Great article! And fun fact: Martin Luther of the Protestant Reformation said, "I cannot in good conscience prohibit polygamy, for the Bible itself does not. " This applies to other form of polyam too, Luther was being asked specifically about polygamy when he uttered the quote. First encountering this quote sent me to research the scripture for all passages which could support or denounce this claim. Ultimately, I found him to be correct. I did not know the impact this would have on my life until about a decade later, when my wife and I wound up discussing polyamory further. She wanted to date a high school crush who reentered her life, and I my best female friend. Now we have a sort of chain for a polycule!
It’s been a help reading your content and I have struggled immensely with these thoughts and feelings I cannot shake. I spend time in my Bible almost every day, I pray and grew up in church. My belief system has evolved over time and I have found that I truly love other people outside of my marriage to my husband. I have been unfaithful and he knows and we are trying to work through things. I long for the freedom to have relationships outside of my marriage. I find a great deal of happiness being friends or lovers with others. And I do not wish to live a lie. I absolutely hate lying…it rips me apart. But I feel very confined and caged in my current state, have been doing a lot of self work, healing, and learning to love myself and try not to judge others or myself for that matter (as I have in the past). I’ve grown up with a lot of shame even when I did nothing to deserve it. But I find that living a lie is too much for me. I’m an artist and want to be able to express myself through my art but have felt stifled by my fundamentalist upbringing. My husband is a bit jealous and that’s okay but also possessive. I do not wish to be like an object and possess and I don’t want to have those feelings towards someone else. I do want meaningful connections with others, not just random sex, in this realm. But I’m scared as hell to bring up this subject to him. We do have a couple friend who is polyamorous and we will be hanging out with them tonight. Although we haven’t discussed the idea of opening up our marriage I’m hoping that being around them might open our eyes a little to this lifestyle, it’s pros and cons, and maybe I can open the discussion with him, and explore this option. We have two kids, who I’m very open with and they are amazing. And coming across your articles has been a God send to say the least. I’ve always felt that if something was a mutual agreement between two people then it should be okay. And I’ve also been outspoken about issues in the church I don’t agree with or feel don’t align with scripture. So I’m not naive to what might be thrown at me but it’s damn scary entering this space, when you been taught differently your whole life, but in the meantime see many of your church friends and family getting divorces and remarried…is this just another form of polyamory being masked by what is considered acceptable?
If a horny man and his horny bisexual wife want a woman to share and the sex is probably the primary factor in that, what would be wrong with that if the third woman wants it too? I'm sure there are plenty of bi women who would like that. If there's no deception or misleading going on, why is it inherently disrespectful to seek sexual satisfaction with someone while they're seeking the same from you ("mutual benefit)? Personally, I like relationships that could be great and seem worth sustaining whether they only involved sex OR included no sex--that's how you know you're a great match all-around. But of course sex will be an important aspect of the relationship.
Yeah, even the phrase “woman to share” makes it seem objectifying and gross. I’ve had sex-only situations with another bisexual female with one of my male partners, but at no point was she merely an object to improve my relationship. There’s nothing wrong with sex-only relationships; there’s everything wrong with viewing someone as a sexual object for your own benefit while prioritizing your own sexual thoughts and feelings. I’ve also been the third woman in another couple’s pairing occasionally and I still have zero interest in being thought of as “a woman to share.” If people desire that, they should hire sex workers.
And no, there are not a lot of bi women like that, hence why it’s called a “unicorn.” There are a lot of FFM triads where everything is equal between three people, and there are a lot of above-board threesomes for fun, but there aren’t many bi women who sign up to be the lesser cog sex object for an established couple on a long-term basis.
Anything that is truly mutual isn’t disrespectful, nor did I say it was, so I’m not certain why you would think that.
