Perhaps Tamar might be like the majority of modern secular American Jewry--rejecting all of Jewish tradition and just doing what they want to do.  But Tamar is different.  There is conflict and there is struggle but primarily, there is a tortured defense of breaking the terms of Jewish law, under the banner of a "defense of hanky panky."

We know about Tamar's good family that wants her to have the best and she runs to her blog to complain about the supposed "sh**" they are peddling--as if they want to hurt her.  Similarly, the law is there for your pleasure and your benefit, Tamar.  If you reject it because you don't see the merit--you will follow the majority of our community towards divorce, unhappiness and a clear lack of fulfillment.  But if you offer a defense of hanky panky, you are treading on a much more problematic path since you are encouraging others to not simply be rebellious but to find the law to be deficient and wrong-headed.  Again, in your exuberance, Tamar, you have come forward to claim that you know better than our sages in how to conduct relationships between the sexes.

The evidence for the Jewish standard is extensive from Leviticus onward and you are not here to debate a fine point that might be a legitimate bone of contention between rabbinic authorities.  Nope--you are here to throw out the whole concept: touching, modesty, sex--right?  Be honest, Tamar.  You say it does not work for you but how do you know?

The evidence is pretty clear--Orthodox Jewish family life is stable and strong.  Jewish liberal life is pretty rife with divorce, conflict and a higher level of dissatisfaction.  Given the FACTS, Tamar, what is your response?  The law is not for the Orthodox--it is for your benefit as well.  You complain that being a virgin does not trump everything else but no Rabbi is here to demean everything else.  As for "delayed gratification"--have your gratification whenever but it is in your interests to refrain from kissing and having sex with the boys until you find your beshert.  Your issue with looking for "sparks" is an immature undefined standard that begs for a definition.

All married people can identify a quality or a group of qualities that led us to know that we found "the one."  Sparks are easy to find.  Sexual compatibility is very easy to develop.  The qualities you seek have almost NOTHIING to do with a man's ability to have sparks with you.  You are simply looking at the wrong part of a man's anatomy.

Size up his character and quality.  It is fine to choose a man who is physically appealing--I would not take it off the table.  You are obviously rejecting something without considering it and running away while leaving the clear impression that you have a great deal of conflict.