That goes without saying. What is your point?
-
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
I think you've categorised the different types of conversations that exist fairly well, and you're right that it is point 3 where the problems lie. This is how we want women to feel free to speak up and ask for help.
However these conversations are not clearly separated on the forum. It may be that reading category 1 conversations, and interacting in them tentatively, is causing women to feel uncomfortable posting in the forum at all because they get a negative impression from these conversations. I wouldn't want to stop us having these conversations in the deep way we do, but there must be a way of helping women to not feel put off from posting as a result of them. Possibly by more clearly identifying what type of conversation is being had, rather than changing the conversation itself?
1). Making a distinction between a Biblical family and a single mother household, in case there might be a question.
2). A fish rots from the head back, or so I have heard. A majority of the problems in families can only be solved with/through the head, so I am asserting that the best way to minister to the family is to get the head straightened out.
It’s not that the ministry needs to focus more on the men because they are more important, it’s more that they are most often either the source of the problem or the potential facilitator of the solution.
At some level of curtailing the wilder voices you will trade access to those heads for women’s comfort, and that doesn’t help his family in the slightest.
Last edited:
I wouldn't put one word into trying to convince you otherwise, as it is a belief I share.
I would disagree with @FollowingHim's assertion that it goes without saying, and I disagree because it took me a long time to accept that I needed to be a patriarch in order for my family to be biblical. When my friend Clyde Pilkington Jr. first introduced the idea to me 5 years ago, I recoiled. In fact, my original reaction to learning that his periodical related to biblical polygamy was titled Patriarchs Journal was to be certain that two different concepts were being conflated and that he should change it!
Families certainly can exist without patriarchs, but they not only aren't following scriptural guidelines, they are saddled with struggling against natural (i.e., Creator-designed) order on top of all of what makes worldly existence difficult.
I wonder how many shell shocked wives we get who just had the poly bomb dropped on their head and are trying to look for any kind of information. I would be very willing to curtail my garrulousness on their account.
I think this is the problem. I am not sure of the solution other than to separate the hard conversations from the soft conversations. And if you do not hide the hard ones the newbies will probably wander into them anyway.
The problem is that we all come from all over the Christian spectrum. In the past literally wars have broken out over Christian doctrine and we fight over all the same ones today. I think generally we do it in good spirit. I think there is a definite mano a mano element, but it mostly does not go over the line and the mods do a great job in nipping it in the bud when it does.
I think the regulars know that it is nothing personal and there is no shortage of love, but I am not sure the newbies get that impression and it probably does hurt the ministry in some ways, especially to newbies.
I think it helps the ministry in some ways in that there is no topic that is off the table. It is more or less a free forum to discuss anything on your mind, even off topic items. That is a strong plus.
If you were to clamp down and take doctrine off the table I believe that would kind of water down the ministry and make it BF lite.
Some ladies may feel uncomfortable in all of the rough and tumble doctrine threads, but on the other hand that is why there is a ladies only forum, right?
Just a thought: Could we create a dividing line that would establish two levels of threads that could, say, be distinguished as Milk and Meat threads? Could we have, say, half the threads be those that are established as primarily for the purpose of providing introductory information and opportunities for interaction for people who are just getting started as new members, letting them know from the very beginning that we have a whole range of much more in-depth forum threads in which they can later participate, once they've acclimated? All new members would be initiated in the Milk Zone, and it might even be prudent to begin some current members in the Milk Zone, but only if they've demonstrated that they're not ready for the Meat Zone. I hope I'm not being 'offensive' by making this latter suggestion, but I think it would be rather simple to determine if someone is not ready for the Meat Zone: if we find ourselves feeling like we need to rescue someone or protect them from us meanies, then they probably need to remain for the time being where they will get an opportunity to introduce themselves without criticism, as well as having their questions answers and receive support for their upsets.
I'm thinking that would give us the freedom to go full bore on theological or whatever discussions without risking sending newbies or overly sensitive souls into conniptions. It would take some initial education for all of us who are accustomed to straight-up mind-wrasslin' so that we would refrain from doing that in the Milk Zone, but I have faith that we're all trainable in that regard.
Last edited by a moderator:
I had a similar idea once that I ran by somebody in leadership and they pointed out that every one would skip the milk forum and jump right in to the meat.
Last edited by a moderator:
I suggest that the solution for this is requiring approval either from the moderators or from some percentage of people already in the Meat Zone for someone to move from the Milk Zone to the Meat Zone, and only after the Milk Zone person actually requested the 'upgrade,' and we could provide some form-letter counseling about how their victimhood attitudes would have to be left at the doorway to the Meat Zone.
@rockfox, I pray you will recognize that I'm continuing our mutual dead-horse-beating on this point a little longer, but doing so only because I believe a couple of small but significant distinctions will be edifying:
- Women approaching men to indicate that they're interested in them is just one small subset of a larger set of behaviors that fall under the category of women being forward.
