-
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.
Jennie's list of questions (food for thought)
- Thread starter Joleneakamama
- Start date
I'm glad someone necro'd this thread so it was floating near the top.
I like the list from a "things to consider, and topics of conversation" perspective.
I would however not want to fill it out to send to someone, for a few reasons:
1) Answering the questions as written would make it sound like the incoming potential wife had zero say in her life. There are questions in there that are very easy and firm (no, never arrested, couple speeding tickets), but things like living arrangements and what the children call people are decisions that not only do I think need to involve the potential wife, but I would be saddened to miss the experience of those conversations. My wife and I have spent many a happy hour talking about things like dream house layouts, and there has been a lot of relationship building discussing topics like those found in the questions.
2) Many of those answers would change depending on the person we were adding to the family. Very related to point 1. Different personality types would mesh better into the family in different ways. It would be foolish of me to throw out blanket statements without knowing the factors involved.
3) As someone else mentioned, the potential exists that you have now given waaaay too much ammo for a dishonest person to scam you.
Also, regarding #39, I think it's a totally valid question. Yes, I am the head of my family, but I would be failing if that meant I acted as some form of overlord. I am *due* authority in the marriage because of the way God set up marriage, but I only *have* authority because my wife trusts me with it. We discuss decisions, and I greatly value her counsel. We then come to a decision that we're both comfortable with. I feel that if your go to response is to lay down the law, you're in for a rough go and a fair amount of unhappiness in the family. I'm not saying I would not or have not exercised authority, I have and will (mostly when a split second decision is needed), but I firmly believe that being a Godly leader is first and foremost about being a servant, putting the needs of your family above your own desires.
A lot of these questions are tied together anyway, like the finances questions tie in a lot to number 39 I think. I currently bring in the income, but I get the same amount of personal spending money my wife does, because we are partners, each contributing to the whole. I feel it would be wrong for her to get less for some reason. I do spend more out of the household account for eating out, but that is because with my job I am often away from the office when lunch rolls around, and so leftovers aren't always an option.
I like the list from a "things to consider, and topics of conversation" perspective.
I would however not want to fill it out to send to someone, for a few reasons:
1) Answering the questions as written would make it sound like the incoming potential wife had zero say in her life. There are questions in there that are very easy and firm (no, never arrested, couple speeding tickets), but things like living arrangements and what the children call people are decisions that not only do I think need to involve the potential wife, but I would be saddened to miss the experience of those conversations. My wife and I have spent many a happy hour talking about things like dream house layouts, and there has been a lot of relationship building discussing topics like those found in the questions.
2) Many of those answers would change depending on the person we were adding to the family. Very related to point 1. Different personality types would mesh better into the family in different ways. It would be foolish of me to throw out blanket statements without knowing the factors involved.
3) As someone else mentioned, the potential exists that you have now given waaaay too much ammo for a dishonest person to scam you.
Also, regarding #39, I think it's a totally valid question. Yes, I am the head of my family, but I would be failing if that meant I acted as some form of overlord. I am *due* authority in the marriage because of the way God set up marriage, but I only *have* authority because my wife trusts me with it. We discuss decisions, and I greatly value her counsel. We then come to a decision that we're both comfortable with. I feel that if your go to response is to lay down the law, you're in for a rough go and a fair amount of unhappiness in the family. I'm not saying I would not or have not exercised authority, I have and will (mostly when a split second decision is needed), but I firmly believe that being a Godly leader is first and foremost about being a servant, putting the needs of your family above your own desires.
A lot of these questions are tied together anyway, like the finances questions tie in a lot to number 39 I think. I currently bring in the income, but I get the same amount of personal spending money my wife does, because we are partners, each contributing to the whole. I feel it would be wrong for her to get less for some reason. I do spend more out of the household account for eating out, but that is because with my job I am often away from the office when lunch rolls around, and so leftovers aren't always an option.
Bumping this. So helpful. Thanks
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Having reread this, I find #39 to be a totally legitimate question.
Why would it be off the table just because we all supposedly believe in male headship?
I would agree that it is worded in a way that seems to presume equal voting rights for all, but it could be easily modified.
Why would it be off the table just because we all supposedly believe in male headship?
I would agree that it is worded in a way that seems to presume equal voting rights for all, but it could be easily modified.
Agreed. Like, my wife and I get an equal amount of "spending money" out of the budget and equal consideration in most things, it's just that anything we can't come to a unanimous decision on (which is very rare) comes to me. And generally any snap decisions required.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think I still have my list of questions somewhere that I discussed my husband before we married. It was helpful to work things out ahead of time, but I don't think reality matches our answers then. Our lives have grown and changed a lot. Like for instance he works away from home and stays in an RV several nights a week. Back when we discussed it I thought that would be fine because I was not in love with him then. Now actually trying to live what we agreed to is really hard. I always miss him so much. A couple days feel like months to me.
