Thankyou @Keith Martin, I think the joking had got to the point where it needed to be stated bluntly and I am glad that you have done so.
-
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.
True!!!!
Well, I do have a son that is old enough for marriage, but last time I checked, he was adamant in his stance against polygamy.
When Joseph was 39, his father was 130...a 91 year age gap. He was way beyond what we today would consider middle age. When Abraham was 140, he married Keturah, and they had six children. Abraham today would have been considered to be a sick pervert.
One of the biggest objections that people have (mostly feminists) to a woman marrying a man who is much older than she, is the reality that the older man will leave her a widow, past the prime of her life, and who wants to marry a widow? My hand goes up, and I'm sure several other hands in our group will go up as well. I don't mind marrying a widow. I can think of quite a few that I wouldn't mind having for a wife.
The other prime objection I have seen, and again primarily coming from feminists, is that the there is inherent inequality when the husband is much older. The truth is, that is not necessarily the case, and even if it is, why is that a bad thing? My wife and I have friends who have a 17 year age gap between them, and they have been married for longer than a lot of couples who are in close proximity to those their own age. She does usurp her husband's authority, as he is not such a strong leader, always checking with his wife to see if it is OK with her for them to do things, so the idea that because he is much older, he will rule over her, is not necessarily true, but again, we all know the structure that God ordained for the family. It's only a question of whether a woman is willing to live under that structure. That is far more important than whether there is a significant age gap or not.
One of the biggest objections that people have (mostly feminists) to a woman marrying a man who is much older than she, is the reality that the older man will leave her a widow, past the prime of her life, and who wants to marry a widow? My hand goes up, and I'm sure several other hands in our group will go up as well. I don't mind marrying a widow. I can think of quite a few that I wouldn't mind having for a wife.
The other prime objection I have seen, and again primarily coming from feminists, is that the there is inherent inequality when the husband is much older. The truth is, that is not necessarily the case, and even if it is, why is that a bad thing? My wife and I have friends who have a 17 year age gap between them, and they have been married for longer than a lot of couples who are in close proximity to those their own age. She does usurp her husband's authority, as he is not such a strong leader, always checking with his wife to see if it is OK with her for them to do things, so the idea that because he is much older, he will rule over her, is not necessarily true, but again, we all know the structure that God ordained for the family. It's only a question of whether a woman is willing to live under that structure. That is far more important than whether there is a significant age gap or not.
I reached 8,192 in the 2048 puzzle game.
C
Cap
Guest
The Asch conformity experiments were a series of psychological experiments conducted by Solomon Asch during the 1950s. The experiments revealed the degree to which a person's own opinions are influenced by those of groups. Asch found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-groupthink-2795213
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-groupthink-2795213
Also there is obedience testing, which tested how a subject would be obedient to commands from a perceived authority, regardless of the fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
C
Cap
Guest
I would probably fail that one, mainly because I would question the 'perceived authority' and their interpretation of what "wrong" is.
I should start by reminding you, Daniel, that I am 15 years older than my wife. I was in middle age and she was a teenager when we married -- 33 years ago and counting. So I'm entirely comfortable with the logic of there being value in age gaps between marital partners. I don't care what the feminists say; I'm more comfortable letting them be totally wrong about almost everything within their own isolated thought experiments without thinking I even have to give air to their ridiculousness.
Having said that, I've written in these forums before and will probably do so many more times in the future that I think that it's an all-too-common pipe dream among one-woman men seeking plural families to have the fantasy of starting over with a young babe virgin girl now that wife #1 has reached the end of her child-bearing years (whether by choice or necessity). I have no problem with the desire, but I also have no problem with wanting to win the lottery -- it just ain't gonna happen very often, the main reason being that nubile young women have far, far too many options to have it end up being the case that, at 17 or 18 they're going to be seeing as their prime option hooking up with a dude whose kids are mostly older than she is. It doesn't mean I believe the old man couldn't be a good patriarchal husband to her; it just means that the odds are so far against it that the old man may as well beat his head against the wall hoping it will rain draft beer.
The flip side of this is the widow issue you mention. I would assert that, as an extended 'tribal' group, we male believers in Biblical polygyny give mostly lip service when it comes to marrying those widows. Clearly, we can cite exceptions to this general rule, but all the excuses in the book arise when widows present themselves among us. Oh, too set in her ways. Oh, doesn't agree with me on precept 354 of page 5497 of the credal set of interpretations of New or Old Testament rules about being equally yoked. Oh, her exercise routine doesn't match up with mine. Oh, the age gap goes the other way. But if she were just 17 and you know what I mean, none of that would stop our internal stampeding team of horses from galloping in her direction. We'd probably even be willing to listen to a lecture about the crucial difference between crimson and maroon nail polish along with being patient about eventually (in 15 or 20 years) getting on the same doctrinal page just for the chance to pony her saddle.
