[Without having an opinion on the matter itself] ostensibly, polyamory (multiple partners) is close to polygamy (multiple wives) in both directions—both multiple women for one man and multiple men for one woman. It’s hard to find a clear distinction from someone who doesn’t reject polygamy in principle and yet does reject polyamory. The opposite position—rejecting polygamy but not rejecting polyamory—probably distinguishes based on real-world consequences and not on a matter of principle.

The truth is that although the issue of thrills and experiences is conservatism versus liberalism, in practice there does seem to be a connection between a life of hedonism (which I saw that the Rabbi himself once condemned)—that is, immoral in the sense that the Rabbi calls aesthetic rather than ethical morality—and ethical immorality. It’s not for nothing that prostitution and drugs are forbidden by law. After all, with consensual prostitution there’s no problem, and likewise with drugs. They aren’t harming anyone. But we see that around these businesses crime takes place (essential immorality), and because of that they were prohibited by law. In other words, a life of hedonism leads—empirically (as our eyes can see)—to a life of immorality (with drugs this is especially clear). One could say that it is conservatism, and the fact that these businesses are considered forbidden from a conservative and social standpoint—and that causes them to be run in the shadows—that causes the 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 isn’t really succeeding in eliminating the crime from the area either.

Completely aside from that, the hypocrisy of these people really breaks records. After all, they would fight against polygamy (with the consent of everyone involved) with all their might. Progressives disguised as liberals.

Polygamy is found in cultures in which women are oppressed. The women’s consent to this situation is doubtful. A completely opposite situation from that of women in Western cultures that allow polyamory.

As for your claim about the harms surrounding drugs and prostitution, you should examine carefully whether you’re not confusing correlation with causation. I’m very doubtful.

The question of polygamy came up here, and on that I’ll add that in my opinion there is indeed nothing wrong with that either, as long as everything is consensual between adults (and likewise regarding prostitution, organ trade, and more). I’ll further note that in Israel there is polygamy under the auspices of the law, and in a way that is completely immoral. The law that makes divorce difficult causes people to live with another spouse/partner in parallel to their legal spouse, and both are recognized as spouses under the law. Beyond de facto polygamy, this also creates anarchy, uncertainty, and dishonesty toward the original spouse. Of course, this is caused by the law together with the religious people who take over the divorce market and make it difficult. Therefore here, although I do not oppose polygamy, I definitely do oppose it. If people want polygamy or polyamory, let them define it among themselves with the consent of all sides. De facto polyamory without consent is morally and legally problematic.

The overwhelming majority of women in cultures where women are oppressed actually do not see themselves that way. You’re welcome to ask Haredi women. Only the crazy progressives tell them that actually they’re under unconscious oppression. By that same logic, in any society that has hierarchy (there is no society without hierarchy; only the hierarchies change) there is oppression for everyone except whoever is at the top of the hierarchy (and that’s only one person). In fact, all the preaching of the progressives—who explain to everyone else how the world is supposed to look, and in their view they are the ones who should lead it—is meant to raise them to the top of the hierarchy, only by means of deception and lack of productivity (they want to get to the top of the hierarchy, just without earning it honestly).

I think there are objective measures of oppression. If women are not in centers of power, receive different treatment when they cheat on their partner (or their “husbands”), even when they are forced to remain in the relationship because of stupid laws, can be sold as their father’s property when they are toddlers to deviant pedophiles—then they are indeed oppressed.
Distinguish between hierarchies that are not based on made-up metaphysics, like the one that places women objectively in a lower position, and hierarchies that are based on abilities and contribution (even if sometimes the realization of the ideal is imperfect).
Polyamory is making the woman’s position equal to that of the man. Polygamy is a continuation of the trend of humiliating women, and the proof is that in those same cultures you will not find multiple men for one woman.

All right, H, here you’ve really gone completely overboard. Polyamory is the way to ensure equality? In the secular world there is equality anyway. And in the religious world they do not permit polyamory. Beyond that, you can ensure equality by imposing a prohibition on a man cheating just as on a woman. You can make him equal to her, not make her equal to him.

With God’s help, 4 Nisan 5781

An entire column on this site was devoted to this topic, namely Column 201: ‘Polyamory and Other Animals’

Best regards, the site tradition

It should also be noted that criticizing polyamory is “polyamorophobia,” which is invalid and abominable according to the values of liberalism and political correctness, and I am astonished by the crooked path of the site owner, who does not immediately delete polyamorophobic comments 🙂

Best regards, Shaike Poly-Manly

The supposedly principled distinction between polygamy and polyamory is that polygamy is belonging to one large family, while polyamory is belonging to several families. That itself requires justification, but it seems to me that this is the issue. And therefore, for example, religious people who categorically reject polyamory (also from a values standpoint) are not at all deterred by the forefathers of the nation and the greatest kings, who practiced polygamy.

That depends on how you construct the polyamory. If they live in a commune in the same house, then that too is one family. And if someone keeps several women in different houses (as the saying goes: a woman in every port), then polygamy too can be several families.

To Tolginus, religious people reject polygamy for religious reasons (the ban of Rabbenu Gershom), not moral ones.