Sent from my LGL31L using Tapatalk
Sent from my LGL31L using Tapatalk
Hello from Pennsylvania.
I know this thread has been dormant for a couple years, and I also know that what I'm about to share isn't exactly a list of vetting questions, but I found this thread rather by accident a few weeks ago and considered it intriguing enough to read through every post, discovering that I very much Liked almost everything everyone had written (perhaps especially, of course, @Joleneakamama's introduction with the lists, but also @CecilW's comments about how we could use the lists to challenge our own approaches, @Trisha's observation that relying too much on lists could turn what should be courting into an interview process, and @eternitee's excellent cautionary statement about how one has to be on the look-out for people molding themselves to meet your requirements rather than being authentic -- and I just loved @steve's confidence that positions can often be modified or negotiated). If someone thinks I should start a new thread, I might consider it, but, for now, I believe this trust hierarchy belongs right here.
For those who haven't met me at a conference, I've believed plural marriage is a viable option almost all my life but didn't get serious about practicing it until the beginning of this decade. As part of that, and because I live in a rather isolated rural small town, I have used OK Cupid (and sometimes other dating sites) in my search for another wife. So far nothing has worked out, and, if I were a gambling man, I wouldn't wager any significant funds on ever finding a sister wife for Kristin on OK Cupid. I have, though, along the way learned many things about myself, about polygamy, about our marriage, and about the specialized concerns one has to have when seeking a 2ND wife. I've also learned that, with anonymous dating sites, trust is a paramount issue, so I dusted off a trust exercise I'd used for programs in college dorms and adapted it for the purpose of online dating. Here it is for your consideration, just slightly edited from its current presence on OK Cupid [note: nothing about this hierarchy was manufactured out of thin air; each layer of caution was inspired by at least one previous significant breach of trust by someone on the dating site]:
"Much is said on many profiles about the issue of trust. Many accusations are thrown around. However, I firmly believe that each of us could maximize the potential to avoid untrustworthy individuals if we would adhere to a practice of engaging in progressive trusting. Start off with minimal trust, then take a tiny leap of trust toward the other person; if s/he both demonstrates trustworthiness at that level and reciprocates, move on to a slightly more risky level of trust. The following is an informal hierarchy of trust levels I have intended to generally adhere to when interacting with people on this dating site. I say, 'generally', because situations may present themselves when it may make sense to skip a couple steps and come back to them later. You can adapt this for your own use, because your situation and goals are different from mine, but I very adamantly assert that one is always risking either taking advantage of other persons or being hurt by them if one gives oneself permission to skip SEVERAL such steps. When the other person jumps past 3 or more such steps -- or just wants to skip one of the steps altogether -- it should always raise a red flag (by the way, if a person is seriously offended by the use of the term 'red flag,' that should also be a red flag). Most scammers, predators, people with axes to grind and individuals who simply aren't nearly as ready for a full-range relationship as they claim to be will not have the patience to follow through on this gradual build-up of trust.
1. One of us sends a message
2. The other responds
3. Establish baseline interest in each other (no foundational deal breakers)
4. Provide email addresses
5. Sharing of public photos that provide a fully-accurate portrayal of what each person looks like
6. Establish serious willingness on your part to consider plural marriage
7. Provide phone numbers and initiation of scheduled phone conversations
8. Sharing of photos of and superficial information about other family members
9. Meetings in public places
10. Establish mutual interest in dating toward a potential long-term commitment
11. Sharing of non-superficial information about my wife (this step could in some circumstances belong somewhere between 8 and 10)
12. Possible meeting with my wife in public location
13. Possible sharing of private photos [a nearly-ubiquitous demand on OK Cupid once you get this far along; the easy majority of women, as well as men, push for this before being willing to meet -- and a significant number of women don't want to waste their time having phone conversations if they can't determine in advance that they're going to think you're hot in bed]
14. 1st meeting between the two (or three) of us in private location
15. Possible meeting with our children in public location
16. Sharing of current addresses [this is pushed back this far because of the prevalence of nefarious scammers on dating sites]
17. Determining nature of and making long-term commitments
18. Making plans to move in together
19. After serious discussion, sharing intentions with chosen extended family"
Obviously, this leaves out the particular compatibility and vetting concerns unique to each pair of potential mates, but I hope this is useful to some people.
