• 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.

"Poly" makes me cringe

paterfamilias

paterfamilias

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I am fully aware that most will think I am simply picking nits here but the fact remains that every time I see that term I cringe. It is the bandwagon jumping that the polyamory crowd did a long time ago in rebranding themselves away from the swingers label. I just really dislike the association in the publics mind between the keys in the fishbowl or poly "networ" type and the plural marriage type.
Yeah yeah I know one can grow into the other but it doesn't help the image of the plural marriage set to be painted with the same brush as the hedonisticlly motivated as well as being immediately associated with child brides and abuse in people's minds.

I like the fact that there have been some attempt to show plural marriage in pop culture the last few years and to show that we are somewhat normal people and not fully kookie but I sure would not mind a bit of a rebranding as it were on our end to widen the gap in peoples minds between the different types of poly. The more positive advantages to plural marriage highlighted the better.

I am not sure to go about emphasizing the difference between the two without setting up a site of my own with that specific goal in mind and much as I might like a project where in I can promote plural marriage, I don't know that I have time for it. Maybe if another Mrs Right comes along that would free up some time and we could make it a family project.
Maybe there are more shows or documentaries in the works that help to show us in a positive light. Fingers crossed.


If the mods think there is a better spot for this topic then feel free to move it obviously. Just did not seem to fit comfortably in any of the categories.
 
In fairness some of the polyamory crowd are into committed relationships unlike swingers who are openly promiscuous.

If you prefer a better term than 'poly' then what's wrong with the very simple, "Biblical Marriage"?
 
I agree with you @paterfamilias, it's a horrible term that mixes and confuses very different things. Within "poly" lie polygyny, polyandry, group relationships and swinging. Godly marriage and sin. While in reality polygyny has far more in common with monogamy than any of that stuff.

@MeganC is right that a far better term is Biblical Marriage, as that correctly groups monogamy and polygyny together, and excludes the things you are objecting to. It's not a perfect term given that we're talking about marriage as practiced by most traditional cultures, not just Christians and Jews. But unless you can think of something else it's the best term available.

It's a shame that the terms "Traditional Marriage", and even just "Marriage", mean something else in our culture which has discouraged polygamy for almost 2000 years.
 
MeganC said:
In fairness some of the polyamory crowd are into committed relationships unlike swingers who are openly promiscuous.

If you prefer a better term than 'poly' then what's wrong with the very simple, "Biblical Marriage"?
Click to expand...

When I was first beginning to talk to people beyond my wife, family and friends about the potential of walking the polygamy road, I went to a few get togethers of the polyamory crowd in Dallas. I had negative experience after negative experience. I could give you quite a litany about the various negative experiences. I did meet some perfectly nice people as well as flat put creepy ones but even the pleasant ones seemed incredulous at the idea of a closed or lockstep marriage where a. No my wife was not just not interest in your husband or anyone else but b. No I am not interested in shenanigans with you either etc. Perhaps it has changed a bit but the majority I interacted with thought that I was somehow an evil male oppressor for not being in favor of my wife and or girlfriend who later attended engaging in any sort of random "play". All of just seemed focused on hedonism and while I am not prudish as such, that life has no lure for me.

With respect to biblical marriage as an alternative, it seems as if the majority of the Christians are a bit confused on the topic and not being as well armed on the topic as some, I don't tend to wade into that debate. Some take it a lot further as I am sure you know and equate polygyny with beastiality and incest in their political rants. I have a recent story/video i was intending to post to the forums where a (I believe) a senator was espousing that position.

So I tend to use plural marriage for the most part.
 
I don’t use poly with the public at large.
I only use it as shorthand in a setting where everyone knows that only polygyny is being referenced.

The term that I took strong exception to was *plygs*. That one has an awful sound to it.
 
paterfamilias said:
I did meet some perfectly nice people as well as flat put creepy ones
Click to expand...