I’m not sure what I think about the claim that in the religious world polyamory (in its broad sense, of multiple sexual relationships, and not necessarily multiple loves) is forbidden equally to all parties. De facto, the attitude in the religious world toward an adulterous man (even when he traps a woman in his control in a way that is chilling and makes one wonder that there are women who cooperate with this foolishness—at least in my view) is much more lenient. A woman who behaves that way (even when she is trapped in the hands of that same scoundrel) will be judged more severely, to the point that even her descendants will be disqualified from the community through no fault of their own. So it’s strange to claim—or at least it deserves more thought—that a man and a woman are in the same place with respect to polyamory or multiple sexual relationships in the religious world.
The desire to forbid infidelity equally for both sexes is interesting, but it’s not clear how it would be implemented. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where the authorities regulate relations between individuals even in the bedroom, even though there is some logic and consistency to it from certain perspectives.

So what, in your opinion, is the sociological explanation for the fact that there is such a shocking, principled gap in the way certain groups (religious Jews and religious Muslims, for example) relate to polygamy and to polyamory?

Moshe K., my impression is that they don’t reject it only halakhically, like someone who doesn’t tithe tomatoes, but also with shock and “it cannot be imagined,” etc. And why does Jewish law itself distinguish (today, when it is possible to control childbirth and also identify who the father is)? The ban of Rabbenu Gershom is not really formal Jewish law, and it also does not apply in all communities and all situations (permission of one hundred rabbis).

With God’s help, 4 Nisan 5781

To T.G. — greetings,

Precisely from the Patriarchs it is evident that the ideal from the outset was “one is my wife.” Abraham married Hagar because Sarah had not conceived, and at Sarah’s request so that her family might be built through her; and so Jacob married Bilhah at Rachel’s request when she had not conceived, and Zilpah at Leah’s request when she stopped giving birth. Jacob married Leah because of Laban’s deceit, and he was angry both at Laban and at Leah.

And the Torah does not spare us in describing the complications and difficulties that grew out of this reality. Jealousy between the co-wives, and later between their children, until the sale of a brother by his brothers. Isaac, the most serene of the Patriarchs, who did not need to go into exile and whose wife was never abducted—was also spared the need to marry another woman, and Rebecca remained his only wife.

Even Laban, who forced Jacob to marry his two daughters, is aware that taking an additional wife is an injury to the existing wife, and he stipulates with his son-in-law that he not take another wife in addition to his daughters. It is no accident that this reality of two women competing for the husband’s love is called a reality of “rival wives.”

Moses too, who married a Cushite woman, is criticized by his sister, and from here too it seems that this was not considered a desirable act. It may be that Moses saw a need to “spread his wings” over the convert who came from afar to cleave to God, knowing that no one besides him would agree “to mar his inheritance” and marry a descendant of the sons of Ham. And similarly Boaz married Ruth the Moabite because no one besides him…

If among the Israelites taking rival wives was a necessity—whether in the case of barrenness or in the case of a solitary convert with no redeemer—among the nations it was common. Thus Lamech, Nahor, and Esau acted this way, and among kings it was accepted to keep a harem with wives and many concubines, and this is what the Torah limits when it commands: “He shall not multiply wives for himself.”

David married several wives, apparently because his wife of youth Michal was taken from him and given to Palti son of Laish. Scripture criticizes Solomon for marrying many women who in the end turned his heart away. It seems that he thought to exert influence, through marital ties with various nations, by means of his wisdom and faith, but he did not succeed, and he himself criticizes the multiplication of women. The proper love is described in Song of Songs: the beloved says, “This is my beloved and this is my friend,” and he says of her: “My dove, my perfect one, is unique.”

And likewise in Proverbs: “Why embrace a strange woman?… Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth… a loving doe, a graceful ibex; let her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be ravished always with her love.” And in chapter 31 it brings the instruction of the mother of King Lemuel, who commands him, “Do not give your strength to women,” and guides him to cling to a woman of valor who fears God, regarding whom it says, “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all.”

And the last of the prophets, Malachi, sharply condemns those who betray the wife of their youth, and says to them: “Is she not your companion and the wife of your covenant?” Scripture compares the bond between God and His people to the bond between a man and his wife, and from monotheism in the metaphor’s referent, monogamy in the metaphor naturally follows (except in unusual situations of necessity).

Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner

Paragraph 3, line 2
… another woman in addition…

Paragraph 4, line 3
… that no one besides him would agree…

There, line 5
… that no one besides him would do this.

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

Paragraph 7, lines 5–6
… who commands him: “Do not give your strength to women,” and guides him to cling to a woman of valor who fears God…

Paragraph 8, line 2
… the bond between God and His people to the bond between a man and his wife. And from monotheism in the referent, monogamy in the metaphor follows…

The attitude toward women in those cultures is not necessarily built on metaphysics, but rather on either the women’s stupidity or their lack of understanding in those cultures (it’s a chicken-and-egg relation, but from their standpoint that is the given reality). For them, women are like children are for us. From that, an unequal attitude follows. Children too do not have the right to vote for the Knesset here—both because of lack of capacity for responsibility and because of lack of understanding.

That is, for them too the inequality is on the basis of contribution to society.