussions on BF forums, but when it comes to certain topics they've learned that it's best to avoid getting grief from men by just letting boys be boys.

I suppose that what this kind of thing does in my mind is make me wonder: do we collectively believe that single women also deserve some covering? or do they only get that if they marry one of us?

And, again, we can mistakenly say that it's a problem of them misunderstanding what's going on that can be cleared up with some re-education and some thicker skin on their parts, but I would assert that that's a point of view that only someone who has no expectation of meeting people in person would convey (btw, despite the fact that I would be surprised if we ever meet her, I'm fully prepared to discuss whatever she wants to discuss in person with NoWayInHell if she ever shows up at a retreat). We cannot get away with just putting it off on bad hearing; there is also bad speaking. Effective communication includes addressing both sides of the equation. It also strikes me that the only thing I can see that's consistent about you asserting that we should just accept female passive-aggressiveness while also asserting that women having the impression that some men are promoting some disrespectful-toward-women behaviors is not a problem is that, in each case, you don't want people to be hamstrung on the misbehavior side of the ledger.

We can't get withing 100' of that subject without a chorus of men calling it wrong and expressing their concern about what others would think. To the contrary, when a woman expresses desire for such things there are men attacking her perspective and telling her she's wrong. Yes, I'm talking about that very voluntary participation situation you speak of; lots of pushback even there; men making it clear it's not ok. Even though such actions make those women feel attacked, unwelcome and unsafe.

In cases like this there isn't a problem with people not speaking up to say it's not ok, they do, the real problem is you don't like the topic at all because it offend your sensibilities.

Actually, you're wrong about voluntary-wife-spanking offending my sensibilities. I simply don't care, am not offended by it and don't even oppose whatever Fifty Shades stuff two consenting adults do behind closed doors. Furthermore, on the contrary, I do oppose any man on here or elsewhere giving any grief to any woman who expresses a desire for a good spanking (or for being a divorced single woman, for that matter). This giving-of-grief is what I would refer to as another example of unsuitable male misbehavior, so please feel free to add it to the list on my previous post, and I acknowledge right now that I've observed that as well. In fact, I observe that kind of thing out in the Real World a whole lot more often: men who give women grief for not being down for the liberal struggle like those men think those women should be. That's a good example of behavior that deserves your scorn for being overly influenced by feminism.

But here's what puzzles me about you making this comment in the context of this discussion: I've already mentioned that I've observed such behavior here on BF forums, so I'm stipulating that I know that it has happened; I have further acknowledged that I should have included it in my list of unsuitable male misbehaviors. However, while I know that men have done such things, and I have no problem comprehending that women would be uncomfortable for being given pushback about their desire to be spanked, what I don't understand is why their husbands wouldn't have already insisted that the pushback be denounced and deep-sixed when it has been exhibited to the extent that it made the wives of those husbands "feel attacked, unwelcome and [particularly] unsafe." While substantively different from some of the unsuitable male misbehaviors I've already identified, it is difficult for me to comprehend, if a man who opposes violence in the home behaves violently enough toward another man's wife in his opposition to violence that that other man's wife legitimately feels unsafe, why is it that this is the first time you're raising the issue, especially given the rank hypocrisy inherent in scaring a woman because one doesn't believe women should live in fear? It is possible that I just missed the forum thread in which the made-to-feel-safe woman's husband rose up against such injustice, but that still leaves me curious about why you so vigorously oppose my desire to draw a red line around some of these unsuitable male misbehaviors?

 

[Patricia C]

I am very interested in what you've actually observed here Steve. As I've said elsewhere, I struggle to know how any man finds the time to be a "serial courter". I'm just too busy with my life to spend a good chunk of it chasing women. I have long had a strong suspicion that the unsuitable men do the bulk of the approaching of women, while the suitable men are busy living life waiting for the right woman to turn up.

