adultery

[China Cat Sunflower]

My wife has a friend who I won't name. This girl is thirty six and has absolutely no intention of ever settling into a long term relationship. She has several of what we refer to as "f*** buddies." They're friends and casual sexual partners. It's all for fun and no one expects anything. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Chris

[Raksha]

My wife has a friend who I won't name. This girl is thirty six and has absolutely no intention of ever settling into a long term relationship. She has several of what we refer to as "f*** buddies." They're friends and casual sexual partners. It's all for fun and no one expects anything. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Chris,

That reminds me of my sister's best friend, who was promiscuous from the time she was sixteen, with occasional brief forays into serial monogamy, although never actual marriage. She's a Jewish woman too, so I tend to think of her as a throwback to the Canaanite temple prostitutes, or maybe the original for Joan Rivers' (real or fictional?) friend Heidi Abramowitz. I guess this type is recessive in our gene pool and crops up occasionally--Monica Lewinsky is another one.

The last time I ran into my sister's friend it was by accident at the Claremont Folk Festival in the late 1980s. She had formed a liaison with one of big-name performers there, and I believe she was in her mid-forties at the time-- still totally unrepentent and still beautiful.

But therein lies what's "wrong" with it, unless you want to be abstractly legalistic or moralistic about the whole thing, which I don't. There's this built-in obsolescence factor to that kind of lifestyle. Sooner or later, your wife's friend is going to lose her beauty, as will my sister's friend if she hasn't already. How can she expect to find companionship for her old age with that kind of sexual history? Right now she has no problem finding playmates if that's all she wants, but what man is going to be interested in an *OLD* slut? That just doesn't sound too optimistic from a purely pragmatic POV.

--Linda

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, this girl is starting to hear the tick,tick, ticking of her biological clock. I'll be interested to see how she works that out. I've met some of the oldest, scagliest bar ho's who are still making it work well into their sixties.

I dunno. That's not the life I'd want, but I don't have any moral hangups about them doing it.

Chris

[Raksha]

I've met some of the oldest, scagliest bar ho's who are still making it work well into their sixties.

Chris,

Well, uh...okay! Personally, I've never met anyone like that but I'll take your word for it. I guess it goes without saying that isn't the kind of life I'd want for myself either.

I'm kind of surprised your friend is concerned about her biological clock. My sister's friend at least never wanted children--in fact, she had two abortions that I know about.

--Linda

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

An "affair" is a sexual relationship that is kept secret; that was "whoredom", also an offense for both the male and female participants, but a different offense from "adultery". Publicly taking another woman was simply a second marriage: it did not in any way diminish his continuing responsibilities to his first wife.

But BB says men are permitted to take concubines, so they fall outside of marriage (even a marriage without a ceremony).

Originally Posted by bob x

This was precisely my point about the veil (not that I wish to restart that argument).

Well you shouldn't have mentioned it then

My view is that women in Afghanistan and Saudi are oppressed by the veil if they are forced to wear it and not given the choice. Outside of such cultures though it is not oppressive at all if women choose to wear it.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Raksha

but what man is going to be interested in an *OLD* slut? That just doesn't sound too optimistic from a purely pragmatic POV.

--Linda

Hi Linda

Have you considered that they may not be sluts but may be lacking something emotionally and are mistaking sexual gratification for something else?

Sally

[greymare]

Maybe these "old sluts" wouldnt want a man anyway, they have probably had enough of them anyway. Funny how in this situation the man goes back to his wife and probably kids and the woman is the slut doomed to be partnerless etc. Maybe she is happy with her situation or may be not. Only she can change it ...............if she want to.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

But BB says men are permitted to take concubines, so they fall outside of marriage (even a marriage without a ceremony).

The distinction is that a concubine was a slave-woman.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So would this, in Engish terms, mean a long term affair (ie moving regularly between 2 men) rather than a quick one nighter?

er, short-term or long-term, it's moving regularly between 2 men bit that's problematic.

Does this stigma still exist today? Also how does a child born to an unwed woman not fall into this category? Is it about proof of who the father is that makes the difference?

mamzerut does exist today, but it is extraordinarily rare because of the stringency with which the religious authorities treat marriage. put it this way - i've never heard of one or met one and i know a *lot* of people. as for the "child of an unwed woman" - no religious stigma is attached to such a child; the only question is if the mother would have been in theory permitted to marry the father at the time the sex took place.

