News Top Stories

Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in Kenya

A newlywed couple poses for a photo after exchanging wedding vows on Dec. 8, 2018, in Mombasa, Kenya. RNS photo by Tonny Onyulo

NAIROBI, Kenya (RNS) — Sipping black coffee outside his house in Kibera, a slum district here, James Oketch comes up with as many reasons to support polygamy as he has wives.

“I’m proud of my big family because it’s a blessing from God. We should not take that as sin,” said Oketch, a 49-year-old carpenter, who is thrice married, with 13 children.

“There’s nowhere the Bible condemns polygamy,” offered Oketch, who attends Catholic Mass every Sunday at the Christ the King Church, despite his priest’s disapproval of the practice.

But the clincher for Oketch is that he believes polygamy is good for women. “I was very happy with the president’s action,” said Oketch, referring to President Uhuru Kenyatta, who signed a law legalizing polygamy in 2014.

“He understands our society and culture. He loves women and he doesn’t want them to remain single and snatch other women’s husbands. In fact, we should support polygamy for the sake of our women.”

Oketch is among hundreds of thousands of Christian men in this East African nation who have multiple wives despite Catholic and other church teachings. About 1.5 million Kenyans, or 10 percent of the married population, are in a polygamous marriage, according to the latest data from the Kenya Population and Housing Census.

More than 85 percent of Kenyans are Christian, while a third of the country is Catholic. Around 10 percent are Muslim.

Kenyan legislator Catherine Waruguru is in a polygamous marriage. Photo courtesy of Twitter

The debate on whether men should be allowed to marry multiple wives first garnered headlines after Kenyatta signed the marriage bill four years ago. During a heated debate in the National Assembly, female lawmakers stormed out of the house in protest, saying it was an era of equal rights, gender equity and fairness. The male-dominated house enacted the bill soon after.

Some Kenyan women, however, support polygamous marriage. (The legislation does not allow women to have multiple husbands.) “I’m in a polygamous setup and I am not embarrassed about it,” said Catherine Waruguru, a member of Parliament representing Laikipia, in a recent press conference.

Some legislators even see polygamy as pro-woman insofar as it protects unmarried mothers. Early last year, Gathoni Wamuchomba, a female lawmaker from central Kenya, reintroduced a controversial proposal asking rich men to consider polygamy because most of the married men were, she said, “siring children with different women.”

“We give birth to these children, and we do not want to own up to them,” she said. “If you are a man and you can sustain five wives, have them. If you are a man and you are in a position to bring up many children, do it. Polygamous marriage is not a crime but a way of culture.”

Young and old men have heeded the call and openly married multiple wives. Last month Tom Mako, a prosperous car dealer, shocked Kenyans when he married two women, Elizabeth Simaloi and Joyce Tikoiyanon, simultaneously in a colorful traditional ceremony in southern Kenya. He was praised in the media for his courage.

“I decided to marry my two wives because I love them,” said Mako. “I didn’t want to cheat on them so I convinced them to have a joint wedding.”

The Catholic Church has condemned the practice and questioned whether the new law is constitutional.

“It’s against Christian doctrine to have more than one wife,” said Bishop Philip Anyolo, chairman of the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It’s time that we uphold the dignity of the woman. I appeal to all Catholics and Kenyans to reject the polygamy call by our leaders who are trying to find solutions by suggesting alternative forms of family.”

Bishop Philip Anyolo, chairman of the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops, leads Mass at St. Joseph Mission Catholic Church on Oct. 17, 2018, in Nairobi, Kenya. The Catholic Church opposes polygamy. RNS photo by Tonny Onyulo

Other denominations have also opposed polygamy, saying it contributes to poverty as men divide their few resources among larger families.

“We cannot advocate for polygamy because it’s un-Christian,” said Bishop Paul Korir of the Anglican Church of Kenya. “It also overburdens families. Our leaders should understand the economic problems the families are going through at the time and stop spreading evil.”

Gethrude Nekesa, a teacher, said she supported polygamy but appealed to men who are planning to get second wives to first seek consent from their first wives, as women are often unaware they are sharing a husband.

“I support it,” said Nekesa, 35. “But for the sake of peace, a man should first seek consent from his wife before he takes the second one.”

Oketch, husband of three wives, disagreed. He said he didn’t consult any of his wives before marrying another one.

