the op does not deal with that, as the situation as presented only indicates a discussion has been had between the two. That is up to those involved to consider.DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:54 pmThis appears to still not change the lack of consideration about who & what will this other woman be and the consequences upon her. You seem to have the view that there is a pool of women out there for exploitation or use by men who need to satisfy random male sexual lusts. I continue to discern a lack of empathy for women here & merely a macho male orientated, even pornographic, outlook of male self-cherishing. For example, in the Buddha's time, I imagine only a wealthy man could consider such an arrangement where they could buy & financially support a mistress or courtesan or sex slave.
not in the slitest. I am only taking the situation as far as the op has gone. The Buddha could have made having multiple partners at the same time a breach of the precept for men, but didn't.
The situation is in the here and now, not a past life."Could be", you say, even though it appears you are not confident of the real facts of the kammic inheritence that lead to the present reincarnation? So you appear here to dismiss the doctrine of kamma & rebirth but fall back on a doctrine similar to the Protestant King Henry VIII of England who changed the laws of God so he could divorce his infertile wives (rather than behead them, as he previously did)?
Recall what happened in the Jewish Old Testament when Abraham believed the wife has been left infertile and the situation arose as a means to carry on the husbands bloodline. His wife Sarah gave Abraham her slave girl Hagi and Abraham & Hagi had sex together to bear a son (who eventually became the patriarch of the Muslims). Abraham & Sarah were proved totally wrong in their judgments of kamma & reincarnation because God himself had to tell them they were wrong; that the heir born via the slave girl Hagi was not the bloodline of the Chosen People. Even Sarah bore the heir of the Chosen People when she was 90 or 100 years old or similar age.
We are dealing with a current time situation regarding Buddhist precepts.
the OP talks about biological needs (the desire to reproduce could be called that), hence the situation presented by myself above is a potential. The third party is not even being considered in the op as it is not at that stage. that would be upto the couple.Since when was compassion encouraging people to engage in mere sexual lust? Where does the Dhamma say this? Dhamma says any action motived purely by lust is unwholesome and leads to rebirth in the lower worlds. You claim to speak of compassion for both sides equally yet show none to the theoretical 3rd party, who you appear to completely sexually objectify, like in a pornographic movie, and strip the 3rd party of any emotional feeling & response when/as being the provider of sexual services to this man who is unable to accept his kammic reincarnation & inheritance.
where is the third person mentioned in the op. to my knowledge there was a discussion and finding out if it was against the precepts, as yet there is no third person.Where was it ever said the wife has a "need"? Also, as I mentioned a number of times, there are more than two people here. You keep asserting there are two people in this arrangement when there is obviously at least three people.
you seam to think it would not be a mutually benefiscial situation for all involved.The Buddha never said women should be used as mere sex objects. The Buddha condemned womanizing, sexual promiscuity & having sex with prostitutes. Therefore, returning to my original post on this topic, my original question remains unanswered, namely:
If you go beyond the scope of the OP it will sound very theoretical.