What I meant by "share" (which is what my WIFE calls this concept, by the way) was to distinguish from the situation where either the husband OR the wife have a separate relationship on the side. In this way, "sharing" is distinct from "cheating." What's bothering me about what I'm seeing in a lot of polyamory is that people try to downplay or feel the need to justify the sexual side of it, as though it should be mostly about romance but it's okay that there's also some sex involved. In some cases, that seems to be catering to slut-shamers (unless all parties are naturally very romantic and nit strongly sexual, which is fine too). I'm not talking about a "lesser" partner. My wife and I are both somewhat aromantic, but love each other deeply in the sense of a very close friendship (including lots of deep and open communication) which culminates in lots of sex which we enjoy being a bit casual-feeling (down-to-earth and comfortable). We would just like a girlfriend who is compatible with us in that way: very much our friend--and every bit our equal--but not ashamed to acknowledge that sex is a major reason for the relationship to exist, as is often true of one woman with one man as well (if they both feel that way, then one is not "using" the other). There are also specific complexities to my wife's sexual needs which would make her happier and healthier to split her time between a man and a woman (in fact, SHE would be shared and that's what she wants). The three-way mutually beneficial arrangement would be even more for my wife than for me if anything, but people tend to assume that if a man has a strong drive, that automatically means that he only thinks of himself and "uses" women. I have noticed that plenty of men are unfortunately that way, so I understand why lots of women jump to that conclusion, but not all are that way.
For the record, the word “polyamory” does specifically refer to romantic relationships and situations. “Open relationship” or generalized “non-monogamy” are terms more open for debate. And separate relationships are not cheating???
I know that's not cheating, if the communication is very clear and straightforward. But I think that three people who are all steadily and deeply connected to each other would make it easier to avoid jealousy (since they are ALL intimate with each other), would be less risky health-wise, would be more financially efficient, and could be a great situation for a child to be born into (perhaps even better than just two parents) given the non-jealousy between the mothers due to their sexual bond. Other forms of non-monogamy aren't necessarily cheating, but it's easier to make the case for my preferred subcategory of it. By the way, my wife and I were goal-oriented (expressly looking for a spouse) and that worked great for the two of us, as it led to very open communication and being absolutely real with each other (if it wasn't going to work out, we wanted to know that sooner rather than later), confirming that we were a great match.
Nobody said any of that lol, literally do whatever you want if all parties are willing. Your heavy defensiveness feels like you’re telling on yourself. Nobody has slut shamed anybody. I’m just telling you the reality and perception of unicorn hunting in the world of polyamory from someone who has been in it. It’s along the lines of weird one penis policies, which are transphobic and misogynistic. Good luck in what you seek, but to me it sounds like a list of demands for a mythical unicorn creature who caters to every whim of you and your wife. And hey, maybe that unicorn exists so go for it. There are no laws or rules. But it’s rarer than you think.
It has nothing to do with casual sex or sex drives; I have casual sexual partners in addition to my two primary partners. It’s about humanizing the people you have sex with, and treating them like individuals who have their own feelings, wants, and desires. If experimentation is what you’re after, sex workers are a much more likely solution to what you seek.
At the end of the day, for me polyamory is a mindset in which I do not control what other people do with their bodies or feel the need to limit myself or anyone I date to one romantic or sexual partner. I don’t really have “goals” in it. It’s different for everyone. My own wants and needs are independent of my other partners’ wants and needs. I just want things to happen naturally and organically. Hope you find what you’re looking for.
My wife and I are mostly aromantic. We are also deeply and fiercely committed to each other and treat each other with utmost respect. It's hard to not easily feel defensive after leaving a hardline fundamentalist cult where you feel constantly critiqued and they put guilt on anyone except low-drive, hyper-monogamous, highly-romantic individuals who are able to successfully squelch all sexual thoughts and desires and have sex mostly for the possibility of procreation. My wife and I want relational commitment--we're just mostly aromantic. We don't want open marriage because we like stable companionship, physical safety, etc. We also just happened to see a video on YouTube about a poly trio who seemed quite nice, but they said they only had sex about once a week and the way they said it made it seem like they thought it wouldn't be good for their relationship to be a lot more sexual than that, as though they needed that justification. And that triggered memories of the intense purity culture my wife and I came out of, where husband/wife couples are made to feel a bit guilty if they are horny & aromantic. So that was fresh on my mind.
