Polyamorous relationships & Polyamorous marriage: Does this violate the 3rd Precept for Lay people

I would like to start a discussion about ethical polyamarous relationships (relationships where a person has romantic and/or sexual relationships with more than one person, everyone being informed and consensual) as it concerns the 3rd precept. In the Buddha’s time, monogamous relationships and marriage might have been the norm. Nowadays, we are slowly shifting towards being more open to ethical nonmonogamous relationships which differ from cheating in that they are voluntary, informed and consensual. So, given the ethical aspect, does ethical nonmonogamy/polyamory violate the 3rd precept? What about ethical nonmonogamous/polyamarous marriage (even in todays legal context where it is not legal to marry more than one person, but people are starting to, for example, open up their marriage for ethical open marriage).

  • Note: this is a challenging topic, especially since we still live in a mono-normative society, where not only is monogamy the norm, but it is socially and legally forced on others to be the same. It also comes with a lot of myths, such as “if you love someone, you wouldnt want anyone else” and “sexual/romantic outside invlovement decreases intamacy” and “if you love someone, it is ok to control their sexual/romantic behaviors”. These are all mononormativity assumptions without any real evidence.
  • Note: To me it seems more inline with Buddhism to have multiple partners, decreasing unhealthy/toxic attachment and suffering that often comes with monogamous partnership.
4 Likes

Actually, suttas are full of accounts of men, kings and all with multiple wives. While (for example, in Therīgāthā) it is said that being a co-wife is suffering, I don’t think I’ve ever seen men taking multiple wives being against the third precept.

Extrapolating from this, if there’s a polyamorous relationship with consenting & informed adults, I don’t see a problem as far as third precept is concerned.

5 Likes

Hi @dj0710

A monastic would need to answer that, so I look forward to their comments if offered.

As a lay person, I take the 3rd precept at face value, i.e., sexual abstinence = sexual abstinence. I am married; I don’t practice the 3rd precept.

Still, I take to heart the ethical responsibilities for being in a sexual relationship – I feel Plum Village offers a valuable expression of this for lay people.

I deeply appreciate the vows that monastics take and practice re: the 3rd precept. I feel it is required for a full realization of the Buddha’s teachings but won’t go into that here (not my role).

I had some extended conversation about ethical polyamorous relationships in an interfaith setting this past summer. This sums up what I shared:

I’m sensitive to conversations where, as alternative modalities are expressed (whatever they happen to be), other cultural and spiritual traditions are invoked as if these cultures and traditions speak directly to that modality today.

I don’t hear you doing that. But I’ve seen this prevail in other western settings where people invoke ancient eastern traditions (or even small-scale societies) to establish the validity of polyamorous relationships as a norm – albeit an ancient one.

In those instances, people who have little to no knowledge of the origin or context of these conventions learn about them as if the lineage holders have given express permission for the appropriation of these conventions – presumably to help normalize that modality for today.

My concern is that people are fully transparent about the specific cultures and traditions we’re drawing from – or rejecting, and why. I think it would take extensive guidance and support to help most people make the journey of integrating polyamorous relationships as a new normal. This would, at the least, minimize the potential for psychological harm and spiritual confusion in the formative years of that journey.

The 3rd precept is about having sexual relations in a way that doesn’t lead to your own harm or others. It’s not about having a specific set up outside of which other sexual relations are immoral. This is why the Buddha never condemned Kings for having concubines, and why marriage has always been seen as a secular affair in Buddhism rather than a sacrament or such like. Of course, all intentional sexual relations are ultimately unwholesome in Buddhadhamma. The highest ideal is celibacy for those who want to practice that.

  • Note: To me it seems more inline with Buddhism to have multiple partners, decreasing unhealthy/toxic attachment and suffering that often comes with monogamous partnership.

I would disagree with this. Polyamory isn’t anymore in line with Buddhadhamma than monogamy is. If you are going to make these arguments it’s easy to counter that monogamy comes with less attachment. More partners, more clinging. In truth though I don’t think these kind of arguments hold.

