Polygamy versus Polygyny

Raise your hands how many of you have heard about the term polygyny in the news, smalltalk or ever. Don’t raise your hands for polygamy, because most of us have heard of it and, after the media will get what she wants from gay marriage, we should brace up for a polygamy news tsunami.

Google, like many dictionaries-dot-com, even place a synonym sign between polygyny and polygamy. Trusting the Wikipedia (in spite of many critics), we reproduce its workable definitions associated with a tad of comparative analysis that hold together in a reasonable manner.

Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as “often married”)[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group marriage.[1] The term is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, sociology, as well as in popular speech. In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of a person’s making him/herself available for two or more spouses to mate with. In contrast, monogamy is a marriage consisting of only two parties. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid). In sociobiology and zoology, polygamy is used in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating.


Oh yes, we just stumbled upon monogamy — even if dusted in the forsaken un-coolness of the traditional past, let’s do it a favor and mention it, shall we?

The geek in you will notice the HUGE distinction between polygyny and polygamy. And I’ll do myself a favor to skip over polyandry, not being exactly the Amazon-type (the river not the site!) of a warrior woman.

Polygamous relationships — certified or not with the stamp of marriage — can be found practically at every corner. You sure know a gal or a lad of any age doing more than one mate at the same time. Hey, it’s all the rage on the web: MFM, FMF and group sex, etc. And you surely have heard about open marriages, polyamories and the like. It’s about to become the rage in your neck of the woods sooner or later. Why? Because the swings of culture from the net are teaching the young guns, first by taking away the God-given values and replacing them with zoology-driven common denominators.

Hey, I’m by no means judging anyone here. If you like what you do and don’t bother to think at the consequences then go ahead! It’s your life, your body. We live in a free world, so enjoy the moment. You own the moment! No need to read further on my blog because what follows is for the thinkers, the geeks that lust for the source code that makes “stuff” happen, the researchers that pride and pleasure themselves in discovering what’s behind the appearance of the language, what’s the meaning beneath spoken and written words.

Watching the episodes of the “Newsroom” series on HBO, I sit and wonder — in awe — at the quirks of modern city life. The “elite” of the media brings the “news” to us people, they tell us the “truth.” Indeed, their truth. And when the characters take a break from playing the “talking heads,” then they show us how miserable private lives they can drag in the shipwake of their glamorous public personalities. If an anchor can’t articulate love in private, it makes me wonder about the fine grain of the sands used as a foundation for his “truths.” This is a casual example of refined and elevated polygamous living — where everyone does everyone across a free and unregulated market of feelings. It wrecks the soul. It’s what Paul calls about all your intellectual talents gone for the “cause” you want to generously burn for:

“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;” (1 Corinthians, 13:1).

Hubby tells me that a man who founds a family — and dreams to run it for his entire life — has an idea about responsibilities, about taking risks and staying the course. Like the skipper sailing his crew on the high seas.

I tell him that a woman who gives herself to her loving man — and dreams to serve him for her entire life — has more than an idea about responsibilities and also about selflessness. Because she admits to be less equal than her skipper. Have you seen a skipperless ship? Unwrecked?

Like many families, we crossed the rough seas more than once. And we survived together because we stuck to the skipper-crew protocol — this strengthened our relationship. Our midlife crisis, correlated with our stay-away-from-the-city mantra, brought us to taste from the escapes of naturism, nudism, voyeurism and exhibitionism. All in the open, nothing in the hide (where the notion of “nothing” ends with our lovely pen names).

Then, once upon a time, in July, I had an epiphany: why not write down some short fiction stories where anything goes? The intimacy of marriage opening with candour to a violent and wild universe ruled by daemons. Some of whom having the ability to bow in front of the power of a truthful word. Some not, because what’s a good story with no vile virus in it?

“More Women for My Man” is the first story in a series of novellas treating the paradigm of Adam and Eve, the skipper and the crew, in their journey across the low seas of this planet and the high seas of ethereal outer worlds. Stories for geeks and serious thinkers alike.

The sparkle inciting the subject in “More Women for My Man” came to me (indeed) from this letter.

“Is Polygyny Scriptural Today?”

“One often asked Biblical question is polygyny, which is a man having more than one wife — not polygamy, which is either a man or woman having more than one mate. The latter is clearly condemned throughout the Scriptures.”

“The Catholic Church first outlawed polygamy and polygyny, but blessed men kept having mistresses (on the sly), or what the Scriptures call “concubines.” Go figure. We today would probably call them girlfriends or mistresses. This went on in America — with a wink — among men who could afford two mates — along with an understanding nod from wives, until the feminist revolution in the 1960s. Like cultic Christians, feminists are strongly opposed to polygyny, but not polygamy. Feminists have carried a strong sway over the courts in America, and the new laws heavily favor women in divorce settlements. A man caught with another woman outside his marriage can usually expect to lose everything he has, if his wife so desires a divorce from him. This very thing has stopped almost all men from having mistresses openly.”