I had the same experience when I was looking for a family. Don't get me wrong here but the people I felt were the most creepy were the ones who called themselves Christian. At least the secular people were honest about their weird ideas and didn't try to justify them. A recurring theme with the Christian men seemed to be effeminate men who kept using the Bible to justify having control of women. They creeped me out and the last thing I wanted was some jerk bullying me after my life got trashed by a jerk who bullied me.

I guess that has led to me having very strong opinions about men who use the Bible to tell women to submit to them. A real man is a leader and if a woman were to follow him then fine. If not then he's fine with that too. She doesn't have to marry him for him to feel like a man.

To me when a man has to whine to a woman that, "The Bible says you have to submit to me!" it's the same thing as an admission of weakness. He can't establish authority of his own so he cites the Bible. What's worse is that by making that argument to a woman he also admits that she's got more authority than he does! Because if he were really the leader of his family he wouldn't need to tell anyone. They'd know.

I will also say that to me Biblical Marriage can be a couple or it can be a man and four wives. What matters is that Christ is the center of the family and that the man is the leader of his house. The man is the leader not because the Bible says so but because he takes responsibility for his family spiritually, financially, physically (their safety), and he provides for them. These Biblical husbands really take on a big job! I see the worry on my husband. He has a lot to worry about.

Being a Biblical wife is a lot of work but I have to say that it's a lot less worry than being the person responsible for everything. I really don't envy the men who take this on because it's a huge thing to do. It's so much easier to have babies, raise them, and take care of a home. I think that's part of God's blessing for women when we submit to a leader is he gets to take on all of our worries for us.

I'm rambling. I'll stop here but could go on a lot more.
 
@MeganC
I had what I suppose were similar encounters when controlling for sex and a few other factors. I observed guys like you describe and my interaction was limited to them attempting to play lame alpha games with me which I tended to ignore. Since everything seemed to be some sort of competition in their mind, presumably to get women in the group interested in them, one in particular explained to me that some women were easy for a while if you knew the right verses. Not exactly the sort of thing that would have occurred to me personally but ok...I guess. Shame if they fall for it.

Another thing that I did not like about the attitudes in the conversations I had were that everything seemed so impermanent. People were bragging about their super stable polyqule(sp?) or network having been lock stepped for x number of months. Because that was impressive apparently. That and talk of being fluid bonded...uhm...lol ew.
 
steve said:
I don’t use poly with the public at large.
I only use it as shorthand in a setting where everyone knows that only polygyny is being referenced.

The term that I took strong exception to was *plygs*. That one has an awful sound to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't say poly in public either. Associations plus if women hear it then any interaction becomes flirting or hitting on them and you are a creeper in their mind. No thanks.
Even with women I meet and talk to about plural marriage online, if they don't explicitly say they are interested then I won't flirt. So definitely don't want to get painted with that other brush.

I wonder if it is any different in the church environment or is that is the assumption there as well.
 
Words do mean things, but it's also useful to remember that most of the meaning we experience in words we use or think is generated internally. Just because someone else misuses a word doesn't mean their use of it denotes that they now own its definition.

I find what @frederick wrote above to be the most golden comment here:
frederick said:
The modern Western cultural concept is so vastly different from what we read of in the Bible I find it better to explain what I'm referring to when discussing the subject.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by me]

Avoiding defensiveness whenever possible is key, because it leaves one in the best position to be prepared to take advantage of opportunities to enlighten when they pop up. Not to enlighten as in being a know-it-all, but using what is already being naturally discussed as an opportunity to inject one's own viewpoint about biblical polygyny. Yes, the casual-sex crowd has hijacked the broad term 'polyamory' to only refer to their take on polyamory, but they're really not our enemies; they're just one of many other groups of human beings who aren't (yet or perhaps ever) choosing to seek what we're seeking.
 
Here is my difficulty with the points that @Keith Martin @frederick and @The Revolting Man make...

