Waiting for Soccer's next comment of the week...

That aside, it was a very interesting and thoughtful article, Tamar.  Being a Reform Jew myself, Shomer Negiah isn't something I knew about until probably High School age, and even then, it was certainly never a pressure put on me or my friends (I mean, NFTY is hook-up central, though I've heard that boys and girls don't always follow the rules in Orthodox youth groups as well).  Now a student at McGill University, I come into contact with students who are Shomer Negiah on a daily basis.  It's impossible to tell whether the floor-length skirt means I can't shake her hand when I'm introduced or if she actually doesn't mind getting Shabbos hugs from everyone.

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. 

Comments of the week only come in response to posts of the week.  This was not that so it will not be this.  Thats right.

Tamar, I am totally open to hearing a good justification from you, along with some wit and humor and some other bull shity fuck shit.  But this was weak.  Come on, your argument is basically, I can rationalize why I am not shomer negia:  Because I dont feel like it.   Big woop!  That was worth taking the time to write out a whole long blog post?

David and Soccer, Tamar's views are backed up quite well. Sex is a big deal. Deal with it. If you decide to be shomer negiah, mazel tov. You should be proud of your self control, but if someone decides s/he does not want to live a sexually deprived life, you shouldn't judge. Oh, and David, your "sexual compatibility is very easy to develop" bit: not true. Sorry, it's not just. Some people mesh together in the sack, others don't. And those relationships in the "don't" category usually do not last very long.

Soccer is correct and Tamar is rambling and it simply comes down to doing what she wants to do.

But simply because one wants to "do it" hardly makes it desirable or in one's best interests.  To repeat a point I made earlier on another folder, an immature decision is not justifiable simply because it is held or someone feels "sparks."  To repeat, if one asks any adult and those of us who are married--the "sparks" are NO big deal and the standard that places one to value sex and "sparks" as so important are precisely the profile of those whose marriages fail.  For men and women alike (although it is a bigger problem for women) to become so sexualized kills the kind of commitment it takes to be successfully married over the long haul.  The habit of chronically looking at members of the opposite sex to fulfill themselves does not end when one is married.  A good married man or woman might still feel inappropriate attractions but has the wherewithal to fight those feelings away.  Those in the habit of looking for "sparks" will always find it and are less likely to stop looking after the wedding.

All happily married people have sparks and we all agree it is good that sexual attraction is part of the relationship.  What is interesting is that the sparks build and improve and in some cases, there were not a lot of sparks from the beginning.  The key is understanding from the beginning what is critical and what is not.  Common values, high character and a high level of commitment will get a marriage through just about anything."Sparks" will buy you very little and the decision to put the sex up front is no warranty that the important things will also follow--on the contrary, it is a sure sign that the important things will be discounted--sometimes not by design but as a result of creating a false and highly charged emotional bond that is a substitute for real intimacy and compatibility.  The kind of romance Hollywood sells is counter-productive to the marital unit--not the key to it. Tamar might say that sex is not the only important thing under the banner of a defense of hanky panky.  This is double talk.  She speaks with authority about how religious Jews downplay the importance of the physical aspect of a marriage when she is a single woman and has never experienced marriage.  It is clear her OWN family disagrees with her and they are all married and know the score.

Jews who are in touch with guarding what one's eyes and hearts lead are in a much better place to stay on that path.

The most disturbing element of this whole thread is the shear gall it takes to suggest that Torah Judaism really does not have much to say about sex.  What a ridiculous contention!  People are willing to re-write the Torah in so many ways--all that we have said about the importance of keeping sex in a marital context simply cannot be spun away.

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!

I think I love you.

Seriously--thank you so much!  I'd been dreading the amount of time I was going to have to devote to trying to respond to David (even though he mostly just doesn't make sense to me) and I really appreciate everything you wrote here.  You can be my translator any time.  Rock on! 