6 Likes

Well, it’s always complicated because nobody except the individuals involved will have the full picture. I think, though, it’s important to take the context into account. If I remember correctly, the third precept

Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

has a broader implication than just having a relationship with more than one person and/or having sex with more than one partner. It’s also about social responsibility.
So, e.g. if there were two people in a relationship and one wants to have an open relationship and the other partner kind of gives in because he/she/they (secretly) fears that otherwise that person will leave the relationship - that would make a difference.
My question would be: Are there any dependencies and/ or responsiilities (monetary, psychological, other)? What if two partners get closer over time and want to have a relationship without the third individual?

1 Like

As I understand it, third precept is defined differently for householders and monastics though. For householders, I’ve seen it explained as “Misconduct” and not abstinence (kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami).

MN 41 for example explains Kāmesumicchācārī:

They commit sexual misconduct. They have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal.

I’ve seen lay people observe abstinence as part of 8 precepts on Uposatha days though. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

You’re going to have a ton more responsibility towards the partners in your life in the end, the more you have. From karmic ties to not wanting to break hearts, which may lead you to abstaining and being all alone. Think of the Middle-Way. Even having many partners over a long period of time, in a one to one relationship with each, can bring you to a point in life where you will choose to remain abstinent for the rest of your life. I have to admit, one of the initial times I wanted to be a Buddhist monk was at the end of my first serious relationship. :pray:

4 Likes

The third precept is only for householders. Monastics have a different set of much better defined precepts.

6 Likes

Loads of suttas in the Sutta Pitaka, especially the Anguttura Nikaya referencing men with multiple wives.

1 Like

It makes sense to me that stepping outside the normative scripts for relationships can allow people to be more intentional about how they wish to relate to others.

To me it’s a bit weird how the external forms of relationships are seen as very important and not whether they are built on a foundation of trust and mutual respect.

So I would say whatever romantic/sexual relationships are not coercive but enthusiastically wished for by all involved are the most in line with the third precept. Whether they are poly or not does not seem even relevant to me tbh :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Let’s call it consensual non-monogamy/polyamory (CNM) rather than ethical. Ethics are varied, and asking if ethical poly is ethical is a bit leading. Consent, as I’m defining it means that all partners are in agreement about the terms of their non-monogamy and continuing to give consent through their relationships and any sexual acts in those relationships.

As Dogen said above, there are plenty of instances of non-monogomy in the suttas. Mostly one man with multiple wives, but I remember seeing somewhere in the EBTs a wife with multiple husbands. The Buddha never spoke negatively about them.

The third precept is as follows: AN10.211

They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sex with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sex with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal.
Kāmesumicchācāraṁ pahāya kāmesumicchācārā paṭivirato hoti. Yā tā māturakkhitā …pe… antamaso mālāguḷaparikkhittāpi, tathārūpāsu na cārittaṁ āpajjitā hoti.

For the first part it’s about consent. Not engaging in sexual activity by one who is protected by their relatives or the law. This would speak to modern day laws about consent and those old enough or mentally capable enough to give consent. This is the part which I tend to focus on.

However, the second half is where we get into the weeds. We have ‘one who has a husband’ - sasāmikā fem. married woman ; lit. with master [sa + sāmi + ikā] where sāmi can mean ‘lord, master, owner or husband’. The explaination then continues with other kinds of relationships where a woman has only one (male) partner.

Most of the suttas run with a male-centric perspective and ask us to flip, so we might imply that whatever the Buddha means here it is not just applicable to those who are women and have male partner(s).

However, we also need to take into account the cultural context of women being owned by their family and then owned by there husband. We can see this in the use of sāmi. There are other words for wives and married. We even have sapariggaha - burdened with wives.

I think that it’s impossible to argue that there was no polyamory in the suttas. How consensual it was, and how much was about family power structures, we don’t really know. I haven’t seen any suttas critising householders for having multiple partners.

How we interpret this in modern times, in a culture where everyone has the right to consent, IMHO leads us back to the first half of the definition. Therefor I think that CNM can be included acceptable in the 3rd of the 5 precepts. However, I think it’s also easy to justify CNM as ‘letting go of attachment’. I’m pretty sure it’s possible to be attached to multiple people and things at once, so this might be a form of delusion. :black_cat: .