I know this thread has been dormant for a couple years, and I also know that what I'm about to share isn't exactly a list of vetting questions, but I found this thread rather by accident a few weeks ago and considered it intriguing enough to read through every post, discovering that I very much Liked almost everything everyone had written (perhaps especially, of course, @Joleneakamama's introduction with the lists, but also @CecilW's comments about how we could use the lists to challenge our own approaches, @Trisha's observation that relying too much on lists could turn what should be courting into an interview process, and @eternitee's excellent cautionary statement about how one has to be on the look-out for people molding themselves to meet your requirements rather than being authentic -- and I just loved @steve's confidence that positions can often be modified or negotiated). If someone thinks I should start a new thread, I might consider it, but, for now, I believe this trust hierarchy belongs right here.
For those who haven't met me at a conference, I've believed plural marriage is a viable option almost all my life but didn't get serious about practicing it until the beginning of this decade. As part of that, and because I live in a rather isolated rural small town, I have used OK Cupid (and sometimes other dating sites) in my search for another wife. So far nothing has worked out, and, if I were a gambling man, I wouldn't wager any significant funds on ever finding a sister wife for Kristin on OK Cupid. I have, though, along the way learned many things about myself, about polygamy, about our marriage, and about the specialized concerns one has to have when seeking a 2ND wife. I've also learned that, with anonymous dating sites, trust is a paramount issue, so I dusted off a trust exercise I'd used for programs in college dorms and adapted it for the purpose of online dating. Here it is for your consideration, just slightly edited from its current presence on OK Cupid [note: nothing about this hierarchy was manufactured out of thin air; each layer of caution was inspired by at least one previous significant breach of trust by someone on the dating site]:
"Much is said on many profiles about the issue of trust. Many accusations are thrown around. However, I firmly believe that each of us could maximize the potential to avoid untrustworthy individuals if we would adhere to a practice of engaging in progressive trusting. Start off with minimal trust, then take a tiny leap of trust toward the other person; if s/he both demonstrates trustworthiness at that level and reciprocates, move on to a slightly more risky level of trust. The following is an informal hierarchy of trust levels I have intended to generally adhere to when interacting with people on this dating site. I say, 'generally', because situations may present themselves when it may make sense to skip a couple steps and come back to them later. You can adapt this for your own use, because your situation and goals are different from mine, but I very adamantly assert that one is always risking either taking advantage of other persons or being hurt by them if one gives oneself permission to skip SEVERAL such steps. When the other person jumps past 3 or more such steps -- or just wants to skip one of the steps altogether -- it should always raise a red flag (by the way, if a person is seriously offended by the use of the term 'red flag,' that should also be a red flag). Most scammers, predators, people with axes to grind and individuals who simply aren't nearly as ready for a full-range relationship as they claim to be will not have the patience to follow through on this gradual build-up of trust.
1. One of us sends a message
2. The other responds
3. Establish baseline interest in each other (no foundational deal breakers)
4. Provide email addresses
5. Sharing of public photos that provide a fully-accurate portrayal of what each person looks like
6. Establish serious willingness on your part to consider plural marriage
7. Provide phone numbers and initiation of scheduled phone conversations
8. Sharing of photos of and superficial information about other family members
9. Meetings in public places
10. Establish mutual interest in dating toward a potential long-term commitment
11. Sharing of non-superficial information about my wife (this step could in some circumstances belong somewhere between 8 and 10)
12. Possible meeting with my wife in public location
13. Possible sharing of private photos [a nearly-ubiquitous demand on OK Cupid once you get this far along; the easy majority of women, as well as men, push for this before being willing to meet -- and a significant number of women don't want to waste their time having phone conversations if they can't determine in advance that they're going to think you're hot in bed]
14. 1st meeting between the two (or three) of us in private location
15. Possible meeting with our children in public location
16. Sharing of current addresses [this is pushed back this far because of the prevalence of nefarious scammers on dating sites]
17. Determining nature of and making long-term commitments
18. Making plans to move in together
19. After serious discussion, sharing intentions with chosen extended family"
Obviously, this leaves out the particular compatibility and vetting concerns unique to each pair of potential mates, but I hope this is useful to some people.
Last edited:
That is very interesting. My only question is, has this model been proven out in the field? In other words, does it actually work to weed out fakes and flakes without throwing up hurdles that turn away trustworthy candidates. Or in short, has anyone gotten a wife this way?
It's just a general strategy for minimizing those who have bad intentions or who will simply waste one's time. I haven't gotten another wife, period, so my anecdotal evidence wouldn't be considered empirical, anyway. I can promise you, though, that it has saved me a LOT of time I'd been wasting prior to posting it at OKC.
Thanks @Keith Martin for taking the time to post and for sharing this stepped out process. Trust, IMO, is a huge issue today because our society as a whole is losing the ability to know how to establish trust, to know the essentials of trust, and often has completely forgotten how to help one who's lost the ability to trust to regain footing in this area. Children from broken homes don't know how to trust because the two that made them that were supposed to trust each other didn't or couldn't for whatever reason, yet those children grow up and begin relationships--looking for that special someone, hoping to find trust they can depend upon. Anyone that's been abandoned at any age has serious trust issues. So I'm really glad you identified trust building as one of the key components for moving forward through the steps.