Just because my orthodox in-laws are still together doesn't mean they have a strong marriage.  Or that their constant yelling and underlying anger was a good way to raise children.  There's a danger in implying following one set of beliefs will lead to sparks and happiness.  Many of us know this isn't true.  What works for some doesn't necessarily work for others. 

Amber Pasternak, I know your in laws and it is a stretch to call them Orthodox.  Conservadox is more accurate, and we all know that isnt really Judaism!

 Reading through Tamar and David Friedman's debates about sex reminds me of a conversation I recently had with my grandfather.  To give a little context, my grandparents just celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, and everyone who knows them will agree they have been absolutely in love for every one of those many decades. 

About two months ago my grandfather tells me he wishes I can have as loving and successful a marriage as he and my grandmother have had.  I asked him what the  secret was, or he thinks he did right.  And after 60 years of marital life, my grandfather told me he had no idea.

I was a little disappointed by his answer.  I obviously wouldn't have asked the question except that I was hoping for a couple clues to guide me through some very frightening and important decisions. At the same time I couldn't help but admire his honesty and humility, especially considering that his  success over 60 years of marriage would make it impossible to ignore any advice he could give.

I think Friedman has some valid criticisms of the way relationships are lived today.  You'd have to be blind not to see the wreckage from millions of failed marriages.  But his prescription for improving things shows a complete lack of appreciation for how enormous a challenge it is to make a marriage work over the course of a lifetime in the 21st century.  To simply recite the Torah as the solution to all relationship problems displays a complete blindness to the fact that we are different from the people living in the Middle East 3000 years ago.  We're not the same people, only with better toys.  Our dreams, fears, way of thinking, lifespans--even our very identities--are not the same as they always were.  We couldn't go back to living like ancient Hebrews, even if we wanted to (and frankly, all you have to do is read a few chapters of Judges to see that we really, really don't want to).

That doesn't mean we need to throw all tradition out the door, or that Tamar's way of living her life is right for everyone.  But Tamar never claims to have all the answers.  I would guess Tamar's "rambling" is a reflection of the fact that she recognizes how open these questions are.   

--Z

Who is the hotty wearing the "Shomer Negia" panties?  I wouldnt mind being shomer that negia!!!

Tamar doesn't need my defence in response to David N. Friedman's note any more than she needs Benjamin's, but I'll offer my $.02 anyway.

Contrary to David's note, Tamar has not said that her family disagrees with her.  (I happen to know her family, and my guess is that they basically agree with her.)

David argues that the empirical stability of Orthodox families is strong evidence that their highly-restrictive sexual norms are wise.  This is pretty weak sociology.  My (non-expert) guess would be that a much more relevant factor is the pure fact that Orthodox families are more likely than other families to be committed to _some_ sort of conduct norms.  That is, the fact that both members of the couple are committed to, for example, kashrut and shabbat will itself tend to keep them together.  It's hardly evidence that their _pre-marriage_ sexual conduct keeps them together after they're married.

My limited understanding of the halacha is that the real core issue is niddah -- the prohibition on a man having sexual relations with a woman who is in a state of ritual impurity from menstruation.  Unmarried women above puberty are of course in a state of niddah, because mikva'ot won't knowingly allow unmarried women to use them (other than for conversions and just before a wedding).  Touching is forbidden because it might lead to sexual relations.  My own view is that it would be a Good Thing if someone of standing in the traditional religious community said, "You know, sexual relations before marriage is not inherently such a bad thing, as long as the people have a public and exclusive relationship.  Besides, our people are doing this anyway.  Let's open mikva'ot to unmarried women and encourage them to use them if they're in relationships.  This will (a) bring people within observance who are currently violating the halacha, (b) increase the patronage and support for mikva'ot, and (c) reduce the pressure for early marriage, which results in too many tragic mistakes."