Fredrick tells us to explain it to them.
Keith tells us that nobody owns a word
Revolting reminds us of another term

When having a conversation with someone about the topic, ideally you have the opportunity to explain the concept and your own personal vision. Frequently you dont fully have the opportunity or their mind is already set into a particular culturally promoted groove. Ideally also they have not had their perceptions colored in advance by a group with very different practices so that their preexisting ideas based upon a prefix and/or a association because of more than two people in a relationship. The same reply as to the notion of explaining really. Ideally also they are not locked into the notion that one flesh is implicitly two become one, a prejudice I will admit that upon reflection I had as well but not previously considered.

I suppose that I am thinking in...and I hate to use these crass terms in this circumstance...the context of the polygyny brand. I am on a personal level quite interested in advocating for the form of marriage for a goodly number of reasons that are less relevant here but when I discuss the topic with people I am almost always painted with two particular brushes in peoples minds upon broaching the topic.
Seems like a toss-up whether it is the swinger thing or the Mormon thing. I try to state at first blush that I am neither and that never seems to get us past either speedbump. They always have to drive over them individually and personally. I don't imagine my experience is unique. Anyway, my notion is that while there are obviously plenty of Mormons who practice plural marriage, so there is no potential separation from them in the notion I have about branding...plus I would not wish to exclude them for a number of reasons...our hedonisticlly focused other poly people howeve... Yep. That is where I would like to be able to state with clarity from the word go that I am X and very much not Y. Then have tje potential to move forward with all parties on tje same page.
So whether we like the fact that the polyamory have preempted the prefix or not, I argue that they have done so quite successfully.

My proof of concept is that when mono or serial mono people talk to me and I suspect plenty of you as well about the details of your polygynous marriage that they become disappointed fairly quickly and even bored. When you reveal that your homelives more resemble any other average family than some sort of Bacchanalian scene from a 70's sexploytation flick it looses its tittilation value and the listeners interest. "Wait...that sounds surprisingly normal?" I have gotten that plenty and always with a sense of letdown. I once was told that it sounded lame. That please me to no end and still makes me laugh.

I know I paint a silly picture but I think everyone will get the point about how I think we need our own term that presents to the listener/reader a moderately fleshed out thumbnail sketch for their minds eye the way that "poly" already does for that group.
I think plural marriage does a good job of it but am willing to be swayed. Just not happening so far.
I have more blather about linguistics and persuasion on my mind with respect to public acceptance but this is probably more than enough.
 
Sometimes it's possible to overthink things.

My general approach is to prepare myself in general to be able to discuss whatever might come up, and then I let the real-life circumstances inspire me in regard to how to approach a particular conversation with a particular individual. In those particular conversations, I make an effort to speak into their listening. I don't see creating one-flesh relationships as having anything to do with a brand; to me, that is what the Greeks did by asserting that the only legitimate relationship is monogamy. I'm uninterested in carrying a flag that says that plural marriage is superior to any other form of one-flesh union, so I don't need a catchy phrase to tell anyone what team I'm on.

Just yesterday, I had lunch with some high school chums, and a new guy was there, someone I hadn't seen for 49 years. In the course of discussing one thing and another, he, a long-divorced man who now is active in several weekly ballroom dancing groups, asked us if we had any insights on his conundrum: he has developed very strong feelings for quite a few of the women with whom he regularly dances (and sometimes dates), but he doesn't want to tie himself down to a commitment to just one of them. Another old friend, who just learned from me at our last lunch about my pursuit of and support for biblical polygamy, immediately looked at me and said, "I think Keith may have your perfect solution," which led into me giving him a brief overview about the biblical legitimacy of a man having more than one wife. Before we left, he was asking for pointers on how to address this concept with each of these women.

No name was needed. I just asked him a couple questions about his faith, and then I spoke his language. And I offered it up as just one more legitimate consideration. I'm uninterested in advocating that everyone consider being polygynists.
 
It is also possible to underthink things as well.
I am talking about casting a wider nat than any of us can do one on one. Lots of us here are good communicators and are apt to be able to demonstrate to a small personal audience that no...we are not a bunch of degenerates or no we are not trying to start a cult compound or no we are not what er other image that pop culture has spoon fed people. A laudable goal in of itself but it is also working on a nano scale. I would like to accomplish tje same thing but perhaps on at least the micro scale. To cast a wider net as it were.

