I would love that, thankie!
-
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.
Finally wanting to say hello
- Thread starter USDutchkitty
- Start date
I would love that, thankie!
I was advised by a Christian to join the NZ Polyamory group. I wasn't sure but she said it was a good place to find people in NZ who were practicing polygyny at that there were other Christians in there.
When I asked to join the group, the admin contacted me and asked my reasons for joining and my background. When I told him he suggested I wouldn't be welcome in the group. He said that he didn't care, but that there were others who would not appreciate my position that only men could have multiple wives and how limited I was in my beliefs. Even if I wasn't attacking them for their beliefs (I was aware what type of group it was), they would attack me for mine.
How very open minded of them *rolls eyes*.
Anyway, that was my only attempt to contact the polyamory community here and it looks like that's not the place to go.
Never cared to try that before! Thank you, it worked!
Guess I never minded being reminded that it's not a dating site. Kinda like it myself.
Isn't funny that the people who have to tell you how tolerant they are usually aren't tolerant at all?
Like we had more to worry about with California liberals causing us problems than we've EVER had to worry about with Wyoming conservatives! In Wyoming if you're a good neighbor and keep your business to yourself no one cares because that's how it is in Wyoming.
Yep. Open-minded until it breaks the narrative they want.
Yep, that is what I like about states like that, Missouri is like that too versus how things are becoming here in Georgia, at least in my region. I know things are more lax in Atlanta but south of that? NOPE.
Welcome USDutchkitty, it is nice to have you here.
By the way my wife and I spent five years in N. Florida, before moving back to my native range in the Inland Northwest (E. WA and ID), so we've seen a bit of Georgia.
Also, regarding this talk of triads and polyamory (call me a fuddy duddy), but the only non-monogamy I see in the Bible is patriarchal polygyny. Men can be simultaneously married to multiple women, but there is no such thing as lawful triads, group marriage, etc. Leah and Rachel were both married to Jacob, but not to each other.
Women have to be monogamous to their husband, and husbands have to be faithful to care for their wife (or multiple wives) for life. Anything else offends The Almighty.
By the way, welcome.
By the way my wife and I spent five years in N. Florida, before moving back to my native range in the Inland Northwest (E. WA and ID), so we've seen a bit of Georgia.
Also, regarding this talk of triads and polyamory (call me a fuddy duddy), but the only non-monogamy I see in the Bible is patriarchal polygyny. Men can be simultaneously married to multiple women, but there is no such thing as lawful triads, group marriage, etc. Leah and Rachel were both married to Jacob, but not to each other.
Women have to be monogamous to their husband, and husbands have to be faithful to care for their wife (or multiple wives) for life. Anything else offends The Almighty.
By the way, welcome.
I'm glad you brought this up, @FollowingHim2, because you are pointing at a very real consideration: I will add to my earlier suggestions that one should avoid any formal organization that labels itself with the word 'Polyamory.' That word began being innocuous enough, but it has been fully taken over by the Woke Crowd, and more than one of my secular polyamorist friends have discovered that they have grown to be dominated by people who bully members who don't fit their conception of what it means to be a proper polyamorist. For example, only 'cool' religions are welcome (Buddhism, or basically any Eastern religion that the numbskulls really know nothing about; one Baháʼí individual I knew was denied membership because of an unreasonable blanket prohibition against anyone from Islam). Polyamorism Writ Large is now dominated by Progressivism, and, yes, they are hostile to those who believe in Biblical polygyny, because it's a matter of faith among them that no restrictions should be put on who, when and where genitals are mingled. Patriarchy is strictly verboten.
So I'm not suggesting that formal-polyamory path, because it's just a request to be shamed by those who should recognize that they live in glass houses. But I will share this anecdote: you're new, @USDutchkitty, but in some years past I was very active and open on OK Cupid about being a Biblical polygamist (yes, it was masochistic). The absolute meanest people toward me (other than the strict fundamentalist Christians who must not have been able to read) were the official Polyamorists; they excuse themselves for demonstrating condemnation if their imagination even begins to conclude that some threat of condemnation in their direction might be around the corner. Really mean comments, and I had never questioned their legal choice to engage in the most casual of all sexual behaviors. Generally speaking, they claim not to believe in God, and yet they talk about God as if He is a real entity who deserves to be condemned for His Sins (which is it? not real? or real and guilty of the nastiest crimes against humanity imaginable?), so I see them as stuck in emotional adolescence.