No way Tarfy, this is the way a sensitive rabbinic leadership must function: maintain standards and do not compromise on the communal/public level, be understanding, sympathetic and willing to bend the rules on an individual level.  So your suggestion about opening the mikva for singles is no good.  We have to maintain the stance of prohibiting pre-marital sex, even if Tamar can justify it for herself, it is still against halakha (See the Shulchan Aruch at the very beginning of hilchos nida), so the Jewish community as a whole must oppose it.  If she ha s a good rabbi, the type the national council of young Israel would ban, then he may be able to be understanding to her sich, and work with her privately on some accommodations.

and youve just heard --- the word!

p.s. as I mentioned weeks ago, and I think it is becoming clear, UCLA basketball is going all the way this year suckaz!!!  I havent been posting on Faithacker as much beause Im busy cheering on the Bruins as they whip every team in sight!

Are mikvaot are closed to single women solely for the purpose of maintaining their status of niddah?  If so, then it's circular logic that pre-marital sex is problematic: women can't have pre-marital sex because they're niddah, but they're forbidden to go to the mikvah (removing the status of niddah) because they'd be able to have pre-marital sex.  Unless there's an explicit halachic prohibition on one of these two propositions, i.e., unmarried women visiting the mikvah regardless of purpose or unmarried people having sex regardless of niddah status, then I don't see how there's a halachic problem with pre-marital sex.

And, to Soccer: why should rabbinic leadership maintain standards that don't have explicit halachic status?  Perhaps the issue of niddah does, as you claim, but in general, why should a "sensitive rabbinic leadership" ignore the changing needs of all its people when those needs do not contravene halacha?

One further question to throw out there, for my own curiosity: are there any explicit halachic prohibitions on a man having pre-marital sex that do not rely implicitly on the fact that men should only have sex with women, and that only married women should have sex?  If, for the sake of example, there were no prohibition on adultery, is there any other halacha prohibiting an unmarried man from having sex with a married woman?

The key component in this discussion is the significance of having a standard and of having a law.  In Jewish law, there is always the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, there is the principle and there are the exceptions.  There are well-established red lines and there are areas which have flexibility.  What there cannot be is discussion about antiquated laws or suggestions that we are different from people who lived 3000 years ago.  The whole point of the law is that human nature and intimate human interactions do not change over time in a broad context.  In fact, this is the whole merit of having Jewish law in the first place.

For a Jew, there are laws and standards all over the place.  The standard in almost every area can be difficult and is very specific.  Even fully understanding all the laws of Shabbat, for example, is quite an effort.  It is very easy to get to the heart of the matter--there is the gross red line of not working on Shabbat and then there is a whole list of prohibitions that comprise the fine points of the law. It is one thing to look into bending a specific prohibition--it is quite another to rally Jews to reject the whole concept of honoring the Sabbath.

Flexibility is always built into standards while the standard exists to give a context to behavior.  Destroying a standard requires a replacement and also requires an examination as to why the standard fails to fulfill its purpose.  To argue that one element of a broad standard defeats a standard is not a good argument--it is merely a cheap shot. Absent in this discussion is any sense about what constitutes an alternative or secular standard of sexual conduct and it is clear that the attempt to remove the standard is replaced by nothing except individual feeling, that is, no standard at all.

And this brings me back to the centrality of having a sexual ethic in the first place.  Time and again, Hashem reveals the primacy of proper sexual conduct and it is no coincidence that Tamar and the folks at Jewcy are not here offer a finely tuned argument against specific parts of halacha. They are here to dispute the basic, broad standard in its entirety--leaving only an individual sentiment about what is safe or prudent.  Tamar says she is old enough to make her own mistakes and that making mistakes are good.  Further, she says she requires the mistakes to grow as a person and that her various relationships will make her marriage better and stronger.  This kind of argument is extreme and requires a boat load of evidence and argument to document.  Alas, I made mistakes before I married.  I wish I did not make them and I pray that Hashem will forgive me my mistakes.  They obviously harmed me and I caused a bit of harm to other women.  The trick in life is to grow from mistakes that are productive--not those which are needless.  There is no legitimate need to kiss the boys and search for virtue in hanky panky that is not there.  To attempt to grow from a sexual mistake is a pale substitute from knowing enough to not be in such a compromising position in the first place.