Whoever we are with, or if we choose to be celibate, it’s still wise to reflect and review why we are practicing in that way. Our motivations might change and we might see something we haven’t seen before. We should also not be too quick to judge how other people are keeping their sila. Our own conduct is our vehicle for liberation.

13 Likes

Thank you Bhante. That was a well put response and alot to think about.

3 Likes

The Blessed One said: “And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma explanation?

“Sensuality should be known. The cause of sensuality should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of sensuality should be known."

Does this lead to the end of all stress?

the Therī Uppalavaṇṇā describes being a co-wife as a rather sub-optimal situation:

  1. Ubho mātā ca dhītā ca, mayaṃ āsuṃ sapattiyo;
    Tassā me ahu saṃvego, abbhuto lomahaṃsano.

We were both mother and daughter, and co-wives;
I had terrifying, hair-raising anxiety.

  1. ‘‘Dhiratthu kāmā asucī, duggandhā bahukaṇṭakā;
    Yattha mātā ca dhītā ca, sabhariyā mayaṃ ahuṃ.

May you be damned, filthy lust! reeking and stinging;
there, where we were wives together: mother and daughter.

  1. ‘‘Kāmesvādīnavaṃ disvā, nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato;
    Sā pabbajjiṃ rājagahe, agārasmānagāriyaṃ.

Having seen the danger in sensual pleasures, having seen renunciation as safety;
I went forth at Rajagaha, from the home to homelessness.

5 Likes

If you take the training in sila as ethos, then monogamy is more inline with the dhamma. This is why, Confucianism and Taoism co-exist side by side in china.

As to which is morally superior, it is a matter of opinion, personal preferences, culture and history.

How so?

If we take celibacy as the golden standard for renunciation, then monogamy, polygamy, heterosexuality, homosexuality all are equally far away from the renunciate lifestyle. A couple in monogamy can be devoted to each other, or toxic to each other. A family of polygamy might have a stronger interpersonal relationship, or neglect one another. I don’t think there’s anything inherently different about either praxis, except of course how society views it today.

There are times in human history where monogamy would’ve been viewed with skepticism and as a result of toxic attachment, like OP’s said. These are societal changes that have more to do with technology and less so about absolute values.

If I had to rank (according to Dhamma), I’d say Celibacy > All Consensual Sexual Intimacies > Non-Consensual Sexual Encounters.

1 Like

Why would monogamy be more aligned with the Dhamma?

The suttas do not seem to indicate a preference for any specific form of relationship. When practicing sila as ethos, the focus lies on intention, honesty, and the avoidance of harm.

Rather than explicitly promoting monogamy as superior, the suttas emphasize universal ethical principles that apply to any type of relationship, as long as it is founded on respect and mutual understanding. While monogamy can certainly be ethical, it is not inherently “more aligned” with sila than other relationship forms that uphold these same principles.

I feel like most of these responses don’t actually address the 3rd precept… which is kind of the point of this discussion.

We can see in the suttas many poly relationships. The Buddha didn’t praise or condemn them even though he could have. The Buddha just condemned sensuality in general.

Who are we to say if consensual poly is ‘more/less inline with the dhamma’ than monogamy? If this was so, the Buddha had plenty chance to say so. I don’t think we can make this call.

8 Likes

If polygamy involves more sensuality (esp. sexuality) than monogamy then the latter is not as bad as the former.

Thank you for the clarity of this response :pray: :heart:

The Buddha’s teachings on how we organize ourselves in relationships are scant except with regard to the Sangha. Correct? And why would it be otherwise?

I feel a discussion on polyamorous relationships always needs specific context – in this case, as it relates to the 3rd precept. In another setting I could argue that normative marriage between two people is also about licensing people to raise children.

Someone earlier in the thread basically said the more people one has sexual relationships with, the more effort it takes to manage them ethically. Sounds rather dry but I would imagine that’s the case.

1 Like