If so, this is a serious problem statistically. Let's assume that half the men are "suitable" - decent themselves, and with families at least somewhat prepared for polygamy. And let's assume that the "suitable" men approach 0-1 women in a period of time, but the "unsuitable" approach 4 in the same time period. This would mean that for every woman being approached by a man, there's an 80-100% chance he's unsuitable, and only 0-20% chance he's suitable. And that's assuming half the men are suitable, which is probably very generous. Disclaimer - I invented all of these numbers as I have no data to base any of this on, I'm illustrating a point.

So if this is going on, it is a serious problem for not only women looking for husbands, but for decent men looking for a wife. Because there's a good chance the good women will be put off by multiple bad interactions with unsuitable men, and give up on polygamy before they ever meet a decent one - even if there are many decent men out there.

Having said that, a bigger problem is those men who actually "close the deal" but shouldn't have. If people are backing out at the last minute because their family was never ready in the first place, that is no doubt painful all around and problematic for everyone, but at least it's better than leading a woman all the way into a disaster.

Ding ding ding! Austin I think we have a winner! He has hit the nail on the head!

An to add, the good men either come across as uninterested or difficult to approach.

Or even better ...you think you find a good one and 1. He is hung up on the last one that got away or 2. Isn't sure he really wants to have another wife and leaves you hanging. 3. Can't stand his ground and is afraid of what others will think. 4. Runs at the first sign of things not being perfect..... I have a few more but I will stop there.

Good topic Steve

 

[rockfox]

I would also assert quite strongly that it is unreasonable to expect women to step up to the plate in an atmosphere in which any significant number of men baldly promote the idea that masculinity is measured by how many children they generate.

I have only observed a decidedly very small minority of men in Biblical Families whose sum participation creates the impression that they think being reproductively prolific is more important

I don't know what your problem is or why you're so triggered by this now admitted minority of people who only give you the mere impression of something. But it's ridiculous.

I know you hate straw man arguments and red herrings, so don't pull them on me.

I also dislike moving goalposts, which is why I'm done with this conversation and your repeated shifting claims.

 

[cnystrom]

Ding ding ding! Austin I think we have a winner! He has hit the nail on the head!

An to add, the good men either come across as uninterested or difficult to approach.

Or even better ...you think you find a good one and 1. He is hung up on the last one that got away or 2. Isn't sure he really wants to have another wife and leaves you hanging. 3. Can't stand his ground and is afraid of what others will think. 4. Runs at the first sign of things not being perfect..... I have a few more but I will stop there.

Good topic Steve

Good job trying to get this thread back on topic!

 

[Patricia C]

.......ywan, stretch, purp, scratch crotch, drink another beer and chill out. To much psychoanalytical breaking of wind up in this thread.
Just my though and opinion after reading as much as I can possibly take in. Some people need to chill out.

 

[Cap]

It has the MEAT marker. SHIELDS UP.

 

[Hannah]

I may step on a few toes, but that’s just the way that I dance.

Some guys (none of us, I am sure!) seem to be serial courters. They look to have serious intentions, but they always find some reason to not close the deal. They lead women on, giving them hope. Leaving them disappointed.

I am writing this for two reasons.
1). I want women to know that this does happen. I wish that it didn’t, but it does. Men wouldn’t call it catfishing, but I do.
2). I want males to realize that this is a thing and that some of us don’t like watching it happen. Probably the perps don’t even recognize themselves, but maybe this thread could be a mirror for them to reflect in.

I would encourage any women that feel that they have experienced this to add a personal observation.

Thank you again for posting this. I have a question maybe it may be hard to answer because no one is inside someone else's mind, but do you have an idea maybe as to why these types of men would catfish women? I don't understand the point of these men doing this at all. Everyone on this site are so kind I have never been on a site where people genuinely care about each other as you guys do. This type of behavior these men exhibit is very dangerous and I don't understand what their motives are really. I don't mean to sound negative or disrespectful, but what these catfishers do is very painful. I don't know why they don't just leave women alone that are looking for godly serious husbands. These men iniate the relationship then disappear and never finish what they started. Then it is like us unmarried women feel hurt and hopeless to find true love as God intended us women to be wives and mothers. Shalom Thank you.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Too many of us men are legends in our own mind, @Lisa McMillan It is very common to think higher of ourselves and our poly readiness than reality would deem prudent. It’s not until you find out the first wife’s not on board, or they’re in debt beyond redemption, or they/he’s just in it for a side piece does his/their true colors begin shining. Just be careful what you commit to, make certain you have in depth conversations with the wife without him around and vice versa. Utilize video chat apps, check out their online media presence, find out who they’ve told about poly, etc.