This is why we should be grateful to have standards and have the law so we can avoid high-risk behavior.

Benjamin, if you are here to say that sex is different from kissing (and that kissing is different from a touch to a hand)--I will happily agree.  The point is where might you draw the line?  I have encountered very frum families who draw the line much tighter to the letter of the law than I would but I would never say I am better.  The variable here is the community standard at large and Torah was made for a holy people.  For those living lives so removed from the spirit of the law--even far removed from the broadest parameters of anything Jewish--any specific law might be considered too strict but the law is not counterproductive.  Observant Jews take benefit from the fine points, less observant Jews can take benefit from the basic parameters so the standard applies well for everyone.

Tamar is here not in defense of a glancing touch here or a kiss in a committed relationship there.  She is arguing in defense of hanky panky and against a fundamental Jewish standard in its totality.  If one wants to have a discussion about the fine points--that is fine but has no relevance to this thread.

The point that the law has the effect of pushing people into marriage deserves some comment. This has been Tamar's consistent complaint--if we agree that people once married sooner than today and only recently have people remained single until they were 30--so what.  Please bring forward some solid argument logically or from a Rabbi as to why this fact demands a re-evaluation of the law.  No law can be changed simply because an individual has a life condition which makes it more difficult for them.  Secular law is also based upon the averages and what is best for the most.  I have no doubt that I have greater trouble with some laws than other people--so what?  The fact that it is harder does not mean that it should be abrogated and the suggestion that a law that is difficult for someone pushes someone to make a mistake is a dodge.  Further, the belief that individuals are so hungry for a physical relationship, they will rush into a marriage to have the sex is quite a fantasy.  The point remains that literally millions of young people ruin their chance at a better match by having a physical relationship quickly and before marriage so that they marry for the wrong reasons.  This is why secular minded Jews divorce so quickly and observant Jews are much happier and rarely experience divorce.  Don't the facts matter?  How can the supposed pain of refraining from 'kissing the boys' trump divorce, social disease, confusion-- and twisting and confusing men desperately in need of being more serious minded about how they look at and experience women.  Women are degraded by secular standards and they are elevated by halacha.

Instead of searching vainly for "sparks"--if young people could learn the wisdom of our Jewish standards, they would bring clear benefit to young men and women.

Finally, Soccer, I am a UNC grad and I am up late fretting over the Carolina win over GaTech.  Perhaps UCLA will be good enough to meet us in the Final Four and we can see who has bragging rights when the time comes. 

UCLA would have NO problem with UNC in the final four, only one problem...UNC isnt going that far this year!  Sorry homey. 

"The whole point of the law is that human nature and intimate human interactions do not change over time in a broad context. "

 But the basic premise is patently false.  In other words, "intimate human interactions" DO "change over time in a broad context."  Even the most cursory glance at human history reveals this to be obvious.  Which is why, although I could see wisdom in the Torah here and there, I refuse to base all my actions on its every word. 

--Z

yup, he is.

In response to David: 

"The key component in this discussion is the significance of having a
standard and of having a law.  In Jewish law, there is always the
letter of the law and the spirit of the law, there is the principle and
there are the exceptions."

While that may be the case, the spirit of the law is not halachicly binding, unless there's a halacha that says "the spirit of the law is halachicly binding."  The spirit of the law is up to interpretation, and nobody has any more authority than another to determine what that is.  Yes, Jewish legal experts certainly have more right to discuss halacha, but when it's just the "spirit" of halacha, anyone's interpretation can be valid.

