Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Sister Wives

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Wed, Jul 25, 12 at 11:26

There is controversy of Same Sex Marriage what is your opinion of multiple wives?

My opinion is I do not care what people do in their personal lives as long as they are not doing anything harmful to the public.

"Sister Wives' family challenges Utah bigamy law

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) Kody Brown and his four wives want what any family wants, to live in the privacy of their own home free from government intrusion, and out from under the threat of criminal prosecution for as they see it just loving each other."

Here is a link that might be useful: family


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Sister Wives

As always, this can be a grey area. In this part of the country, there are some fairly firm beliefs on the freedom of religion, including polygamy, and law enforcement is very hesitant to intervene. We've got churches that believe in no vaccinations/doctors, polygamists, etc.

At the link is a recent (June 2012) article on the continuing abuses of the FLDS - too long to copy and paste, but worth a read. The flip side of "sister wives"

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Women being who they are, it just doesn't work. Someone will feel neglected, left out, not heard or seen. Apart from that, you cannot have that same depth of intimacy, communication and closeness when five people are involved. It takes much commitment to make it work when there are only two.

If it is against the law, why go there? What is the necessity, other than to feed a man's ego?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I just don't see how polygamy can ever be a woman's idea. A manipulated younger person, girl, maybe. But a grown woman? Nope. There is no advantage to them.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

The problem is with Utah's statute in particular. Because it doesn't just outlaw multiple legal marriages as most states do, but also regards "spiritual" marriages eg. people who are married by just thier church and without a license.

That's entirely unconstitutional for thier laws to even have any bearing on what any given religion considers a marriage, granted it is between legal adults.

I am amazed they haven't been fought on this before. For me personally, keep church out of government and keep government out of church.

My personal solution to the legal aspect would be to dissolve legal marriage, and to leave it as a religious concept alone. Civil unions, simple contractural unions, would then take its place, and sure, why not allow multiple adults to have one or several unions? It's thier dime to spend on lawyers as they like.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I actually have no problem with multiple wives (or husbands, if that's what floats your boat).

There are a couple things to be pointed out though, both of which are illustrated in the Fundamentalist Mormon religion.

First is the issue of forced or coerced marriage, such as in the child bride problem.Young girls are forced to marry older men, or women are forced to divorce their husbands and marry another one on pain of being cut off from their family if they don't.

Marriage should always be between consenting adults.

The second problem is: what do you do with the excess males created by polygamy? If polygamy is practiced as an exception to the rule, this generally isn't a problem. If it is the norm, as in the Fundy Mormons where it is required to have at least three wives, then it becomes a big problem. The FLDS expells their excess boys as teenagers. Google the "Lost Boys" for more in depth.

Other cultures relied on constant warfare to continuously rid themselves of excess males. Send them to their deaths, and promise them all the women they want in the hereafter, I guess.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I think the phrase "marriage should be between consenting adults" should cover it all nicely. Why should anyone care what the neighbors are doing within the privacy of their own lives?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I've yet to see it work outside of a religious context & in that context I have no opinion as I would not have the mind set that would require this kind of life & commitment.
If it's coerced I'm agin it.
I have know many multiple partnered people over the years it always looked like more trouble than it was worth.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I love the women of Sister Wives. I love their family and friendships. I'd rather be with them than Cody.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Legally, as long as it is among consenting adults, I could care less.

Rob, I would disagree about there being no advantage. I could see benefits to being able to share the burdens of running a family, etc, with more than one woman and the potential camrarderie that could develop. I think there is potential there, for those who are well suited for it.

Now, Me being Me, I would not find much fulfillment in such an arrangement but that does not keep me from seeing the potential benefits for others more sociable than myself.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

So like do all the wives get exemptions when they file their tax returns?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Jul 25, 12 at 17:56

I've heard that 3 wives is the ideal number...but 1 is plenty enough for me ;)


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I think it's dysfunctional and disgusting...that being said, I don't think it should be illegal for a "spiritual" polygamous marriage conducted by the church, but I certainly do not believe it should be recognized by the government.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I can see the concept of multiple husbands, myself. The handyman, the financial manager, and the other one ;-D


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I can go along with multiple husbands too. One good at plumbing, another for yard work and maybe one could take over the cooking.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Well I was thinking...one wife for cooking, one for cleaning and me for the garden....:)


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Seriously, though, I can't believe so many of you have no problems with polygamy. I find it offensive to women.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 7:01

""This teaching is written in The Doctrine and Covenants 132:

61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. "

While the Mormon Church denies that it supports such a teaching and points to the Fundamentalist Mormons as to being the ones to practice it this teaching has not been removed from their doctrines.""