For those of us 40 and 50 and 60 and 70, the young look even more beautiful to us than they did when we were 15 or 20 or 25 or 30, because we have an appreciation for their freshness that we weren't wise enough to fully appreciate when we were their ages. But, even with those up sides of youth, they are for the most part not close to being fully formed, and it is for their peers and their parents to shepherd them into that full adulthood. If we want to raise more children and we're approaching or have entered senior citizen status (50+), perhaps it's time to consider adoption rather than seeking marriage with a youngster. After all, they are by design predominantly shiny objects at that age. They glow and glisten and strut through life with glorious resonance -- and that's how they inspire each other to embark upon the truly rough journeys of marriage and parenthood, because they can't take their eyes off each other and have hormones that demand attention. We older and wiser folks should give ourselves full permission to fully appreciate the glory of the beauty of those shiny objects -- and even fantasize what it would be like to get passionate with them -- but if we're at all sane, we'll direct our intentional efforts in the direction of those lonely widows, who, after all, have already learned a lot we wouldn't have to teach them all over again.
Last edited:
The other point is that although there's nothing theoretically wrong with marrying the daughters of men here, and joking about it once is funny (I've joked that myself before, and not only about @Keith Martin's daughters), repeating the idea makes it sound like you're not joking and might actually see this as an easy option to fulfil a polygamous dream. At that point, you're running the risk of giving other readers the wrong idea about what this forum is about, and also risking scaring away the family you're talking about from interacting with you in person. Particularly if you try and justify your statements with further statements along the same lines, that only solidify the impression that you're serious. There's a line between funny and creepy, and you have stepped right across that line @Daniel DeLuca - but I believe did so completely unintentionally. I would advise just dropping the subject at this point.
Yeah, that’s kinda important.
Honestly one annoying aspect of polygyny awareness is having to worry if you are friends with a single gal her thinking you have ulterior motives.....assuming of course that she is aware of your beliefs.
Being able to pursue another relationship after 'marriage' does more to raise false hopes then build families.....most of the time.
Being able to pursue another relationship after 'marriage' does more to raise false hopes then build families.....most of the time.
We are in a good place here but have had no luck with widows. Most need help but will not admit it. They say they like to be alone. I believe humans are meant to be social. Better for physical and mental health.
Most are married to the government. He is their financial support.
He isn’t the righteous head that they need, though. They fail to realize that they were designed to be with one.
Recently bought a truck near there. Having trouble getting it delivered so may be up there to get it. Really too cold though.
I shall start with a cliché that has over time pretty consistently come to mean the exact opposite of what the words by themselves would imply: With all due respect to both @FollowingHim and @Daniel DeLuca, I 'walked' away from reading the above post last night more unsettled than I was before reading it. At the time, I couldn't put my finger on what was unsettling about it, but another typical night of brain fertilizer decaying into nightmares and some daytime musing on the subject brought it into focus for me: I simply don't agree that Daniel stepped over the line from funny into creepy, and in regard to whatever it was he was doing that I've been jousting with him about, what I've concluded was the most unsettling to me was that I never felt like I needed to be protected from Daniel or what he's been writing about my daughter! Actually, quite the contrary! In a way, if anything, I was warning him (or anyone else who might think that, at age 18, Holly Hannah would magically become new meat for any of my fellow polygamy wannabees, the disadvantages of approaching her with such a proposition would probably outweigh the advantages. Furthermore, in the midst of the back-and-forth about it, I was pleased to be given what I perceived to be an open door to address a couple of concerns on these topics that are always on my back burner.
Actually, I don't know if there even is such a line between funny and creepy. To me, there is a continuum from funny to, well, just not funny, the extreme of which can be uncomfortable to the extent that one cringes for the person who has attempted to be funny. But creepy? That's a different continuum, and the closest I can determine from talking with people about it is that the opposite end of creepy is, well, socially-acceptable, which is highly arbitrary, being dependent on the group defining what's acceptable. 'Creepiness,' therefore, becomes a subjective pejorative term intended to persuade those who are doing something the group wishes they wouldn't do to become uncomfortable enough through their desire to seek social approval to stop doing that something. In this case, being called creepy is intended to shame older men into refrain from encouraging much-younger (whatever that arbitrarily means) women into forming intimate alliances with them.
That was not my intention in any of the arguments I was making in discussing this with Daniel.