So taking Bob's explanation, would this be because if a married man had a baby with a women other than his wife they would actually be considered to be married? Would he be responsible for supporting the woman and child in Jewish law? Would the child take the name of the father?

no, because of the ban of rabbenu gershom, but no stigma would attach to the child, although the man's wife would be entitled to throw the book (and more) at him, as well as the mother hitting him for child support, as you correctly surmised. the child would also take the name and tribal affiliation of the father (cohen, levi or regular israelite).

Okay here I get a little lost. If the man and woman are both married and receive the same punishment what is the man actually being punished for?

well, each has technically stolen a "service" (as it were) that is the sole entitlement of the adulterer's legal spouse. being slightly flippant, it's like using their wireless broadband signal without telling them!

He is allowed to have 'relations' outside of his marriage, so is it because he has encouraged a married woman to commit a sin? Or does it come down purely to 'she is married therefore offlimits - you crossed the line buddy)?

that's it - and, moreover, he's not allowed the "relations" outside his marriage, as per rabbenu gershom and the conditions of his marriage contract.

Is there anything to suggest why a wife may want to agree to this arrangement?

er... not that i've ever heard of, albeit i believe there was this guy a few years back whose wife gave him permission for just this and it all went a bit horribly wrong. i believe his name was abraham.

If what I am reading is correct you and Mrs BB 'joined souls' into one when you got married - is that correct? If so, would this not mean that even if Mrs BB agreed to such an arrangement then her soul would also be carrying out the act? (badly worded but trying to get my head round the spiritual implications).

not that i've ever heard, albeit the text in the Torah does speak of "bearing my child on your knees", so perhaps it's possible to construct a case for this. it certainly *is* said to function in the case of yibum, "levirate" marriage, where the child is considered to belong to the dead brother.

Fascinating, without wishing to insult any of my Muslim brothers and sisters, I often read in Islamic books that it was Islam that introduced this system of equality for wives - clearly not.

if you ask our islamist "friends" like abdullah, they'll probably tell you that it was part of the "original islam" that abraham practiced, that's probably where this claim comes from.

ashkenazic meaning? Is it a sect?

Ashkenazi Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So do you know if Israeli civil law still permits polygamy?

only for muslims as far as i know.

I am intrigued by the idea of adapting your faith in order not to make other religions followers jealous. As Jews do not accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah or Mohammad (pbuh) as a Prophet why would it concern your faith whether gentiles were jealous?

we're supposed to act in a way that "sanctifies the Divine Name". this is a complicated concept, but it basically translates as "acting in such a way as to reflect well upon judaism" - if people see us acting admirably, they will have more respect for G!D who Commanded us to act so. this principle is supposed to be enshrined in everything we do - INCLUDING MIDDLE-EASTERN POLITICS, fyi. next time you get into a debate with someone jewish about israel, ask him whether he thinks the way the settlers act is a "kiddush haShem" or not. but i digress...

Sorry you have lost me there. A married man can have concubines if the wife agrees but married men aren't allowed to take concubines.

er, i meant practically, nowadays, because concubines used to be slaves. i'm not sure exactly how nachmanides proposed to get around that particular one.

So is there any stigma on the concubine? What if she has a child, is the man responsible in any way for providing for them?

no stigma on either of them as far as i know and the man would be responsible for providing for the child certainly, as for the concubine this is reaching the limits of my knowledge!

A new question - is there anything in Judaism that instructs society to care for widows and orphans (eg through polygamy)?

abso-feckin-lutely. in fact widows and orphans are specifically mentioned all the time when the Torah wants to talk about people who wouldn't otherwise be cared for - they are paradigmatic cases of those for whom society is mandated to care.

So really there are no hard and fast rules on the subject, other than the wife's permission and married women are a no-no?

and that thing you do with your hand, very bad. hur hur hur, i don't know if anyone's seen that sketch from "goodness gracious me", but it was all about how different (or not) religions are, according to this bloke's dad:

judaism: no pork; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.
hinduism: no beef; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.
sikhism: man - turban. turban - man; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.

you get the general idea.