“Cultic Christianity is opposed to both polygamy and polygyny, and have classified them — on their own without Scriptural authority — adultery, as if they can decide for the Lord what is wrong and not. Most of our presidents had mistresses up through Eisenhower.”

“Due to the Cult influence, the courts today define as adultery the act of a man or woman having sex outside the marriage union. Not so in the Scriptures. Only a man having sex with a married woman is considered adultery. The penalty is clearly laid out in Lev. 20.10 & Deut. 22.22. A married man who has sex with a single woman has not committed adultery. This is cultic skulduggery — a scheme to keep men and women in chains. Of course, in the Lord’s eyes a woman who philanders around is not one of very much character or value.”

“This little mail is not necessarily making an argument for polygyny — it is rather a bit of research and study on that subject, following exactly with Scripture. You can answer the question for yourself, though; and this little letter is meant to help you with that.”

“Even if you think polygyny is still God-ordained, it’s not for everyone. In fact, not every patriarch had more than one wife; but it’s true that most of them did. God calls and chooses people for many different reasons and for many different duties in different times. Jeremiah he called celibate and sober and he remained that way. I’ve often thought though that he might have complained less had he had a little sex. But that was between the Lord and him.”

“Paul was called out of season and deserted his entire family to work for the faith. There are numerous reasons for a man to have multiple mates besides procreating. It stops the loneliness completely. Each person in the family has more of a sense of worth and need. I think it’s even more beneficial in the later years of life, when so many people are stuck in apartments and homes lonely. It’s also better in a spiritual sense, because someone always needs a taste of the Logos when there’s more than one mate in a family, and thus there are more to provide the Message. But today it depends mostly on the two original mates involved; some women will never be at ease with it. Practically today more men than not don’t need multiple mates.”

“Many people have cited and asked about Paul’s writing in I Tim. 3.2, as to whether he’s changing the law or not. The problem is that there is an ellipsis or omission that the translator must add to clarify the passage, or it can easily be misconstrued. Properly translated, this verse fits in with the Levitical laws which stated that the priest had to be a married man.”

“I Timothy 3.2:”
“3.2. Thus the overseer must be beyond criticism: husband of [at least] one wife, clear-headed, self-controlled, modest, generous to guests, able to teach.”

“In the above passage, Paul is reiterating that ministers should be married to at least one woman, or even more than one, and the passage does not condemn multiple marriage or mistresses. Some modern studies and researchers claim that having more than one wife matures men and makes them more attentive to their families and the Church.”

“Something else important in 1 Tim. 3.2 is the absence of the definite article before each “husband of one wife.” And I’ve translated it that way. If Paul would have meant for men to have only one wife and one wife only, then he would surely have written “the husband of one wife”; and would have most likely placed an article before wife. But he didn’t.”

“Even if we could justify in the Greek that 1 Tim. 3:2 recommends or mandates monogyny, Paul only specified it for bishops (the Paul’s & Timothy’s of the Church), overseers, and elders, but not for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or even teachers. I’ve taught in the past that he was recommending monogyny for the heads of the Church because of the time constraints; but when you think about it, evangelists in particular, who have to travel the world, are much more busy. And in the Old Testament & New Testament the wives of the Church leaders were great aides, as most of them are today.”

“Another question that comes to memory was about how many wives David had. Some have said that he had only one. How they come to this conclusion I do not know, for here are the names of his wives.”

“King David, the Lord’s favorite of all people, had at least twelve wives:”

“1 Samuel 18:27; 2 Samuel 3:2; Abigail, widow of Nabal, 2 Samuel 3:3; Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, 2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 3:4; 2 Samuel 3:4; 2 Samuel 3:5; Bathsheba, 2 Samuel 12.24; 1 Chron 3.15; five more mistresses and wives in Jerusalem, which means that he had at least two of each in addition to previous wives along with at least one unnamed mistress, 2 Samuel 5:13”

“I remind you all that polygyny is NOT for everyone. Several men are married to wives still solidly in Cultic Christianity. Unless you want a divorce you can forget about it. And, I know many men who’re not in the least interested. Again there should be some special reason for it today: to procreate children, to aid your current family in some way, whether by working within the family or bringing in money or some special pleasure. And they’d have to be interested in the faith — if not someone with eyes to see, at least someone who wanted to aid in some way.”

“As far as the man goes I’d have to apply what Paul required of the Leaders of the Church in I Tim. 3.4-5:”
“4. He must rule his own house properly, having children in subjection with all respect.”
“5. Indeed, if anyone does not know how to rule his own house, how can he care for a Divine Assembly?”
“If he fit these requirements then he’s capable of handling multiple mates; if not I’ll guarantee you he’s not.”

Ruddy Adam


Find out what Don, my man, thinks about having his options on polygyny. Then ask yours? Be open and free yourself from the chains of pre-packed thinking.

Love is more liberating than brass sounding, cymbal tinkling instruments stuck inside your TV.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.