My advice to single ladies looking to join a family is to become informed of key signs that the men are posers, as well as to become educated in a plural family mindset yourself. Too many single women don’t understand that a monogamy only mindset in a plural family sabotages your chances of acceptance as well as success if you are accepted.

IF you find a couple that are interested in you, and they are a good family, and are all trying to work through the transition to be a plural ready family, you might wanna slow down and just take it easy and be willing to grow with them into a plural family. We ALL need transforming to resemble Him more.

 

[steve]

Thank you again for posting this. I have a question maybe it may be hard to answer because no one is inside someone else's mind, but do you have an idea maybe as to why these types of men would catfish women? I don't understand the point of these men doing this at all. Everyone on this site are so kind I have never been on a site where people genuinely care about each other as you guys do. This type of behavior these men exhibit is very dangerous and I don't understand what their motives are really. I don't mean to sound negative or disrespectful, but what these catfishers do is very painful. I don't know why they don't just leave women alone that are looking for godly serious husbands. These men iniate the relationship then disappear and never finish what they started. Then it is like us unmarried women feel hurt and hopeless to find true love as God intended us women to be wives and mothers. Shalom Thank you.

There may be as many motives as there are catfishers, but I will give you the two ends of the spectrum as I see them.
The light end of the spectrum would be the honest, sincere dreamer that enjoys building the relationship and believes in doing it, but then chickens out when he starts to realize that it’s a lot harder than dating and does a fade.
The dark end of the spectrum would be the guy that loves to control and toy with women’s emotions and see how far he can play them. Kind of a heart scammer. It’s a really cheap hobby and it makes them feel powerful.
I’m sure that there many gradations of these two.
Doing it purposely is diabolical, while the guy with good intentions is to be pitied and prayed for.
Both of them need to be forgiven, for ones own souls sake.

 

[steve]

Too many of us men are legends in our own mind, @Lisa McMillan It is very common to think higher of ourselves and our poly readiness than reality would deem prudent. It’s not until you find out the first wife’s not on board, or they’re in debt beyond redemption, or they/he’s just in it for a side piece does his/their true colors begin shining. Just be careful what you commit to, make certain you have in depth conversations with the wife without him around and vice versa. Utilize video chat apps, check out their online media presence, find out who they’ve told about poly, etc.

My advice to single ladies looking to join a family is to become informed of key signs that the men are posers, as well as to become educated in a plural family mindset yourself. Too many single women don’t understand that a monogamy only mindset in a plural family sabotages your chances of acceptance as well as success if you are accepted.

IF you find a couple that are interested in you, and they are a good family, and are all trying to work through the transition to be a plural ready family, you might wanna slow down and just take it easy and be willing to grow with them into a plural family. We ALL need transforming to resemble Him more.

Awesome answer.

 

[Cap]

There may be as many motives as there are catfishers, but I will give you the two ends of the spectrum as I see them.
The light end of the spectrum would be the honest, sincere dreamer that enjoys building the relationship and believes in doing it, but then chickens out when he starts to realize that it’s a lot harder than dating and does a fade.
The dark end of the spectrum would be the guy that loves to control and toy with women’s emotions and see how far he can play them. Kind of a heart scammer. It’s a really cheap hobby and it makes them feel powerful.
I’m sure that there many gradations of these two.
Doing it purposely is diabolical, while the guy with good intentions is to be pitied and prayed for.
Both of them need to be forgiven, for ones own souls sake.

I know this thread is geared towards men catfishers, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there probably is just as much, if not more women who do the same to families for the same reasons.