With respect the emphasis on brand...I did say I don't like thinking in those terms and find it crass on a personal level. But my response ties back in with you disinterest in converting everyone to polygyny and my interest in the day to day nuts and bolts of the topic.

It is not that I want a world full of people practicing or even doing the rah rah polygyny thing. What I do want however is to have the potential of covering more than one wife under my insurance. I want the state to not kick at the idea of legal family planning for a plural marriage without going the circuitous work rounds of trusts. I don't wish for others living in polygynous families to live in fear of state persecution and the possibility of arrest. I don't want elected officials comparing plural marriage to sodomizing dogs or having sex with your relatives.
Those are all issues right now and I would like very much to find ways to chip away at the attitudes people have about polygyny as a potential option and one of the first ways that comes to my mind is that we should be solidly disassociated wherever possible from other dissimilar groups so that we at least can work against any potential legitimate criticism without bearing the criticism that is not rightfully ours as well.

Make sense? Hopefully so because I am dictating while doing another task and I hope my meaning is somewhat clear as text to speech is far from perfect.
 
Last edited:
Re: your concern about insurance: two things:
  1. I think it's generally a request for unintended consequences to hope for governmental regulation changes that would make life easier related to one's own lifestyle choices. Instead, look outside of the box.
  2. Seriously consider changing over to Christian Healthcare Ministries. Each adult is covered as a separate person. We've been on it for many years and were referred to it by people practicing biblical polygyny.
  3. It's also possible to enact legal contracts to protect everyone within the family.

Generally, though, when I'm giving any consideration to what I can do to improve the world, I'm much more concerned with promoting masculine leadership, headship and resistance than I am with promoting polygamy.
 
Will use the same numbering system

1 I have already lived outside the box with another wife for years and nearly did it with a third at the same time... dodged a bullet there. Remind me to tell that story over beers or some such. The thing is that I don't wish to need to laterally outthink various big corporations, the government are to remember cover stories. Plural marriage is in no way immoral. The big corporations and the governments endorse and enable immoral and illegal things all the time but we should worry about what should be simple issues because people have wrong-headed ideas about who and what we are or because "oh wow no. I could never live that way" @!^*@#'er I never asked y'all to live that way, I simply wish to be left alone to live how I and any women mad enough to fall for me wish to live, free of harassment and able to enjoy normal benefits of our civilization.

2. I will have to look into them. I have heard reference to them but not taken the time to date to investigate. I have good insurance now happily but in an ideal world would like to be able to just add another name to it. Till then...we do lateral thinking and working around a problem.

3. Yes. I already do other legal instruments trusts and the like. My contention is that we should need no extra steps and that we are just like everyone else, only perhaps more focused on marriage than most.

Last bit unnumbered. Were I not on tje phone and rushing round trying to finish early, I would drop the "These are the same picture" meme here on you. I see promotion of one as defacto promotion of the other.
 
paterfamilias said:
Will use the same numbering system

1 I have already lived outside the box with another wife for years and nearly did it with a third at the same time... dodged a bullet there. Remind me to tell that story over beers or some such. The thing is that I don't wish to need to laterally outthink various big corporations, the government are to remember cover stories. Plural marriage is in no way immoral. The big corporations and the governments endorse and enable immoral and illegal things all the time but we should worry about what should be simple issues because people have wrong-headed ideas about who and what we are or because "oh wow no. I could never live that way" @!^*@#'er I never asked y'all to live that way, I simply wish to be left alone to live how I and any women mad enough to fall for me wish to live, free of harassment and able to enjoy normal benefits of our civilization.
Click to expand...

