You might make your point even more strongly.  It's not just that contemporary 20+ year-old singles don't need to be protected by the traditional non-marital sex prohibitions.  (Note:  "non-marital" here is different from "extra-marital" -- the former refers to people who aren't married, the latter to people who are married but are having relations with someone other than their spouse.)  

Rather, in contemporary society, unlike traditional society, there are good, affirmative, social reasons for postponing marriage.  In particular, in traditional society, by the time a person reached 20, the general trajectory of his/her life was largely set.  Certainly, change remained possible, but, in general, if two 20-year olds married, it was unlikely that one of them would be making radical changes, of profession, of residence, of life style, later on.  Today, many (most?) 20-year-olds have yet to make all of those changes -- they may move across the country (or the globe), they have yet to choose a profession, they may (if Jews) frum out or go frei.  

As a result, we have the option of (a) pressuring 20-year olds to get married even though we should expect that subsequent life decisions are very likely to stress, and often to rupture, those marriages, (b) letting them remain single but maintain the traditional prohibition on non-marital sexual relations, which is unrealistic, of somewhat flimsy halachic necessity, and causes undesirable tensions, or (c) permitting non-marital relations while (for the halachically more traditional) making available mikva'ot for single women and trying to structure these relationships along the lines specified by R' Yaakov Emden.

Before birth control, sex without marriage equaled child out of wedlock.  Nowadays, with proper precautions the physical risks of sex outside of marriage are manageable.

--Z

Gee, Tamar. I surely hope you give your family a second thought since you are wrong on all counts. Perhaps no generation has so foolishly believed that the rules did not have their own lives and situations in mind. Yes, Tamar, the rules have you in mind as an immature 23 year old as much as an immature 19 year old.

Is it really a stretch to imagine that your life is so "unprecedented" that the halacha could not take into account someone as hip and wondrous as you? It is easy to imagine that you also believe that halacha could not anticipate homosexuals as nice as your friends, or a Sabbath day with so much pressure to break, or a situation so important to gossip about, or mitzvot that appear in modern times to seem so passe. Trust someone a bit older and wiser--our Torah has seen it all and anticipated it all-- even YOU and the pleasure it gives you to kiss the boys.

You say with pride that you don't need halacha to stop you from a causal encounter on craigslist since you are so mature and then even in the same breadth you say that you would happily take on another causal encounter, seemingly just as random and risky, since you would not lose any self-worth in the process. Are you sure? This is a bizarre calculation. Torah prohibitions are for your own good--as you can see them over time or, in your blindness, you will never see.

I ask you to please have a bit of imagination. One day, probably pretty soon, you will meet some man and you will agree to marry him. You will do so because he touches your heart and soul in a very special way. It most assuredly will not because he can pleasure your body since every man can do that, or be easily taught. After you are married to this man, you will look back on those meaningless relationships with a sense of shame and not pride. They will mean nothing to you and you would trade them all for one moment with this man or on extra chance to spend with your kids. Instead of thinking that those relationships helped you mature, you will see the opposite--that they kept you from making and finding a lasting relationship. You will ask God for teshuva and God will understand those feelings were a result of immaturity and you will ask forgiveness for having those thoughts.

I say this because I am not 23--I once was 23. I have the virtue of hindsight.

David--I don't know what that remark about my family was in regards to, but let's keep them out of this, shall we?

As for your other points: I believe that the Torah needs to be read in context.  It says we should stone homosexuals, but marrying multiple wives is a-ok.  It says shatnez is awful, but has no problem with Jewish men taking women from war zones as wives.  We have changed the rules in some places.  We have decided that even though the Torah permits something, we don't.  WHy can't it go the other way?  I really do think the idea of a 23 year old single woman living alone was not something that the Torah felt the need to address because it wasn't an issue for Bnei Yisrael at the time.  