“There’s nowhere in the Bible where King Solomon and King David consulted anybody to marry a second wife,” he said. “I think we should be good Christians who follow and understand the Bible.”

About the author

Tonny Onyulo

72 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in Kenya.

    Of course it does. This is not news. I was writing about this ten years ago. Everywhere and everywhen that polygamy has been practiced, it has been practiced by heterosexuals, defended by heterosexuals, and supported, practiced, and defended by the Christian religion. Except when it was supported, defended and practiced by the buddhist religion, the Islamic religion, the jewish religion, the animist religions, the native American religions, the Hindu religion (though sort of outlawed in 1955, and still legal in Goa), and everyone else.

    But hey! not to worry! Gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Because every single goddam time heterosexuals do something, it’s the fault of The Geyz.

  • Is there anywhere that the Catholic hierarchy is taken seriously? Evidently not. Church teaching seems to have entered a world-wide zombie status.

  • The last sentence in the article is another great example of why “Every Word of This Bible is True (and Relevant)” Church Peope can become prone to justifying bad ideas. David and Solomon are NOT supposed to be anyone’s role model. They are supposed to be (in part) what any Christian is to be saved from thinking or being.

  • The Church’s teaching hasn’t entered a zombie status.

    Like you, there are people who like to give it the one-finger salute.

    That’s not new and it’s not newsworthy.

  • “I was writing about this ten years ago.”

    You were writing anti-religious screeds ten years ago, and this happened to be one of the canards among dozens of others you threw into your stew.

    Polygamy is not supported, practiced, and defended by the Christian religion.

    And you were no doubt told that ten years ago.

    The fact that you’re still peddling it says it all.

  • “Because every single goddam time heterosexuals do something, it’s the fault of The Geyz.”

    This might be the case in Islam and Christianity. But leave out the buddhist religion, the animist religions, the Native American religions, the Hindu religion. Those don’t have specific doctrines or injunctions whom to marry, how many wives to marry, etc.

  • Mormon missionaries in Kenya must be having some very interesting conversations as they go door to door.

  • Seriously; who needs more than one wife?
    I need another to tell me to take out the garbage?!
    No thanks….

  • Interesting! While there are a few isolated cases, I think there are too many pressing issues for men in the country to think beyond one. This was fashionable nearly 40 years ago and was driven by culture. At the moment its about smartphones,good education,jobs etc….for both gender.

  • Why is it that in traditional religion, the kind that comes straight from the Bible or other holy book, it’s always polygamy that’s allowed but never polyandry? Hmmm.

  • Indeed. Native Americans even honored gay people, whom they called “two-spirits”, with great respect, often elevating them to the position of shaman for their ability to see the world from a different perspective. It wasn’t until Christianity came along and f*cked everything that Native Americans first encountered the notion that they were supposed to hate gay people. They also apparently learned that Jesus wanted their land and crops to be stolen and their women raped since that’s what the new invaders did with abandon, spreading their semen along with the Word of God.

  • Allow me to correct you on one issue. Two Spirit is not a traditional term used by the Indigenous American peoples who lived here before the white man came from Europe.

    Two Spirit is a relatively modern term agreed upon by Native American lesbian & gay folks as a term to use for themselves in the current predominantly white culture.

    The rest is true, certain native indigenous people, not all, recognized that their were folks among them who did not fit the traditional male & female roles. They accepted these people as they were, folks who crossed or combined aspects of being traditionally male or female. And often these folks were viewed as a gift from the divine and did fulfill religious positions in their community.

  • Most “Church teaching” is a one-fingered salute, so why not return the favor? The Church is losing ground day by day — by its own doing.

  • Polygamy is not supported, practiced, and defended by the Christian religion.

    Obviously that is false. There is no single “Christian religion” but hundreds of interpretations of what is “Christian”, and in this case, it’s supported, practiced and defended in the Kenyan Christian churches.

  • It’s bad application even if you are that type of believer, since both David and Solomon (and other polygamous examples) had major issues in their families caused by the situation.

    And Sarah and Hagar are an example of how those issues can atise even when the first wife consents (though it’s not clear if Hagar had legitimate right of refusal).

  • Obviously that is false.

    In the Old Testament the ideal is one man and one woman, although polygamy is tolerated, so that by the time of Jesus it was considered at best unseemly.

    Jesus did two things: he made marriage a sacrament, and he made clear that multiple marriage was contrary to God’s plan: Mark 10:2-12, Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Luke 16:18.

