• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Male Prostitution Disguised as Polygyny

Dr. K.R. Allen

Member
Real Person
In one of the teaching articles I set forth three key errors, or enemies, that can derail the polygyny movement. A friend called me the other day and shared with me about a conversation he had over the subject of male prostitution. From that I think a fourth error or enemy can be seen as a real threat to the Christian or Evangelical Polygyny movement. A fourth enemy that must be considered too is prostitution disguised as polygyny.

When people hear the term prostitution they often think of someone buying the sexual services of another. However the term prostitution in English is the translation of the term from Hebrew and Greek which in its most simple meaning is "sexual immorality."

The Hebrew term is: zanuwn (זְנוּנִים)

The Greek term is: πόρνη pornē

What is one way a man acts like a prostitute while disguising it as a Christian lifestyle? Through the practice of polygyny. When a man takes a woman to himself and puts her away and then takes another woman to himself and put her away and so on and so forth he is living like a prostitute. Prostitution does not have to have money exchanged for it to be real. The making and breaking of a union is a form prostitution.

The definition of a prostitute is one who takes another to oneself for temporal gain. Some men are gravitating to the belief of polygyny in order to take a woman to themselves in order to merely gain pleasure, a feather in their ego cap, or even for combination of temporal personal benefits. But then when things do not go their way they put the woman away and then begin their search all over again. This is a lifestyle that reveals unbelief; those who live this way have a heart that is cold and unregenerate. It reveals the heart of a man who does not understand the heart of the Lord or the real intent of what a union really is.

Paul tells us these type of people will not enter the Kingdom of heaven (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Also in that chapter we see that Paul gives us insight into what prostitution is. In that text he is discussing a man joining himself to a prostitute, which is a woman who joins the man and then breaks that union as she joins herself to another man.

But men can do this too. And it can be done through the guise or veil of polygyny. A prostitute that is masquerading his unfaithful heart will sometimes be drawn towards the idea of polygyny as in that lifestyle he can lure a woman in, have sexual relations as long as he so desires and as long as he feels it is to his own gain. But then when he feels like it is no longer beneficial to him he will break the union and put that woman away to then start his journey all over again through seeking another woman to join himself unto.

But according to the Bible there is ONLY one reason a man can put a woman away. If she breaks the union through joining another man ONLY then does he have the right to put her away. In actuality he has not really put her away because she has done that through her desertion of the man through her joining another man. He may let her leave if she is an unbeliever and will not follow him, which reveals that she is in sin and unbelief with no hope of heaven, but the man, short of the woman being sexually immoral, has no biblical ground to put her away.

The heart that seeks to live this though through putting a woman away because it is no longer convenient reveal that they walk in corruption. That way is corrupt and ungodly. Those men who live this way have no hope of heaven unless they repent and embrace Christ as Lord of their life (see 1 John 3). Prostitution by either gender does not have to be for money for it to qualify as prostitution. The gain can be for money but it can also be for just personal temporal benefits. And when a man takes any woman to himself so long as it is only convenient but then puts her away when it is not to only in turn go out to seek another, that man shows his true colors, he is a male prostitute.
 
Hi Dr Allen. Yes I agree with the identified problem, it is certainly a serious issue and major stumbling block to the successful wider recognition of biblical marriages. However I am not sure that 'male prostitution' is the best description of it, nor helpful to its cure. What about 'covenant breaker' or similar.
Also in discussing this issue, the similarities in practice with Muslim temporary marriages or nikah mut'ah and nikah misyar might be worth pursuing. Any volunteers?

ylop
 
Ylop,

Covenant breaker is indeed in that concept and is certainly a part of the whole.

The idea of a male prostitute is a strong idea and one many men will resist. But if a man does not have the conviction that when he takes a woman to himself that he is obligated to keep her, and if he enters the relationship with the mental idea that it can be temporary or so long as it is convenient then he has aligned himself in ideology with the idea behind porneia that carries over into our language as a form of prostitution.