While still living in Pennsylvania, though, I was directly invited by a woman who belonged to such a formal polyamory group in Pittsburgh to begin attending their monthly business-and-support meeting (they have more frequent social meetings). She counseled me to entirely keep it between her and me that I was (a) a Christian and (b) someone looking for an actual second wife instead of just multiple someones to mess around with. She told me the support meetings include a requirement that everyone refrain from any type of flirting or dating-related behavior during the course of the meeting, so there would never be any instance of anything that would highlight the fact that I would never engage in open-ended sexual behavior that would include, among other things, sex outside of a commitment or sex between men. "Just come each month, and everyone will become comfortable with you after 3 or 4 months. You should feel free to be entirely honest other than not telling them that you're a believer in [patriarchal polygyny]." (She didn't even know me well enough to know how easily I would welcome such open-ended permission.) She asserted that the reason why I should attend is that one of the group's constant problems was the revolving door of assimilation-and-attrition -- and she estimated that, while everyone who remained in the core group preferred to exhibit full-on denial about it, over half of all the women who left did so because what they discovered about themselves was that they were highly uncomfortable with such casual sex as polyamorists regularly engage in and were either kicked out or left voluntarily, but in those cases the most common declaration was that they had discovered that what they wanted wasn't the fully-closed model of Christian monogamy but it also wasn't the open-chain casual-sex model that is the antithesis of Christian monogamy. She said that, during the previous year, she had begun talking with these women before they disappeared, and a common theme had emerged: they wanted to be part of a stable family; no matter how much they initially thought they wanted the freedom to f*** any man any time, they had determined that had grown uncomfortable with multiple male partners and they wanted a committed relationship with just one man; and yet they still desired the intimate company of other women. (If you stick around here long enough, you'll find it unavoidable to run across discussions about what Scripture says about intimacy among sister wives.) They consistently made some kind of statement about how they didn't know where they could possibly go to find something like all that, but they weren't about to go lesbian (despite how easy it would be to find opportunities to exclusively engage in intimacy with women), and, no matter how many 'official' assurances existed among formal polyamory groups that one was free to pick and choose with whom one engaged in sex, they also consistently expressed upset about how women pressured them to avoid restricting themselves to only one man during polyamory sessions, because if women didn't give the men sufficient attention in those sessions they were at risk of most of the men boot-scooting due to the lack of attention, and those female bullies who dominated the formal polyamory group were very protective of keeping things structured so they could get multiple male partners each time they showed up. This woman who approached me on OK Cupid claimed, probably legitimately, that she had never been one to bully anyone, but she did confirm that she was representative of the core female constituency who were there specifically to get d*** from multiple men without any danger of any of those men wanting to have any claim over her, but she said she might be different from most of the other such women because of her recognition that, not only did that put her out of the mainstream, but having her approach to sex wasn't the most ideal of all approaches available to women in the long run.
I'm assuming you're not looking for anything close to what I'm discussing in this anecdote, but I bring it up to emphasize two things: (1) that, while we know that most women, whether they know it or not, prefer to be led by men, different subcultures all have their own kinks, as it were; and (2) that this is just another example that indicates that there are more women out there -- and from more backgrounds -- who desire something wholesome other than monogamy than we are prone to typically assume when we emphasize only the need to take care of widows, orphans, single mothers and their children. My OK Cupid friend reached out to me after reading my detailed profile, and she told me that some of the women in question also mentioned that engaging in polyamory had changed their minds about not having children and had come to learn they wanted to be parents.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
And sometimes people just aren't available to as much possibility as they believe they are.
We live in Fort Worth now, and I love it here, but I do miss the incredible variety of environments available in Atlanta. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is larger and far more populated than Atlanta, but many niches available there just don't exist here to any degree. My first four kids were born in Sandy Springs, Tucker, Dunwoody and downtown Atlanta. I also lived in Carrollton, Winston, Douglasville, Lithia Springs, Virginia Highlands, Redan/Lithonia and Alpharetta (twice).
Oh, I can believe it, believe it all, I have friends on many different spectrums over the years, just from the US alone and I have heard similar. Even with PM, it seemed like a lot of the men think PM is a certain way and they would convince their wives to let them try it... But, as my experience as a potential sister wife, I'm a person, I'm not a toy. I do want to settle down, be part of a family, and such and I got treated A LOT, within a few messages on Sisterwives or Polygamy.com as if I am saying "I'm a toy, lets go!" and when people DM me and I tell them "No, I'm actually wanting to be a sister wife, to a husband, not the dom/sub fetish as a requirement, sorry"... *shrugs* Then I get accused of mislabeling myself on my bio! That just shows me they never read my bio and just look at the picture and go "she's cute".
