1

There is a true story where a couple just got married. Soon after marriage, the wife is diagnosed with certain illness by the doctor. To make it short, because of the illness, the wife is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. The wife, however, tells the husband if needed he can have sexual intercourse with other woman to meet his biological need.

In this particular case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with other woman, does he break the 3rd precept? Any source provided to back up the answer would be great.

ChrisW
  • 46,455
  • 5
  • 39
  • 134
B1100
  • 1,191
  • 8
  • 13

4 Answers4

5

It does not break the third precept if the husband has the wife's willful(not forced) consent. It's somewhat similar to kings having more than one queen.

Having said that, there is no such thing as a "biological need" regarding sexual pleasures. Water is a biological need, air is a biological need, food is a biological need as you cannot survive without them. You do not need sex to live.

Sankha Kulathantille
  • 25,668
  • 1
  • 22
  • 64
  • I marked this answer down. The Buddha did not teach celibacy for all people because not fulfilling biological sexual drives for many, such as by not having children, may not kill people biologically but it can cause unhappiness & even mental illness. – Dhamma Dhatu Apr 23 '18 at 20:47
  • 5
    Someone can become unhappy and mentally ill for not being able to buy his favorite car or not being able to pass an exam. That does not make it a biological need. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 01:53
  • 1
    @SankhaKulathantille But I think the husband has to do it with a woman who are not in the list of "prohibited women". "Prohibited women" is a bit ambiguous, for example, one of them is women who are "protected by law". If the local laws prohibiting sexual intercourse outside marriage, do you think the husband is breaking the third precept? What does "women who are protected by law" mean? – B1100 Apr 24 '18 at 06:54
  • The sutta definition of sexual misconduct is obsolete in our current world (although it is popular with the porn addicts that post on Buddhist chat sites). The suttas say parents arrange the marriage of their children therefore there was not a large pool of single (hungry ghost) women to have sex with in the Buddha's time. – Dhamma Dhatu Apr 24 '18 at 06:59
  • Sexual desire is the foundation of samsara & creation yet you compare it to an exam or favourite car? – Dhamma Dhatu Apr 24 '18 at 07:05
  • 1
    @Dhammadhatu Lust is just a subset of craving. There are many other types of craving with the potential cause future births. In any case, pleasing one's craving does not count as a biological need. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 07:16
  • @B1100 A single independent lay woman would be a valid candidate. She could be a friend, no need to be a prostitute. if the law says you cannot have it outside marriage, apparently it does break the precept. But you have the option to go to a country with more freedom or vote to change the constitution. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 07:26
  • @SankhaKulathantille Some translate "protected by law" as "a prisoner", not sure what does that term mean, really. "if the law says you cannot have it outside marriage, apparently it does break the precept". So what you are saying is, "law" as in "protected by law" can also mean local laws? But that sounds like social aspect, sex is sex, no one is hurt, what it has got to do with local laws? – B1100 Apr 24 '18 at 07:35
  • @B1100 Prisoner here means a prisoner of war. It rarely applies these days as there are laws agreed by countries on how to handle such situations. "protected by law" means whatever law enforced in wherever you live. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 07:44
  • @B1100 marriage is a social aspect too. That doesn't make it right to do it with another man's wife. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 07:48
  • Funny how how you trivialise sex as a mere petty want yet promote having casual sex with modern (non-Buddhist) women. If sex was so trifling, why would you bother with it? Sex & motherhood is a strong natural urge for the maturity of women. The Buddha taught clearly sexual impurity is the taint in a woman. The Buddha was not heedless with sex and particularly how it affect women. – Dhamma Dhatu Apr 24 '18 at 09:43
  • 1
    @Dhammadhatu I do not promote having sex. I was merely answering the question. Your comments make very little sense regarding this question. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 10:13
  • 1
    @Dhammadhatu I think your view is that [some] women need procreative sex (i.e. to have children) for their sanity's sake ... if you wanted to you could write that in your own answer; and add a reference too, to support that, if you know of one. And Sankha's view is, I think, probably based on a strict reading of the scripture, i.e. something like this answer (of Dhammadhatu's), or this answer (of Ven Yuttadhammo's). – ChrisW Apr 24 '18 at 10:21
  • Sorry but Sankha's view is unrelated to the suttas as a whole but is merely a partial & improper personal interpretation of the suttas. As for Yuttadhammo, imo, he often teaches false dhamma. The suttas clearly state parents must arrange the marriage of their children (DN 31). There was no place for non-married sex in the mainstream Buddha's society (apart from outcastes & royalty). Women were "protected" by their family until they were married (unless the woman was a mad woman). – Dhamma Dhatu Apr 24 '18 at 10:35
  • 1
    @Dhammadhatu "In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion". This is a classic example of you misinterpreting the suttas. Parents arranging marriage as a show of compassion does not imply that arrange marriage is the only method for a man and woman to be together without breaking the 3rd precept. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 24 '18 at 11:15
  • @SankhaKulathantille So the consequence of breaking local laws is only social too, right? I.e. he gets punished by locals because he breaks the law of the land. But if the husband goes to a country with more freedom, he doesn't break the precept at all. In the country who doesn't allow such sexual relationship he merely respects the laws but in regard to kamma, it's the same, i.e. intention to have sexual intercourse, regardless he breaks the local laws or not. Is that right? – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 03:53
  • 1
    All sexual activities are bad karma regardless of if it breaks the 3rd precept – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 05:15
  • @SankhaKulathantille Just because the local law permits sexual relationship outside marriage, it doesn’t make that sexual activity per se more wholesome. In the same way, if the law does not allow the husband to have sexual relationship outside marriage, it doesn’t make that sexual activity per se more unwholesome. In short, law is one thing, defilement(s) of sexual activity is another thing. Is that correct? – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 10:08
  • @B1100 That depends. Deciding to break the law to entertain one's lust would require a greater attachment to sexual pleasures as compared to doing it when it's allowed. Either way it's unwholesome. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 10:25
  • @SankhaKulathantille You are not encouraging people to have sex, not everybody can become a monk and attain nibbana. I understand, either way it's unwholesome but the determining factor I think is not the law but the person's greed, hatred and delusion in regard to his sexual activity. Even if it's allowed by the law, one's lust can be very strong, so it's the lust that counts not what the law says, I think. The law in general, I think, is to support harmony and safety within the society but in the case above, all parties agreed voluntarily with the activity. – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 11:44
  • @B1100 Why would I encourage people to have sex? You can still be thrown in jail if it breaks the law. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 12:44
  • @sankhakulathantille That was what I was saying, even if someone is thrown in jail, it doesn't make the sexual activity more unwholesome. Because the degree of unwholesomeness depends on the strength of greed, hatred and delusion of the sexual activity, not what the law says. – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 12:56
  • Nevertheless it still breaks the precept. You can make the same argument for sleeping with another man's wife. But it does break the precept. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 13:08
  • The precept has many aspects, above case "only" break the law, it's not harmful to anyone unless you get caught. If everybody agrees voluntarily with the relationship, sleeping with other woman is the same as a king who has many queens. If it's not agreed then the sexual activity is harmful even with one's own wife. – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 13:34
  • But your question is about if it breaks the precept or not. Not whether it is harmful to others. :) – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 14:12
  • Technically speaking it does break the precept. The purpose of precept is to prevent harm, therefore as long as no one is harmed it's just law, nothing else. Personally, I would call it breaking a law. – B1100 Apr 25 '18 at 16:39
  • breaking the law can cause harm to you. – Sankha Kulathantille Apr 25 '18 at 17:10
0

