My ad I was asked to post (single female)

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pink01
My ad I was asked to post (single female)

I am considering it.  I am not bisexual.  34.  No kids.  Not submissive at all.  The idea makes me laugh.  I'm spiritual but not religious.  Pretty.  Caucasian. Educated.  I am not going to be your slave, baby factory or workhorse.   If that's what you seek keep on keeping on.  I'm also not going to be a secret.  Would be great for the right family for me.  Not in a rush either way at all.  Do better with the intelligent types.  Prefer caucasians.  Sense of humor is mandatory.

Joleneakamama
Joleneakamama's picture
Your ad made me smile :-)

Comment: 

Welcome to the site, and I hope you enjoy the whole process of considering polygyny.

I love meeting new people, and you certainly seem like someone who knows her own mind, and would be fun to talk to.

I'm not about to assume you'd think the same about me, and I'm sure your inbox will soon be full of messages from people hoping to convince you to consider them.

We are all a good deal, for the right person/couple.

I hope you find yours.

Jolene

A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes~

Pink01
thank you!

Comment: 

thank you!

Verifyveritas76
Verifyveritas76's picture
Interesting post

Comment: 

very interesting post. I'd agree with @joleneakamomma that it sounds like you know who you are and have described that well. 

I'd be interested to know what your ideal couple/man/home looks like. 

Pink01
Ideal would be a woman I

Comment: 

Ideal would be a woman I could find as a close friend and love.  No sexual interest in women.  I want to care about them a lot, not just tolerate them.  I think the wrong type of female could mess this up easily.  

Man would be more intelligent with good ideas I think.  Good sense of humor.  I want a happy home where people actually like each other most of the time.  Haha.   I'm hoping to find a situation where nobody is too high strung or judgmental.  I'd like having my own area.  I'm used to having bigger homes, a lot of space. 

In regards to children, I'm not sure.  I haven't been around many children, so I don't know how I do around many children.  

Garrison
Maybe not 16 or in Nigeria?

Comment: 

 

This is a fun ad that challenges some of my suspicions and methods of judgment.....

However, according to my wife, her friends at work are telling stories about ever-more sophisticated scams.  The rumor is, whatever real people put in ads, the scammers will soon follow suit.

Oh well, I'm as irrelevant as I am irreverent.  ha ha.  sorry to rain on your parade.  I'm not really irreverent when it comes to people's feelings, or God.  Just sounded funny.  I like to laugh.  I could see right off that I am "irrelevant" to your search.  

I am religious, and principally interested in building a family that puts God first in a serious way.

 

Garrison

Pink01
LOL What

Comment: 

 

Does your wife discuss the polygamy forum at work?  

Garrison
hmmmm

Comment: 

I suppose so, if she drags comments back to me.  But she is pretty much nobody's chump or fool, and I'm certain she's not generating idle gossip with stupid chatter.  I would be close friends or people she knows well if she said anything direct or specific of a personal nature.  Beyond that, I would reasonably believe it's just general conversation.....

Objectively,  having come from a polygamist family and having worked for years as a midwife serving the poly communities around here, with many people coming through who know her across some years, it'd be old news if it were news.

Garrison

Apostle
Well pink01

Comment: 

I think it is a very good ad. Right to the point so no confusion. People forget Jesus was spiritual and not religious. The religious leaders of the day like the Pharisees and Sadducees were religious and not spiritual and Jesus condemned their behavior. The Sanhedrin were very religious and condemned Jesus. I don't fully understand why you find biblical  submission hilarious though but then again it really isn't my place to understand. 

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi

Garrison
words mean what we think they mean

Comment: 

 

 

 

Daniel Webster collected usages and tried to document different meanings people understood for them.

I understood the young lady to mean she does not go to some Church or does not particularly espouse a particular established class of belief.... like say Catholic or Protestant or any division thereor.... while asserting that she has deeply-held views and convictions of her own.

I doubt that that wives of Abram, Isaac, or Jacob were "submissive" in the sense that some late medieval "Christians" use as they tried to intimidate their wives.  Even Jesus, who I believe was married to the two sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, was chided by Martha for letting Mary sit idly by listening to Him while she slaved in the Kitchen.  

