> Many people subscribe to statistics that the slightest intimacy
> between (unmarried) males and females today leads to the bedroom.
>
> (Rabbi? Dr.?) Isaac Balbin, here
That's simply not true in my experience. In my own experience, having attended a public high school, those who wish to have premarital sex will have it regardless of intimacy between men and women, and those who do not wish to have premarital sex will avoid it regardless of intimacy. There are different kinds of unmarried individuals, who all have VERY different desires and expectations. In my entire circle of friends in high school, I don't know of a single person who had premarital sex, because none of us were the kinds who wanted to have it. We all had plenty of intimate social relationships with female peers, but premarital sex was simply something we weren't seeking. In my senior year, one of my friends had a girlfriend, and not long after graduation, the two were married. This friend of mine knew exactly what he had to do if he wanted to have sexual relations. Anything extramarital was not an option.
In other words: I think that today, most everyone is so habituated to sexuality, that the most important factor is not hirhur / hana'ah anymore (i.e. sexual pleasure and experience, such as seeing a woman or talking to her, having intimate physical or social contact that leads eventually to sex), but rather, your express and explicit intent and desires. My friends who avoided sex had the same hirhur / hana'ah and hergel as those who were having sex all the time. The difference between us was NOT the degree of intimacy or habituation with the opposite sex. The difference was rather, whether or not one consciously desired to have premarital sex or not. For those in my circle of friends in high school, premarital sex was simply not morally conscionable. We very consciously and deliberately eschewed premarital sex, not for lack of opportunities.
The rise in premarital sex is due NOT, I believe, to greater exposure to the opposite sex. Rather, I believe, the issue is that society has accepted premarital sex as acceptable and legitimate. It is not the hirhur / hana'ah or hergel that is to blame; instead, I believe, it is the lack of basic moral censure that is to blame.
Therefore: if we want to reduce premarital sex, I think the most important thing to do today is NOT to dress more tzenua or have fewer social relationships between men and women. This will do nothing. The solution instead, I believe, is to foster a moral environment in which people have firm moral principles against premarital sex.
Every day, a person might have plenty of desire to steal, but he refrains from stealing because it is wrong, period. The objects to steal are all in plain sight; there is no tzniut, and there is lots of hirhur / hana'ah. What stops his theft is not concealing the objects, hiding them from sight, but rather, his moral principles. Nowadays, we must approach tzniut the same way, I believe. Everything is already in sight, and we are used to it. What must be fostered is a refusal to act on the exposure of sexuality, the same way one refuses to act on the exposure of objects on store shelves.
How do we foster such an environment? First, it'd be nice if television shows didn't glorify premarital sex so much. More tzenua billboards would be nice as well. But besides that, I think children need to be taught that premarital sex is simply not a moral option, is simply not legitimate or conscionable. Parents need to have clear and absolute moral principles, and inculcate them effectively. (Easier said than done, perhaps. I'm not a parent, so what do I know?)
Posts
You Want These Deviants Taking Over YOUR Country?
-
As seen on Tamar Yonah's Facebook page, published on Jihad Watch. This is
disgusting and horrifying. These are the so-called "people" whose religion
is c...
1 hour ago
18 comments:
What if you feel your inability to control your desire prevents you from having many friendships with the opposite sex?
I grew up in a secular environment where casual, premarital sex is the norm. In fact, my high school had a number of teen mothers in it.
Personally, I never knew anyone back then who actually abstained from premarital sex-- no, these were just people we heard about who lived in better neighbourhoods across town, and their parents made more money, and generally their moral grounding was further developed at that age than our own. But other than that, they were like characters in a story book to us.
From my own experience, I find it harder now to have normal, platonic friendships with boys, especially since becoming religious. Humans are sexual beings, and because I acted on my desires for several years before coming to any conclusion that premarital sex is wrong, I have what I might consider a disadvantage because I know "how good it is" and I can't just turn off my sexual desires, like others claim they can.