- I would never assert that men, patriarchal or otherwise, would generally reject women being forward about indicating that they're interested in those men. Of course, a very small minority of men would reject any woman who did the initiating, but most men would absolutely welcome not having to do all the initiating (which entails exposing oneself to potential rejection).
- Generally, though, while patriarchs would welcome women being forward in the realm of indicating potential matrimonial interest, patriarchs would still be less likely than the average non-patriarchal man to be accepting of women being forward in the vast majority of other categories of being forward.
- My original point was to assert that we have more work to do than simply inviting women to start approaching men with their potential matrimonial interest, because we have to recognize that the general wind in their sails is knowing in their bones that, in general, the kind of men they're seeking do not universally or even in most cases generally approve of women being forward. I'm fine with anyone on here arguing with me about this, but I've been discussing this particular dynamic with females ever since high school in ranch-town Grapevine TX, when I encountered fundamentalist girls who refused to do anything to indicate their interest in particular boys/men for fear that they would be perceived as too forward. We can call it misunderstanding on their parts or think that they should be able to separate out distinctions among categories of being too forward, but this is not a matter of logical rationalism.
My point is and always has been throughout this discussion that it just wanting women to approach us isn't enough to make it happen. Of course we want them to approach us. But it doesn't matter, because at least two dynamics that exist both in society at large and in our small BF realm here conspire to make it unlikely that women will begin approaching us unless we thoroughly address those two dynamics (which, hey, I think we're now doing!):
- The general perception patriarch-seeking women have that patriarch men will not reward them for being forward; and
- The failure on men's part to make clear that they do not approve of unsuitable male misbehavior.
- That men don't want women to approach them;
- That all patriarchs hate women being forward;
- That families would be just fine without patriarchs;
- That patriarchs are unwilling to accept leadership contributions from their wives;
- That all patriarchs are guilty of unsuitable male misbehavior;
- That vehemently arguing about theological matters is unsuitable male misbehavior; or
- That eating soybeans will improve virility.
C
Cap
Guest
What about the OP of a thread started by the OP controlled by the OP?
Yeah I know, Here it comes. As my friend the Torch says, FLAME ON.
Yeah I know, Here it comes. As my friend the Torch says, FLAME ON.
Is it possible that we are who we are, authentic 'in our natural habitat' (credit to @steve ), and maybe Yah uses the environ to keep some and send others packing? Honestly, not voting for 'garrolousness' (citing @ZecAustin 's corucopian vocabulary), but thinking that excessive gentleness won't work either. We primarily need to simply be aware of how we sound. Words without out expression or emotion can be considerably sharper than we realize. Simply rereading a post before hitting 'post reply' will do wonders for hearing ourselves and taking corrective action where compassion is warranted.
I wonder if we need some sort of an introduction place. Not where newbies introduce themselves, but where we introduce ourselves and poly to them. We have the FAQ section, but it's messy and needs a major overhaul. Samuel has been meaning to do it for years, but he doesn't have the time. I'm thinking somewhere that we have the FAQ, and some threads titled 'So you just found out polygyny is biblically acceptable - what now?', 'Your husband wants to have another wife - what do you do?', 'You're having an affair - what should you do?'. That sort of idea. And we put in general information and links to other threads that would be helpful etc. It's a milk area. It doesn't need to go too in depth, it's just an 'introduction' if you will.
What about those of us who are lactose intolerant?
Excellent thoughts, @PeteR. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I always read what I've written here at least once-through after finishing what I consider to be my first draft, I don't always sufficiently imagine how others may be reading it. Generally speaking, I'm not intending to come across as combative, especially toward women (although exceptions have arisen, such as a recent one in which I purposefully breathed some fire in the direction of a woman who was engendering sympathy in the wake of beating around the bush before finally acknowledging that what was behind her direct negativity toward supporters of polygamy was some kind of still-as-of-yet-undetailed abuse from her husband, whom she now asserts is going to force polygamy on her), but it can be difficult to cover all the bases in such a way that one eliminates all potential for others to read in something one hasn't intended.
I like your modification of my suggestion, Sarah; could it also be an area in which newbies could do some interaction with full members? and/or one in which newbies could eventually request admittance into all the forums after receiving some boilerplate orientation?
If it's a matter of time, even though I don't really have much of that lying around, either, I believe this would be important enough that I'd certainly be willing to volunteer some of my own time to contribute whatever I could to the effort of establishing such a Milk Zone. We could kill two birds with one stone that way -- preventing sending newbies and sensitive souls into shock, while preserving the ability of everyone else to be fully self-expressed.
Certainly newbies could interact there, as well as the rest of the forum. I don't think they need to spend time in the newbies area before advancing on, everyone is different and for some that wouldn't be suitable at all. But I think we could all make an effort that that area would be a gentler place, and one where scripture wasn't hashed to death, and Torah vs non-Torah wasn't debated, and we didn't start talking about flat earth and vaccinations etc.