Hi Jennifer. Thank you so much for your courage and candor. It can't be easy to share this hard-earned knowledge, especially the missteps during dating and the pain around break-ups. I found the part about STIs to be particularly helpful. I like the way you sum-up a range of risks and a spectrum of precautions, and depending on the tolerances, priorities and preferences of all concerned, there can be different approaches between partners and still a sense of fairness.
I'm a recovering Roman Catholic, and I've struggled mightily with some of the tough questions associated with multi-person romantic relations, especially when bisexual feelings arise. Your anti-adultery advice is well-taken, a good starting proposition: don't do it, don't risk hurting a spouse you claim to love. At the same time, I've seen a tense situation up-close, where a married male friend wanted to 'try a guy', he talked to his wife, she wasn't cool with it, and he felt torn in two. Was she being homophobic? How to honor his orientation and her feelings?
I've also seen at least one miserable marriage, sometimes abusive, and cheating was a stepping-stone toward the door. I'm thinking of my own parents. I was 10 or so, they sat me down, explained they had each had an affair, said they were getting divorced. And I was relieved. Sadly, they ended up staying married. Anyway, there can be a lot of complexity inside committed relationships, marriage included, and maybe a 'mile in their shoes' approach is fitting in some cases. To be clear, I'm not talking about the married guy who claims to love his wife, hits on single or polyam people, just looking to get his rocks off. I feel no love for that dick.
One more quick thought: I hear 'triad' and 'throuple', and I cringe a little. I'm not sure why. I like 'trio' and 'quartet' and 'quintet'. Musical language feels softer in my ear, and can scale-up.
Many many thanks for sharing so much of yourself with others.
Jesus said absolutely nothing about it; but I’m not a Biblical literalist. A Christian has been defined in wildly different ways and with literal thousands of theologies and translations and denominations throughout history. Today’s Christians are nothing like those of 50 A.D. I have a minor in Bible from a Christian college; I was raised in conservative Pentecostalism — I am aware of what fundamentalists believe. The more I studied it, the more I realized an open and relational theology is the ideal way to view the Bible, and liberation theology is the best way to view Christianity. Everyone likes to call out supposed sexual sins but I rarely if ever see people call out wealth and power as sins — many Christians engage in pursuit of those, and Jesus actually spoke out against those multiple times! You’re not even being good biblical literalists here from your own standards!
I will call myself a Christian until the day that I die. Because I love and believe in the vision of hope that Christ lay out for us, in promoting the power of marginalized over the powerful empire, and I always will. Others’ definitions of what a Christian is — with their views on submission of women, control of the sexuality of others, hatred of gays, lax literalist English evangelicalism which is heretical and Gentile-based bullshit. I believe in a higher power. I believe God sent Christ. Nobody can take that from me.
There are progressive and LGBTQ and polyamorous Muslims as well, so, bad comparison. Many Muslims drink and eat pork from time to time— they don’t stop believing in Allah because of it.
Christianity is evolving. God is still speaking. Biblical literalism and fundamentalism is antithetical to the freedom offered by Christ. I am not being sinful. I am a Christian and I always will be.
And again? Even specifically from a literalist standpoint, Paul, who wasn’t an apostle, wrote different rules to different churches and different areas tor different reasons. I don’t know why people think the New Testament is obsessed with sexual ethics — ones that no longer apply in a 21st century context. They really aren’t.
I've researched Biblical translations extensively -- I highly recommend you do the same. The intent applied by evangelical Christians of America is so far off base as to be inexplicable to original sources of theology. Literalism, to me, is heresy, and this is not how scripture is read in Judaism; nor was it read that way even by Paul. The Bible is not what we're worshiping here, yeah? I mean, I -hate- and feel totally offended when people say "How can you call yourself a Christian?" and I always want to ask them the same exact thing, you know? I go to church every week. My husband is on church council. I study the Bible -- in its actual, proper context -- with my children. I pray, a lot, every day. I indulge in the practices of Christianity more than most so-called Christians I know. I would encourage you to not tell other people what their faith and beliefs make them by your own standards. None of us have infallible beliefs or the authority to determine another's spiritual practices.