Oh yes, I've been talked to a few people from Texas and... I loved what I saw there, I just wouldn't live in the suburbs. The older I get, the more space I desire.
This is a byproduct of a clutch-my-computer-and-avoid-deep-contact smartphone-swiping culture. It makes everyone start acting like they're on Tinder.
Same here. Where we landed was a compromise that leaned too far toward what my wife wanted, which is why I now have the intention to also buy a small place down near Llano.
We can pray that with all of the people leaving California and other states won't ruin Texas. A few friends that live there, things in Austin have started to mirror SoCal. Especially the homeless crisis there.
Thank you and I absolutely agree, call me a fuddy duddy too! The only one where I saw but it was more a proper matriarchy is in China and this small village have what is called "walking marriages" but like @Keith Martin mentions, seems like only the "cool" religions can be included into polyamory but not Christian PM.Welcome USDutchkitty, it is nice to have you here.
By the way my wife and I spent five years in N. Florida, before moving back to my native range in the Inland Northwest (E. WA and ID), so we've seen a bit of Georgia.
Also, regarding this talk of triads and polyamory (call me a fuddy duddy), but the only non-monogamy I see in the Bible is patriarchal polygyny. Men can be simultaneously married to multiple women, but there is no such thing as lawful triads, group marriage, etc. Leah and Rachel were both married to Jacob, but not to each other.
Women have to be monogamous to their husband, and husbands have to be faithful to care for their wife (or multiple wives) for life. Anything else offends The Almighty.
By the way, welcome.
I think certain people are just noticing that about Austin, but it has been our San Francisco since at least the early 1980s.
I have always loved Austin and will continue to do so, but it's mostly just a nice place to visit, because political correctness has been a problem for decades, but in the last decade or so the health fascism is over the top, way preceding Wuhan Flu hysteria.
Yeah, a friend in the Austin area, has talked about the first creepiness of the change was "Keep Austin Weird" but it had originated from Seattle, and just over the last decade, it has taken trying to look like a Southwestern LA. I mean, entertainers seem to LOVE Austin but of course, it looks familiar to them but it ain't Texas! Now people moving in are thinking "Guh, the Texas attitude is toxic!"
Well, I would disagree, but perhaps only because you and I have different preferences, given that I'm an ex-hippie. SXSW is a longstanding tradition in Austin, and I don't think Austin has been copying anyone. Almost every state has a place where people who are suppressed in their small towns can go to live more openly without harassment, and, for Texas, that's been Austin since at least the 1960s (my first trip there was in 1968), probably because of the University of Texas, which at that time was the largest on-campus-residence university environment in the world (over 60K) -- it has the largest dormitory in the world, the Jester Center, which has always had its own zip code. I in fact love that Austin is weird (not coincidentally because I embrace my own weirdness) and am adamant that weirdness and progressivism are not synonymous (in fact, I consider progressivism to be the main threat out there to people having the freedom to be different from the norm, and progressivism only pretends to embrace weirdness in an effort to keep yet another constituency under its skirts by encouraging victimhood as part of progressivism's pursuit for a level of power that will culminate in the loss of all freedoms). It is liberalism/progressivism that has resulted in both the rise of health fascism and homelessness in Austin, just as it has in just about every other major city that has become acclimated to long-term progressive rule. It should be noted that (again, just as in a number of other such cities) Austin is bordered to its west by the Hill Country, which is predominantly populated by leave-me-alone folks who are either apolitical or decidedly libertarian; the tension between the two forces is thus always in flux.
We are off on a tangent, but, given that this is your thread, I've been assuming you approve. I want to welcome you again and tell you that I'm sure I'm not alone in being glad that you're here engaging with us.
We are off on a tangent, but, given that this is your thread, I've been assuming you approve. I want to welcome you again and tell you that I'm sure I'm not alone in being glad that you're here engaging with us.
Oh I’m just telling from friends who have been there long enough to have seen and heard. I can’t judge Texas personally lived there and don’t more local politics. When I lived in New Mexico, I heard some stories from nurses about how Texas handles people on Medicaid, seemed familiar of how Oklahoma handled me. (I have to be on it because of my Crohns and just of how much care so needed to stay alive)
Hey, LOL, my thread but I love a diverse of legit opinion! How are we suppose to learn if we only live in an echo chamber?