This is the third precept in Pāḷi:

kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

  • kāmesu is a locative (“in”) form of the word kāma and means “sexual desire”
  • micchācārā consists of micchā, which means “wrong”, and ācārā, which is an ablative (“from”) form of ācāra and means “way of behaving”
  • veramaṇī-sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi means “I undertake the precept of abstaining”

All the precept says is that one has to abstain from behaving badly in the matter of sexual lust. This is a pretty vague statement that depends on one's culture, and Buddhists from different cultures would surely disagree about what it exactly means.

That said, even a traditional Buddhist society could accept polyandry, so we can expect that most Buddhists would also accept the situation you describe, which can be classified as a form of polygamy.

michau
  • 2,702
  • 1
  • 18
  • 37
-2

It breaks the third precept whether or not there was wife's consent. Sexual misconduct include engaging sexual activities with multiple women...

Krizalid_Nest
  • 720
  • 3
  • 7
  • 1
    Could you provide details about the tradition you are basing your answer on? – michau Apr 24 '18 at 10:08
  • Kàmesu micchàcarà verama; – Krizalid_Nest Apr 26 '18 at 03:22
  • Furthermore, there are only certain scenarios where sexual activity does not violate the third precept:
    1. With an appropriate person, such as wife or husband；
    2. Not knowing it happened (E.g. passed out)。
    3. No enjoyment, even knowing it happens。
    4. Lunatic。
    5. In extreme pain.

    Back to the question, are "other" women an appropriate person? Are they prostitute? Or unmarried girls under parents protection? If yes, how could they be "appropriate" persons? Having said that, the key deciding point is whether the other woman is "Appropriate", NOT whether the "wife consents or not".

     – Krizalid_Nest Apr 26 '18 at 03:33
  • The three words “kāmesu micchācārā veramaṇī” are very general, while your answer is very specific. That's why I'm asking for sources of your explanations. – michau Apr 26 '18 at 08:05
  • The meaning of those words are very specific if you can grasp the concepts behind. If you have a difference of opinions, feel free to share your views. After then, I will consider sharing my sources, and so should you too. – Krizalid_Nest Apr 26 '18 at 09:51
-3

I marked this question down because it is Dhammically illogical and appears to attempt to justify sexual promiscuity with Dhammic principles. If a man had moral Dhammic commitment to stay with his injured wife then why would the same moral man have uncommitted sex with another woman (unless the woman was a prostitute)? The question makes no sense at all. I think the only way to phrase this question properly is: "Husband has sexual activity with a prostitute with the consent of wife". There is one explicit sutta that literally condemns having sex with prostitutes (although I can't remember it).

For those with a superstitious bent about karma & rebirth, it is obviously due to the man's past karma he has this wife & thus his duty is to look after her faithfully. Possibly in a past life, the man was a sexual abuser of women, such as a pimp or pornography producer, therefore in this life he must look after this woman or otherwise have rebirth in the most severe hell. My guess it is the man's last chance at a 'human birth' before the earth opens up & swallows him into hell of fire.

Dhamma Dhatu
  • 41,600
  • 2
  • 31
  • 80