So, I just avoid boys like the plague now.
I try not to make eye contact, have lengthy discussions, or agree to "hang out as friends" because I have a hard time believing their intentions, or my own, are genuine. Essentially I feel I am still as capable of going back to my old ways if the opportunity were to present itself.
Also, dressing tzenua has not helped one bit in staving off the advances of men. In fact, I have only received more attention of that nature since deciding to commit to the mitzvah of tzniut. Which is why I subscribe to the school of thought that tzniut's real purpose is to eroticize reality, not prevent gazing eyes.
Oh, I forgot to say in the last post...
I'm not sure what exactly Isaac Balbin was defining as intimacy in the introductory quote, but if he was referring to physical intimacy, then I would say it pretty much does lead to the bedroom in most cases. Unless you get married within 6 months of meeting each other. But it seems like what you're talking about for the most part is social intimacy.
Naamah,
He was, and I am, talking about social intimacy, not romantic. This is especially so, because we're talking about the laws of tzniut, such as wearing clothing and avoiding kol isha, etc. If you're romantically involved, I doubt hearing her sing will suddenly give you more sexual desire than you had before.
Daughter of Light,
Everyone must know him- or herself. You have to behave in ways that you know you yourself need to. I'm trying to talk generalities.
Your experience is very peculiar and unfamiliar to me. In my high school, I don't remember hearing of a single teenage mother. I presume that some of the students were having premarital sex, but that's only an assumption, because I never heard of that either.
I might note that every year, there were perhaps one or two, maybe three, school fights, and they usually lasted between 30 and 60 seconds, before the security guards arrived and put a stop to it.
Now, then, you say, Also, dressing tzenua has not helped one bit in staving off the advances of men. In fact, I have only received more attention of that nature since deciding to commit to the mitzvah of tzniut. Which is why I subscribe to the school of thought that tzniut's real purpose is to eroticize reality, not prevent gazing eyes."
Frankly, that is ridiculous. Those men who pay more attention to you now, they are subverting the very intention of tzniut. The goal of tzniut is to humanize women, to say the focus off their anatomy and replace the focus onto their personalities. The problem is that many Orthodox Jews make a religion out of tzniut, and say that geula will come when the laws of tzniut are kept, etc. They tell boys that women are sexual objects and must be avoided, and they tell women that they themselves are nothing but sexual objects. This destroys the very intention and purpose of the laws of tzniut. See my blog post here.
They are subverting the very intention of tzniut because I do not live in a religious, or even remotely Jewish community. I have come to believe that women in general actually do appear more attractive when they dress tzenua. So I think Gentiles take that as some kind of cue to hit on me because I know how to dress, and seem perhaps more put together than the vast majority of jeans and running shoes wearing women out there.
You can think it's ridiculous that tzniut doesn't eroticize reality all you want, but no offense, what do you know? From what you've described you have spent much of your life in a bubble.
I have also heard in a number of shiurim given by women that it is in fact true. Torah is a system in place so people can get the most pleasure out of life, and if you can't see how dressing in a more dignified manner makes women more physically appealing, then maybe you really do have Asperger's.
It doesn't matter whether you live in a religious or non-religious community. First, males are males, and basic sexuality does not change. Second, Haredim in particular have more in common with secular perverts than they do with secular mensches. I will elaborate below, but for now, the point is that in terms of sexual ethics and responsibility, Haredim rank relatively low compared to other communities, Jewish and not.
First, to understand male sexuality is not difficult, and neither living in a bubble nor having Asperger's will affect this. No matter how severe one's Asperger's, no matter how difficult it is to comprehend human emotions and intentions, one can nevertheless discern anger when another is screaming at the top of his lungs, with the veins in his neck bulging. Similarly, male sexuality is about as difficult to discern and comprehend as hunger; I can tell what my stomach is empty, notwithstanding my Asperger's, and similarly, male sexuality is not difficult at all for me to understand.
