• 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.

Crazy women on dating sites

NBTX11 said:
Social media is full of young women trying to become sex objects and trying to make money off men lusting after them.
Click to expand...
Which is why it's a good idea not to have any of that mind-numbing FB, SC, X, Insta, blah, blah, blah, whatever stuff on your devices. It's not impossible to live without it and there are fewer distractions from what is eternally important and rewarding. Shalom
 
NBTX11 said:
There's plenty of men that will buy what they're selling. What's the point dude. You're never going to meet her and get some.
Click to expand...
Such things are signs of societal disaster.

Short-term thinking = who cares about reputation = widescread scamming by business = collapse of trust

Short-term thinking = sexual temptation is cool = marital breakdown = why even get married = fertility collapse
 
Keith Martin said:
The primary problem is that claiming that it's all about sex is the gynocentric go-to argument for women attempting to discredit polygyny -- which is a matter of projection on their part. because, for them, it either is or would be all about sex. They want your sex all to themselves, so instead of just owning that they're selfish and undeservedly territorial, women tend to claim that all you want is more pussy -- which, by the way, tells you all you need to know about which gender
Click to expand...

Very glad to see you back Keith, the joint was not the same without you.

re gender... I know you have heard this line from me before but I don't think I have forced the group as a whole to go through the process. Sex...not gender. We have a sex, as does every living thing. Words have a gender. A function souly of grammar....well grammar initially and now blindingly powerful gaslight.
The conflating of the word sex and gender seems to have its roots in any sort of popular use at the institute of sexual research run by Magnus Hirschfeld...first transsexual clinic. Others like John Money and Kinsey etc followed in those psychopathic footsteps.
It is a linguistic manipulation. One that was successful in convincing people to believe in a "spectrum" where there is an exceptionally...I would argue that in terms of human experience...basic and clear binary.
Sex ≠ gender
Not synonymous

really responsible for promoting women as sex objects: that's their primary marketing tool, and often they hypnotize us into thinking that there is something overwhelmingly magical about what they do with their individual vaginas.

Keith Martin said:
But women do not have the higher marketplace value, if for no other reason than that they outnumber us and by definition do not have a sufficient pool of men to keep themselves covered if they're unwilling to share.
Click to expand...


There in lies the difficulty.
The culture is very much promoting the idea that sexual (proof of not synonymous concept here in this phrase) access to woman on any level is extremely valuable and that all woman deserve access to the top 1-5% of men. That all woman, because of the current market value assigned by the internet and pop culture, deserve the opportunity to couple at random with no consequences and to in time after (we have all seen this phrase so sing along with me) they have decided "I have had my fun and I am ready to settle down" that they should have access to a greatful top percenter to provide for their material needs in exchange for that oh so valuable sexual access.

Not sure that woman made the best bargain in trading traditional sexual roles for participating in their own packaging as sexual objects and girl-bosshood.
Surveys certainly seem to indicate that they are less and less happy as the modern world sees them in more modern terms.

Keith Martin said:
You and I have discussed this in person on more than one occasion. Yes, as men we're interested in additional and more varied sex, so some of us are willing to take on a whole 'nother woman because of that -- but that we are sexual creatures (which women also are, by the way) doesn't in the least negate the fact that having a heart for being married to multiple women is a posture of tremendous generosity. I, for one, am hitting peak gag response listening to any argument against polygyny that doesn't keep that fact front and center!
Click to expand...

No argument found. I would say this is especially accurate where a man and family are embracing the idea of adding a woman with kid(s) to their equation.
Don't have stats at hand but I will wager that a woman with children remarrying into a polygynous family are less likely to see the negative outcomes you see with kids of your standard single mom equation. I could give quite a list of negative outcomes that skyrocket in those circumstances but I suspect that most of us already know.
Not limited to moms obviously but it is an equation that certainly stands out.
Keith Martin said:
P.S. Love your new photo.
Click to expand...

You are entirely too kind
 
paterfamilias said:
Very glad to see you back Keith, the joint was not the same without you.
Click to expand...
I'm honored.
paterfamilias said:
re gender... I know you have heard this line from me before but I don't think I have forced the group as a whole to go through the process. Sex...not gender. We have a sex, as does every living thing. Words have a gender. A function souly of grammar....well grammar initially and now blindingly powerful gaslight.
The conflating of the word sex and gender seems to have its roots in any sort of popular use at the institute of sexual research run by Magnus Hirschfeld...first transsexual clinic. Others like John Money and Kinsey etc followed in those psychopathic footsteps.
It is a linguistic manipulation. One that was successful in convincing people to believe in a "spectrum" where there is an exceptionally...I would argue that in terms of human experience...basic and clear binary.
Sex ≠ gender
Not synonymous
Click to expand...
I agree that sex and gender are not synonymous, but not for the same reasons. Yes, the word 'gender' arose in French and then gravitated into English as a concept for whether nouns were masculine, feminine or neutral, but given that human beings are nouns, the use of gender as a substitute for sex was evidenced in America and English at least as early as the 19th century.

We disagree about whether this has anything to do with transgenderism or even feminism. Those attempts to hijack the language for the purpose of denigrating patriarchy and promoting gender fluidity didn't arise until the 1940s, but even Foucault had referred to gender radicalism (feminism) as 'critical gender theory,' which, originally, was solely utilized to give women the right to do anything they wanted to do that men could already do.