I would certainly not have a casual encounter happily, but I think that if I made a bad decision like that, I should be able to deal with it in a mature and adult way.  I don't think sex should be some cheap thing we do whenever we what with whoever we want.  I think it's important and has lasting effects.  But I also think that we learn from even bad or unsuccessful relationships.  So, if someone messes up there should be a system that doesn't say, "You've sinned.  You're unclean."  But instead says, "You need to be a responsible person, and you made a bad choice.  How can you learn from this?  How can you avoid it in the future?" 

Under no condition am I condoning meaningless sex.  I'm just saying, instead of writing off people who have meaningless sex, can we figure out a way to help them and make it so they see how to create and sustain more functional relationships?

Also, you wrote:Instead of thinking that those relationships helped you mature, you will see the opposite--that they kept you from making and finding a lasting relationship.

What a load of crap!   If I'm looking for my beshert, it's ridiculous to assume that some relationship had any effect on his ability to show up in my life.  That guy is going to show up when he shows up.  What happens in the meantime has no effect on when he arrives.  

Tamar, I gotta say that as I read your post I sympathized with you, heard your struggle, and even agreed a little bit.  But to be totally honost, when I read David N. Friedmans comment, I was totally convinced, and your response seemed to be just grabbing at straws in the face of being squarly shot down.  I hope you do take his advice, for your own sake.  (And yes, I think his comment was good enough that I would be willing to forgo my goal of consecutive comments of the week to allow his to be next weeks champ).

I thought you'd get comment of the week once and be let down, realizing how ultimately empty and unfulfilling it is.   And yet, now that you've experienced the sweet, fleeting high, you only cry out for more. Don't worry--we'll work together on this, and one day you'll transcend your addiction.

--Z

Soccer, I'm not surprised.  What Friedman wrote was the stock frum response, but unfortunately it's completely unfulfilling to me.  To say to people who are single that they should just sit tight and it will happen is to be incredibly naive.  I'm 23 and I feel like I have plenty of time, and don't feel a lot of pressure, but I'm the exception to the rule.  I have so many friends desperately looking for a spouse, and in the meantime they're making mistakes (some major, some very minor) mainly as a result of feeling so pressured to find the right person NOW.  What if we took the marriage pressure off and said, "Go out on five dates in five weeks.  Don't do anything stupid, but relax a little.  Don't approach every interaction thinking just about whether or not it will lead to marriage."

When we say that intimacy can only happen within marriage, then of course we end up making a big push towards marriage, which, while fine on an ideological level, adds an intensity to the search that I think is ultimately unhealthy.  We have to recognize that marriage at 21 is not the right answer for everyone.  But if one person really isn't ready to get married until he's 35 I'm not comfortable saying he just has to sit at home until then.  If he does something really stupid then he needs to be a big boy and deal with it, but mostly I want him to feel like it's okay for him to be in some kind of limited physical relationship even if he's not married yet.  Because I think a 35 year old man deserves that.

Neither you nor Friedman are winning this week's CotW.  So far all you've given me is stale and useless. 

Tamar, there is nothing in this comment "::eye roll::" that I disagree with.  Well said. (Besdies for the claim that I am a "typical frum" if you only knew...)

As for Zbird, you have never said anything I respected, not that you need my respect.  Actually, you do.

With all due respect to David N. Friedman, I think that "trust someone older and wiser" does not help his argument.  R' Meir's advice in Avot (4:25 - your numbering may vary) is more reliable -- don't focus on the vessel but on its contents; an old vessel may have new wine, and a new vessel may have old wine.  I'm also puzzled by his confidence in predicting that Tamar will change her mind and do t'shuva -- what basis can he have for this assumption?  This kind of reasoning too easily devolves into "Older folks' views in this area should be followed because they have acquired knowledge and wisdom" vs. "Older folks' views in this area should be discounted because they've forgotten what it's like to live with these tensions."  This is not a productive argument.  (Besides, it leaves me out, as I'm more than twice her age, and I pretty much agree with her -- see my first comment above.)

Okay, so what if it's from person to person?  Tamar's right that a single 23 year old living on her own was not quite anticipated.  Go through tractate 7 when it talks about inheritance and you'll find that a woman, at whatever age, was to be supported by her family and/or her community.  If she is single, her brothers are to care for her upon the death of their father.  That says to me that people like Tamar don't quite slip into the set of laws we have been given.