Now then, I want to first note that throughout the Talmudic literature, the laws of tzniut are unambiguously designed to guard sexuality. In fact, Hazal usually speak of tzniut preventing actual sexual intercourse and forbidden sexual relationships. To describe the laws of tzniut, then, as designed to do anything else (such as increase attractiveness), lacks foundation or basis.
Now, women sometimes do appear more attractive when dressed tzenua, but this is an over-simplification. As Adam Carolla once said on an episode of the Man Show, every man dreams of a loose woman, but no man actually wants to date one. That is: when a man is fantasizing about sexuality, or when he is looking for a one-night stand, he'll naturally seek out the loose woman.
However, when the man wants a real romantic relationship, he'll steer as far from the loose woman as he can. He wants a woman he sees as wholesome and reliable; he wants to be sure she's reliable and devoted to him alone. A loose woman is exciting for a night, but is a horrible investment for anything long-term.
So you're right that tzniut can make a woman more attractive. However, this is not to say that she is physically more attractive. Rather, it makes her more attractive in a holistic, bio-psychic / psychosomatic, physio-spiritual or -emotional sense. The wholesome-appearing woman is not necessarily more physically attractive, but she is rather material for a relationship.
Similarly, a woman's personality can make her more attractive. Dennis Prager tells of a time that he did an experiment: he ranked all the women who were students in his class, according to physical attractiveness. He did the same at the end of the semester, and found that the better students had risen in physical attractiveness. I have found the same occurring in my own experience, and other men I've spoken to have confirmed this; a woman's personality can affect her perceived physical attractiveness.
So you're right that tzniut can affect physical attractiveness. But you've misunderstood the route and means this occurs. Furthermore, there is another entire possibility you've completely omitted:
to be cont.
Tzniut might just as well make women appear more vulnerable and innocent and "untainted" (think the old pagan fascination with virginity - virginity was seen as having actual cosmic significance and power), causing men to hit on you, thinking you're ripe and unprotected.
So whether a woman's more conservative dress makes her appear more reliable and attractive, or instead more vulnerable and ripe for corruption, depends on the nature of the man viewing her. The man's moral nature affects how he views you.
I'm assuming that men who are hitting on you are of the second variety, not the first. It's not that your clothing make you more attractive; it's that it made you appear vulnerable.
And this brings us to the problem of the Haredim: because they fail to educate their men in the laws and principles of tzniut, but instead expect their women to bear all the weight, therefore: the Haredim men are sexual perverts just as many secular men are, and the Haredi men also see women as hypersexual objects to be exploited, and not as humans to be valued and engaged with on a bio-psychic / psycho-somatic / physio-spiritual level. Now, the Haredi men are told to avoid intercourse, so perhaps they don't hit on women in the street; perhaps their outward signs and behaviors differ from those of secular men. But their inner mindset is the same as that of a secular pervert, as opposed to that of a secular mensch.
My mother's told me that most women are gravely ignorant of male sexuality; she tells me that when she was in her teens and twenties, she'd dress relatively scantily, thinking she looked "cute". She learned only later that no, the men were looking at her sexually, as if she were a piece of meat. In eighth grade, my English teacher gave an impromptu talk about sexuality, so that the girls in her class would know how men think. I got and spoke, and told the girls everything I've just said above. The reaction was incredible: the boys all nodded along with me in agreement, while the girls laughed and thought I was joking. Male sexuality is very simple to understand, and there's not much to it. But no matter how simple it is, no matter how explicitly it is addressed, women don't seem to want to acknowledge it.
Don't you dare try to insinuate I am ignorant of male sexuality.
I was raped less than two months ago, and I have become hyper-aware of just how sick and perverted most men are. I am completely disgusted by men and it will be a miracle if I can ever trust them enough to actually marry one. I knew before my coworker raped me that his intentions were to try and sleep with me, what I didn't suspect was that he would drug my beverage and take advantage of me while incapacitated. That is not something anyone can predict.
