More links: Judaism and polyamory

[chanaleh]

It occurred to me that I really should have started off my previous collection of links with the very basics, since this is a pretty radical (not to say unthinkable) concept to many of my lurking readers, particularly family members. *waves*


I recommend starting here on the alt.polyamory FAQ:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/section-2.html

Kamela wrote a lovely philosophical column last week about "the way polyamory done well allows for the beautiful, organic unfolding of each relationship on its own merits":
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-20570-Boston-Open-Relationships-Examiner~y2009m11d6-Polyamory-a-path-to-unique-intimacy

A few of the links below come from this recent polymedia roundup: http://alan7388.livejournal.com/8097.html

CNN treats polyamory as a real and significant alternative to monogamy:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/monogamy.realistic.today/index.html

The author of the aforementioned Newsweek online article this summer followed it up with a blog post on "The Feminist Roots of Polyamory":
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/feminist-roots-polyamory

Along similar lines, by way of minerva42: "Nonmonogamy and the Double Standard":
"In short, there’s a lot of brainwashing going on here. Nonmonogamy is coded as masculine, and monogamy is coded as feminine. The culture is desperately pushing this particular double standard onto us, but the push is mostly failing to change people’s actual behavior. The double standard exists for a reason: it is there to convince us to behave in a certain idealized manner, namely for women to always be chaste and monogamous, and for men to have sex with as many people as possible."
http://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/nonmonogamy-and-the-double-standard/

Also from 2007, an article in the Huffington Post made "The Case for Open Relationships":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-kramer-bussel/the-case-for-open-relatio_b_76016.html


But I have also encountered some questioning along the lines of "What does YOUR PRECIOUS RELIGION say about this LIFESTYLE?" It's a fair question, and not an easy one.

There is some assertion generally that "poly is the new gay", and this is at least equally true in a Jewish context. "But it's forbidden as perversion!" Well, for homosexuality, yes and no. Yeah, in Orthodox circles the party line against homosexuality is likely to hold sway for a good long time yet, and the frum-and-gay population is still struggling mightily (but, I would say, fruitfully -- if not in terms of impact on The Establishment, at least there's interesting and fertile stuff happening on the, as it were, fringes). But Reform Judaism is perfectly willing to ordain gay and lesbian clergy, solemnize same-sex marriages, and generally affirm the validity of these relationship paths and family structures. Conservative Judaism is, as ever, caught somewhere between these two positions, but that's a larger topic than I'm going to get into right here and now.

Anyway, back to polyamory. So where does that leave someone who is committed to Judaism and also identifies as poly? It's apparently tempting to some to assert that "those people don't exist" -- and even "by definition can't exist because the latter negates the former" -- but, in a word, no.

From Jewcy.com: Jewish Mythbusters: Jews Don’t Do Polygamy (Or do they?)
http://www.jewcy.com/post/jewish_mythbusters_jews_don_t_do_polygamy

From HEEB Magazine: "The Loves That Dare Not Speak Their Names: The World of Polyamorous Jews"
http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/27

From the rather more well respected Tikkun Magazine: "Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond":
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Ferrer-monogamy-polyamory-and-beyond

And it even made an advice column in the venerable Jewish Daily Forward: "Help! My Daughter Is Seeking an 'Open' Marriage"
http://blogs.forward.com/the-bintel-brief/109404/

Lastly, there's a mailing list for polyamorous Jews called AhavaRaba (the Hebrew is commonly translated as "great love", but raba has somewhat more of a connotation of muchness, of multiplicity). Those interested in subscribing can do so here (the nice human moderator will follow up with an email in order to vet you for subscription); once you're subscribed, you can also peruse the archives. A couple of Camberville and other Boston-area folks are on it. I think there should be more. :-)

Comments

[dpolicar]

It has always seemed very strange to me that anybody justifies a pro-monogamy stance by reference to, of all things, the Old Testament.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

This.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Ultimately I think it has to do with the fact that most Christians don't read the Bible. They know a few parables and some tidbits of the major stories but that's about it. When I was a kid I actually got into an argument with a Sunday School teacher about King Solomon's concubines. I insisted they were mentioned in the Bible and a number given for them and she insisted Solomon was "too wise" and that Solomon only had one wife. I asked who his wife was and she responded very imperiously "The Queen of Sheba."

[dpolicar]

I think that's too easy.

I mean, sure, most Christians don't read the Bible.
Most Jews don't, either, come to that.

But if that's an explanation for ignoring the predominance of polygamous marriages in the Old Testament and believing that monogamous marriage is the Way of God, it's also an explanation for believing that celibacy is the Way of God, that extramarital sex is the Way of God, that chimpanzee rain dances are the Way of God.