I don't believe capitalists are "Christians" according to my beliefs of Christ's words toward the rich. I literally believe we are to give our wealth to the poor. I certainly don't go around calling people "not Christian" because of it. It's not fruitful. I just try to demonstrate a Christianity that aligns more with my beliefs. Even though I believe my beliefs are superior, I do not believe I am a better and more worthy person of dictating the faiths of others than anyone else.
I am a real and authentic Christian, and I don't find it "fun" or "fruitful" to have these devil's advocate discussions about "who's a real Christian??? It's NOT YOU according to my almighty opinion!" I would recommend people who don't think I'm a "real Christian" not read a blog with the title "Dirtbag Christian."
I find it rather cruel that no matter what a person does, says, lives, and believes, people like you can say I'm not a "real" Christian... because I love and have sex with more than one person. Something that happens... repeatedly throughout the Bible by some of God's favorite people, by the way.
I just... this is exhausting. For you, this is a discussion for you to "win" to make me feel like I'm not a good enough Christian because I don't adhere to your traditionalist and bizarre and literalist interpretations of theology. For me, this is a defense of my faith, my God, and the people I love with all my heart and soul more than anyone in the world, and I know you're not actually interested in having your mind changed; you simply want to "own" me because I don't fit into your neat little box of what a (white) (patriarchal) (conservative) (evangelical) (American) (English-speaking) Christian is. Sorry, not sorry. I'm still a Christian. But if you're looking for an authoritarian religion who will tell me what to do once and for all, you're not going to find it from a UCC Protestant -- I suggest Catholicism. (Or fascism.) These aren't good faith arguments. They're personal.
I'm not interested in debating the validity of my faith or existence with you. It's not a fun argument for me; it's my life. I am aware what conservative theology entails; I was brought up in every inch of it and told exactly what was supposed to make me a Christian. I've rejected it. I'm not interested in reliving it.
Great article! And fun fact: Martin Luther of the Protestant Reformation said, "I cannot in good conscience prohibit polygamy, for the Bible itself does not. " This applies to other form of polyam too, Luther was being asked specifically about polygamy when he uttered the quote. First encountering this quote sent me to research the scripture for all passages which could support or denounce this claim. Ultimately, I found him to be correct. I did not know the impact this would have on my life until about a decade later, when my wife and I wound up discussing polyamory further. She wanted to date a high school crush who reentered her life, and I my best female friend. Now we have a sort of chain for a polycule!
I love this -- thank you for sharing. <3 Didn't know the Martin Luther fact!
It’s been a help reading your content and I have struggled immensely with these thoughts and feelings I cannot shake. I spend time in my Bible almost every day, I pray and grew up in church. My belief system has evolved over time and I have found that I truly love other people outside of my marriage to my husband. I have been unfaithful and he knows and we are trying to work through things. I long for the freedom to have relationships outside of my marriage. I find a great deal of happiness being friends or lovers with others. And I do not wish to live a lie. I absolutely hate lying…it rips me apart. But I feel very confined and caged in my current state, have been doing a lot of self work, healing, and learning to love myself and try not to judge others or myself for that matter (as I have in the past). I’ve grown up with a lot of shame even when I did nothing to deserve it. But I find that living a lie is too much for me. I’m an artist and want to be able to express myself through my art but have felt stifled by my fundamentalist upbringing. My husband is a bit jealous and that’s okay but also possessive. I do not wish to be like an object and possess and I don’t want to have those feelings towards someone else. I do want meaningful connections with others, not just random sex, in this realm. But I’m scared as hell to bring up this subject to him. We do have a couple friend who is polyamorous and we will be hanging out with them tonight. Although we haven’t discussed the idea of opening up our marriage I’m hoping that being around them might open our eyes a little to this lifestyle, it’s pros and cons, and maybe I can open the discussion with him, and explore this option. We have two kids, who I’m very open with and they are amazing. And coming across your articles has been a God send to say the least. I’ve always felt that if something was a mutual agreement between two people then it should be okay. And I’ve also been outspoken about issues in the church I don’t agree with or feel don’t align with scripture. So I’m not naive to what might be thrown at me but it’s damn scary entering this space, when you been taught differently your whole life, but in the meantime see many of your church friends and family getting divorces and remarried…is this just another form of polyamory being masked by what is considered acceptable?
