/cuckquean/ - Women sharing their men.

Polygyny is the only poly that works.

405059D200000578-4504744-image-a-215_1494775923426.jpg
[Hide] (51KB, 634x413) Reverse

>>849 (OP) 
The Bible is fine with polygyny and even Martin Luther gave it the okay since he didn't see anything against it in the Bible. If you're protestant it should be fine; if you're Cathodox you unfortunately have "muh tradition" to contend with.

>>901
It's actually a super interesting topic to study and contemplate. The biblical concept of marriage is at once both much more rigidly defined and more vaguely enforced than most people consider. 
The protestant reformers had to deal with it specifically because of the case of a particular HRE prince who desired to take a second wife and hinged his support of the reformers on whether or not they would recognize the union. In his particular case his first wife was much older than him and was from an arranged marriage - she had become chronically ill to the point of being unable to serve in her wifely functions and allegedly had consented due to all of these factors to the prince taking a mistress to fill the void she simply could not due to circumstances beyond her control. To my knowledge the prince had only the one lover and genuinely loved her and he wanted to make his relationship with her legitimate. 
When the reformers went to consider their response they could not find an explicit condemnation of polygamy in the mosaic law and indeed found that it offered secondary wives and concubines certain legal protections which would appear to be tacit permission if not endorsement. The resemblance of that particular instance had to the situation with Sarah offering Hagar to Abraham probably also did a lot to help the reformers hesitantly approve. 
You also have 2 Samuel 12:8 where Nathan, speaking from God to rebuke David declares that it was indeed God who delivered Sauls wives into David's arms. 

What does this mean then? Does God approves of a man taking multiple wives?  My personal take is that it is a grey area and is permitted because of the imperfection of the world and of mankind. The ideal is for a couple to form a family alone, the church is to be led explicitly by "men with one wife" after all and in the New Testament the relationship between a husband and wife is meant to mirror the relationship between Christ and the church, one Christ, one church joined together to create life spiritual and biological - it's  a very beautiful picture with a rich depth of meaning the more you tease out the implications. 
In a world where war and famine and starvation and slavery and all manner of earthly torments exist a sub-optimal picture of that relationship is still formed in polygynous marriages so long as they are in-fact marriages. 
Wanton sexual freedom outside of marriage is still fornication and still explicitly forbidden but when you're living in the year 900 and one bad day away from Assyrian conquest of your homeland and your daughters fate is either to starve to death because your flocks have all been slaughtered by an enemy clan or to be the third wife of your third cousin  just so that she will have the security of a home, family and food in her belly then the reality of the situation makes it so that there is no winning move. 

But in no situation is a woman having multiple men depicted in a good light it always has a sort of aftertaste of treachery related to it and when Israel followed false gods that infidelity was often couched in terms of adultery. I think there is something there you could make of a man, in his role as a demi-god (for a lack of a better word to describe his type and function rather than to ascribe a man with any divinity) being the one who keeps the authority of the marriage covenant in the husband-wife dynamic. The husband and the brides father are the ones who actually have the authority to establish the marriage - therefore a woman of her own accord could not enter into a second marriage with another man the same way a man could with a second woman because it's not in her hand to establish such things - which in the context of husband as Christ over the bridal church lines up with the idea that God's covenant of salvation is by, from and through Christ and extended to His people of His accord and not something that the church reaches up and takes by their own will or works. 
But that's speculation and I wouldn't make my theological last stand on it. I'm just a shitposter on an anonymous porn board don't take my word for gospel truth.
The point is biblical marriage is a really interesting topic.

>>886
/thread.

>>904
>What does this mean then? Does God approves of a man taking multiple wives?
Pretty obviously so Biblically-speaking, yes. The only admonishment is for a man to only have one wife if he intends to be a leader in the Church. My guess this is basically because of his divided time load.

The reason we have monogamy as a standard, at least in the west, is mostly to do with it being the standard in Greece and Rome, not anything to do with Christianity. Though it probably would have caught on anyways, just for practicality's sake. You'll notice most places without the Greek and Roman influence still have monogamy. You'll notice that even societies where polygamy is a thing, it's a strict number. Polygyny is hot, but not really going to work as an actual institution, for the same reason monogamy was established in the first place, it causes too much individual competition between men, instead of fostering cooperation. At least in modern societies. As said, in times with higher death rates that disproportionately effect men, generally because of war, it makes a lot more sense. My understanding is that this was part of why it was so heavily practiced in Mormonism. It was part of the religion since its inception in the 1830s, but it became a more common practice following the civil war, at least from what I've been told.

>>918
If things with coronavirus continue going to shit with the idiots blocking treatments in favor of waiting for a vaccine, polygyny might make a comeback as the norm since the virus seems to be biased towards infecting and killing men.  Though my info about infection ratios is a bit dated so I could be off there.  Imagine feminists actually get a major portion of the male population killed only for them to find they can't manipulate the thirsty betas like they have in recent years.

>>917
>The only admonishment is for a man to only have one wife if he intends to be a leader in the Church
It can also be rendered 'husband of a wife'  rather than 'husband of one wife'; meaning the emphasis is on them not being unmarried, not on them being monogamous.

>>925
Though, notably, just as there were early Christian polygamists (e.g. the Merovingians), early Christian priests were very much allowed to marry. The reason the church shut that shit down had less to do with anything in the scriptures, and more to do with the fact that priests generally owned the individual churches and associated land. Married priests have children to which they will pass the land down to, celibate priests do not, and thus it goes to the church. It was a way to limit independence and divergence among local churches by maintaining a top-down power structure.

1525173671_final2v3.jpg
[Hide] (234KB, 506x498) Reverse

>>918
Sounds to me like the moment sex selection becomes a thing with genemodding and whatever, polygyny will become standard once everyone starts going "I'd rather have a daughter, who would want to be born a man in the 20s?"