I made some arguments against putting all of one's eggs in a virgin-fantasy bushel basket, but I'm going to assert right here that labeling what Daniel may have been doing (I'm not even asserting that he was definitely either promising or pretending that he was going to hit up my daughter) is an unfortunate form of agism (one may note that I didn't argue with Daniel about the whole Abraham and Keturah match-up) and/or a reflection of unconscious absorption of the anti-patriarchal biases/hatred/dismissiveness surrounding us. @Daniel DeLuca and @FollowingHim, the two of you are mere pups compared to me and some of the other geezers in this organization, but I'm going to start by asserting with very firm conviction that there is nothing whatsoever creepy about someone in your age range having even profound attraction to a young woman the age of my daughter (16) -- or even to a young woman younger than she is. Our society has rules about when and under what circumstances we can form intimate relationships with young women; in most cases in America, it's actually prohibited to marry or be sexual with a young woman under the age of 16, so, yes, that might make it against the law, but being against the law is far from defining the desire to do it as being either wrong or creepy or abusive or otherwise detrimental to either party. I'm 66, and I can promise you I still have no problem imagining how it might be appealing (at least in certain regards) to be wedded to some of my daughter's like-aged friends. I refuse to accept that, at some vague certain age, I became someone who fit into a category that declared me to be creepy because I continued to have the same desires I've had since I was a boy or a young man, and I thoroughly encourage the rest of you to refuse to knuckle under to that propaganda. My argument against getting all primed for the next wave of newbie virgins was primarily based on likelihoods, and I recognize that the following falls into the highly unlikely category, but I can guarantee you that, if a 17-year-old family-less young woman approached me with statements indicating that she had concluded that her best path in life was to become part of my family, I would definitely give the matter very serious consideration, of course weighing all the pro's and con's, but I would not dismiss it out of hand simply because I knew that a large number of people would declare that it was creepy! I laugh now as I contemplate the intensity of the ongoing connection between Kristin and me and remember how many people proclaimed to us back in 1987 that my marrying her was 'creepy,' etc. The connection was clearly there, she was the one to talk me into marrying her, and all the opinion-holders surrounding us weren't about to be the ones who would live our lives for us without each other, so their judgments amounted to being worth squat -- and I encourage everyone here to take that same attitude toward a culture that defines those who are older as creepy just because their brains, their hearts and their libidos haven't decayed as rapidly as their skin, hair and joints.
And I can also promise you this, @FollowingHim: there is nothing about what @Daniel DeLuca wrote that would make me hesitate for a moment to either attend a Biblical Families gathering or bring my family with me. As mentioned, Holly Hannah can hold her own, and if she needs help, she has a father who isn't known for clamming up. Even if what Daniel wrote were to have given me cause for concern, that would only make me more likely to attend an event at which he'd be present, because I have faith that, especially with all the support surrounding us, there would be no better opportunity to really talk things through than at a Biblical Families conference. Sharpening iron here online has its value, but face-to-face opportunities have far more profound potential.
And then another truly random comment . . .
I never liked room temperature.
I never liked room temperature.
Thankyou @Keith Martin for correcting me on your own perspective on the situation, I had misunderstood that.
I still say that, from the perspective of a less-secure reader than yourself, the continuation of that discussion seemed off. From an outside perspective (note that I don't know if you've ever met @Daniel DeLuca in person), this appeared to be objectifying your daughters to a point that I became uncomfortable with. And I described this as "creepy" for want of a better word (I'm not going to debate my word choice, it was the first word that came to mind). I believe this could come across wrong to others, even though I'm glad to hear you're entirely comfortable with it. Well, since you are comfortable with it - note that 16 is completely legal over here, so I've got a head-start on Daniel if you give Holly Hannah my phone number.
But for other readers - that was a joke, I actually have zero interest in a lady I have never met before - however young or old she may be.
My issue has nothing to do with the age. The problem I see is that it looks like "here's an available female. Awesome. Better get her father to bring her to meet me in person so I can check her out, just because she exists and I want to build a harem." That seems creepy and objectifying. It's absolutely nothing to do with the age gap, rather the perceived power dynamics and motivation. I am not in any way accusing @Daniel DeLuca of actually having incorrect motivations, I have already made it clear that I felt his statements were not intended to be wrong in any way and just crossed the line in to looking inappropriate completely unintentionally.
The way the discussion was going though just felt like it would give a bad impression of the desires and motivations of the men here.
I still say that, from the perspective of a less-secure reader than yourself, the continuation of that discussion seemed off. From an outside perspective (note that I don't know if you've ever met @Daniel DeLuca in person), this appeared to be objectifying your daughters to a point that I became uncomfortable with. And I described this as "creepy" for want of a better word (I'm not going to debate my word choice, it was the first word that came to mind). I believe this could come across wrong to others, even though I'm glad to hear you're entirely comfortable with it. Well, since you are comfortable with it - note that 16 is completely legal over here, so I've got a head-start on Daniel if you give Holly Hannah my phone number.
