Sir, in mathematics, there is a topic called a set. A set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects known as elements or members. Applied to eight billion people, it is only natural that we have different preferences as regards our emotional well-being and romantic connections. Some people are attracted to older people, while some are attracted to younger people, some prefer thin, while others prefer thick, and some are naturally monogamous, while others are naturally polygamous.

 

I have read your reply in which you stated your case for monogamy, but isn’t it funny that muslim nations that allowed monogamy and polygamy to co-exist are not experiencing the decline in birth rate and procreation that Western nations are experiencing at the moment?

 

A lot of women are settling for sperm donation, single parenthood via IVF, adoption, freezing their eggs due to delay in marital settlement, depression, loneliness, and suicide, simply because Christians insist on a self-destructive way of life that continues to reduce their numbers year in year out.

 

The Jewish society embraced both polygamy and monogamy till today. The early church embraced both polygamists and monogamists without discrimination. I know many Christian churches where polygamy is embraced because we all know that the kind of marriage or relationship you embrace is not a determinant of your salvation and eternal life.

 

I am not advocating for a loose way of life or indecency in any form; I am only asking that we do not cast everybody in the same mould due to our narrow-mindedness or force people to either conform to our own standards or be cast away from our circle or fellowship.

 

We outlawed a natural course of reality due to our embrace of a Western Judeo-Christian worldview, and we refuse to pay attention to the obvious imbalance and disharmony we have caused in terms of love connections and relationships within the church.

 

Divorce rate is higher than it has ever been within the church, affairs are taking on different shapes in the name of finding expression and fulfilment. Everybody is sleeping with everybody in one form or another, but we all pretend we don’t see that our definitions are the problems.

 

I mean, people are doing what they want to do anyway!

 

Nigeria is one of the nations that is experiencing a boom in population, while Europe is suffering from a serious decline in population. The difference between the two continents is simple. Nigeria embraced every form of connection available, even if some of them are not socially acceptable. Europe is rigid in its embrace of monogamy, and this is why it is being overrun by foreigners as we speak.

 

Yes, you mentioned issues relating to jealousy, rivalry among children, the emotional trauma several polygamists experienced with the example of Leah and Rachael, and I understand you, sir.

 

However, you are not getting my point.

 

If I am a monogamist, I date and marry a monogamist. A polygamist should date and marry a fellow polygamist. A serial monogamist should date and marry a serial monogamist (instead of marrying and divorcing several times in one lifetime, as we see all over the world today) just as we classify elements in a set. That way, a monogamist won’t get married to a polygamist and get angry when the polygamist decides he or she wants to bring home another partner. A serial monogamist will know I am with this person, but it is not for a lifetime, and he or she will take each day as it comes.

 

You also said women naturally hate polygamy.

 

This is not true, sir. Studies show that many women desire married men and are seriously attracted to them for that reason. We might have outlawed the design in Christianity, but outlawing God’s design didn’t remove the instinct; it just pushed it into the shadows.

 

If you have ever wondered why a man suddenly becomes more attractive the moment another woman desires him, you are not imagining things.

 

You are observing a pattern that shows up across psychology, biology, anthropology, and Scripture itself.

 

Scientists call it mate-choice copying. Scripture calls it wisdom and discernment. Modern culture pretends it should not exist.

 

What mate-choice copying actually means

 

Mate-choice copying is the observed phenomenon where women find a man more attractive once they know other women have already chosen him.

 

This is not fringe theory. It has been documented repeatedly in behavioral science.

 

In one study, women were shown a photo of a man and asked whether they found him attractive. About 60 percent said yes. When the same women were told that the man was married, with no other variables changed, attraction jumped to roughly 90 percent.

 

Same face. Same photo. The only difference was female validation.

 

That does not mean women are insecure. It means women are strategic.

 

Women evolved, and were designed, to read social proof as a shortcut for safety, competence, and leadership. A man who has already been chosen signals something important: other women have vetted him.

 

This instinct is everywhere in nature.

 

This pattern did not begin in dating apps or Instagram DMs.

 

It exists throughout the animal kingdom, including in primates. Female chimpanzees do not compete for the loneliest male sitting on the sidelines. They pursue the dominant male who already has females around him.

 

Why?

 

Because instinctively, they know that the male has already proven something essential:

 

Strength

Provision

Protection

Leadership

 

Humans did not evolve separately from this reality. We carry the same instincts, just expressed through culture, language, and moral frameworks.

 

The instinct was never the problem.

 

Here is where the conversation goes off the rails.

 

The problem is not that women desire men who have already been chosen. The problem is that the modern church decided to outlaw the only structure God designed to contain that desire righteously.

 

Biblical polygyny was not a loophole. It was a framework.

 

When Scripture describes households with one man and multiple wives, it does so without condemnation. These households came with responsibility, provision, inheritance, protection, and covenantal accountability.

 

When that structure was removed, the instinct did not disappear.

 

It simply went underground.

 

What happens when the covenant is outlawed, but instinct remains?

 

We are now living with the consequences.

 

Today:

 

Roughly 80 percent of women are pursuing roughly 20 percent of men.

Cheating is normalized.

“Are We Dating the Same Man?” groups exist in nearly every major city.

Women share men informally, secretly, and without protection.

Good men sit invisible in churches because no woman is choosing them first.

 

Women are already sharing men. They are just doing it without covenant, without protection, and without honesty.

 

This is not holiness. It is chaos.

 

Suppressing design does not create purity.

 

There is a dangerous lie that says if we forbid something strongly enough, people will stop wanting it.

 

Scripture teaches the opposite.

 

When God’s design is suppressed, you do not get righteousness. You get hypocrisy.

 

When women are forbidden from forming households with the men they are already drawn to, they still choose those men. The choice simply takes sinful forms rather than covenantal ones.

 

The instinct did not fail. The structure did.

 

This is why Scripture makes so much sense in hindsight.

 

Once you understand this, biblical marriage suddenly becomes coherent rather than offensive.

 

A righteous man leading multiple women under covenant:

 

Honors female instinct rather than shaming it

Protects women rather than pitting them against each other

Channels desire into legacy, not secrecy.

Produces households instead of situationships

 

This is not lust. It is order.

 

It is also why Scripture never condemns righteous men with multiple wives, even while condemning adultery, abandonment, and abuse.

 

God regulated households because He understood human nature. The modern church chose instead to deny it.

 

Where this leaves us now

 

The collapse we are witnessing is not accidental.

 

It is the predictable outcome of replacing God’s design with tradition while pretending human instincts would obediently comply.

 

They never do.

 

Until the church is willing to distinguish between desire and disorder, and between instinct and sin, the fallout will continue:

 

Fewer marriages

Fewer children

More broken homes

More silent competition

More women are aging out while waiting for a system that no longer works.

 

To Be Continued