And you and I are generally on the same page about all of that. The only difference may be that I direct very little of my energy toward concerning myself with overturning big systems that are not the way I wish they would be. I choose to be influential in my own direct spheres, and outside of that I look for practical solutions while almost consistently speaking up about what I believe whenever the opportunity arises (as opposed to when I try to force the opportunity to arise). So Big Education, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Religion, Big Whatever . . . I have my strong negative opinions about all of them, but I got tired of getting kicked in the teeth decades ago, so I switched tactics from tilting at windmills, because, for me, it just doesn't matter whether they're right or I'm right or they're wrong or I'm wrong; what matter is what Is, and I choose from all the options in regard to charting paths for myself and my family that make the best outcomes come alive for us. The world is generally run by the corrupt for the purpose of best herding the lowest common denominator. Given that I don't fit in either category, I simply assume the world isn't going to adjust itself so I'll approve. And yet I pretty much live life the way I want to live it.

paterfamilias said:
Last bit unnumbered. Were I not on tje phone and rushing round trying to finish early, I would drop the "These are the same picture" meme here on you. I see promotion of one as defacto promotion of the other.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to wait for the meme, but until then this just confuses me.
 
paterfamilias said:
Here is my difficulty with the points that @Keith Martin @frederick and @The Revolting Man make...

Fredrick tells us to explain it to them.
Keith tells us that nobody owns a word
Revolting reminds us of another term

When having a conversation with someone about the topic, ideally you have the opportunity to explain the concept and your own personal vision. Frequently you dont fully have the opportunity or their mind is already set into a particular culturally promoted groove. Ideally also they have not had their perceptions colored in advance by a group with very different practices so that their preexisting ideas based upon a prefix and/or a association because of more than two people in a relationship. The same reply as to the notion of explaining really. Ideally also they are not locked into the notion that one flesh is implicitly two become one, a prejudice I will admit that upon reflection I had as well but not previously considered.

I suppose that I am thinking in...and I hate to use these crass terms in this circumstance...the context of the polygyny brand. I am on a personal level quite interested in advocating for the form of marriage for a goodly number of reasons that are less relevant here but when I discuss the topic with people I am almost always painted with two particular brushes in peoples minds upon broaching the topic.
Seems like a toss-up whether it is the swinger thing or the Mormon thing. I try to state at first blush that I am neither and that never seems to get us past either speedbump. They always have to drive over them individually and personally. I don't imagine my experience is unique. Anyway, my notion is that while there are obviously plenty of Mormons who practice plural marriage, so there is no potential separation from them in the notion I have about branding...plus I would not wish to exclude them for a number of reasons...our hedonisticlly focused other poly people howeve... Yep. That is where I would like to be able to state with clarity from the word go that I am X and very much not Y. Then have tje potential to move forward with all parties on tje same page.
So whether we like the fact that the polyamory have preempted the prefix or not, I argue that they have done so quite successfully.

My proof of concept is that when mono or serial mono people talk to me and I suspect plenty of you as well about the details of your polygynous marriage that they become disappointed fairly quickly and even bored. When you reveal that your homelives more resemble any other average family than some sort of Bacchanalian scene from a 70's sexploytation flick it looses its tittilation value and the listeners interest. "Wait...that sounds surprisingly normal?" I have gotten that plenty and always with a sense of letdown. I once was told that it sounded lame. That please me to no end and still makes me laugh.

I know I paint a silly picture but I think everyone will get the point about how I think we need our own term that presents to the listener/reader a moderately fleshed out thumbnail sketch for their minds eye the way that "poly" already does for that group.
I think plural marriage does a good job of it but am willing to be swayed. Just not happening so far.
I have more blather about linguistics and persuasion on my mind with respect to public acceptance but this is probably more than enough.
Click to expand...
Ah, bacchanalian sex in ‘70’s exploitation flicks……it was the best of times it was the worst of times.
 
Keith Martin said:
I guess I'll have to wait for the meme, but until then this just confuses me.
Click to expand...

Ack! You are gonna make me work for it?
Tumblr_l_323363426924979.jpg

Pretty much what I had in mind.
My notion with respect to (shudder i hate talking in those terms about real and important issues) branding polygyny is primarily a desire to push back against cultural misperceptions about the perfectly normal families either practicing or wishing to practice a perfectly natural form of marriage but also against the big institutions who do not recognize us.
Amusingly on other social media sites the profile photo is of the Don Quixote in the saddle and charging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top