Polyamory

[Without having an opinion on the merits of the matter] Polyamory (multiple partners) is apparently close to polygamy (multiple wives) in a two-way way - both multiple wives for one man and multiple husbands for one woman. It is difficult to find a clear difference for someone who does not rule out polygamy in principle and also rules out polyamory. The opposite side, who rules out polygamy but does not rule out polyamory, apparently distinguishes according to realistic implications and not a matter of principle.

The truth is that although the issue of thrills and experiences is conservatism versus liberalism, in practice there seems to be a connection between a life of hedonism (which I saw the rabbi himself once condemn), that is, immoral in the way that the rabbi calls aesthetic morality, and ethical immorality. It is not for nothing that prostitution and drugs are prohibited by law. After all, there is no problem with consensual prostitution, and so are drugs. After all, they do not harm anyone. But we see that crime occurs around these businesses (essential immorality) and that is why they were banned by law. In other words, a life of hedonism leads - empirically (this is how our eyes see it) - to a life of immorality (with drugs this is most obvious). One could say that it is the conservatism and around these businesses - because the business is considered forbidden from a conservative and social perspective, and this causes them to be conducted in the dark - that causes crime around them. Because what happens in the dark invites crime. But with regard to drugs, it seems to me that the addiction itself is what leads to crime. And the experiment with prostitution in the Netherlands is not so successful in eliminating crime from the region.

Regardless, the hypocrisy of these people is truly record-breaking. After all, against polygamy (with the consent of all involved) they will fight with all their might. Progressives disguised as liberals.

Polygamy is found in cultures where women are oppressed. The consent of women to this situation is questionable. A situation completely opposite to the situation of women in Western cultures that allow polyamory.

Regarding your claim about the harms surrounding drugs and prostitution, you need to carefully examine whether you are confusing correlation and causation. I highly doubt it.

The question of polygamy has been raised here, and I will add that in my opinion there is indeed nothing wrong with it either, as long as everything is consensual between adults (the same applies to prostitution, organ trafficking, etc.). I will also note that in Israel there is polygamy under the auspices of the law, and this in a way that is completely immoral. The law that makes divorce difficult causes people to live with another spouse, at the same time as the legal spouse, and both are recognized as spouses in the law. Beyond de facto polygamy, it also creates anarchy, uncertainty, and dishonesty towards the original spouse. This is of course caused by the law together with the dossies who take over the divorce market and make it difficult. Therefore, here, although I am not opposed to polygamy, I am definitely opposed. If you want polygamy or polyamory, let them define it between themselves with the consent of all parties. De facto polyamory and without consent is both morally and legally problematic.

The vast majority of women in cultures where women are oppressed do not actually see themselves as such. You are welcome to ask Haredi women. Only the crazy progressives tell them that they are actually under unconscious oppression. According to the same logic, in every society that has a hierarchy (there is no such society that does not have a hierarchy. Only the hierarchies change) there is oppression for everyone except the one at the top of the hierarchy (who is only one person). In fact, all the preaching of the progressives - who explain to everyone else how the world should look - and that they are the ones who are supposed to lead it - is intended to elevate them to the top of the hierarchy, only through deceit and lack of productivity (they only want to get to the top of the hierarchy without earning it honestly).

I think there are objective indicators of oppression. If women are not in the centers of power, are treated differently when they cheat on their partner (or “husband”) even when they are forced to be in a relationship because of crappy laws, can be sold as their father's property when they are toddlers to perverted pedophiles, then they are indeed oppressed.
Distinguish between hierarchies that are not based on a narrow metaphysics like the one that puts women in an objectively lower place, and hierarchies that are based on abilities and contribution (even if sometimes the realization of the ideal is not perfect)
Polyamory is comparing the situation of a woman to that of a man. Polygamy is a continuation of the trend of degrading women and the evidence for this is that in those cultures you will not find multiple men per woman

Well, H, here we are completely getting carried away. Is polyamory the way to ensure equality? In the secular world there is equality as well. And in the religious world polyamory is not permitted. Beyond that, equality can be ensured by applying a prohibition on a man cheating as on a woman. It is possible to equate him with a woman and not the woman with him.

On the 4th of Nisan 5th of September

A whole column was dedicated to this topic on the website of the Law, namely column 201: ‘Polyamory and Other Animals’

With greetings, the tradition of the website

It should also be noted that criticizing polyamory is ‘polyamorophobia’, which is unacceptable and abhorrent according to the values of liberalism and political correctness, and it is surprising to me that the website owner's perverted ways do not immediately delete polyamorophobic comments 🙂

With greetings, Shayka Poly-Gabari

The supposedly fundamental distinction between polygamy and polyamory is that polygamy is belonging to a large family and polyamory is belonging to several families. This itself requires justification, but I think that is the point. Therefore, for example, religious people who reject the category of polyamory (also from a moral perspective) do not shy away at all from the fathers of the nation and the great kings who practiced polygamy.

It depends on how the polyamory is structured. If you live in a commune in the same house, it is also one family. And if you keep several wives in different houses (as the saying goes: a woman in each port), then polygamy can also mean several families.

To Tolginus, the religious reject polygamy for religious (Chader”g) and not moral reasons.