 At the same time, I disagree with the idea of a past relationship not messing with a future relationship.  That was my logic.  Then I met this great woman I could have had a wonderful life with, but everything that happened in the past (and most of it really wasn't that bad) got in the way.  It was like training for the 100meter competition for years only to discover your going to be competing in a marathon.

Everything I learned came out against me, so I'm turning inward to try and clean that slate.  Can it be done?  I don't know.  But I'm trying.

 I can say part of me wishes I could take back those steamy nights and late, cozy mornings.  The times spent driving to the middle of nowhere or sneaking into the backyard.  But the other part of me realizes that all of those things, the parts of me that were bad, are what made me who I am right now.

And right now I think no one should judge Tamar, or anyone else like her, or any men out there in similar situations, because we are now in a new age.  It's just sad Rabbinic Judaism can't keep up with the rest of us. 

To start with the last point first, please Uriah--there can be no doubt that Judaism surely thought of single women in its enunciation of sexual ethics.  There is nothing in being single and 23 vs. being single and 17 that is qualitatively different.  More importantly, one does not lose opportunities for sexual impropriety at any time in life and  halacha covers all circumstances--even as we understand that premaritial sex is less problematic than extramarital sex. However, Tamar's point is without merit since the judgment placed upon sexual misconduct as a 17 year old is less significant than sexual misconduct of a 23 year old, fully admitting that she is very cognizant of what she is doing.

It is interesting that Tamar's focus is on what happens to the sex life of someone who takes their time and is unmarried at 35.  An older man or woman needs the same standards  and do not require the law to be rewritten so they can be sexually active since sexual activity is not the intent and purpose of the law.  This is the kind of mistake an older person would not make.  Young people tend to be more prone to engage in quick and meaningless sex whereas older single people are more in tune with what they want. For Tamar, the value of being older is to "deal better with the mistakes" and yet the real value of being older is not to engage in mistakes in the first place.

Regarding with Tarfon's point, my belief that Tamar will change her mind when she is older and wiser is based upon my willingness to judge to the positive--and I am not here to judge her--only her actions and the principle.  It is only because of her split standard that I am willing to predict she will change when time has past and she has found her beshert.  By this standard, she is serious about marital love and I wish to point out the contrast between her free-wheeling sexual standards and her stated goal.

Guarding one's sexuality adds no pressure to be married--the logic here is confounding.  It is quite the opposite that rings so true--quick and easy sexual intercourse adds pressure to a relationship that should not be there for someone intent on searching and finding one's beshert.  Experience and common sense destroys this logic--removing intercourse from the table brings freedom and removes pressure but more importantly keeping it in one's pants allows young people to try to discover the more important things which make a couple compatible.  The facts are clear:  Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians who hold sexual ethics high have a far higher percentage of happy and long-standing marriages than people who have many sexual partners.

The problem is crystal clear:  how are the sexual standards described by Tamar any different from purely secular ones?  It is fine if Tamar wishes to be a secular American and if this is her stand, I would say nothing in response.  I have responded since she has something at stake in loving Torah and the halacha and she is spreading her distaste for Torah out of the other side of her mouth.  Tamar has publicly declared that she loves Torah and loves to kiss the boys. Proving that one can have meaningless sex and not have it "disrupt one's psyche" is a shallow goal. Happier people have higher goals and the point remains concerning the real  utility of causal sexual affairs.  They are a sign of poor character and are destructive at any age and at any time.

This point is sadly lost on Tamar who takes a bold stand against the shame that is brought on people who have illicit sexual relationships.  The secular standard seems clear:  there is no right and wrong.  Without a real sexual ethic, our society is coarsened, marriage is doomed, women are debased and only the tabloids and the lawyers benefit.  Tamar makes the following argument without a bit of blushing:

it simply doesn’t concern me if Larry Craig wants to have sex in a
bathroom stall with another man, or if Bill Clinton wants a blowjob.
What I care about is health care, and human rights, and education. And
if Craig can get it on in a public bathroom and then come out and
balance the budget, then I support him (sadly, balancing a budget seems
to be far beyond Sen. Craig’s capabilities, but go with me, just for
the sake of argument). And if Clinton can get a blowjob and then
negotiate the end to terrorism in Northern Ireland, then I say get the
man a few more girls like Monica and send him off to Jerusalem.