It sees if you accept the 'allowed sex outside marriage' thing then you can be as promiscuous as you like

except it's not approved of as "whoredom" (zenut in hebrew, it's a similar term in arabic).

but if you hold to the 'disapproval of promiscuous conduct' then you are stuck in the house watching Eastenders with the Mrs - therefore becomes a moral decision for the man rather than a matter of law?

of course you should not even have a television in your house, nor if you do should you watch those lower-class gentiles with their pub and their market stalls. instead, use the time to study Torah. deary me.

But that doesn't account for the married men issue does it? You would think after all these centuries married men would learn to keep it in their pants, it's really not that much to write home about.

given the sort of financial penalties men are supposed to be subject to for this, you'd think we'd have learnt by now, wouldn't you?

Okay, so given what was said previously I am now struggling to see what the beth din could or would do - unless the wife doesn't like Eastenders and isn't getting her share or the woman involved is married.

probably nothing unless someone brought it up as part of a divorce case, or if one of the people involved has some kind of communal post, like rabbi, teacher, scribe, butcher or something and would bring the community into disrepute by his conduct.

it all works very well, in theory, however life is rather messier in practice. ideally, you should be able to organise your affairs without recourse to court proceedings.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by bananabrain
mamzerut does exist today, but it is extraordinarily rare because of the stringency with which the religious authorities treat marriage. put it this way - i've never heard of one or met one

I have heard of a family of mamzerim here in Wisconsin (six children borne out of an incestuous relationship, and both biological parents knew they were siblings.) Last I heard about the case, the children were taken away from the family and the "couple" were sent to prison on a number of charges, including contempt of court (they were ordered to keep their zippers zipped and the legs closed after the fifth pregnancy, but...)

I'll admit the couple isn't/wasn't Jewish, but still... *shrug*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Raksha]

i believe there was this guy a few years back whose wife gave him permission for just this and it all went a bit horribly wrong. i believe his name was abraham.

BB,

She didn't just give him permission--it was her idea in the first place! And we've been dealing with the fallout ever since...

--Linda

[Raksha]

if people see us acting admirably, they will have more respect for G!D who Commanded us to act so. this principle is supposed to be enshrined in everything we do - INCLUDING MIDDLE-EASTERN POLITICS, fyi. next time you get into a debate with someone jewish about israel, ask him whether he thinks the way the settlers act is a "kiddush haShem" or not.

BB,

They can ask me...I'll be more than happy to tell them EXACTLY what I think on that subject! In fact, I won't even wait for anyone to ask. Is it "kiddush haShem" or not? It's the complete opposite--their behavior is a desecration of God's name.

--Linda

[bananabrain]

the phrase you're looking for is hillul haShem, a desecration of the Divine Name. but still, i would steer clear of wholesale denunciations of any one group. for example, rabbi menachem froman of tekoa (a west bank settlement) who is a major figure in the interfaith world, enjoys cordial relations with his arab neighbours and participates in numerous bridge-building initiatives. likewise, my cousin's husband's family, who live in another settlement, are perfectly reasonable, rational religious people - they just don't see why they should have to move for political reasons, but neither do they wish to oppress palestinians. they're on an entirely different plane from the levingers and elons of this world.

again - we're getting onto a different subject here!

incest would necessarily be mamzerut if the couple were jewish, but even if they're not this would still be prohibited as forbidden sexual conduct for non-jews under the noahide laws - as indeed under any system of sexual conduct from any human society i've ever heard of. it's not often agreed precisely what the noahide prohibition is; some say homosexual sodomy all the way over to incest, others say merely incest, paedophilia and the like. i've never heard a hard and fast argument to define precisely what the phrase used, gilui 'arayot means in the context of the noahide laws but i'm certain it doesn't cover sodomy.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i guess my starting point here would be slightly odd unless you understand where i'm coming from. as far as i can tell, nearly all the laws around marriage are for the benefit and protection of everybody concerned, husband, wife and children. however, the technical term here translated as "adultery", TiNAPh is not what the english term means. the hebrew term signifies literally "moving from one to the other" and, as the rashi commentary explains:

b'shalom

bananabrain

Do you have a link for this, bananabrain? Thank you.

[bananabrain]

of course - try Chumash with Rashi - Yitro - Parshah - the ten commandments are in the 6th portion. rashi is an excellent place to start for how jews approach the text of the Torah.

b'shalom

bananabrain