Well, thank you, @rejoicinghandmaid. I'm going to repeat something I've written elsewhere, as well as in discussions you and I have had individually, though: I see the importance of gradually developing trust to be no less valuable for well-adjusted folks than it is for people who have had rough lives. I think we should all be very careful about traversing the fine line between compassion and enfeebling pity. It's nice and sensitive to recognize how difficult the lives of others have been, and it's also nice when others recognize where we ourselves have had such difficulties, but it also has HUGE potential to be a snare that directly excuses the person with 'issues' from having to perform in life, and, more insidiously, can operate with the person who identifies the victimhood of others as a form of what one of George W. Bush's speechwriters so eloquently labeled as "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
People with 6 webbed toes and a tail tend to lie about it. So establishing trust is much more important than filling out the questionnaire.
I don't know the answer to your last question, but I do know that women have reported to me that they've been more successful at getting better partners by using it, because the answer to your penultimate question was that it does more effectively weed out the undesirables than it turns away those who are trustworthy. The trustworthy generally tend to appreciate the desire to establish trustworthiness, given that the trustworthy have no reason to feel intimidated by such a process unless they have a chip on their shoulder that is triggered by being questioned by anyone about anything.
2022 Update on my thoughts about all this:
I have gravitated further and further away from the notion of having questionnaires or checklists related to compatibility. In retrospect, my observation both personally and of others is that it represents an approach that has at its core attempting to insure against undesirability of a mate -- and, in essence in a great many cases, what this translates into is giving oneself permission in advance to reject people, thus blaming the person for one's lack of success instead of focusing on one's own unwillingness to take the leap. In other words, one can become far too risk-averse.
As I read over Jennie's list for this second time, I was struck by the sheer HEIGHT of the mountain one would have to climb in order to end up in a place where either side of the coin measured up enough to justify coming together.
What I believe has far more import as far as whether a relationship will be successful is the degree of unwavering commitment each person entering into it has to holding it together, through thick and thin. I'm convinced that almost any two people (or any three people, for that matter) can conquer any obstacle if each person in the equation remains 100% committed to doing so.
I have gravitated further and further away from the notion of having questionnaires or checklists related to compatibility. In retrospect, my observation both personally and of others is that it represents an approach that has at its core attempting to insure against undesirability of a mate -- and, in essence in a great many cases, what this translates into is giving oneself permission in advance to reject people, thus blaming the person for one's lack of success instead of focusing on one's own unwillingness to take the leap. In other words, one can become far too risk-averse.
As I read over Jennie's list for this second time, I was struck by the sheer HEIGHT of the mountain one would have to climb in order to end up in a place where either side of the coin measured up enough to justify coming together.
What I believe has far more import as far as whether a relationship will be successful is the degree of unwavering commitment each person entering into it has to holding it together, through thick and thin. I'm convinced that almost any two people (or any three people, for that matter) can conquer any obstacle if each person in the equation remains 100% committed to doing so.
It's that lack of 100% commitment, through thick and thin, that has translated into the current 50% divorce rate. It seems very few have much commitment at all for when thick hits thin. Just say'in... .
You may well be right about that.
Just as a thought exercise though. If you were being asked to commit to an employer and sign a contract giving him (or even her for a radical new twist) control over many details and areas of life UNTIL YOU DIE, how much would you investigate the boss's beliefs, expectations and such? Might you want to ask others working there how their experience has been? Would it be a shock to find out those holidays you planned on celebrating with the children were viewed as pagan and the celebrating of them regarded as sinful?
Please understand if you DON'T do your research, and you try to change 'companies' down the road many people will think you are just a willfull rebel, living in sin, unthankful and just bad news.
If you even are not satisfied with the perks and work atmosphere, your current boss may see you as manipulative or trying to steal that upper position.
All this to say that of course someone doesn't have to "check all the boxes,' and it is not about avoiding all risk or disappointment, it is more about developing a more acurate and realistic expectation of how that future life might be before making that MASSIVE (should be) SERIOUS commitment.
Just my two cents worth.
(Another observation, for whatever it's worth, most of the negative comments as I recall to this list or idea are from "prospective bosses"....not employees. Just sayin' ....
)P.S. I thought this was posted yesterday afternoon....just found it sitting here still.
I agree that it’s not so much “checking all the boxes” in order to move ahead. I took it as a straightforward way to learn about a family when considering important life decisions.
Jennie’s list was quite thorough and without reading every question she listed; right at the start, the level of detail relayed to me that Jennie took her commitment serious which I found to be encouraging. Maybe a woman sees this list and picks a few here and there that she finds most important to her.