This has been so helpful for me. Thank you. I am new to this and just started dating so it’s all new. It’s so good to have this site. Thank you
Thanks for publishing this. Beautifully written!
If a horny man and his horny bisexual wife want a woman to share and the sex is probably the primary factor in that, what would be wrong with that if the third woman wants it too? I'm sure there are plenty of bi women who would like that. If there's no deception or misleading going on, why is it inherently disrespectful to seek sexual satisfaction with someone while they're seeking the same from you ("mutual benefit)? Personally, I like relationships that could be great and seem worth sustaining whether they only involved sex OR included no sex--that's how you know you're a great match all-around. But of course sex will be an important aspect of the relationship.
Yeah, even the phrase “woman to share” makes it seem objectifying and gross. I’ve had sex-only situations with another bisexual female with one of my male partners, but at no point was she merely an object to improve my relationship. There’s nothing wrong with sex-only relationships; there’s everything wrong with viewing someone as a sexual object for your own benefit while prioritizing your own sexual thoughts and feelings. I’ve also been the third woman in another couple’s pairing occasionally and I still have zero interest in being thought of as “a woman to share.” If people desire that, they should hire sex workers.
And no, there are not a lot of bi women like that, hence why it’s called a “unicorn.” There are a lot of FFM triads where everything is equal between three people, and there are a lot of above-board threesomes for fun, but there aren’t many bi women who sign up to be the lesser cog sex object for an established couple on a long-term basis.
Anything that is truly mutual isn’t disrespectful, nor did I say it was, so I’m not certain why you would think that.
What I meant by "share" (which is what my WIFE calls this concept, by the way) was to distinguish from the situation where either the husband OR the wife have a separate relationship on the side. In this way, "sharing" is distinct from "cheating." What's bothering me about what I'm seeing in a lot of polyamory is that people try to downplay or feel the need to justify the sexual side of it, as though it should be mostly about romance but it's okay that there's also some sex involved. In some cases, that seems to be catering to slut-shamers (unless all parties are naturally very romantic and nit strongly sexual, which is fine too). I'm not talking about a "lesser" partner. My wife and I are both somewhat aromantic, but love each other deeply in the sense of a very close friendship (including lots of deep and open communication) which culminates in lots of sex which we enjoy being a bit casual-feeling (down-to-earth and comfortable). We would just like a girlfriend who is compatible with us in that way: very much our friend--and every bit our equal--but not ashamed to acknowledge that sex is a major reason for the relationship to exist, as is often true of one woman with one man as well (if they both feel that way, then one is not "using" the other). There are also specific complexities to my wife's sexual needs which would make her happier and healthier to split her time between a man and a woman (in fact, SHE would be shared and that's what she wants). The three-way mutually beneficial arrangement would be even more for my wife than for me if anything, but people tend to assume that if a man has a strong drive, that automatically means that he only thinks of himself and "uses" women. I have noticed that plenty of men are unfortunately that way, so I understand why lots of women jump to that conclusion, but not all are that way.
For the record, the word “polyamory” does specifically refer to romantic relationships and situations. “Open relationship” or generalized “non-monogamy” are terms more open for debate. And separate relationships are not cheating???
I know that's not cheating, if the communication is very clear and straightforward. But I think that three people who are all steadily and deeply connected to each other would make it easier to avoid jealousy (since they are ALL intimate with each other), would be less risky health-wise, would be more financially efficient, and could be a great situation for a child to be born into (perhaps even better than just two parents) given the non-jealousy between the mothers due to their sexual bond. Other forms of non-monogamy aren't necessarily cheating, but it's easier to make the case for my preferred subcategory of it. By the way, my wife and I were goal-oriented (expressly looking for a spouse) and that worked great for the two of us, as it led to very open communication and being absolutely real with each other (if it wasn't going to work out, we wanted to know that sooner rather than later), confirming that we were a great match.