At the end of the day, I don’t care what happens in anyone else’s
bedroom as long as it’s consensual, and no one ends up hurt. And what’s
more, I think that learning from the mistakes we make with our lovers
is an important part of figuring out how to be good people.

Therefore the prescription offered by Tamar is to encourage others to go out and make mistakes.  The more mistakes we make, the better the chance we can figure out how to be GOOD!!!  Gee.  I regret to say that this is the kind of argument only a young person could possibly articulate.  Every adult tells their child precisely the opposite.  They try to make sure they limit one's mistakes and sexual mistakes can have devastating consequences.  Adults tell their children to be good by acting good and to safely minimize damage and risk.  I have not met the parent who has told their child--"go ahead, have your fun and make sure you have a few mistakes so you can figure out how to be a good person."  The parents I know work hard to raise children who are good people and hope and pray that they do not make mistakes so as to wreck their lives and make them worse.

Can anyone believe that "no one got hurt"  when Bill Clinton involved himself with Monica Lewinsky?  Tamar, under the guise of compassion for single people hungry for a decent sex life has failed to weigh into the equation the fact that there is a price to be paid for sex that is outside the norms.  A chet is a chet and nothing more.  It does not mean one is "unclean" and there is already a "system" for single people to "create and sustain functional relationships."  

To guard one's sexuality is such a system and this does not mean total celibacy.  It does  involve having self-respect, good character and a willingness to allow shame for shameful acts. 

David, I don't have time to give this a lengthy response (I have to get back to the story I'm writing about sexual misconduct within the orthodox community) but I'll say a few things:

You're right, I am coming at this from a secular POV because I maintain that the Orthodox stance has nothing to offer me if I don't agree to start picking out my wedding dress today.  That said, I don't think the secular stance is that there is no right and wrong.  Meaningless sex is pretty firmly construed as a shallow and pointless venture in secular society.  

I would love to see the statistics of Orthodox Jews and Christian Conservatives with stronger marriages than others.

I know *a lot* of parents who tell their children to make mistakes.  Haven't you ever read the Ms. Frizzle books? She says "Take chances!  Make mistakes!"  My parents can warn me about things until they're blue in the face, but the truth of the matter is that until I go out there and screw things up myself, I probably won't understand the gravity of the situation.  Sometimes you really need to make a mistake before you can see how to fix things, or how to avoid that mistake in the future.  And the lesson is much much more potent in that case.

I won't apologize for liking to kiss boys (who are "the boys" that you refer to?).  I do.  I kiss boys I'm in a relationship with, who I like and trust and respect.  Even when those relationships end, I feel pretty good about things because I was careful and thoughtful.  And on the few occasions when I wasn't careful and thoughtful I learned something about how painful it can be to kiss someone who doesn't like and trust and respect you.  And I stopped doing it.

The Bill and Monica story is another issue entirely.  I absolutely agree that it was immoral and had a detrimental effect on the lives of a number of people.  But my point in that post was that I want my politician to be a political leader above all else.  And I want my rabbis to be moral leaders.  Bill Clinton's sex life should not have any effect on his perfomance as a politician.  Of course, it did, but only because Christian conservatives were determined to make it political.  JFK also had all kinds of dalliances in the Oval Office.  Does that make him a good husband?  Of course not.  Was he a good politician regardless?  Yeah, he was.  In the same vein, my rabbi's vote doesn't concern me a bit.  I don't care what he thinks about whose health care plan is the best.  But if he was having an affair, I would be very upset.  I suspect you want a political leader who is also a moral leader, and while I think that would be great, I haven't seen such a man or woman, so I'm comfortable looking to my president for political leadership (well, not this president, but theoretically, whoever holds the office), and my mara d'atra for moral and halachic leadership.  