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Sister Wives

The reptilian part of my brain is all for polygamy, but the part that manages deposits and withdrawals from the checking account thinks it's probably not a good idea.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I have a problem with it but I'm not sure that means it should be against the law.

My problem is the number of women who are forced into this type of relationship. There seems to a predilection for very young women who really have no options.

If it truly was a lifestyle choice, and the women entered into the relationship freely and happily, then maybe it should be legal. Trouble is the secrecy and privacy issues were it to be legalized would not allow for us to "see" that this was truly a matter of choice.

I doubt most polygamous marriages are like "Sister Wives".


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Seriously, though, I can't believe so many of you have no problems with polygamy. I find it offensive to women.

Some people find various types of sexual role playing offensive to women as well. Some find "swinging" or wife swapping to be offensive.

But the women who engage in these activities are generally fully in control of their situation and this is what they want. It doesn't seem to be that unusual either, judging by the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey.

So as long as the women in polygamous relationships are getting what THEY want out of it, so be it. They are not unlike the women who do it without that binding marriage.

It's not my cup of tea, but I could certainly see the advantages if you were planning to have a large family to share the responsibilities. The women get a "community" to raise their kids in and the men get laid. Everyone gets what they want.

In fact, maybe they are on to something. Perhaps we women should start living in family style communities and keep pet men for breeding purposes... Guys? Any objections?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

The women get a "community" to raise their kids in and the men get MAN gets laid.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I don't care what consenting adults do. But if they want to bring children into the world, I believe it becomes the business of the state.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

But if they want to bring children into the world, I believe it becomes the business of the state.

Again, outside of situation where they are beating the kids, why would it be any business of the state?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Posted by hamiltongardener CAN 6a (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 9:09

But if they want to bring children into the world, I believe it becomes the business of the state.

Again, outside of situation where they are beating the kids, why would it be any business of the state?

*

I agree.

Other than safety concerns, it's none of the business of "the state" how people choose to rear their children, and not only the business, but they have no rights to interfere.

Just one more instance of proponents of "we know better."


 o
RE: Sister Wives

it's none of the business of "the state" how people choose to rear their children, and not only the business, but they have no rights to interfere.

Agreed.

If the state decides that women can't raise their children with sister wives because it is somehow immoral, they could also decide that two men cannot raise a child, or two women, or a single mother...


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Who cares about immoral...it's illegal.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Yes but zg the premise of the OP is should it be illegal....


 o
RE: Sister Wives

So we can't raise children in a family situation unless it's legal? Or people are hurting themselves by being in these types of relationships?

The parallels between poly marriage and gay marriage are sort of interesting, aren't they?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Do you agree with the practice of stoning adulterous women? Or how about female genital mutilation. These are also done in the name of religion.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Do you agree with the practice of stoning adulterous women? Or how about female genital mutilation.

Jerzee,

You are comparing sexual and marriage relationships between consenting adults to the practice of torturing women to death against their will?

Your arguments are the same arguments that the extreme right uses against gay marriage... and the last swing from left field sounds familiar too. So when do we trot out the old "People will start marrying their dogs!" argument?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

As long it goes both ways, as in multiple husbands OR wives legally allowed, and all are consenting adults, what's the problem? I can't be prejudicial about this and not be prejudicial about other marriage arrangements, if you follow... that wouldn't be fair.

Just because it's not something that trips my trigger, doesn't mean it can't work for others. We don't all think alike.

What about persons who work in the sex industry and are happily married on the side... is that wrong, too?

I can't hold tightly to outdated, old fashioned social or cultural ideas that I didn't institute, and allow them to become festering, bigoted ideas... when they work fine for those with open minds. It wouldn't be right for me to think that way.

Statistically, traditional marriage between one man and one woman has a 50% percent chance at holding together... should this be considered a bad idea, too?

As long as someone's private relationship doesn't hurt others, what could the objections be?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Jodi, that's exactly what I am thinking. Again, we are talking about consenting adults, not child brides or people being forced into marriage.

What I am reading of this particular family they seem to be adult women who have made this choice with no force, they have their own careers, I don't see what business it is of the state to dictate who they are allowed to love and marry, or how they are allowed to do it.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Really, what the Sisterwives are doing in a practical manner is no different than people shacking up one week with one person, another week with another.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

>>So we can't raise children in a family situation unless it's legal? Or people are hurting themselves by being in these types of relationships?