Nobody said any of that lol, literally do whatever you want if all parties are willing. Your heavy defensiveness feels like you’re telling on yourself. Nobody has slut shamed anybody. I’m just telling you the reality and perception of unicorn hunting in the world of polyamory from someone who has been in it. It’s along the lines of weird one penis policies, which are transphobic and misogynistic. Good luck in what you seek, but to me it sounds like a list of demands for a mythical unicorn creature who caters to every whim of you and your wife. And hey, maybe that unicorn exists so go for it. There are no laws or rules. But it’s rarer than you think.
It has nothing to do with casual sex or sex drives; I have casual sexual partners in addition to my two primary partners. It’s about humanizing the people you have sex with, and treating them like individuals who have their own feelings, wants, and desires. If experimentation is what you’re after, sex workers are a much more likely solution to what you seek.
At the end of the day, for me polyamory is a mindset in which I do not control what other people do with their bodies or feel the need to limit myself or anyone I date to one romantic or sexual partner. I don’t really have “goals” in it. It’s different for everyone. My own wants and needs are independent of my other partners’ wants and needs. I just want things to happen naturally and organically. Hope you find what you’re looking for.
My wife and I are mostly aromantic. We are also deeply and fiercely committed to each other and treat each other with utmost respect. It's hard to not easily feel defensive after leaving a hardline fundamentalist cult where you feel constantly critiqued and they put guilt on anyone except low-drive, hyper-monogamous, highly-romantic individuals who are able to successfully squelch all sexual thoughts and desires and have sex mostly for the possibility of procreation. My wife and I want relational commitment--we're just mostly aromantic. We don't want open marriage because we like stable companionship, physical safety, etc. We also just happened to see a video on YouTube about a poly trio who seemed quite nice, but they said they only had sex about once a week and the way they said it made it seem like they thought it wouldn't be good for their relationship to be a lot more sexual than that, as though they needed that justification. And that triggered memories of the intense purity culture my wife and I came out of, where husband/wife couples are made to feel a bit guilty if they are horny & aromantic. So that was fresh on my mind.
Hi Jennifer. Thank you so much for your courage and candor. It can't be easy to share this hard-earned knowledge, especially the missteps during dating and the pain around break-ups. I found the part about STIs to be particularly helpful. I like the way you sum-up a range of risks and a spectrum of precautions, and depending on the tolerances, priorities and preferences of all concerned, there can be different approaches between partners and still a sense of fairness.
I'm a recovering Roman Catholic, and I've struggled mightily with some of the tough questions associated with multi-person romantic relations, especially when bisexual feelings arise. Your anti-adultery advice is well-taken, a good starting proposition: don't do it, don't risk hurting a spouse you claim to love. At the same time, I've seen a tense situation up-close, where a married male friend wanted to 'try a guy', he talked to his wife, she wasn't cool with it, and he felt torn in two. Was she being homophobic? How to honor his orientation and her feelings?
I've also seen at least one miserable marriage, sometimes abusive, and cheating was a stepping-stone toward the door. I'm thinking of my own parents. I was 10 or so, they sat me down, explained they had each had an affair, said they were getting divorced. And I was relieved. Sadly, they ended up staying married. Anyway, there can be a lot of complexity inside committed relationships, marriage included, and maybe a 'mile in their shoes' approach is fitting in some cases. To be clear, I'm not talking about the married guy who claims to love his wife, hits on single or polyam people, just looking to get his rocks off. I feel no love for that dick.
One more quick thought: I hear 'triad' and 'throuple', and I cringe a little. I'm not sure why. I like 'trio' and 'quartet' and 'quintet'. Musical language feels softer in my ear, and can scale-up.