So thanks for making me feel like the only reason any man would ever pay attention to me is because he either thinks I am easy to rape, or I am a whore. I feel as though no man will ever see my inner beauty, because clearly I have none.
If it's any consolation, I said that the only reason I know more about male sexuality than you do, is that I am a male. I don't think it should be insulting to you for me to say that my being a male gives me an advantage over you in understanding males.
And I never suggested that you did anything wrong when you got raped. On the contrary! The blame lies with him! You furthermore cannot help it if the male succeeds in raping either because of underhanded tactics (such as drugging) or because of his superior physical strength.
I was once beaten in a wrestling match by another girl. Most guys would have been ashamed, but I wasn't at all. Why? Because I knew I was physically stronger than her, and I knew she won not by virtue of superior physical strength, but rather, because she was faster and had more finesse and skill than me. I would indeed be ashamed if she had been physically stronger than me, but no one says women cannot be faster or more skilled than men, and so if she won due to that, it sheds no shameful light on me.
I fail to see what is shameful about getting raped because the man drugged you. I cannot comprehend why, due to this event in your life, anyone would blame you or see anything negative about you.
And I certainly did not say that the only reason a man would pay attention to you is because he wants to have sex with you. That is indeed one reason, but I gave another possible reason as well. Please reread the following paragraphs which I previously wrote:
However, when the man wants a real romantic relationship, he'll steer as far from the loose woman as he can. He wants a woman he sees as wholesome and reliable; he wants to be sure she's reliable and devoted to him alone. A loose woman is exciting for a night, but is a horrible investment for anything long-term.
So you're right that tzniut can make a woman more attractive. However, this is not to say that she is physically more attractive. Rather, it makes her more attractive in a holistic, bio-psychic / psychosomatic, physio-spiritual or -emotional sense. The wholesome-appearing woman is not necessarily more physically attractive, but she is rather material for a relationship.
Similarly, a woman's personality can make her more attractive. Dennis Prager tells of a time that he did an experiment: he ranked all the women who were students in his class, according to physical attractiveness. He did the same at the end of the semester, and found that the better students had risen in physical attractiveness. I have found the same occurring in my own experience, and other men I've spoken to have confirmed this; a woman's personality can affect her perceived physical attractiveness.
Daughter of Light,
You can say whatever you want about the men who have harmed you, and you can be as skeptical as you want about males in general. You'll hear no criticism from me, because you've told me what's happened to you, and I can appreciate why you'd feel about men the way you do.
However, I do NOT appreciate being depicted as having, in any way whatsoever, legitimated or encouraged rapists. You suggest that according to me, you are somehow to blame for your being raped. You seem to believe that according to me, your rape was due to ignorance by you. That is, you suggest that according to me, you yourself are to blame for your being raped. I do NOT appreciate being cast in this light. If you want to disagree with any of my beliefs or opinions, that is your prerogative, but I demand that any disagreement with me be based on what I have said, based on my actual opinions. Distortions of my views coupled with what amount to ad hominem attacks on my character will not be tolerated. The fact is, I NEVER discussed your rape. I NEVER brought it into the discussion. You can reread my words; never ONCE did I mention rape even in general, much less your rape. How you derived that I was blaming you for your rape is beyond me. I didn't even mention rape in the first place.
Similarly, then, I do NOT appreciate your saying that according to me, men are interested in you only for sex. I wrote three entire paragraphs about the possibility that man can be interested in a woman based on her personality, based on her holistic bio-psychic / psychosomatic / physio-spiritual being. Three entire paragraphs about men being interested in women for something beside their bodies! And yet you sweep those three entire paragraphs away, and say that according to me, men are interested only in sex.