The parallels between poly marriage and gay marriage are sort of interesting, aren't they?<<

Oh come on! Don't you think that's offensive? Gay people only want what the rest of us want.. the same civil rights...the right to marry. They are NOT asking for the right to multiple spouses. By the very nature of being gay they are attracted towards people of their own sex...hardwired in. It is only natural that they should have the same desire to attract a partner and the right to marry once they do. No more, no less.

I don't know where this argument gets its legs. It makes no sense, at all. And it IS highly offensive. No one feels entitled to accuse heterosexuals of wanting multiple spouses simply because we, not only, wish to marry someone we are attracted to, that someone being of the opposite sex, since we are heterosexual, again hardwired in, we expect the right to do so.

'Course, it is used all the time as an excuse to add the "what's next, marriage to children, marriage to animals?", argument. Thankfully, most thinking and caring people don't fall for that kind of rotten scare tactic.

Geeesh....It's ridiculous, foolish and nonsensical. And, yes, as offensive as the above. Nope... this argument won't pass the sniff test.

Sea


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Your arguments are the same arguments that the extreme right uses against gay marriage... and the last swing from left field sounds familiar too. So when do we trot out the old "People will start marrying their dogs!" argument?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage at all and if you want to marry just one dog.....

The polygamy that you are discussing ("sister wives") is a tenet of the Fundamentalist Mormon Church and as such is part of their religion. How does it differ from, let's say, sharia law defining how women should be treated? The examples I gave, although extreme, fall within the purview of marriage that is governed by a harsh religion interpreted by men.

To me, polygamy is the invention of a patriarchal society with the express intention to keep women obedient to their masters. Just because there are some saucy sister wives who talk back to their husbands or act cute, doesn't mean that there are scores of others who are subservient obeyers of their husband's commands.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Oh come on! Don't you think that's offensive?

No, I don't think that's offensive.

What is offensive is that people believe the state has the right to interfere in the bedrooms and marriages of consenting adults.

So who says we get the right to marry even one person? As you say, hetero or homosexuality is hardwired in. That is SEX. But marriage is a social construct... one that morphed into a religious construct. The legal contract of marriage has nothing to do with your DNA. So we, as a society, afford the legal right of marriage to heterosexual couples and in some cases to homosexual couples now. Why should we build a barrier polygamous marriages?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

To me, polygamy is the invention of a patriarchal society with the express intention to keep women obedient to their masters. Just because there are some saucy sister wives who talk back to their husbands or act cute, doesn't mean that there are scores of others who are subservient obeyers of their husband's commands.

Understood. But you are confusing two different issues here. Who is to say that there are not subservient obeyors of their husband's commands in single marriages? Because there are so many of them...so many. And you know, in many cases it is a religious belief too. The bible does say that they have to be obedient.

I think the problem here is that we meld together the religious belief with the idea of marriage.

If we have a devout Christian woman who believes and acts that she is subservient to her husband (as it is in many cases) and we compare her to a polyandrous family who all happen to be atheists... which one would you approve of?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

JZ says: "The women get a "community" to raise their kids in and the MAN gets laid." Sooo? The woman does too and rumor has it that some even enjoy it. Quite frankly, the bedroom aspect of it concerns me very litte. I could care less. Some people have "open" marriages. Some women have a great sense of community, sharing duties without sharing the husband at night. Some people love a menage-a-trois, I could care less about the ways people seek pleasure between consenting adults.

Legally my only concerns would be about things like Social Security and survivor benefits say if the other spouses (male or female) were not working. One hand, part of me would believe that a head of household's benefits should be divided between the individuals but another would worry that potentially the additional spouses not having enough to survive on.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Legally my only concerns would be about things like Social Security and survivor benefits say if the other spouses (male or female) were not working. One hand, part of me would believe that a head of household's benefits should be divided between the individuals but another would worry that potentially the additional spouses not having enough to survive on.

I think in this day and age, we've moved beyond the old fashioned "man works, woman stays home" family structure that survivor benefits were based on in the first place.

If poly marriage is legal, it opens the door to creating legal arrangements that satisfy the needs of the whole family.

In the above case of the Brown family, I just read that everyone works except the one woman who is the homemaker. If the one woman is also caring for the children of her sister wives, I don't find it so hard to imagine she could be cared for by the survivor benefits of her sister wives, as would be the case if two women were married to each other.

These sorts of arrangement s are easily taken care of by a visit to a lawyer, as well as arrangements for your propery and care for the children in the case of death.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I have a family member who is in an "open" marriage. They consider themselves "poly-amorous".

It's their business.

BUT.

I do see that he is more "in to it" than she is. And I see it as a basic lack of getting what they need from the other person.