Many many thanks for sharing so much of yourself with others.
haha I cringe at 90% of polyamory-specific language and IDK either
Jesus said absolutely nothing about it; but I’m not a Biblical literalist. A Christian has been defined in wildly different ways and with literal thousands of theologies and translations and denominations throughout history. Today’s Christians are nothing like those of 50 A.D. I have a minor in Bible from a Christian college; I was raised in conservative Pentecostalism — I am aware of what fundamentalists believe. The more I studied it, the more I realized an open and relational theology is the ideal way to view the Bible, and liberation theology is the best way to view Christianity. Everyone likes to call out supposed sexual sins but I rarely if ever see people call out wealth and power as sins — many Christians engage in pursuit of those, and Jesus actually spoke out against those multiple times! You’re not even being good biblical literalists here from your own standards!
I will call myself a Christian until the day that I die. Because I love and believe in the vision of hope that Christ lay out for us, in promoting the power of marginalized over the powerful empire, and I always will. Others’ definitions of what a Christian is — with their views on submission of women, control of the sexuality of others, hatred of gays, lax literalist English evangelicalism which is heretical and Gentile-based bullshit. I believe in a higher power. I believe God sent Christ. Nobody can take that from me.
There are progressive and LGBTQ and polyamorous Muslims as well, so, bad comparison. Many Muslims drink and eat pork from time to time— they don’t stop believing in Allah because of it.
Christianity is evolving. God is still speaking. Biblical literalism and fundamentalism is antithetical to the freedom offered by Christ. I am not being sinful. I am a Christian and I always will be.
And again? Even specifically from a literalist standpoint, Paul, who wasn’t an apostle, wrote different rules to different churches and different areas tor different reasons. I don’t know why people think the New Testament is obsessed with sexual ethics — ones that no longer apply in a 21st century context. They really aren’t.
I've researched Biblical translations extensively -- I highly recommend you do the same. The intent applied by evangelical Christians of America is so far off base as to be inexplicable to original sources of theology. Literalism, to me, is heresy, and this is not how scripture is read in Judaism; nor was it read that way even by Paul. The Bible is not what we're worshiping here, yeah? I mean, I -hate- and feel totally offended when people say "How can you call yourself a Christian?" and I always want to ask them the same exact thing, you know? I go to church every week. My husband is on church council. I study the Bible -- in its actual, proper context -- with my children. I pray, a lot, every day. I indulge in the practices of Christianity more than most so-called Christians I know. I would encourage you to not tell other people what their faith and beliefs make them by your own standards. None of us have infallible beliefs or the authority to determine another's spiritual practices.
I don't believe capitalists are "Christians" according to my beliefs of Christ's words toward the rich. I literally believe we are to give our wealth to the poor. I certainly don't go around calling people "not Christian" because of it. It's not fruitful. I just try to demonstrate a Christianity that aligns more with my beliefs. Even though I believe my beliefs are superior, I do not believe I am a better and more worthy person of dictating the faiths of others than anyone else.
I am a real and authentic Christian, and I don't find it "fun" or "fruitful" to have these devil's advocate discussions about "who's a real Christian??? It's NOT YOU according to my almighty opinion!" I would recommend people who don't think I'm a "real Christian" not read a blog with the title "Dirtbag Christian."
I find it rather cruel that no matter what a person does, says, lives, and believes, people like you can say I'm not a "real" Christian... because I love and have sex with more than one person. Something that happens... repeatedly throughout the Bible by some of God's favorite people, by the way.
I just... this is exhausting. For you, this is a discussion for you to "win" to make me feel like I'm not a good enough Christian because I don't adhere to your traditionalist and bizarre and literalist interpretations of theology. For me, this is a defense of my faith, my God, and the people I love with all my heart and soul more than anyone in the world, and I know you're not actually interested in having your mind changed; you simply want to "own" me because I don't fit into your neat little box of what a (white) (patriarchal) (conservative) (evangelical) (American) (English-speaking) Christian is. Sorry, not sorry. I'm still a Christian. But if you're looking for an authoritarian religion who will tell me what to do once and for all, you're not going to find it from a UCC Protestant -- I suggest Catholicism. (Or fascism.) These aren't good faith arguments. They're personal.
I'm not interested in debating the validity of my faith or existence with you. It's not a fun argument for me; it's my life. I am aware what conservative theology entails; I was brought up in every inch of it and told exactly what was supposed to make me a Christian. I've rejected it. I'm not interested in reliving it.