But for other readers - that was a joke, I actually have zero interest in a lady I have never met before - however young or old she may be.My issue has nothing to do with the age. The problem I see is that it looks like "here's an available female. Awesome. Better get her father to bring her to meet me in person so I can check her out, just because she exists and I want to build a harem." That seems creepy and objectifying. It's absolutely nothing to do with the age gap, rather the perceived power dynamics and motivation. I am not in any way accusing @Daniel DeLuca of actually having incorrect motivations, I have already made it clear that I felt his statements were not intended to be wrong in any way and just crossed the line in to looking inappropriate completely unintentionally.
The way the discussion was going though just felt like it would give a bad impression of the desires and motivations of the men here.
I met @Keith Martin at the Biblical Familes event last summer.I actually prefer someone who at least has a college degree, as that will mean better earning potential for her, which will be a better asset to our family than having someone fresh out of high school. I do admire the fact though, that she is a hard worker and seems to be moving up at Walmart, and has learned to train others. Honestly though, my first instinct is to let my son, who is older than she is, attempt to win her over, if he should choose to embrace polygyny....he sorta has a girl friend that he hangs out with all the time, so that might interfere with any ideas of having a second, on his part. The last thing I would want to do though, is win over a godly wife, that he might have the potential and desire to marry. Now, in the event, however likely or unlikely, that I happen to win over a very young woman, I won't shut the door on it, so long as we can work things out financially. I also won't shut the door on any widow who might give me the tingles. I don't care so much about age, but that is something that I would definately have to have. The other must have, is that she has to be willing to embrace poly, cause I ain't leavin my wife, ever! I ain't afraid though, to recommend a woman who doesn't give me the tingles, to some of the other men in our group, who might get the tingles for her. 
You're welcome.
And I suppose that you are under a mandate to keep your focus on ensuring that outside elements don't incorrectly come to the conclusion that something WarrenJeffish isn't going on here at Biblical Families. I mourn the fact that this is a significant focus, though -- first, because unnecessary defensiveness only tends to confirm to the overly suspicious that their unfounded suspicions are warranted; and, second, because I think we can all stop holding our breath waiting for mainstream America or even the U.S. Spy Establishment to rally to the belief that we are worthy of their time and energy: in other words, I think we're mistaken if we think (a) that outsiders in any significant numbers are going to come here for any reason, and, (b) even if they were somehow to accidentally cross our paths, that they would conclude that we're just a bunch of child bride seekers.
That whole 'objectification' thing is a red herring, anyway. Only bitter political dyke feminists and a relatively small number of their gullible audience are concerned with whether straight men are 'objectifying' women. The vast number of women would be pissed if no men wanted to 'objectify' them.
My daughter's the perfect example. If, hypothetically, I were to inform Holly Hannah that one of the men in Biblical Families was interested in knowing if she's available, the first thing out of her mouth wouldn't be, "How old is he?" It would be one or the other of the following: "Does he think I'm hot?" or "Would I think he's hot?" She hasn't gone to college, so she hasn't learned that she's not supposed to be concerned with such things.
P.S. As he indicated already, Daniel and I met at the Summer 2019 Oklahoma retreat (uh oh, watch out, the CIA is now going to search all of Oklahoma for evidence of teenage spirit defilement!). In fact, while I don't think he knows it, we were almost roommates. Daniel is a very pleasant fellow, I look forward to future meetings, and I'm proud to now be able to call him a fellow Texan!
And, @Daniel DeLuca, you had me in stitches talking about widows giving you the tingles! Perhaps you should clarify, though, that you're not referring to 13-year-old widows . . .
At the risk of falling afoul of the sneaky cloak-and-dagger types who are transcribing everything here at Biblical Families Dot Org (see how I disguised where we actually other by not writing out the actual url?), I can't resist passing along some advice, Daniel. If you, um, I mean, your son really is enamored of Holly Hannah, you, whoops, I mean, your son really should consider taking on an alternate way of looking at things, because when she gets serious about marrying she really will be looking for a man who is not only a strong leader but enough of a protector and provider that she will be able to stay home to bear and raise their many children. That would mean that maybe your son should go to college if he can't imagine another way to be prosperous without going into major debt or bankrupting his parents, because HH would be expecting him (unlike her own father) to be the main financial asset in the family.
Just some friendly and free advice.
Getting her father's blessing for her hand in marriage might not come quite so easy.