I can see sharing chores, etc. with other sisters. That's how communities used to work. In fact, often my neighbor and I will share our chores outside, I will help her dig out a stump and she will help me pull weeds, etc. She will watch my daughter, I will drive her kid home from school if there's an emergency, and both of our families know they can go to the other house if they need anything.

We share, but we have our own homes and our own husbands.

As for polygamy/polyandry/polyamory/miscegenation being similar to homosexuality... sure, it's all the same fight. Who gets to decide the gender or color or number of people I want to share my intimate life with, sexual or not?

The problem I have with polygamy as it's practiced by FLDS is that it's child abuse, not polygamy.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Polygamy is legal and in some cases actually required in many countries. Just so happens that the countries it is legal in have very poor records in terms of woman's rights.

While it is true that many devoutly religious women are, by choice, subservient to their husbands it's the forcing of same that bothers me.

Anyhow that's what my husband told me to say......;)


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I used to be taught by Sister wives. The ultimate spiritual polygamy. The even wore little wedding bands! NUNS!


 o
RE: Sister Wives

"...I don't see what business it is of the state to dictate who they are allowed to love and marry, or how they are allowed to do it."

It isn't anyone's business, or it shouldn't be... and this is part of what I mean when I say that our social constructs are outdated, broken, and what was once viable isn't any longer.

But... there will always be those who hold tightly to old fashioned, ingrained, social or religious constructs... and work hard to keep them tied to our legislation.

It's not right, fair, or beneficial to our society as a whole. It only serves the purposes or control mechanisms of the few who want things just so, aligned with their own personal beliefs and views, oblivious to the wants and needs of the majority.

I think the key words are "consenting adults"... and everything should center around this... when it comes to private relationships. The state should not balk at any relationship between consenting adults.

I'm not talking about force, and I'm not including underage persons within my statements. Personally, I think child brides (or grooms, if it applies) that are under legal age and are forced to marry much older partners, borders on pedophilia.

Again, the key words are "consenting adults".

For me, and for HG and a few others, this seems to be a logical train of thought.

Another thing that bothers me about the whole thing is... those same people who balk at what's not part and parcel of their private belief system also claim to want smaller government. But with all these controls they want to place on society, all it does is grow government. This must be another part of that "does not think things through to consequence or conclusion, and cannot utilize problem solving skills" mindset.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Sure, why not? As long as Bertha and her four husbands can live the same way in Utah.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Sister Wives

The problem I have with polygamy as it's practiced by FLDS is that it's child abuse, not polygamy.

Yes, and I have that same problem.

I just do not want to start blurring the lines between polygamy (adult marriage) and say Warren Jeffs' group (marrying children) because it is so much like the tactic used in certain circles to equate homosexuality (consenting adults) with pedophilia (raping children).

It is NOT the same thing nor should it be presented as such. I think it would be an insult to many consenting adults in these sorts of multiple arrangements to be likened in the same breath to pedophiles.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

We can look at this dispassionately, in the legal, socioeconomic or practical point of view, but the part that seems to be left out is the purely emotional one, where two people (gay or straight) build a life together and possibly raise a family, with the full knowledge that there is no one else who will come between them, and that emotionally and sexually they're faithful to each other, and that this trust and security is best for them, their children and ultimately society as well. It's stable, it works and I believe holds the greatest promise of happiness. Jealousy is a natural emotion and I can't believe it won't rear its ugly head in some way when so many people are involved in this very difficult relationship. It may work in the Muslim world where husbands and wives spend very little actual time together and there is no expectation of a deep emotional bond. If that kind of relationship is considered a desirable role model then by all means, let's go for it. I'd like to think that we've moved beyond that and have taken deep love and commitment between two people as an ideal. Of course it doesn't always work, but when some of us get it wrong the first time we're fortunate to be able to have another chance.

Polygamy is really a rather primitive form of cohabitation in that there is no equality, whether one wants to admit it or not. It does not bring out the best of what we're capable of feeling and doing, and this has nothing to do with religion or morals or anything else imposed on the outside. Monogamy may ask more of us, but it also gives back more. If all this fails to convince, I offer this advice: "Keep it simple, stupid!"


 o
RE: Sister Wives

On the emotional standpoint, I am not wholly convinced that a monogamous relationship is the only way to address one's emotional needs. I also am not wholly convinced that committment and deep love are an attainable ideal. Some people have commitment but the deep love does not always follow and also does not always sustain.

In some ways, I could see a sister wives type model where your commitment is to the family unit as a whole, not just the husband. I can also tell you unequivocably that my monogamous relationship certainly does not always bring out the best of what I am capable of feeling and doing. While my husband is wonderful, there is so much more out there that can feed my soul, my being. I am much more complete because of the other people in my life who feed those parts of me, I just do not meet them in the bedroom too.