    Pointing some sect or other tolerates or even promotes it simply indicates that the sect is only Christian in name.

    Note that the Catholic clergy in the article condemn polygamy. The photo, which was initially captioned with the name of the clergyman from a small sect in Kenya, has been recaptioned – apparently to leave the false impression that the minister is Catholic.

  • The Catholic Church continues to grow at an exponential rate.

    It does this despite the fact that you, alwayspuzzled, Mark Silk, and other naysayers wish otherwise.

  • Damn. IMO, if a person wants multiple spouses, that should be fine so long as all involved are ok with it. There is a big problem with how they are doing it here. It appears that if a man wants multiple wives it is fine, but what if a woman wants multiple husbands? Doesn’t look like she gets that option like a man does, and that is just plain wrong.

  • It’s like cats. If you only have one it will bug you all the time. If you have two, they mostly keep each other entertained.

  • Two things:
    1) Women are more intelligent then men. They know a problem when they see it and having more than one lazy, no good, such and such is a problem…
    2) if you notice in the Bible, God does not endorse, promote or encourage polygamy – in the same way he didn’t encourage or endorse the Israelites having a king. Furthermore, you will notice that in any instance where polygamy is practiced in the Bible, conflict soon follows. Polygamy is not Gods way.

  • But God actually told Samuel that having a King would have a downside. There isn’t even that much said against polygamy.

  • Yes agree.
    There are better biblical scholars here, but I recall in the Old Testament God being frustrated with the Israelites because they wanted a leader/king like other nations.

  • It had little to do with religion and everything with practicalities of an agricultural world where men provided the bulk of the support for families. Men are best motivated to produce and provide for their own children, not other men’s children.

  • Jesus said all that needs to be said about marriage when He referred us back to God’s creation design.

  • All that the government has done is legitimize a practice that happens all over the world. How many men have had multiple families in Europe, North America and Latin America at one time? The only difference is that only one relationship at a time is considered legal in most Western countries. Making polygamy legal may insure some legal rights for the women and children and sense of equality in such set ups. I am not saying this is the Christian way or ideal for most people.

    These marriages should be allowed only if the women and men all agree to it.
    Can you imagine how long the “Honey Do” list would be the man?

  • “IMO, if a person wants multiple spouses, that should be fine so long as all involved are ok with it.”

    I presume this includes incest and bestiality.

    If it doesn’t, and everyone was okay with it, I’d like to know why they’re not included in your IMO.

  • Polygamy should be accepted on the basis that the ancient Gods had multiple husbands or wives. We should however get rid of the Christianity stuff. Look I myself am not monogamous I am free. My girl knows this.

  • You presume wrong. I had assumed anyone reading my comment would know I was talking about responsible, mature, consenting adults being involved in marriage, not children or animals since children are certainly not mature enough understand what marriage means and animals, well, of course, can’t consent.

  • Since I gave up mind-reading some time ago, and this forum involves the written word, I did not assume anything – I asked.

    The “animals, well, of course, can’t consent” appears to be a red herring. Animals “consent” to all sorts of things to the limit of their capacity. Obviously they’re not going to become lawyers.

    What you appear, then, to be suggesting is that various adults – even brothers and sisters – can form a variety of unions and engage in sexual congress as long as they all agree to do it.

    That, of course, does not meet the definition of “marriage” in any society that I am aware of.

    That, also of course, is where then Justice Kennedy went off the rails in Obergefell v. Hodges.

  • Funny how, in the US among the Religious Right, Christianity supposedly teaches that marriage is only to be between one man and one woman. The R.C. Church agrees with that position worldwide, it seems. But … Christians’ own scripture is FAR from settled on that. The Old Testament is full of references to patriarchs and kings of Israel — i.e. supposedly holy men — having multiple wives and even concubines in addition. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated that this was bad, or a temporary accommodation, or anything of the sort. 

    On top of that, in 1 Timothy, it says that deacons and bishops should be husbands of only one wife. This clearly implies that it wouldn’t have been a problem for lay Christian men to have more than one wife. I’d say the Kenyans are onto something — scripturally speaking, that is. 

  • The article seems to clearly state that the major denominations in Kenya oppose the law, which would mean it is NOT defended by most churches in Kenya. There are likely some who do not oppose it, but the larger denominations appear to be against it according to the article above.

