Although Tamar is quite capable of defending herself, I figured
I’d try to spare her some agony (though please correct me if I misrepresent
you, Tamar!), especially since I feel like so much of the reaction actually does
not address any of the points Tamar made (which might mean she doesn’t feel
like it’s worth trying to respond to posts that are so long and don’t actually
address most of her points).

Just to summarize, Tamar made 5 points about why she
disagrees with the mainstream approach to shmirat negiah: (1) halakha does not
fit it, (2) it belittles of importance of the physical, (3) the fallacy of
delayed gratification, (4) some physical contact does not have an inevitable detrimental
effect on the future (though sex is different from kissing), and (5) sort of complementary
(although paradoxically sort of in opposition) to #2, shmirat negiah ends up
overemphasizing the importance of sexuality in a future relationship.

David, you said a few things, which I will address in a
different order than how you said them. First,
you sort of tried to attack point (1) in your second paragraph with things
like, “the law is there for your pleasure and your benefit…[you] find the law
to be deficient and wrong-headed…[you] claim that you know better than our
sages in how to conduct relationships.” Tamar
doesn’t need to respond to this because she addressed any issue of halakha in
the third paragraph – you did not address any of that. Actually, the most ironic point of the whole
discussion is that you are quite worried about “Torah Judaism” and the “Jewish
standard,” but you failed to even begin to address any of the halakhic points
she raised.

The last two paragraphs of the first post essentially agree
with Tamar’s point (5). You just think
that the answer to an overemphasis on sex is forbidding any contact, while
Tamar thinks it makes people focus on it and worry about it that much
more. People I know, in fact, say quite
the opposite as you – they feel that being shomer(et) negiah
would make them (even unconsciously) rush quicker into marriage for the sake of
the physical – not only does including the physical ensure compatibility, as
Tamar mentions, but it actually ensures that people don’t compromise and
settle for someone not right for them so as to reach the physical.

Then, in your second post, you somehow decide that Tamar is “becom[ing]
so sexualized” and that she has a “standard that places [sic] one to value sex
and ‘sparks’ as so important.” I’ll just
refer you back to Tamar’s point (5) (that she wants relationships not to be
solely based around sex and that shmirat negiah works against that) and say
that you can obviously have physical contact without being totally sex-crazed.

In terms of point (2): Essentially, you say that when you’re married,
it’s a significant part of the relationship (“All happily married people have
sparks and we all agree it is good that sexual attraction is part of the
relationship”) but that despite that, it is crucial not to have any idea about
that before hand in any way because it is guaranteed to work out perfectly if
everything else fits. Tamar simply
disagrees with this point, and more crucially feels that intelligent adults can
address that without having it become the overarching feature of the
relationship.

Anyway, I think that about covers her points (and yours). Although you had a couple of interesting points, ultimately you didn't address hers for the most part. I hope this clarifies a bit.  Sorry for being so long!