Monogamy is what I prefer, and furthermore, what I expect but I do so also realizing some of the limitations it may impose on me and with the understanding that others would prefer to exchange those limitations for the ones they will experience in a polygamous setting.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

"I am much more complete because of the other people in my life who feed those parts of me, I just do not meet them in the bedroom too."

me too :)


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Well as long as you have at least one extra wife so that they can keep each other company while the remaining one entertains the man. Otherwise it is just like leaving someone out. So it seems that "3" wives is a good number. Imagine how lonely #1 feels when #2 joins the marriage but before #3 arrives ....


 o
RE: Sister Wives

"are under legal age and are forced to marry much older partners, borders on pedophilia"

IS pedophilia.

It's my biggest objection to multiple.

Well, that, and I guess I am selfish. I don't want to share. At all, EVER. Not my bed. Guess I am just too "something". Immature? Stupid? Narrow-minded? I'm not really sure which word people would come up with, but that word, whatever it is. Or maybe I am the one who is enlightened. I realize beds are for more than procreation. They're connection. But it can only be a connection when the minds are entwined with one another, and one another only--the entire rest of the universe disappears--not interferes.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Guess I am just too "something". Immature? Stupid?

No. It makes you human and it does have to do with evolution.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Being an introvert, and something of a loner, I would consider living in a polygamous family situation to be nothing short of psychological torture. All those whiny women and children running around, with an egomaniacal man who has an exagerated sense of his own potency in the middle. Ackkkkk!!

However, if they're happy and his majesty can afford to support a large family, whatever. But I wonder how many of these family live on government benefits? These families become the business of the state when our tax dollars are expended to support them.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

However, if they're happy and his majesty can afford to support a large family, whatever. But I wonder how many of these family live on government benefits? These families become the business of the state when our tax dollars are expended to support them.

At the current time, that's a common scam among the FLDS. A guy only has one legal wife, the rest are considered single mothers because they have no legal status.

So any of the wives who are not working can collect welfare because they are single mothers.

That's one more argument on the side of polygamy. If you apply for welfare, the income of your spouse and all your sister wives would be taken into account, the family income.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Well at least the TV show has lightened the public burden a little bit - they must be paid enough money from the network to support the "Sister Wives" family now!

Interesting that it's called "Sister Wives" and not something like "Kody's Kingdom" - must be mostly women that watch it.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

Well at least the TV show has lightened the public burden a little bit - they must be paid enough money from the network to support the "Sister Wives" family now!

Yesterday I read that all of those family members work except for the one who is the home maker. Was that old info or did I read it wrong? Are they using the welfare system?


 o
RE: Sister Wives

The simple facts that the US divorce rate stands somewhere around 50%, and so many people cheat on their partners and/or spouses, should tell us a little something about monogamy.

It's nothing more than a social construct, and does not work where all persons are concerned.

People cheat for a variety of reasons, some of them emotional... some certainly physical... and the reasons go on.

This tells us, though, that the human species does not always mate for life, as some animal species do. While some are perfectly content to stay with one mate until death, others are not in any way inclined to do so, and will either marry and divorce and remarry... or keep sampling from the vast population either as a single person, or as married and cheating.

Who's to say that in many cases polygamy can't work out as well as, or better than, a traditional marriage between two persons?

On the other hand, perhaps the human species is simply not very adept at choosing the perfect partner. They are either too impatient, they compromise too easily, or any number of other reasons.

I often speak to people who say, "I don't know how you do it... I could never spend 24 hours a day with my husband or wife." But for us, it's not natural to be apart for any length of time.

And, yes... I'm on my second marriage. I attribute it, upon deep reflection, to impatience... to not seeing all the angles before tying the knot. We had not known each other for very long.

This time, we co-habitated for about 7 years before marrying. At that point, marriage was the logical step.

And then, there are people who live together without legally marrying for the length of their relationship.

So... while I do think there is that "right" person out there for everyone, I also think that any number of relationship situations can work.

And I think that when we automatically think of marriage as two people, what we're really thinking is just a traditional social construct.


 o
RE: Sister Wives

I could not live that kind of life but I do not see where the government has a right as long as children are not involved in any illegal aspects of the adult lifestyle.

Women work outside the home and their children are released in the care of strangers on a daily basis for long periods of time. Households have live-in help nanny, housekeepers etc. I do not see the difference other than the government trying to say who in the house is sleeping with who. Not their business.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here