  • Indeed, the Catholic Church does go with the one-man one woman teaching, for the same reason as disapproving of remarriage after divorce. This is because Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament (See John 2:1-11). In Matthew 19, he tells us that things have gone awry since Creation, and that we need to return to the standard set by God, that by his grace, he provides. The Timothy thing is still carried out, in the Church, among those who receive holy orders as deacons. But the Church has historically followed this in the case of a man who BECOMES a WIDOWER after receiving Holy Orders. He is not to remarry. To this day, if a man converts to Catholicism, he can become a priest, if he has a wife. But if she dies, he is not to take another. He is to be “married but once.”

  • Re: “Indeed, the Catholic Church does go with the one-man one woman teaching, for the same reason as disapproving of remarriage after divorce. This is scriptural.” 

    And so is polygamy! What’s a poor Chrishun to do!? 

  • “In the Old Testament the ideal is one man and one woman….” that is overstating the clarity of the hebrew scriptures on the issue .

    though you are correct that the jewish community by the 200 – 100 b.c.e period had moved largely to monogamy . and then jesus of course preached the idea of a monogamous relationship .

  • Follow the authority of the Church. As before, the Timothy quotation is for wives in serial, not parallel, and applies to men taking Holy Orders. What happens if you exclude the authority of Jesus through his Church, is a mish-mash of quotations from across the breadth of the Old Testament. God’s Chosen People today do not practice polygamy. Why would a Christian do so? Particularly as Jesus explained in the Matthew quotation, when we have a wonderful opportunity to redeem marriage and make it a sign of Christ and His Church in the world today?

  • Re: “As before, the Timothy quotation is for wives in serial, not parallel, and applies to men taking Holy Orders.” 

    You’re right that the 1 Timothy verses concern ordination, but there’s nothing in them about “serial” or “parallel.” This is a manufactured distinction not found in the text. 

    Re: “What happens if you exclude the authority of Jesus through his Church, is a mish-mash of quotations from across the breadth of the Old Testament.” 

    Correct … but that’s true of a lot of topics, not just marriage. And it forces one to wonder just how beholden Jesus and his initial converts were to the Old Testament, and the degree to which they were inventing new teachings. 

    Re: “God’s Chosen People today do not practice polygamy.” 

    Yes, but that’s their current custom. It doesn’t mean scripture didn’t approve of it previously. They also don’t own slaves, since slavery has been abolished, but scripture had approved of it. 

    Re: “Particularly as Jesus explained in the Matthew quotation, when we have a wonderful opportunity to redeem marriage and make it a sign of Christ and His Church in the world today?” 

    Whoever said marriage even needed “redemption” … whether in Jesus’ time, or now, or at any point in between? 

  • 1. On Timothy: There is history. There was no polygamy. Therefore the interpretation of the time was not polygamy, so why should it be now? Aren’t you making yourself the authority, by applying your interpretation?
    2. Jesus said: “(Matt 5:17) Think not that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” As to slavery, they were supposed to release slaves in the Jubilee year, because they had been slaves once themselves, in Egypt. The Kingdom established by Jesus is a continual Jubilee. But it also comes not all at once — as in the parable of the mustard seed and the yeast. J.H. Newman deals with this in his essay on “Development of Christian Doctrine.”
    3. All of man’s dealings needed redemption, after the fall. That is the point of Christ the Redeemer. Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24, from before the fall, and then further states that: ” Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wiveS; but it was not so in the beginning. And I say to you, that whoever puts away his wife(no V, no S), except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away, commits adultery (Matt 19:8-9).”

  • Re: “On Timothy: There is history. There was no polygamy.” 

    In the Old Testament, there is “history.” There was plenty of polygamy in it! 

    Re: “Aren’t you making yourself the authority, by applying your interpretation?” 

    No, of course not. And where in hell would you have ever gotten such a notion from!? 

    Re: “As to slavery, they were supposed to release slaves in the Jubilee year …” 

    Blah blah blah blah blah. There was plenty of slavery in the Old Testament, and even in the New (remember how Paul sent the slave Onesimus back to his owner Philemon? Oh yeah, you obviously forgot that part. Well, I’m here to remind you of it … and proudly so!) 

    Re: “All of man’s dealings needed redemption, after the fall.” 

    And, your point is … ? What, exactly? What does this supposed need for “redemption” after a supposed “fall” have to do with anything, anyway? 