So we're in agreement that the language has been hijacked to promote complete nonsense that would assert that individuals can decide willy nilly how to identify themselves, but I just don't see it as having anything to do with 'sex' versus 'gender.' I began using 'gender' instead during the early 1970s, because (a) it removes male and female from just specifically being identified with their sexual behavior, and (b) the reason in most cases that nouns were labeled as either masculine or feminine aligns entirely with the distinct differentiations between male and female human beings.

It's not the word that causes the problem; it's what's been added to the words between their inception and the present.

The critical theory people would have done the same thing with the word 'sex' if 'gender' hadn't already been in the vernacular. In fact, they did: the very first attempt to deconstruct biology was to focus on 'sexual orientations,' expanding the number from the tangible handful to an infinitely expanding panoply of freak preferences, as if they were all equivalently legitimate.
 
It was earlier than the 40's. It started in the 20's. With the institute i mentioned with all the book burnings and what not.
I would argue that it is not from French but Latin and that way more linguistic genders exist in other languages. Without much of that function in English and frankly with our schools in the last few generations turning out bumpkins...we are easily manipulated.
Re nouns...we are not. The langue used to describe us may well have nouns but you and I and all of these other weirdos here are flesh and blood men and woman. And this one time the group heretic will say that we as men and women transcend the language used to describe us as individuals or our wonderful binary

Re victorians and their use of the words as synonyms...I have a weird habit with respect to dictionaries.
Since I was a snot nosed punk and first my grandfather correct me on the word and then a week later heard G Gordon Liddy expound on the topic, I have tried to look it up in increasingly older dictionaries.
Any opportunity whether it is at libraries, thrift shops or an estate sale I make a beeline to look it up.
What I have found generally is that after 1919 when the Oxford English dictionary apparently lead the charge in exciting a lot of what they considered archaic words and uses, you only found gender being synonymous with sex with the notation of being slang.
Strangely, around the same time all the encyclopedias started ditching all of the really useful stuff that you might use to rebuild a culture from scratch....hmmm I smell a conspiracy
220px-Manwithtinfoilhat.jpg
 
paterfamilias said:
It was earlier than the 40's. It started in the 20's. With the institute i mentioned with all the book burnings and what not.
I would argue that it is not from French but Latin and that way more linguistic genders exist in other languages. Without much of that function in English and frankly with our schools in the last few generations turning out bumpkins...we are easily manipulated.
Re nouns...we are not. The langue used to describe us may well have nouns but you and I and all of these other weirdos here are flesh and blood men and woman. And this one time the group heretic will say that we as men and women transcend the language used to describe us as individuals or our wonderful binary

Re victorians and their use of the words as synonyms...I have a weird habit with respect to dictionaries.
Since I was a snot nosed punk and first my grandfather correct me on the word and then a week later heard G Gordon Liddy expound on the topic, I have tried to look it up in increasingly older dictionaries.
Any opportunity whether it is at libraries, thrift shops or an estate sale I make a beeline to look it up.
What I have found generally is that after 1919 when the Oxford English dictionary apparently lead the charge in exciting a lot of what they considered archaic words and uses, you only found gender being synonymous with sex with the notation of being slang.
Strangely, around the same time all the encyclopedias started ditching all of the really useful stuff that you might use to rebuild a culture from scratch....hmmm I smell a conspiracy
View attachment 5319
Click to expand...


Ack! Typographical errors and auto corrections galore.
Everyone has to suffer though as I have a nice glass of wine and I can't be nathered
 
MemeFan said:
I had read several references of crazy ladies on dating sites. Since I don't use such tech I never had opportunity to meet such ladies. Can somebody explain about ladies people are speaking? Do people here mean people who's place is in mental institution or something else?

Do you understand following?

Normal = usual = regular = monogamy-only

So, if you want second wife she needs to be slighty crazy.
Click to expand...
I've always thought normal is the average of everything that is abnormal. Therefore, there is a very good chance that a normal person has never really existed. 😁

Of course, Christians are called to be like Christ and I don't think anyone has ever accused Him of being normal.
 
Joleneakamama said:
I have distant family that post pictures of them in bikinis on the beach...or at the lake...river.... always posing ...and I will never understand it.
I guess as it was in Jeremiah's time.....women have forgotten how to blush. They have no embarrassment over their bodies being exposed.

I still think it's darned cute when women or men get red faced.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to see a girl in a dress. They don't wear dresses anymore. They're too much like men.
 
nuclearcookiecrumbcake said:
I'd just like to see a girl in a dress. They don't wear dresses anymore. They're too much like men.
Click to expand...
This time of year on the farm I end up wearing jeans a lot. I grew up the oldest girl in a family with no sons. When you have hooves to trim on cows and sheep, a barn to muck out, pens to put up, and furniture to move skirts are just not my first choice. That said, while I'm working hard at chores, I'm also working my weight back down so I will be able to wear dresses I outgrew having babies.
I love dressing up for my husband! and so does his other lady. With one son married, another serious about someone, and four more looking for wives eventually, our men folk all say the same thing about appreciating girls that dress like girls!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top