Like I said, if you want to disagree with me, that's your prerogative. I'll welcome anyone's disagreeing with me, as long as they faithfully describe my own views and criticize them based on real sources and evidence. But to distort my views, until they approach the opinions of sexists and misogynists, to turn me into a straw-man, or to turn me into a bigot who can be battled with ad hominems alone, this I do NOT appreciate.
DOL -
Your experience is sad, and I am sorry that you've had to go through this tramautic and unfair experience. I was a victim of repeated sexual abuse, so I can empathize with having feelings of inadquecy, and feeling like you can never trust men again.
On that note, I think you're dropping your emotions here, versus actually being able to have a full discussion with Mike about the laws of tzniut. You are hurt, and you are COMPLETELY jusitified in your feelings towards men. You DID NOT DESERVE THIS! Just remember that, it is NOT your fault! If anyone says it is, then you must remove them from your mind.
I highly reccomend you seek some type of therapy/counseling, and avoid discussions like this until you've begun the healing process. It's a long and difficult path, but it can get better if you allow it. :) If you need anything just email me.
Good luck on your search for a wife, Michael. I bet that smug self-righteousness makes you popular with the ladies.
You're one to talk about me distorting your words. I never claimed that the sexuality between the religious and secular were different, but I can't say I've ever been overtly hit on by any religious men, even if their actions were only influenced by social pressure. I want to believe that their grounding in ethics and wanting to do the right thing is the reason they don't act like drooling swines in my presence.
Whereas, many secular men whose morality or lack thereof, and the "anything goes" hedonism of today is what causes them to act the way they do.
I don't even know why I am bothering to reply to this, so you can take something I say out of context, and embarrass me by fleshing it out into its own post?
It's no wonder my rebbetzen wants my future shidduch to be with someone artsy, all you technologically-inclined geeks are heartlesss and calculating.
What smug self-righteousness? The fact that I fancy myself something other than a misogynist? Because I do not claim that women are to blame for their being raped? If that's smug self-righteousness, then I'm in good company. I'd rather be a smug self-righteous jerk who blames male rapists, than a modest and humble man who blames the victims of rape. (You can take your pick as to which kind of man you'll prefer.) If I'm smug because being a male, I believe I know more about male sexuality than you do, then, once again, I'm in good company. I presume that you know more about female sexuality than I do. Am I still smug?
Now, the morality of religious and secular individuals is something else to be debated, based on sociological data. We could probably argue this all day, until one of us pulled out some detailed statistics. So I won't argue this point; it won't get us anywhere.
But something else you say concerns me: you say, "You're one to talk about me distorting your words. ... [you] take something I say out of context", and yet you fail to point out any exegetical errors I made in interpreting your words. If I did indeed misinterpret your words, then I sincerely beg your apology, but reading your entire comment to me, I don't see a single example adduced by you of my misreading your words. Again, if I have indeed so misread, please point out to me any specific errors I made, so that I can retract my words and apologize correctly. When I claimed you misread me, I offered very concrete examples of just how precisely you misread me. Cannot you please do me the same courtesy? If I took you out of context, I'd like to know how, so that I can correct the error. You accuse me of a crime but offer me no advice on how I can make amends. Is this fair?
to be cont.
You want an example so badly? Fine. The fact that you even expose my cover by associating my blog with that post is pure lashon hara, and I resent that.
I really don't want to waste the positive energy I've managed to muster up after the past seven-week depression I've been going through since the rape. No, I had too much fun this past weekend to waste that on a flame war.
If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to drop this and sincerely apologize for being presumptuous and rude. Your commenter above is correct in saying I speak from a position of emotion, and maybe should reserve bringing up the subject for when I've actually dealt with it properly.
And FYI, you spoke extensively about your desire to go into the field of bioinformatics the last time we chatted. Also, a quick glance over your facebook profile and your blog gives you away. Your writing style is that of technical writing. I know this because I lived with a coder for several years and helped him compose some software documentation, and often did the algebraic computations in the body of the code itself.