  • 1. In Timothy (no polygamy at THAT time)! New Testament, not Old.
    2. I am insinuating that you are being influenced by a purely earthly interpretation which is inspired by the one “who can quote scripture for his own purposes.”
    3.No, Onesimus is a primary example of the slow workings of doctrine in NEW Testament times. The Roman Empire had a whole series of laws governing slaves which were distinct from those in the Old Testament, for God’s chosen people. After the fall of the Roman Empire, under Christendom, slavery slowly vanished in Europe. This was largely because it was considered a betrayal to sell a fellow-Christian into slavery. Even before that, by the 200’s we have Pope Callistus, a former slave, speaking out on marriage. Yep, marriage. An antipope at the time (Hippolyte) said he had broken church law by allowing Bishops to be ordained who had been married more than once. But see again, no polygamy. The case in question is marriage before baptism (not multiple wives) Further, he extended the Sacrament of Matrimony to Roman women citizens who wished to marry former slaves. This was not allowed by Roman law. Finally, he advanced the sacrament of penance for those who had broken the moral precepts on marriage :
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm
    4. You are not a “Chrishun,” then? You are just pretending to be, to advance the cause of polygamy, for your own purposes. Slick. You nearly had me fooled there.

  • Re: “In Timothy (no polygamy at THAT time)! New Testament, not Old.” 

    That statement is belied by the text itself. If the author of the epistle had to tell Christians that deacons and bishops couldn’t have more than one wife, then it must have been the case that some Christians had more than one wife. 

    Re: “I am insinuating that you are being influenced by a purely earthly interpretation …” 

    Disparaging what you say as my “interpretation” by labeling it “earthly” does not invalidate anything I’ve said. All it tells me is that you subjectively disapprove of it, but really, I don’t care about that. Your approval, or lack of it, is not relevant to me or to what I said. 

    Re: “No, Onesimus is a primary example of the slow workings of doctrine in NEW Testament times.” 

    Wrong. There is no “slow working” of anything. 

    Re: “The Roman Empire had a whole series of laws governing slaves which were distinct from those in the Old Testament …” 

    Irrelevant. 

    Re: “After the fall of the Roman Empire, under Christendom, slavery slowly vanished in Europe.” 

    That’s not true at all. It actually persisted in medieval Europe. Yes, fewer people were counted explicitly as “slaves” in medieval times compared with the Roman regime, but the vast majority of medieval Europeans were “serfs,” which is only a small step removed from “slavery.” Serfs were under the direct control of their lords. 

    It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about, before actually talking about it. 

    Re: “This was largely because it was considered a betrayal to sell a fellow-Christian into slavery …” 

    That’s true, but this distinction didn’t matter much to the uncountable masses of serfs in medieval Europe whose lives were proscribed by their lords and totally controlled by them. 

    Re: “But see again, no polygamy.” 

    I never said polygamy was common. I simply said it must have been an issue for the author of 1 Timothy. 

    Re: “You are a ‘Chrishun,’ then, not a Christian?” 

    I’m neither. I’m a cynical, insolent, godless agnostic heathen. 

    BTW I use the word “Chrishun” sometimes, because some people pronounce it that way. Watch ads for “Christian Mingle” sometime (among other places) and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 

    Re: “You shun the moral precepts to advance polygamy, for your own purposes?” 

    I’m neither “shunning” nor promoting anything. I’m just pointing out that the Bible is not as clear on this matter as many Christians assert. And nothing you’ve said has refuted that. 

  • 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome
    St. Paul was a Roman citizen. You are really behind the times, as usually the “man of one woman” as many people see it as an attempt to exclude women from the diaconate, not to be even equated with polygamy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy
    2. Nor, I you, so this will be my last, after I deal with the rest of what you wrote.
    3. Of course there is. It’s called development.
    4. You can read more about serfdom by historian Hilaire Belloc. They were less slaves than some people in industrial society, in that they could pass the means of production (land) at their disposal, onto their children. They paid the “lord” of the estate by working part of the year on his estate for him. In the US we work for the government via a system of taxation for part of the year. Finally, eventually the serf became a tenant, and the tenant a freeman. It would help if you read some other stuff.
    5.See 4.
    6&7.Ah, that’s why you reject the need for redemption. You were not
    speaking as a “Chrishun.” I appreciate your attempt at humor, but perhaps you should learn to laugh a little at the skewed history that you have taken up. It convulses me to see sometimes how assertion passes for fact in our society. God bless you!

