I know! I know! Context! I just couldn’t resist!
-
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.
Meat Patriarchal wannabe catfishers
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
Generally in society when people do this kind of thing rather male or female monogamy or polygyny its called a player. It seems to be some kind of game I see people like to play not sure why though. Its totally not about love its seems to be to get whatever that person wants from other people.
So true
It is true. There are many reasons. They could be amusing themselves, or emotional connections, or financial. Lots of reasons to run scams.
Rule #1: If it is too good to be true it probably is.
Rule #2: Never ever believe someone's identity from the Internet that you have not met in person.
Rule #3: Never send money to someone you do not know very well.
Trust has to be built. It takes time. Get a second opinion. Listen to your relatives and friends, especially those who are more trustworthy or have done a good job with their own lives. At least consider their opinions.
Do a Google seach on them. Does their story check out? Are there inconsistencies?
My sister was approached on a dating site from a high up guy in the Army. She asked me to check out his story and the Division he said he was a member of did not even exist. Scammer.
'
I am very sorry about what happened to your sister.
I knew a lady that was scammed by one of those fake army scammers. The person told her he was stationed in Afghanistan in the army. She met him on a dating site and she was very lonely. He asked her for $1000 and she borrowed money from someone and gave him the money and then found out later he was a scammer. She could not get it back.
I also read about a man who had a online romance through a dating site with some "woman" that was actually a scammer in Africa and he gave this fake person all his money. He fell in "love" with this "woman". They never met in person. After that he could not get it back and the story read he then killed himself. He had nothing left after he gave this fake person all his life's savings.
The scammers are on everything in person and online. I have met people in person who ended up not being who they truly are not so much as in identity, but they ended up being a scammer trying to use people for what they wanted. I agree that if it seems to good to be true it usually is.
Problem is getting back to what Steve said it makes it hard to find true love rather you are a male or female. Its very difficult to find someone that is trustworthy.
Some people do not have family that are safe to be around or even friends that are safe. Some people have abusive families they had to disconnect from and people that they thought were their friends were really not their friends or were controlling. So its hard to really find true love as well as friends not to sound negative.
Besides my own bad experiences I know people all my life who have gone through horrible stuff I cannot even talk about the horrible things they have experienced and told me. Thank you for sharing.
Yes, but Yah has your best interest at heart, you are not alone.
Trust Him, trust Him, and then trust Him some more.
Take it slow, and then slow down.
I, of course, stink at taking my own advice.
Too rich!So we can call @steve the general now?
You got me, @rockfox, or at least I will acknowledge that you have extracted something that could be inconsistent (significant number of men vs. small minority of men), but I would assert that no necessary incongruence exists between labeling the number of men who behave unsuitably as significant even though, percentage-wise, they are a small minority. It's a matter of apples and oranges, and I should remind you that you removed the context for my clarification that it was a small minority of BF men: because you had mischaracterized my assertion as meaning that, in your words, it had been "oodles of men." But I never asserted that it was oodles of men or a majority of the men here, because that would be entirely inaccurate.
When the number of something becomes significant is entirely relative to what that something is. Right now in the political landscape we can observe that 2000 people attending a Joe Biden rally would really be a significant number, but it would be inaccurate to assert that 2000 people attending a Donald Trump rally was significant. It might take 50,000 attending a Trump rally to call it significant. On the other hand, if one talks about the number of people it would take to maim or murder dozens of people, we would not label one murderer as insignificant.
You are correct, though, that small minority and significant number could easily give the impression that I was talking out of both sides of my mouth, which makes me grateful you pointed it out, because it has given me the opportunity to clarify some more. So here goes:
Admittedly, only a small minority of men who participate on the Biblical Families are guilty of unsuitable male misbehavior, but given the stakes we've been talking about in regard to whether women will feel welcome at Biblical families and whether they will feel comfortable actually approaching families to indicate interest in being part of those families, even a small minority qualifies as being a significant number, because if that small minority creates an atmosphere in which women are inhibited from participating due to unsuitable male misbehavior, then that small minority is indeed a significant number.