Finally, David, I wonder if you think that all secular marriages really are doomed.  Clearly there are couples who are coming into marriages with quite a bit of sexual experience who seem to be able to make their marriages work, and love and respect each other and themselves.  Does the addition of a Torah perspective really neccessarily mean the subtraction of this capability?

Y ou say you have the perspective of someone who is older and wiser.  So let me ask you a personal question: Whatever you did that you regret, do you think it made it impossible for you to have a meaningful and lasting relationship?  If it didn't, it if's just something that you look back on and realize was stupid or foolish, but doesn't detract from your ability to stay with and love your spouse, then my point stands.  And if not, no disrespect, but maybe you should see a counselor.

Thank you, Tamar, for your response.

Regarding your admission that you do have a secular point of view about sex but your defense that secularists still maintain standards of right and wrong and meaningless sex is considered shallow --I think you have missed the ethic as it is commonly expressed.  Further, I sense you have missed the fact that the goalposts are shiftting and radically--even with std's, AIDS and rumors that young people are far more conservative than their parents.

Oral sex is very common, dress codes are much more liberal, kids are sexualized much more fully and young women pursue men actively under the banner of "freedom and equality."

One quick barometer of the social trend, the supermarket checkout line magazines, convinces me that the secular sexual ethic has very little to do with right and wrong and everything to do with momentary pleasure.  "Right and wrong" in purely secular terms must be explained--is it right merely if no one got hurt and wrong if someone caught a social disease?  Is this the extent of the standard?  I would not suggest that Cosmo reflects the minds of all young women--it is merely one popular indication.

The French protagonist in the movie "Unfaithful" had it just right.  The Diane Lane character did not even reference right and wrong--she simply meekly made the argument that it would be a "mistake."  Her French lover, selling her on the illicit liason, commented--there are no mistakes.  It is either something you do or something you do not do.  That is it--that is the standard. 

I believe there is grave danger in the perception that sexual mistakes are growing experiences.  As for my own childrearing, I surely want my son to make his own mistakes so he can learn lessons but as I indicated, I do not want him ever to make sexual mistakes since this kind of error can be especially painful.  Losing some money might make many people much stronger.  By contrast, being forced into an abortion will have deep scars than never go away.  Getting a social disease can ruin a young person's life--a single man getting a young woman pregnant is unforgivable.  When we talk about these kind of things, it is apparent that some people are scarred very easily and others can overcome just about anything.  I am one of those people who can get over anything and perhaps you sense you can do the same thing.  Sexual misadventures remain a very serious matter nonetheless and playing Russian roulette is a dangerous game.

It is no consolation that I can overcome some misadventure--it remains a horrible mistake.  Such a stand ignores the damage.  Wounds can heal and this takes nothing away from the fact that we are all so much better off not to be wounded in the first place.  Your stand here is most peculiar since the great feeling of sex is a shallow substitute for the price that is often paid.  The fact that one can get past things is no consolation.  I have no doubt you could have a good life without one of your legs--might you care to give it up?

Yes, I know happy gay couples and happy couples who live totally secular lives.  This is not because of their secularism.  There is a "cut flower" phenomenom.  Some people who model from their parents and their environment have lasting love and can still have it under secular terms.  Some people, even while totally secular, can have what can be called a good marriage.  But it is interesting that many of these people buy into the religious terms for marriage--even if they are not religious themselves. And this is why they depend upon people like us to have and hold traditional standards because we can help them indirectly.  Human beings are social creatures and good marriage has power and influence and bad marriage has power and influence.  If young women are quick to kiss the boys and have sex, the expectation of young men will be to have risky and dangerous sex.

I think you wish to agree with the point that political leaders need not be moral leaders but you fail to see that this works if and only if they are not immoral.  Some irony. We disagree about JFK and I don't think he was a great president but then again, GW Bush is an exemplary moral person of the highest personal standards and yet, not a very good leader. This does not mean, ipso facto, I would be happy with an immoral man (or woman) who kept the trains running on time.  It is no surprize, Americans justifiably still want both in their leader--at least those Americans who care about the matter.