I'm not sure what I think about the claim that in the religious world, polyamory (in the broad sense of multiple sexual relationships, not specifically multiple loves) is equally forbidden for all parties. De facto, the attitude in the religious world towards a treacherous man (even when he imprisons a woman in his possession in a manner that arouses horror and bewilderment that there are women who cooperate with this folly (in my opinion, of course)) is much easier. A woman who behaves this way (even when she is imprisoned in the hands of that wrongdoer) will be judged harshly to such a degree that even her descendants will be excluded from the audience for not having done wrong. So it is strange to claim, or at least worthy of further thought, the claim that men and women are in the same place with respect to polyamory or multiple sexual relationships in the religious world.
The desire to prohibit infidelity for both sexes equally is interesting, but it is not clear how it will be implemented. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the authorities regulate individuals even in the bedroom, even though there is some logic and consistency to it in certain respects.

So what do you think is the sociological explanation for the fact that there is a shocking-principled gap in the attitude of certain groups (religious Jews and religious Muslims, for example) to polygamy and polyamory?

Moshe K., I get the impression that they don't just disqualify people halachically, like someone who doesn't tithe tomatoes, but also shock and incompetence, etc. And why does the halachah itself make a distinction (today, when it is possible to control the birth and also identify who the father is). Hader is not really formal halachah, and it is not in all denominations or in all situations (the rest are a hundred rabbis).

On the 4th of Nisan 5:3

Telg – Shalom Rav,

It is evident from the patriarchs that from the beginning he was ’one is my wife’. Marriage Abraham married Hagar because Sarah was not absent and at her request so that her family could be built, and so Jacob married Bilhah at the request of Rachel who was not absent, and Zilpah at the request of Leah who was about to give birth. Jacob married Leah due to Laban's deception, and he was angry with both Laban and Leah.

And the Torah does not spare describing the complications and difficulties that arose from this reality. Jealousy between the narrow-minded women, and later between their children, to the point of a brother being sold by his brother. Isaac, the peaceful of the fathers, who was not forced to go into exile and whose wife was never kidnapped – was also saved from the need to marry a wife and Rebecca remained his only wife.

Even Laban, who forced Jacob to marry his two daughters, is aware that marrying another wife is an insult to the existing wife, and he agrees with his son-in-law that he will not take another wife in addition to his daughters. It is not for nothing that this reality of two women competing for the husband's love is called a reality of ‘trouble’

Moses, who married a Cushite woman – is also criticized by his sister, and from this it also seems that this was not considered a proper act. Moses may have seen a need to ‘spread his wings’ The convert who came from afar should cling to her, knowing that no one from his own country would agree to “spoil his inheritance” and marry a descendant of the sons of Ham. Similarly, Boaz marries Ruth the Moabitess because no one else would

If among the Israelites, marriage was a “troublesome” or a compulsion, whether in the case of infertility or in the case of a lonely convert who has no redeemer, it was common among the nations, as was the practice of Lamech, Nahor, and Esau, and among kings it was customary to maintain a harem with wives and concubines, and the Torah limits this in its command: “He shall not multiply wives to himself.”

David married several wives, apparently because the wife of his youth, Michal, was taken from him and given to Pelatiah son of Laish. The Bible criticizes Solomon for marrying many wives who eventually turned him away from his heart. It seems that he thought of imparting his wisdom and faith through marriages with different nations, but he did not succeed, and he himself criticizes the multitude of wives. The proper love is described in the Song of Songs, the wife says: ‘This is my uncle and this is my shepherd’, and he counters her: ‘One is my wife, my dove, my shepherd’,

And likewise in Proverbs: ‘Why should you embrace a stranger… May your source be blessed and rejoice with the wife of your youth, Eilat, lovers, and the beauty of her grace, may she bless you at all times with her love, may you always errࢩ and likewise in the chapter he does not bring the commandment of King Lemuel's mother, the commandment ‘Do not give your strength to womenࢩ and instructs him to speak to a woman of valor, fearing the Lordࢩ In which there will be ‘Many daughters have done mighty deeds’ and you have risen above them all’.

And the seal of the prophets Malachi sharply condemns those who are unfaithful to the wife of their youth, and says to them: ‘Is she not your companion and the wife of your covenant’.. The Bible likens the relationship between the ’ to the bond between a man and his wife, and from monotheism in the parable monogamy is required in the parable (except in exceptional situations where there is compulsion.

In Barbacha, Yaron Fish”l Ordner

Paragraph 3, line 2
… Another woman in addition…

Paragraph 4, line 3
… That no one but him will agree…

Ibid., line 5
… That no one but him will do this.

Paragraph 5, line 3
… And many concubines. And this..

Paragraph 7, lines 5-6
… His commandment: ‘Do not give your strength to women’ and instructs him to cling to a woman of strength who fears the Lord’…

Paragraph 8, line 2
… The bond between the Lord and his people to the bond between a man and his wife. And from monotheism in the parable, monogamy is required in the parableࢶ

The treatment of women in their cultures is not necessarily based on metaphysics, but on either the stupidity or lack of understanding of the women in these cultures (it's a chicken-and-egg relationship. But from their perspective, it's a given reality). They are like children to us. In any case, this results in unequal treatment. Children also don't have the right to vote in our Knesset. Both because of their lack of responsibility and because of their lack of understanding.

That is, for them too, inequality is based on contribution to society.