It also helps my father is a techie, most of my friends are techies, and overbearing intellectualization of every little detail permeates their communication style.
cont. from above
I'm sorry if I embarrassed you by making this into a whole post, but how did I embarrass you? First, you already posted your own words into the public domain, and my own reply to you is likewise in the public domain. So I didn't publicly post anything that hadn't already been posted anyway. Furthermore, your online identity as "Daughter of Light" appears to have no links to your real-life identity. So how could I possibly embarrass you, when, as far as I know, I'm the only one here who knows who you are?
Furthermore, however much I embarrassed you, recall you you are the one who first broached the subject of rape here; I never mentioned your rape. And yet you said of me, "From what you've described you have spent much of your life in a bubble ... then maybe you really do have Asperger's". Am I beyond being embarrassed?
Furthermore, you said, "Don't you dare try to insinuate I am ignorant of male sexuality.", and yet you also said, "...but no offense, what do you know [about male sexuality]?". I suggest that you, as a woman, don't know about the workings of the male mind, and you're gravely insulted, but you freely say that I, despite being a male, am ignorant of male sexuality. I am at a loss for words. How can be anything but insulted by what you've said?
On top of all that, you ignored three entire paragraphs I wrote about men being attracted to a woman's personality, and you said that according to me, men are attracted only to physicality or vulnerability. Furthermore, you suggested that I claimed that you are to blame for your rape. Please, how can these words of yours have done anything but insult me?
Speaking of rape: I must be calculating indeed, for me to so skillfully comment on your **[[censored]]** entry. After all, it elicited from you the response,"Hi, Michael, you seemed like a nice person and I liked your comments a lot on my post so I started following your blog." I have Asperger's, and yet I know the perfect way to respond to a blog-entry about rape that will result in the author writing to me to tell me how nice I am!!! I must be an expert in human psychology - and with Asperger's to boot! And yet, I am unable to keep up the act, and so eventually, my cover slips and I am revealed as the misanthrope I truly am. Intriguing.
Out of curiosity: when did I tell you I'm a technologically-inclined geek? I am indeed one, but I don't remember telling you so. Just curious.
I just deleted and reposted my response so as not to associate you with that particular entry on the other blog. My apologies. I thought that since you had begun talking here, of your own initiation and volition, of your rape, that it was now part of the discussion. I still tried to be vague (if you check my every reference to your rape, you'll see that I've been very restrained in what I've said), but I see I nevertheless said too much. My apologies.
Now then, your example of my misreading you, comes from something I said only after you accused me of taking you out of context. So your example does not help me. I'd have liked please an example of taking you out of context from before you made the accusation. (See further on my use of the past tense.)
Remember: "Don't hate your fellow your heart, but rather, reprove him." If you have a case against me, let me hear it. I cannot do teshuva if you hide from me my crime.
But, if you it'll take too much of your energy for you to fulfill this request, then pay no heed to it. It's not worth it. I accept your apology, and I hereby apologize myself for causing all this trouble. Please forgive me.
It's pretty awesome that my writing style is so blatant and transparent. Thanks!
All the best.
Look, words aren't enough for me to discern things like intonation, facial expressions and other body language cues that help me decide how the person's delivery should affect me. I believe we also discussed in our last chat that more than 50% of internet communication is taken the wrong way because of this.
Take for instance, "It's pretty awesome that my writing style is so blatant and transparent. Thanks!"
I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I somehow doubt it is this blatant and transparent to others. But since I have a higher-than-average exposure to techies, not to mention I was a journalism student before going into science, it is obvious to me and I am able to read between the lines.
Maybe you are not so much a social creature, but I am. I really do love people, and I need face time to properly engage in drawn out discussions. Though I see why I have been avoiding them lately. I just do not have the energy right now.
So I will continue to read your blog but it's probably best if I avoid commenting.
I was not being sarcastic.
Whatever you do, whatever happens, all the best.
Post a Comment