I need to talk to Samuel about this, he's out today (probably currently getting groceries for me - legend!), and see what he thinks.
The only problem is that, if the whole forum is open, then that's where newbies are going to go -- straight to the Wild West. It then might not matter at all if the rest of us expend energy doing our best to be 'gentle' or 'milky' or 'welcoming' in those introductory threads, because, if people can access all threads, the advanced threads are just naturally going to seem to be more compelling to visit -- and then we're back to the situation in which people who either (a) aren't yet emotionally ready to absorb the full monty, or (b) haven't demonstrated that they are here to learn or grow or support but are instead here to cause trouble will jump right into the fire.
I can think of many examples of organizations that righteously expect people to start off at an introductory level before moving on to an advanced stage of participation, e.g.:
- Cub Scouts --> Boy Scouts
- Undergraduate --> Grad school
- Associate professor --> Tenured professor
- U.S. Vice President --> Comedy Central
- Kiddie pool --> Deep end
- Junior varsity --> Varsity
- Whole blood donation --> Double reds
- Learner's permit --> Full driver's license
- Breastfeeding --> McDonald's
We could even have a special Express Membership route for single women intending to express interest in joining specific already-existing plural families . . .
Last edited:
I'm laughing at comedy central here. It would be funnier if they inherited their positions....(as in a monarchy)....it is deeply disturbing that any percentage of the people vote for the greater and lesser evils.
On topic, it is not a bad suggestion to have members access increase with participation, but, I wonder if enough activity would be maintained in all areas to keep it interesting. I have found special interest forums (home dairy for example) and was excited until I realized the most recent post was 6 months old.
Maybe having a "heat scale" might let those with milder tastes steer clear? I know on a forum for mothers expecting multiples they would caution others about "triggers" like infant loss, or warn if there were birth photos some may not want to see.
If you used a mild, medium, hot, and hospital grading system, it could be put in the subject line if the op had any inkling, or added/changed by a mod if they thought it was needed, or even a later post in the thread could have a "heat warning" depending on content.
If we let people know we don't want to hurt anyone ....but some of us like it ghost pepper, fire in the hole, pay for it the day after kinda hot. Those that prefer "spring in Alaska conversations" won't accidently and without warning land in a "July in Phoenix" heat zone.
It can be anything but fun to get your taste buds lit up when you didn't expect it. A warning may go a long way.
Just my tired end of the day thoughts.
On topic, it is not a bad suggestion to have members access increase with participation, but, I wonder if enough activity would be maintained in all areas to keep it interesting. I have found special interest forums (home dairy for example) and was excited until I realized the most recent post was 6 months old.
Maybe having a "heat scale" might let those with milder tastes steer clear? I know on a forum for mothers expecting multiples they would caution others about "triggers" like infant loss, or warn if there were birth photos some may not want to see.
If you used a mild, medium, hot, and hospital
grading system, it could be put in the subject line if the op had any inkling, or added/changed by a mod if they thought it was needed, or even a later post in the thread could have a "heat warning" depending on content.If we let people know we don't want to hurt anyone ....but some of us like it ghost pepper, fire in the hole, pay for it the day after kinda hot. Those that prefer "spring in Alaska conversations" won't accidently and without warning land in a "July in Phoenix" heat zone.
It can be anything but fun to get your taste buds lit up when you didn't expect it. A warning may go a long way.
Just my tired end of the day thoughts.
One of the issues with newbie areas is not everyone comes here from the same background. You get everyone from shellshocked don't know anything to veterans of theology and counciling others. I'm not always sure that new systems and areas and restrictions is always the best way. Sometimes what matters most is culture. And on that note, this...
is hitting on a good idea. I'm reminded that online communities often have a FAQ / manifesto / side bar of primary reading material that communicates their vision, main ideas, must read books, frequently asked questions and the like. New people asking the same old questions or going down the worn paths to failure are met with a chorus of 'go read'. This saves time, communicates a consistent message, and helps build culture.
Watching the other thread on this subject I'm reminded that men who interact on forums also tend to be wildly disproportionately of certain personality types. Some types are just not good as good with understanding or conveying emotion or calibrating their interaction with others; something text communication exaggerates since it doesn't convey emotion well.
But really, were you surprised?
is hitting on a good idea. I'm reminded that online communities often have a FAQ / manifesto / side bar of primary reading material that communicates their vision, main ideas, must read books, frequently asked questions and the like. New people asking the same old questions or going down the worn paths to failure are met with a chorus of 'go read'. This saves time, communicates a consistent message, and helps build culture.
Watching the other thread on this subject I'm reminded that men who interact on forums also tend to be wildly disproportionately of certain personality types. Some types are just not good as good with understanding or conveying emotion or calibrating their interaction with others; something text communication exaggerates since it doesn't convey emotion well.
But really, were you surprised?