I am very concerned that you are here to make the point that people who make a mess of their sexual lives are really no worse for the wear and tear and out of the other side of your mouth you are writing a expose about the sex lives of Orthodox Jews.  Here, it seems you wish to have a double whammy--the secularist can do it with impunity but the religious Jew  must be skewered and damn the generalities if only the anecdote is true, or somewhat true, or rumored to be a bit true.  I expect to give a negative response to your upcoming entry.

You have power and influence, Tamar.  Are you really out to influence people into good behavior or bad behavior?  As for putting you in a wedding dress, the Orthodox are not pushing you into anything.  They simply want you to guard your body and respect yourself, find your beshert and be the kind of wife and mother that will be a tribute to your family. The fact that you have stopped kissing the boys who are quick with you is a good sign.  You failed to say if you valued those "poor" relationships OR--if you could do it again, wouldn't you prefer to have kept it in your pants? The fact that you survived them ignores the price.

Friedman, you wrote: Oral sex is very common, dress codes are much more liberal, kids are sexualized much more fully and young women pursue men actively under the banner of "freedom and equality."

Why is oral sex bad again?  I mean, meaningless oral sex is bad.  Fine, we can agree.  But just because people like oral sex doesn't mean they're irresponsible.  I'm not even going near the dress code stuff except to say that after four years at an Orthodox high school with a strict dress code I never wear tank tops, because I know my elbows are distracting to men, but cleavage is a part of my everyday life.  Yeah, dress codes are *so* helpful.  But what really gets me is your condemnation fo women pursuing men.  I can't figure out what could possibly be wrong with telling girls that they can pursue their own relationships.  There's nothing there that tells them to make poor decisions, or have meaningless sex.  If we want girls to be strong in a world where domestic violence and abusive relationships are frighteningly common, they certainly should be allowed to choose who to pursue, and who to avoid.  What sound like now is a shameless sexist.  Imagine my surprise.

I don't know anyone who makes decisions about who to sleep with based on Cosmo or movies like Unfaithful.  COme at me with real statistics and maybe we can have a serious discussion.  Anecdotal "I saw it at the grocery store" is not getting your point anywhere. 

Sure, there's a lot of problems in the way sex and relationships are presented to young people.  But the ideal of meaningful relationships, romance and virtue are still overriding in this society.  Girls may be reading Cosmo when they're 12, but they've heard the Cinderella story since they were two.  The double standard about sexual profligation is still a serious reality, and I think girls more than anyone else are aware of the perilous relationship they have with sex and respectability. DOesn't mean they're making better choices, but something tells me that telling them to just keep their hands off and wait until they get married is going to be about as effective as the SIlver Ring Thing (failure rate: 88%).

"But it is interesting that many of these people buy into the religious terms for marriage--even if they are not religious themselves. And this is why they depend upon people like us to have and hold traditional standards because we can help them indirectly."

Again with the anecdotal stuff.  I'll believe it when I see a study, or even a newspaper article. 

"I am very concerned that you are here to make the point that people who make a mess of their sexual lives are really no worse for the wear and tear and out of the other side of your mouth you are writing a expose about the sex lives of Orthodox Jews. "

I'm not advocating that people make a mess of sexual lives.  I'm just saying, if you screw things up in that area of your life you can recover and have a meaningful relationship.  It's not something we should shove in the back of the closet and try to forget.  If a girl wants to take her clothes off for the camera and then later realizes it was a poor choice, she should do something to figure why that where she ended up, and how she can change.  And not that it's any of your business, but the story I'm writing is fiction, for a fiction workshop, and it's about a rabbi who molests students in the high school where he works.  Though it's not based on a particular event Ibelieve strongly that we have a responsibility to shine the light on all of the instances of sexual abuse and misconduct within our community.  This story has no social agenda--more than likely it won't be read by anyone outside of my grad seminar, but if it does get published it's more concerned with the effects the relationship had on the girl in question.  

