What about the prohibition of a promiscuous woman, and the neglect of the positive commandment of marriage? How can those be permitted?

Wouldn’t it be preferable for him to have relations discreetly with a non-Jewish woman, where there is no Torah prohibition, only the rabbinic decree against relations with a non-Jewess?

I’ve heard in the past about treatments for homosexuals with a surrogate partner, with permission from well-known rabbis. I heard of people who underwent such treatments in Israel and in America. But that’s only when there is no other way to change the orientation.

I don’t think there is any unequivocal Torah prohibition here. And if there is, there are ways around it. That’s what rabbis do when the situation is complex. Many times that’s why there are quite a few contradictions in rabbis’ rulings—one time they support something and prohibit it, and another time they undo what they had supported.
To their credit, it should be said that quite a few things rest on shaky foundations.

Neglect of the positive commandment of marriage, simply speaking, does not apply to intercourse not for the sake of establishing a marital bond. As for the prohibition of a promiscuous woman as well, the opinions are greatly disputed. And here, when it is being done in order to build a home, there is even more room to be lenient.

Y.D., good question. I hadn’t thought of that. It’s not clear to me whether that is really preferable. Although the formal halakhic prohibition is relatively minor (though it depends on the different views regarding an unmarried Jewish woman), conceptually halakhic decisors treat such intercourse with great severity. One who has relations with an Aramean woman—zealots strike him. And intercourse with a non-Jewish woman is considered in the category of sexual prohibitions for which one must be killed rather than transgress (see Nachmanides, Milhamot, Sanhedrin 82a).
Even according to Maimonides’ view, that one who has intercourse with a woman for the sake of promiscuity without marriage is flogged משום the prohibition of a promiscuous woman, in my view it is very doubtful whether this is considered “for the sake of promiscuity.” I am definitely inclined to think not.

How is intercourse for the sake of a marital bond defined, and how is intercourse for the sake of promiscuity defined?

For the sake of a marital bond means to establish a family unit. For the sake of promiscuity means purely for pleasure. And here it is neither this nor that.

Rabbi, a few clarifying questions (I’m not the original questioner):
1. In what case is there in fact neglect of the positive commandment of marriage? Just generally, for as long as a person does not marry?
2. If a person is not having intercourse for the sake of promiscuity, then presumably it is for the sake of a marital bond, no? Even in this case, the questioner’s ultimate goal is to establish a family (a kind of intercourse for the sake of a marital bond “at second order”).
3. The questioner wrote that he does have attraction to women, so it is likely that at the beginning of the act he will already feel desire for pleasure. Isn’t that problematic?
4. What about the prohibition of wasting seed?
5. Why not suggest the most “standard” solution—marrying a woman and, at worst, divorcing later (of course informing the woman of the situation before marriage)?

Thank you.

1. I wrote it already: when one lives without marriage. If someone never marries a woman his whole life, I don’t think there is neglect of a positive commandment even according to Maimonides.
2. I wrote that too. No. Here it is not for the sake of a marital bond, because the marital bond in question is not with the woman involved.
3. I didn’t understand.
4. It is not in vain. This is the necessary effort for the sake of procreation. Halakhic decisors have indeed written similarly regarding fertility treatments and fertility tests.
5. Because if you inform the woman, she won’t agree. A woman does not make herself into an experiment. That solution may have been standard in the past, when women’s דעת was not considered (the era of objectification). The entire question is fundamentally based on the assumption that a woman would not agree to try in such a situation.

2. I know you wrote that, but just as you answered regarding wasting seed, I thought perhaps one could maybe generalize and say that this too is an effort for the sake of a marital bond (even if he does not intend to settle down with this specific woman).
3. I mean that at the beginning of the act he may experience arousal and attraction, and then the act itself would indeed be promiscuous. By the way, why wouldn’t it be enough just to see a woman naked and check whether he gets an erection or not? How is that different from any man who has never slept with a woman?
4. What does this have to do with procreation? He could fulfill that with a woman even without marrying her. And even if we assume there is a connection, then this is only a second-order effort, since it’s not as though there is a known fertility problem. So how are you permitting this so easily (certainly before he tries solutions that are more halakhically acceptable)?
5. True, most women probably would not agree, but you can’t know for sure, so why not at least try that first? There are asexual women or women with low sexual desire, and presumably the man’s inner qualities would matter more to them. In any case, if the goal is only procreation, he could also find a lesbian woman or someone who wants co-parenting, and in effect marry only for the technical purpose (and either live separately while married or else divorce after having a few children).