Any woman who can't speak her mind fearlessly is no true Christian woman.

Yah, a husband needs to care for a wife and lead, but imo that involves some respectful discussions of issues, if possible, in preference to bald orders.

Some men might just shrink from an open statement of a woman being adverse to being treated like a doormat, but if they can't deal with it, they should shrink from the task.

Garrison

Apostle
Shooting from the hip again

Comment: 

Webster's definition of submission is nowhere near God's idea of submission. And since you have no idea what I mean by biblical submission you're making assumptions based on fact not yet in evidence. My comment was to Pink01 not you.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi

Rock
submission

Comment: 

I"ll just post one comment on this because in the past, on this forum, i've written too much on the subject and since this is a personal ad area, I won't be debating this...just a quick comment.

in this day and age, everyone has their take on submission as it works for them in their relationships. whether they are male/female or male/male/female or male female/female or trans/male/female/rubber doll. LOL

since things have changed only since the 1950's in the U.S. in regards to the male and female roles in the family, i think it's safe to say that thousands of years ago, men, especially leaders such as jacob or Abraham, considered their wives to be the first mate of their 'ship' and the men were unequivocal captains.

trying to apply the 'new age' philosophy of male/female roles which has only occured in the past 60 yrs to biblical times is plain absurd.

Pink01
continue!

Comment: 

That's interesting actually, please continue?

Rock
Pink

Comment: 

are you asking me to elaborate on my comment?

Pink01
yes

Comment: 

yes

Rock
Submission past and present

Comment: 

There are many that would assume that submission is a negative behavior or that submission is something required only by misogynist, evil men.
The point that I have always made, which has been misunderstood in most cases, is that submission is a behavior of evolved beings. In this attempt to explain the concept, I will make every effort to clarify my intent and the meaning that I have inadequately set forth previously.
Throughout scripture, there are references that a woman is to submit to her husband. In this modern world, that teaching has been deemed to be archaic and unacceptable.
Submission is not only for the woman but also for the man. The most simple word that describes it at its core is 'trusting'. To be trusting is a shunned behavior today because it is now construed as a tenent of weakness. The opposite is true.
Fear is the root of distrust and fear is the root of resentment toward submission. Fear is not productive, EVER. Some would say that it is fear that keeps us aware so we can avoid pain and suffering...a sort of warning mechanism. This is false.
As i have taught my children from birth: Never be afraid, only be observant. Hieghten your powers of observation and you will make the correct choices. If you are guided or influenced by fear, you will always make poor choices that WILL lead to that which you fear. When you feel fear, shut it off and switch to acute observation and things will work out in your favor.
Fear is not of this world, nor is it of God. It is adversarial and designed to keep men and women in bondage.

There is a play and movie entitled 'Taming of the Shrew'. That play has now been completely perverted and a version of it is now exists with two women, one being a trangender type. Not surprising.
Etymologically, submit means : (L) Sub - under. Met - to go or send. This word can be construed from these roots to mean many things. The best defintition for the purposes of this writing is " To let Go". This applies to both M/F. "Let Go and Let God" .
In this age, we are consumed with the idea to push, pull, argue, debate and compete. ...and for what? What does it serve us? We think it is to 'get what we want'. And...how does one feel when they get what they want? Well, at first it is stimulating and there is a sense of contentment, but...what about a few minutes or days later? ....well, that feeling is gone and off we go in our pushing to get SOMETHING ELSE. Happiness is NEVER found by 'getting'. That cycle is vicious and is never quenched.
Desire is never sated because it is not designed that way! Desire is an urge and that urging is FED by sating it and it only GROWS. Hence the word 'Satan'. It matters not if you believe in Satan or not, the evidence of the corelation is clear and undeniable.
Those that do not wish to be submissive are CONTROLLED by desire. They do not have a clear mind of their own, hence all the crimes of passion. People are not reasonable when desire is driving them.
Now, back to submission.

The idea of Submission goes against the monster of Desire.

To Let Go is contrary to the drive of desire.

To Let Go is basically the most self disciplanary action that can be taken in this lifetime and by far the most rewarding.

Throughout history, there are scores of books written on the subject of the nature of Women. The nature of nearly all women is to gain satisfaction in order to find peace. ...but...it is never attained except in momentary instances where a woman 'gets what she wants' but, that feeling fades quickly and her EMOTIONS take control again to 'get what she wants'. The cycle never ends until the woman Chooses Differently.
She must go against the monster that screams 'I WANT THAT!'. It could be a couch, it could be more attention, it could be a 'say' in making a decision. The 'what' is irrelevent because the source motivation is the same.
A wise man works with his woman to guide her out of this vicious cycle which will NEVER make her happy although she will not believe it at first. The shrew must die.
Why the example of a shrew? Shrews die very quickly when forced to be still. Shrews are the most fearful of all creatures and can be scared to death quite easily.
The solution to overcoming the 'shrew' is stillness and conscious decision making. When a woman is introduced to the method of accomplishing this, she will at first resent it, but if she can trust her man long enough to try it for a while, she will notice : More clarity of mind, more energy of body, better health, and a much more quieted mind.

Fears decrease dramatically and she can finally ENJOY LIVING.

well, I've written more than I had anticipated.
so, I'll leave it for now.

If you wish for me to continue, or elaborate on anything specifically, please let me know.

:)

Rock

Garrison
absurdly interesting?

Comment: 

 

 

Nobody can respond to Pink's questions except those who succeed in engaging with her particular thinking.

I consiider "Apostle" a false expositor of what is "Biblical" or not, and would not take him seriously if he wrote his own "Bible".  I understand that he, like many religiously-inclined folks, has his own view of what is "Biblical".  It just doesn't look realistic to me.

Whatever God believes or has tried to say to Man comes to us through the filter of other people's understanding. 

I could easily take any of several points of view and argue for them, but I do not  think it serves any purpose except as I might be willing to discuss for the purpose of understanding others.

Pretty clear to me that human nature hasn't changed in many thousands of years.  Pretty clear to me that good men have always been willing to be considerate of the feelings of their wives or families, and have always respected them if indeed they are good men.

Anyone who ever, past present or future, expects to hammer their views into others' skulls will probably lose the "family" they have, sooner or later.  Some cultures, like the Asian cultures, are traditionally authoritarian, with customs in the not-so-distant past of arranging marriages for their children, with adults basically thinking if they could "create" a child through procreation, that child owes them unconditional compliance.

And some consider wives to have the same duty.

I don't.  While some may dispute Mormon thought as novel or unscriptural in terms of some claim that the Bible is the infallible Word of God--- as some expositor of that idea may wish to explain it---, I consider Joseph Smith's statement that "no power or influence" over others is righteous unless it comes from pure love and kindness and whatever choice others may take in response.

Rebekah took things into her own hands when Jacob was going to make Esau the firstborn of the twins, Sarai laughed at God Himself when He said she would bear a son in her old age,  Jacob's wives played an open contest for proving the matter of who was the best wife in terms of numbers of children.  I don't think people have ever been perfect, nor perfectly compliant. 

I just think it's wrong-headed for men to attempt to exert force over their family by claiming God justifies it on the basis of their being "men".

If you are "right" somehow, it's better to discuss it on the merits of the idea.

Garrison

Apostle
Like I said

Comment: 

Shooting from the hip. You know nothing about me or my family. And to be honest if you said you respected anything I said I would really lose all respect for myself. Now Garrison please respect the rules and stop hijacking this thread.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi

Garrison
good idea

Comment: 

your last two responses have been about me, not PinkO1's "ad".  You said you did not understand why Pink01 could think the idea of her being "submissive" was hilarious, though you didn't think it was your place to understand her.

I offered a sort of guess about where she finds it hilarious in terms of who she may consider herself to be.  I don't think she was speaking exactly from a Biblical perspective, but from the point of view of how she functions in real life.

I said even the Bible gives clear examples of women who were not evidently totally "compliant" or "submissive", with a portrayal that seems to carry a different idea than what some claim is the duty of women to either not speak out or to simply submit.  LDS thought, for example, carries the notion that women should respect, honor and be subject to their husbands, but only in "righteousness".   Submission for the sake of submission is a different idea.

Garrison

Apostle
Ok

Comment: 

Thanks for your input

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Gandhi