Finally,  "As for putting you in a wedding dress, the Orthodox are not pushing you into anything.  They simply want you to guard your body and respect yourself, find your beshert and be the kind of wife and mother that will be a tribute to your family. The fact that you have stopped kissing the boys who are quick with you is a good sign.  You failed to say if you valued those "poor" relationships OR--if you could do it again, wouldn't you prefer to have kept it in your pants?"

Yeah, the Orthodox community isn't pushing me to get married, they just want me to be the kind of wife and mother to make my family proud???  Riiiiight.  Would it be okay if instead of being a wife and mother I spearheaded efforts for social justice and health care initiatives?  Because honestly, I care more about those issues than about getting pregnant and raising little Moshe or Rivki ASAP.  

As for keeping it in my pants--I don't know how to tell you this, but you can't take a vagina out of a pair of pants.  They're not detachable.  And I resent your implication that I slept with any of the guys I kissed.  Anyway, I'm not sure what I would do if I could go back and do it again.  That's not really an option, anyway.  I accept it, and move on.  And for what it's worth, I was in love with a man for more than two years and we never so much as kissed.  The heartbreak at the end of that relationship was far far FAR more painful than any kind of remorse I experienced as a result of making out with a guy who turned out to be bad news.

And with that, I'm finished responding to you.  I get it.  You're Conservative and frum.  I'm not.  This is not an issue where we're likely to agree at any point.  

Again, I appreciate your response, Tamar.  I applaud you for your previous entry on your stand against pornography (thank you for the link) and this has restored some faith I have in you.  It seems so unlikely that anyone who can take that kind of stand could possibly object to what I have written.  Here, we agree.

Perhaps you have simply decided to respond to me in a way that lacks any engagement.  Perhaps you made an a priori judgment to disagree with what I was saying to you. Whatever, you clearly misjudge what I say most of the time.

My complaint about the trends for oral sex are in context of the single hook-up crowd , I have nothing but respect for strong women who can make their own decisions and even pursue a relationship--obviously, what I was referring to was women acting like male chauvinists and pursuing men for sexual pleasure.   My complaints about dress were not about YOU since I have never met you--it is much more what is to be seen so easily on the streets about how young women in general present themselves.  My point about presenting an anecdote about a line in a movie was to help get at the point which you have so totally ignored, namely, what constitutes a secular sexual ethic?  Your response to the point was to call my example only an example and I was hoping for some conversation. I would have thought you might know that Judaism does not require women to be married and have kids--it requires this for men.  Again, there is no pressure from your Judaism for you to put on a wedding gown now or be shamed--that is simply a myth.

Having heartbreak over a failed romance is not at all similar or allegedly worse than having a fling (a 'sexual misadventure') that so commonly has the price of some of the following: 1) a stain on one's soul 2) a std (off the charts among today's young people) 3) a pregnancy without marriage or 4) being forced into an abortion , 5) a morning after pill spontaneous abortion 6) a distorted understanding of men 7) a distorted self-concept 8) eating disorders 9) an unhealthy problem with alcohol 10) a whole lot more.  Heartbreak is precisely the kind of thing young people can rightly hold as something that will be in retrospect a learning experience.  The fact that you ignore my point here is surely frustrating and I can only conclude that it is intentional.

The sense that traditional Jews have far less problems than the secular concerning sexual matters is easy to document.

Your disclosure that you intend to pen a piece of fiction regarding a Rabbi who is a molester of students in his school is an outrage and will bring a phony bit of scandal on our community where there is no scandal.  This kind of anger directed at your own people is both misplaced and harmful.

Hey isn't their a whole halachic category of allowed non-marital affairs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

OK, what you're saying makes sense, but halacha was not created to save you from low self-esteem. What you're discussing can be the holiest thing possible on earth, but when it's done only for personal pleasure, it's the basest, most "earth-bound" thing. Living according to halacha helps elevate you so that you are connected to your soul, you are more of a G-dly being, not just a body doing bodily functions. Particularly in this instance, behaving according to halacha takes an otherwise animalistic function and raises it to the greatest levels of holiness.