The defining point to what would make something prostitution has to do with not getting caught up so much on the English terminology; the idea behind the Hebrew and Greek term for that has to do with motive and the temporary gain part. To enter into a union with the intent of it just being for temporary gain is a form of sexual immorality or prostitution. A born again believer, if truly in step with the Lord, will enter into a union with full intent and purpose of keeping the person. Those who enter a relationship with the idea of, "I'll do this so long as it convenient" have set forward from the beginning on a corrupt basis. Furthermore, the falsely putting one away is a sin of adultery, and then the goal to take another even while still in that sin of adultery with another goal to take her so long as it is good for him is immorality again and thus the cycle is prostitution or blatant sexual immorality. Again those are English terms but the reality is the term in Hebrew and Greek make it clear: any man who takes a woman to himself and puts her away for something other than sexual immorality, and then takes another to himself for another temporal period to then put her away when not convenient or easy is living in constant and habitual sexual sin, or what some term prostitution.
 
"serial monogamy" is a serious problem, but labeling it male prostitution just because it qualifies in the greek is not going to help get us taken seriously.
 
serial monogamy" is a serious problem, but labeling it male prostitution just because it qualifies in the greek is not going to help get us taken seriously.

I kind of expected such a response from you.

So how's your level of fluency in the original languages Steve? I'm not being sarcastic here either. It is a serious question. How often do you do translation work from the source language to a receptor language? If not often then you are likely not going to easily pick up on some of these types of nuances without doing some serious homework in these areas.

If it qualifies in the Greek or Hebrew as that idea then it is our responsibility to convey the accuracy of that in the receptor language. Prostitution has connotations to it beyond mere monetary exchange.

Furthermore, we could change the terms or phrase to "Male Fornication Disguised as Polygyny." Or even, "Male Whoredom Disguised as Polygyny." The point behind all of this is the motive and intent to take a union based upon something other than a permanent bond. I'm not discussing "serial monogamy" here, which is an issue but I'm talking about men who have a permanent union with the one lady they have been with and then go out looking for another with the motive of testing it, trying it out, and if it does not work well they will let her go. That is indeed whoredom, a form of prostitution. If fits very well with the idea behind the terms in the Original languages, especially when one examines the etymology of the word and the various nuances the term had even in classical literature, such as with classical Greek.

The idea of porne, especially in Greek, has numerous connotations to it that all revolve around disorder and ill motives, which includes the key point of taking and putting away with the plan to do so, i.e. the mind purposefully lacks the goal of duration and thus by that it places such motives and consequently its following acts in the realm of prostitution. The etymology of the English word for prostitution matches in its meaning with the temporary idea behind poneia.

Thus, since porneia carries the temporal element, and the term prostitution carries the temporal element, when a person (man or woman) enters a sexual union with any form of temporal thinking in it that can and often does match exactly in connotation. In other words, when the three elements align, the original language, the receptor language, and the motives and mind of the persons then the word prostitution fits. Sometimes translators will use the term fornication as well or even whoredom. Those terms are, along with prostitution, are all seeking to convey the temporal aspect.

Thus, it is very much in accordance to the idea meant behind the actual words. Men today who have existing unions who go out looking for another union will sometimes call their lifestyle polygyny when in reality their heart and mind is nowhere near true biblical fidelity but in prostitution. They prostitute themselves and the women by yoking up with the person with an idea that if it gets too hard they'll just send her away.

Your statement is rather what cannot be taken seriously when we we examine the actual ideas behind the biblical languages, unless of course you are claiming and possessing a fluency in the original languages that I am not aware of. If so then by all means explain to us why the connotation in the receptor language would not accurately reflect the point of the original. Nothing in my studies has pointed to that. I read Greek fairly fluently and have done a rather extensive study on the term itself in various lexicons and various linguistic aids that have set forth the meanings with a lot of material in support of this temporal aspect being the key, not the monetary aspect.

Indeed there are men today who set out to take multiple women (a form of polygyny, not serial monogamy) and yet they take the extra ladies with the motive and intent lacking in permanent conviction, which is clearly the intent of all prostitution (or whoredom, or fornication). Porne carries with it the idea of seeking only temporary gain. Other sub-related meanings include the idea of selfish gain only. But the overarching idea behind the terms has been in almost every study I have done the intentional temporary aspect of it. But if you have done some serious homework that shows otherwise then by all means show me the work.

But as it stands all of the language study I have seen the Bible presents the picture as men who thus take another woman while entertaining the idea that it is only so long as it is convenient or going well are practicing a form of prostitution. They who live in that mental/heart mindset lack the character of the Holy Spirit who is Christ himself and thus this is the reason why porneia is such a serious violation of the word. It reveals those who lack the character of Christ and those who live in it reveal by their actions they lack Christ (see 1 John 3:9-10).

If you want to really examine the original language, yet you read only in English then it still can be done. Read the KJV and NASB in English in 1 Cor. 6:16 and surrounding verses and then go back and read it in the original language through a transliteration or with word study helps, and then do a study on the semantical range of meaning for the term porneia, which is used there throughout the text. If the temporal aspect is there in that word then a man as well as a woman can be guilty of such by the failure to enter a union with permanency being the goal in their mind. Indeed by becoming one with a prostitute the man has theologically speaking also become one himself.

Men who intentionally "test run" with a lady are not truly entering into a biblical union. They are in such cases practicing whoredom or prostitution. The lack of seriousness, the lack of absolute determination that when they take the woman that they must keep her is a sign of the sin of the heart in this area. A truly righteous man whose heart is reborn with the indwelling presence of Christ will not live and practice unions with the the additional ladies with a "temporary mindset."
 
my goodness, when you misunderstand you do it with industrial strength intensity :!:

what did i say in that statement that led you to assume that i disagreed with your interpretation of the greek?
you just unloaded your snark-gun on a position that is a figment of your imagination. it really is hard on the environment :)
 
just because it qualifies in the greek is not going . . .

Your statement as is suggests that such is not enough for such a title. "Just because" is an intensive phrase used for contrastive purposes. It is a phrase that says, "even though it qualifies that still does not accomplish. . . ." The reality is though that if it does qualify for a proper translation then it is exactly the point or points we need to be stressing in the English.

The error is often one where people do not take us seriously because we use phrases or terms that do not truly reflect the real serious nature of the violation. Many do in fact fail to see their taking and putting away of a woman as prostitution. Why? Because many see the English word prostitution and think it terms like this: "Oh, well that is not me. I did not pay money for my second woman. I put her away but I'm not in prostitution. My putting away the second woman was necessary because it just would not work and my seeking out another is justified because the Bible allows for polygyny."

But, if they truly understood the transmitting language on this point they would grasp that in fact they are corrupt and caught in the very sin that Jesus and the apostles spoke of when talking about porneia. Any man who enters a union with any hint of an idea that he can or will try it out or just take the lady until it gets too hard has not entered into a true covenant union but has in fact prostituted himself. He is practicing prostitution and will reap the consequences of that in eternity unless he truly repents. If that can not be taken seriously then the issue is even more serious as such would mean the person could care less about his or her eternal standing.

So if we desire to be taken seriously we must indeed focus and press others to see themselves in that particular light. Porneia can and does mean the temporal taking of someone and what some of these men are doing in while calling it polygyny is really nothing more than a cover, a masquerade, a facade disguised or termed polygyny when it really is nothing of the sort. They live in evil, vile, detestable corruption while trying to justify their corruption through the term polygyny.
 
i could not agree more with you on how wrong it is to temporarily try a poly relationship. it is sin, fornication. those words convey the message that you are trying to communicate to your audience. to use a word that has a different meaning in the mind of your audience, even though it is translated correctly, takes the focus off of your point and confuses the issue. at that point we run the risk of getting dismissed as kooks.
why take the risk? are the words sin and fornication not dramatic enough? do you really need to risk alienating your audience in order to be as dramatic as possible?
 
to use a word that has a different meaning in the mind of your audience, even though it is translated correctly, takes the focus off of your point and confuses the issue. at that point we run the risk of getting dismissed as kooks. why take the risk? are the words sin and fornication not dramatic enough? do you really need to risk alienating your audience in order to be as dramatic as possible?

That is the point, to properly educate the people who don't grasp the clear meaning of the term. One of the biggest issues we have is that people today have a poor understanding of language.

When people are already confused a teacher has the duty to actually educate the people towards clearing out that confusion. Thus the reason for the extended clarification of why the word prostitution is used in the Bible and what words are behind it.

Why take the risk to educate others in the real meanings? Well that is the biblical way. When masses of people don't grasp something even if they think it sounds odd or weird it is our duty to explain the real intent and meaning of the Bible. This is what teachers do.

Besides, your point makes no sense logically because if you applied that logic back to polygyny (the fear or risk of being seen as odd as a reason not to teach a truth or use a particular word), even though the term itself, like plural-union, or any other term related to this, can be and is often misunderstood by the masses, it would mean we not use any word ever that can be misunderstood. But we certainly choose to run the risk of being called derogatory names or even alienation of masses in order to educate others in this truth about a biblical union. You cannot pick and choose arbitrarily when to apply that idea. You apply that idea here to this choice of terminology and this idea but not to other places on the whole.

Likewise, this truth too has to with the very nature of what constitutes a true union. Thus it is vitally important to get the right ideas behind the words. Since many people, including myself at one time, think that prostitution only has to do with monetary exchange for sexual relations it is very important for us teachers to communicate the accurate idea behind that term, that in essence it really means taking any person to oneself without the idea of permanency behind it. To think in ones mind that a lady can be taken just until things get rough is such an ugly, deplorable, and corrupt mindset.

You have assumed, maybe even because of prior heart issues or personal dispositions towards me in general which seem to reveal themselves in your contentious or critical spirit towards many posts I write (which is why I figured such a response like this from you might shortly follow the original post), that I use the term in order to be dramatic. I don't care about being dramatic and certainly that is not the goal. You assume In that would be the assumption I operate and teach from a teleological or consequentialist ethic in determining what topic to pick or not pick or in what words to use or not use in this matter. I do not and did not select my term "Prostitution" for a dramatic effect. I chose the term because it is a term not used or applied by many to themselves because they associate the term with monetary exchange. Seeing the full essence or key point behind the term can present a clearer picture of that term to the audience.

But the truth is there are men, even some coming and going in the forums of BF, who are guilty of being prostitutes and thus they need to know the sin they have committed. The ones who have Christ in them as the Holy Spirit will be convicted and will at some point repent. Those who do not have Christ in them will not repent.

But in either case that is the Lord's work of granting repentance while I simply teach and share a truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25). In this case some today have taken a woman to themselves thinking that it is a trial union when in reality they are living as prostitute and they need to ponder that and know the true meaning of that so they can turn from that lifestyle.
 
i completely agreed with your main point, i just felt that the choice of words used to high-light it does not serve our community well.

reread the posts and ask yourself, which one of us appears to be responding "because of prior heart issues or personal dispositions towards" the other?

as regards your statement of "your contentious or critical spirit towards many posts I write ", which one of us is displaying that spirit? (your first statement to me was:"I kind of expected such a response from you.")

maybe it would be good to get a second, unbiased opinion.
 
Interesting, it was others (whom I suppose are unbiased) who have pointed out to me that you were often very quick to be critical of my posts. In paying closer attention to it I think they may have been right. I can't read the heart as only the Lord has full omniscience but their observations seem to have some merit to them. You do seem to be quick to be critical towards my posts, which is why I did expect such a response from you early on as what was noted to me I have watched to see if true and it seems to be so.

I'll be glad to pick up the phone so we can talk another leader here and see if they would like to give you their unbiased opinion on this as well. If I recall correctly, and probably could find it, someone else pointed this critical spirit out to you too in an actual post. You seem to gravitate towards the critical type comments more so than anything towards a positive comment, or at least when dealing with my posts. Not sure why it is that way but it does seem to be that way, which apparently has been noticed by some others before. Nonetheless we can talk that out privately by phone if you so desire instead of here.

In any case, what is good for the "community" (or any community)is for the proper ideas behind terms to be clearly explained, which is the goal of explaining this issue.

And if you agree with the main or major idea then I'm not sure why you would want to focus on the minor issue. I think there is something in Scripture spoken about that, is it not (see Matthew 23:24)? If the camel is right and straight why strain at the gnat portion when a word of commendation for the right idea is more conducive and productive to the end goal, which is to press people towards moral faithfulness? If there is a problem with this taking and putting away without justification by people coming into this theological persuasion (the major issue; the camel so to speak) why would you want to focus or begin with a criticism regarding the minor issue unless there is indeed some drive in the heart pushing you that way to focus on the minor instead of the major? Again that goes back to observations again though. It makes me wonder is there some issue you have that is buried in your spirit towards me? If so then by all means let me know. I'm certainly curious as to why your first comment would be focused on how it is not good for the community when if the major goal is to point people towards morality, which is indeed the intent of this post, you would start elsewhere when you say you agree with the major point. Why not start with a hearty amen to that which is something you agree with? Just seems rather odd to me.
 
Hello Steve and Dr Allen, "Praise in public and correct in private" is a good way to address many issues. I do understand extenuating circumstances exist. I have appreciated many words from both of you gentlemen as they have spurred me toward greater study and understanding and growth. I encourage both of you to be men of goodwill and faithfulness in your walk with God and exercise grace in your dialogue. Embrace humbleness in the sight of God and He will appropriately exalt you.
Blessings,
Maddog
 
"The definition of a prostitute is one who takes another to oneself for temporal gain. Some men are gravitating to the belief of polygyny in order to take a woman to themselves in order to merely gain pleasure, a feather in their ego cap, or even for combination of temporal personal benefits. But then when things do not go their way they put the woman away and then begin their search all over again. This is a lifestyle that reveals unbelief; those who live this way have a heart that is cold and unregenerate. It reveals the heart of a man who does not understand the heart of the Lord or the real intent of what a union really is."

I think you did a very good job of framing the subject here before going on to explain in further detail. I appreciate the time you spend investigating these issues so that someone like myself can understand things not commonly if ever taught in most churches. Many things I have learned by doing word or phrase studies have exposed errors in what I was taught as I grew up. Your teaching and those of others have accelerated my understanding of many issues.

Since polygyny is not commonly practiced openly due to legal issues there is little if any leadership or accountability for those that do practice it. We are left to fumble through it on our own until we come across people like some of those at this site that are willing to lead and teach. A good friend of mine once pointed out that as sinful men we are able to justify literally anything. There simply is no accountability. I look forward to the day we have established churches teaching the biblical truths found in scriptures and not a denominational doctrine.

Thank you Dr. Allen for your continued efforts.
 
when i joined this group it was a place to discuss opinions, beliefs, observations, questions, whatever. one of my first threads was removed from general view and placed in the private men-only section and hotly debated.
just last night i posted in disagreement with a poster with whom i am almost in total agreement otherwise. i was not being contentious, i just did not buy what the article that she had posted was promoting.
it is never personal and i would hope that it is not taken that way.
in anything other than a sycophantic relationship, when controversial postings are made there will be disagreement and discussion. let this not become a place where dissenting opinions are not allowed, but let it be a place where personal attacks and the assignation of motives are unpopular. if i have done that let me be the first to apologise.
 
Alright, sure. Examine your own posts and heart to see then.

I have no issues with alternative thoughts and ideas being presented, at least if done respectfully. But, I'm no fan of anyone, including myself, who is always seeking to be negative and critical towards another, especially if there is some ulterior motive or issue driving it.
 
ince polygyny is not commonly practiced openly due to legal issues there is little if any leadership or accountability for those that do practice it. We are left to fumble through it on our own until we come across people like some of those at this site that are willing to lead and teach. A good friend of mine once pointed out that as sinful men we are able to justify literally anything. There simply is no accountability. I look forward to the day we have established churches teaching the biblical truths found in scriptures and not a denominational doctrine.

Scarecrow, this indeed does make sense.

For sure a person's character makes all the difference in the world. The actual idea of being transformed into Christ's character is specifically presented in Scripture as the ultimate goal of our sanctification. It reminds me of Pastor Whitten's continual stress on this particular point.

As for the day of established churches, yes that will be great. We need an entire new missionary effort to bring this about.

One of the additional problems we have is that men coming to this idea are often people who eschew accountability. Rarely do we ever have men asking to be held accountable. Though a needed and important aspect of a healthy Christian life very few are willing to place themselves around and under another. Many are indeed just mavericks and rebels. Some enjoy the idea of not fitting in anywhere because it suits there spirit of rebellion, which is likely to be the same men who also live in this very lifestyle of prostitution while pretending as if they are wanting to live in polygyny because of the Bible. It is rather a sad commentary on men and the shape of manhood in this country.
 
steve said:
you just unloaded your snark-gun on a position that is a figment of your imagination.

steve i love your analogy and now consider the snark shot, dead and buried.

ylop
 
ylop said:
i ... now consider the snark shot, dead and buried.

Aaaaaw! What a waste of a good BBQ! :roll:
 
Btw, what IS a snark? Is it a breed of tofudabeeste?
 
Male Whoring Disguised as Polygyny

Weghing in ... I must confess ... Up to this point, I had read Keith's original post and those on this page, and mainly loved the snark gun comment for its clever wordage. However someone asked me about it today, so ...

On the one hand Keith, I, and prolly Steve, and everyone else applaud your original post and its basic concept. Those who marry and put away as convenient for their own pleasure are practicing immorality. Of some sort.

The practice needs to be called out for what it is, and publicly denounced.

Now to Steve's point ... Ayn Rand said that "Words are exact tools and ought to be used accordingly." Was she right? Yes. And no. It is sometimes necessary to acknowledge that popular usage of a term may come to over-ride technical accuracy when communicating. Change does occur.

For instance, if I were to start singing at the July 4 retreat, "And we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home..." I would be seen as deviant, rather than patriotic, regardless of the fact that my church-school choir sang it with gusto in the early 70s. (And our teachers seemed more concerned with our raging heterosexual tendencies in the 8th grade than any possible homosexual ones.)

Therein is Steve's sole point: (Believe me, we both agree wholeheartedly with the premise of your post.) That regardless of dictionary accuracy, communication of your concept is likely to be more accurately received if the wording is modified slightly.

What difference might be automatically communicated to a non-technical cominicatee (is that the right word, for the one who receives the communication?) between the use of the terms "whore" or "whoring" vs. "prostitution"?

While recognizing that both are immoral, both railed against in Scripture, both signaling the intent of a temporary union, they do have a different flavor when I, as one native American English speaker, hears them. Ready? (set, mark ...)

Prostitutes are employed by another for the other's pleasure, and receive remuneration of a (usually) material form, such as cash, drugs, utility bills paid, being kept, whatever. With a very temporary, typically, one "shot" expectation (while recognizing that a prostitute may develop long term clients.)

Whores, by contrast, in the flavor I get from scripture, are out seeking their own pleasure, temporarily, without regard to covenants. (Oddly enough, the ebonics terms "ho" and "hoing" seem to more closely match "prostitute" in meaning.)

With this in mind, I gather that you are talking here about those who pursue temporary relationships with women for their own pleasure, rather than to provide pleasure as a career-job-livelihood. As such it seems likely that another term instead of "prostitution" would more clearly communicate your intent. My title at the top of this post would work better for me.

As opinions go, I agree with Steve. You, of course, as the author, are free to say, "Thanks for the input, but I like this term and think it DOES communicate more clearly to the general public." *shrug* Fair enough. Your thread. Your article. We weighed in in the spirit of friendly conversation.

If I may, a final point: It is easy to misinterpret another's intentions. This morning, I walked through the living room while talking on the phone with my hand over my bluetooth headset. My step-daughter was listening to the radio. MY intent was to honor her right to do so by quietly shielding the headset instead of telling her to turn the radio off for a moment. Her perception, as later overheard when she complained to her mom, was that I was expressing criticism of her for having it on, as though she had no right! It is what happens when we expect and impute poor motives to another, or are just generally angry inside.

I propose that this is what happened here. I'm truly sorry to see it. Happens I both love and respect both of you fellas, and appreciated both initial posts. They each seemed to carry valid points.

Enough (of my own writing). I have now painted a big "SNARK" sign on my own chest, and am prepared to accept being shot, dissected, um, butchered, and BBQ'd. :lol:
 
Back
Top