One can explain pretty much any belief by appealing to the ignorance of its believers, but for that very reason that isn't much of an explanation.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

You're right in that ignorance of the religion's holy book is not in and of itself an explanation. You need to take into account the fact that people tend to assume that their existing beliefs are based upon their religion's holy book. If your holy man tells you what to do, and your religion is based on a book then what you were told to do MUST be from the book, right?

Think about Indulgences before the reformation. They're not Biblically supported in any way, shape or form, yet they were sold by the Catholic Church. Indulgences were not sold because people didn't know they were in the Bible, but the people selling them exploited the fact that the masses didn't know they were in the Bible.

Biblical ignorance only explains why Christians don't challenge what their religious leaders tell them. The religious leaders are extending their own morals and beliefs to Biblical text.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

After all, the cherem of R Gershom expired either in 1250, or 1990.

Except for the part about "not reading anyone else's mail." That part didn't expire.

[sethg]

The joke in the yeshivas is that the rabbis had to let the cherem expire, because these days, it's too hard for a family to get by on just one income.

[laurens10.livejournal.com]

Ouch!

[besamim.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the links; they were most informative, although the Bintel Brief columnist seems to waver between taking the father's concerns seriously and mocking them, and between open-mindedness to polyamory and "feh!", so I'm not sure what she meant for the questioner to take away.

A question not addressed in the alt.polyamory FAQ: In the last few years (although it's presumably been going on longer), I've noticed that a growing number of neopagans seem to be poly. Why do you think this is so? Some ancient pagan societies were polygamous (just as some monotheistic cultures have been and still are), but polygamy =/= polyamory in the contemporary, egalitarian sense, yes? My guess is that it may have to do with neopagans choosing not to be bound by traditional Abrahamic religious standards of relationships, relationship ethics, and the like. But then, as you and others have argued, poly and monotheistic religions aren't inherently incompatible. So yeah. How would you (or pagan people you know) explain this trend?

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

My book Rites of Pleasure: Sexuality in Wicca and NeoPaganism has information on this.

[besamim.livejournal.com]

I'll have to check it out, then. Thanks. I enjoyed your Magickal Judaism book, by the way.

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

Cool! Thanks! Maybe someday it'll make back my advance. :-)

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

I'm going to chime in here. I'm a practicing pagan (I don't use the "neo" bit). I think it boils down to the same people being drawn to both things rather than anything inherent in the various religions under the pagan umbrella. If you're sufficiently inclined to go your own way in matters of faith, you might be similarly inclined in matters of relationship. In each case, a lot of the people will tell you that they see no reason to stick to inherited cultural norms if it seems to make sense to them to do otherwise.

There are probably pagans out there who include this as an article of faith, but you can find pagans out there who are doing nearly everything.

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

Just as a point of information - are you generally "out" about this? I've been assuming not, but since this is unlocked, I was curious.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

I have not historically discussed it in public. But since Tiger Boy recently outed me to one of my parents, with the ensuing tsunami of family drama described elsewhere... I am right now trying to use this space as a calming and hopefully (as drwex put it) educational platform.

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[anotherjen.livejournal.com]

Ugh. I was nonconsensually outed as poly once. It was really, really horrible.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

Yeah. :-/

He didn't do it on purpose; that is, he didn't realize it was quite such radically new information, and certainly didn't mean for it to go down (or, rather, blow up) quite the way it did.

But... yeah. Pretty horrible. At this writing, my mother hasn't spoken to me in six weeks. I figure I'll give a try at picking up the phone next week sometime.

For comparison

[drwex]

I can't see poly (orthordox) jews as any weirder than gay Republicans.

Anyway, a good set of links. Good luck with your education campaign...

Re: For comparison

[dpolicar]

That depends a lot on your understanding of one's relationship to a political party and to a religion.

Speaking personally, I'm inclined to agree with you... I consider both politics and religion to be issues on which each individual makes up their own mind, based on their experiences and the exercise of their reason and their emotional needs and predilections and social pressures, and then finds (or fails to find) communities in the context of which they can express that. And sometimes that means the individual is marginal in the context of their community of choice.

But some people do see religion as a different kind of thing... see it not primarily as an expression of individual and group reason and emotion and experience, but rather as primarily an expression of supernatural intervention in human endeavor.

So, I dunno.

Re: For comparison

[drwex]

Hunh. Interesting perspective. Particularly since the Jewish response to the overt expression of supernatural intervention is something along the lines of "Yes, but..."

(I mean, seriously, if there's another religion with so many stories of its founders arguing with G-d I'd like to know about it.)