  • Re: “You are really behind the times, as usually the “man of one woman” as many people see it …” 

    I will repeat: If there weren’t any polygamous Christians who might have wanted to be ordained, it wouldn’t have made any sense for 1 Timothy to disallow them. Oh, and “St Paul” didn’t write 1 Timothy

    Re: “You can read more about serfdom by historian Hilaire Belloc.” 

    No need. I have a degree in medieval history. So please, you just go right ahead and tell me all about serfdom, as though I have no expertise on the subject — solely because you have metaphysical beliefs you’re so desperate to bolster, that you’d run around telling people who know things, that they don’t actually know them. 

    Re: “Ah, that’s why you reject the need for redemption.” 

    Correct. When someone provides me compelling, objective, verifiable evidence of my need for “redemption,” then we can talk about it … but until then I consider this a ridiculous metaphysical trope that’s used to rationalize telling others what to say, do, and think. 

    Re: “… but perhaps you should learn to laugh a little at the skewed history that you have taken up.” 

    I have a sheepskin in the subject. That means I understand it. You don’t. So don’t tell me what history does or doesn’t say — you have no basis for doing so. And your belief in your Jesus is not a credential in the field of history, either. 

    To be clear: I’m not the buffoon you obviously think I am. 

  • I highly doubt that “Native Americans” unanimously supported anything. What a cartoonish thing to even suggest.

  • David and Solomon were wicked kings, not prophets. In the OT there weren’t any righteous polygamists after Moses.

  • David and Solomon were not “wicked kings”—they were fallible humans. They also both outright wrote parts of the Old Testament (mostly Psalms and Ecclesiastes, respectively).

    David explicitly repented and is mentioned as one of the faithful in Hebrews 11.

    Their application of polygamy was poor, but the vast majority of examples in Scripture show polygyny as an unwise option. The other examples don’t directly indicate either way, such as Gideon (cf. Judges 8:30) and Ashhur (cf. I Chronicles 4:5)—both of which post-date Moses.

  • All of the prophets practiced plural marriage from Adam down to Moses. Monogamy was then commanded under Mosaic Law until Christ restored the Celestial Law of Plural Marriage in the NT. David and Solomon were going against the Lord when they took Plural Wives under Mosaic Law.

  • Mosaic Law explicitly permitted polygyny (cf. Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Exodus 21:10). The Leverite marriage rules also did not preclude it (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

    David and Solomon both broke from God’s instructions by taking foreign wives and by taking more than they could keep up with marital rights for, but the plural marriage itself waa permitted.

    Do you happen to have a link to a Coptic or Oriental Orthodox online Bible site? I don’t know enough about accepted translations there to be able to identify a legit one.

  • He said outright that all involved had “to be OK” with the marriage arrangement, which means informed consent, and neither children nor animals can give that.

    No mind reading required, just awareness of which definition of “consent” applies on sexual topics.

  • There are multiple schools of thought about consent, children, and animals.

    There are some schools of thought that some animals are sentient beings.

    What he was describing, in summary, was a longer than usual multi-partner gangbang, but calling it “marriage”.

  • By that reasoning, your response should have been inquiry into which definition of consent he was applying, but instead you injected nonstandard definitions and context—as you have just done again with “gangbang“, which he didn’t describe at all. That word most often refers to rape specifically, and therefore it has a negative connotation, and the other meaning only applies in the context of orgies, particularly ones with partner swaps.

  • Thank you for telling me what I should have written.

    You should have not written your first post to me, and decidedly you should have not written a second no more illuminating than the first.

    Thanks for all your impressions of the meanings and connotations of “gangbang”, “orgy(ies)”, and so on.

    You kids today …. what will you think of next?

  • You said that he needed to clarify what he meant by “consent”, but you didn’t actually ask him that while claiming you just wanted clarification. Thus the “by that reasoning” introductory phrase that you ignored entirely, which applied that “should” specifically to the context of you being consistent with your own logic.

    Your own use of “should” indicates you either ignored or missed that context.

    Citations of objective, external sources also aren’t “impressions“. Moreover, that dictionary I’m referencing is specifically far older than I am—it’s been a standard for English for generations—so my points on word usage have nothing to do with my age, which may actually be older than you’re assuming. (I’ve been a professional line editor for umpteen years.)

  • My repetitive use of “should” indicated that your lecturing is making you present as a priss with your left hand on your hip and right finger wagging in my direction.

    You continue in the same vein.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs