I think we are narrowing in on the mechanics of the issue, the process by which the opposition is generated, fabricated, and transmitted. At some point this anemic belief system was injected into culture and a considerable majority were persuaded to embrace it, not only as a norm but as the only moral, ethical, and viable means of marriage.
Psychology is a big factor. Evidently women do not think entirely like men and the converse is equally true. One of the most frequent errors in this regard is the occurrence of projection. A sensibly-minded woman knows full well she doesn't need another husband. If she uses this line of logic to invert it and thereby conclude that her husband has no need for another wife she is likely to become deeply rooted in the erroneous monogamy only doctrine. She is in effect, blind-sighted to the benefits that an additional wife can bring to the table. Because she knows deep down it is good and proper to be loyal to only one spouse, she extends this knowledge by means of inversion and projection to her husband. Her reasoning is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and consequently becomes a silly goose.
The problem is further exacerbated and reinforced in a spirit of rebellion. By failure to acknowledge her headship in the home she is blind to the fact that she is robbing it of functionality. She expects that her husband should obey her. The process is nearly always entirely unconscious because it is borne of expectation. By means of culture, by means of media, by means of conditioning, and "because pastor x said..." she is completely convinced that she should be the one and only. After all, isn't that what her husband is to her? Shouldn't he regard her precisely the same way?
Lest I might mislead anyone with these words I should like to point to the husbandman also in this regard. I'm not targeting women because that would be unfair. If the husbandman is likewise conditioned to think the same way (as I once was) then the outcome is inevitable: A weak and spurious doctrine that has no root or foundation in Scripture, full of holes, full of rebellion, loaded with pitfalls and shortcomings. It is a recipe for disaster.
I have considered how a young boy grows up in such an environment. He's programmed to believe the Disney model. He is conditioned to fall on his knee and worship the woman he loves, to make offerings and such, and to become her beast of burden. After all, she is the beauty and he is the beast. Conversely, a man knows that he should be his wife's one and only. So the card is played once again, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander: If he wants to be her one and only then he must likewise regard her the same way. She is his husband now. He would do well to submit and to obey. The television said so. The internet says so. The pronoun people even take it further, but that's another story we're being told. All of it in the interests of gender egalitarianism.
In nature and creation these analogies quickly break down. The rooster rules the roost. The gander selects several geese in the domestic scenario. I am inclined to think that some sort of psi-op was played centuries before I was born to bring this artificial construct into play. One only need to do a little digging into history to learn quickly that this was not the norm for all cultures, including Semitic cultures. Rome certainly plays a huge role in the indoctrination of the monogamy only fallacy, but not the early church. Rather, this practice gained popularity under the auspices of Constantine; but I digress. Nonetheless, the information is available for all to learn and perhaps come to the realization that the monogamy only doctrine was deliberately orchestrated and fabricated by powers that should NOT be.