I know to some who have dropped in on the conversation after it was already in full bloom (think 'algae'), it may seem that we're beating a dead horse, or maybe they just don't like to read long posts, or maybe they're uncomfortable with conflict, but remember the context of this thread: @steve brought up the issue of male catfishers (which others have expanded to include male scammers and other male misbehavior), so it is not unimportant or imaginary that these unsuitable behaviors exist or that they impact who stays or goes. Or who doesn't make their interest known.
I've said this before, @rockfox: you and I have butted heads from time to time, but over the past year I have increasingly appreciated your points of view, and I have increasingly observed growth in your wisdom. I'd prefer that you wouldn't bail out on drilling down into the finer points of this discussion, but I can't force you to continue. If you're done, you're done -- and maybe you being done means there isn't anything left to say. I know we'll get to interact elsewhere, and I look forward to that. But I'd prefer that you stick with this particular conversation either if you truly disagree that any misbehavior has occurred or even if you prefer to defend the behaviors I've identified, and my biggest reason for that is that I think there may still be things for each of us to learn. Others are giving us a wide berth; some are taking some things we're saying and reworking them into more comfortable language, which then get more likes than you or I get. However, being liked or approved of or being agreed with isn't really the point. Steve identified something very important at its edges. I've observed him doing that a number of times, tossing an idea out there that ends up stimulating controversial discussion. We could look at the end result as being a steamy, stinking mess that maybe should just be flushed down somewhere. But we can also take a harder look at the outcome and realize that toxins have been identified, separated out and hopefully expunged. Clearly, there is something that highly offends you about what I'm asserting, and you've been exaggerating it in order to invalidate it. To the best of my knowledge, you haven't exhibited anything @steve has identified or anything that I've identified, so it remains a puzzle to me why it's so important to you to argue it into nonexistence or treat it as if it's just silly.
This discussion has already spun off into a number of tangents and into other threads. I share your disdain for the ramifications of how feminism has squelched legitimate male self-expression, but that is simply not what this thread has been about. I'm not being triggered (I don't even consider the concept of 'triggering' to be legitimate, as it's just another way to embrace victimhood rather than transcendence), so don't worry about that, and I likewise hope that you aren't getting sucked into being 'triggered' by anything. I'm not asserting that any of us men need to stop doing anything simply because it will bore women or because it will offend overly-sensitive sensibilities or because it doesn't make everything easy for them. My comments have also never been intended to paint with a broad brush; I have instead been identifying specific unsuitable behaviors that have the real potential to truly scare women away altogether or to truly dissuade them from approaching families they might see as a good fit. That is why I haven't backed away, no matter how tempting it has been.
Am I correct catfishing can just be about attention? Defrauding you of your time by leading you on about entering a relationship but never actually doing it?
I'm not interested in the word games. The point is, you were trying to paint this as a general or significant problem here and near as I can tell it is a a tiny if not outright imaginary problem. I have no interest in beating this horse anymore.
I personally don’t see this as a tiny or imaginary problem. Either the cat fishing or the vibes that intimidate the women from participating. From my viewpoint its a massive issue and a massive failure. One that we are most likely only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
You are correct.
As I said earlier, Rock, I will miss you if you go, but please don't think I'm buying that you aren't interested in word games, my wordsmith brother! And I will remain disappointed that I failed in my effort to persuade you that unsuitable male misbehavior occurs from time to time on Biblical Families forum threads or that it is a significant problem when it occurs.
To "catfish" is to defraud someone else by using the anonymity of the Internet to create a false persona to trick your victim. The motivation can be varied. It could be just for emotional reasons, or it could be for financial gain.
The relationship can be a real online relationship. Lots of time, companionship, emotional support, etc. It is just not with a real person. That is what is insideous about it. It can meet a real need that you have. That is why the victims have trouble letting go and want to help the catfisher with excuses, etc. The relationship is meeting their needs, so they are reluctant to let it go even when all of the evidence points to it not being real.
Without specifics I am not sure how big of a problem we have.
Is this an unwritten standard of behavior that some men are violating?
Why don't we create a written standard of behavior and police ourselves in the Men's forum?
Especially when you're 500 posts behind.
Here’s a simple one, Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.
Seasoned
not buried
Here’s a simple one, Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.
Seasoned
Some think it too spicy, some think it too bland?