Furthermore, if you're going to use the "spirit of the law" argument, you have to acknowledge that there are halachic loopholes that are clearly against the spirit of the law, but are accepted Orthodox practice.  Two examples I can give off the top of my head: shmita year practice in Israel (though Rabbinic authorities are becoming less tolerant of those loopholes), and the eruv.  I like the eruv example, because it's such a clear violation of the "spirit" of the law. Halacha prohibits carrying outside of one's house on Shabbat.  Two telephone poles and a string do not a house make.  The point is, the spirit of the law is that one should not carry things outside his house on Shabbat, but common Orthodox practice is to violate that spirit.

Which brings me on to your analogy of Shabbat practice, also flawed. You state: "It is one thing to look into bending a specific prohibition--it is
quite another to rally Jews to reject the whole concept of honoring the
Sabbath."  However, the commandment to keep Shabbat is incontrovertibly in the Torah.  Breaking Shabbat is a clear case of violating the commandments.  Shomer negiah doesn't show up in the Torah, nor is it even explicitly or implicitly Oral Torah.  If it is, nobody has yet cited the text in this discussion.  So, while breaking Shabbat is a clear violation of halacha, boys and girls touching each other is only a violation of a rather narrow-minded interpretation of what's "good for them."

Which is another argument you use. All the discussion of whether shomer negiah leads to stronger or weaker marriages, has good or bad psychological effects, etc., is simply tangential.  The fact that something is better for you than the alternative is not a a halachic argument. You say: "Instead of searching vainly for "sparks"--if young people could learn
the wisdom of our Jewish standards, they would bring clear benefit to
young men and women."  Those non-legal standards may be better for people, but how does that translate into a halachic argument?

Finally, I'd like to point out that you've been rather obsessed with Tamar's minor comment about "sparks."  All she stated was that a "spark" is one of many necessary condition for successful relationship. She did not, however, make the claim in any form that the "spark" alone was sufficient for a successful relationship.

We are way off topic and no further comment needs to be made, Soccer.  If UCLA is so worthy of a national championship, we will know the result in March.

Kevin Love was heavily recruited by UNC and he went your way.  He is your star and we have a few of our own.

I cannot predict the future but Carolina measures up as the better squad.  Check back with me in March and one of us can tip the hat to the other. 

UCLA has 5 other stars!  And the fact that UNC recruited Love is irrelevnt, he went where he went for  a reason.

Wow, I thank you very much for the response Dan but it is a poor one.  The sentiment that nidah, laws of shomer negiah, abstinence, touching and kissing are not to be found halacha is truly bizarre.  Indeed, the very fact that we are speaking about these laws is because they are laws and this is in the reference to the red lines I mentioned in my posting--not in reference to the "spirit of the law."

You do not find my point about being shomer shabbas applicable since Shabbat is mentioned in the Torah--but surely you can see that sexual modesty is all over the Torah. All the Shabbas laws are not in the written Torah (perthaps none of them are!!)and keeping Shabbas is "merely" the most prominent sign that one is a Jew. Laws pertaining to sexuality are by contrast a matter of life and death and this is why Torah Judaism treats them so strongly--it is impossible to miss.

The penalty for a man having sexual relations with a woman in a state of niddah is kareis and this is why I am trying to influence Tamar who has as her favorite activity to kiss the boys and sleep with some of them. Her call to do as she feels free to do affects the men she is having hanky panky.

Shomer negiah is right out of Leviticus and the sexual misadventures of the Israelites are highlighted so strongly the rest of the world surely takes notice and this is why abstinence is such a big deal in the Christian world and in the Muslim world because of the influence of the (written)Torah.  Joseph is the model of the tzadik for his refusal to have a fling with Potiphar's wife. What irony that the Christians will have nothing to do with Shabbat and yet everything to do with abstinence, while the Jews (outside of the Orthodox world) see no utility, no morality and no halacha (!!) in most of the laws--including those involving family purity for married couples (an extension of the laws of shomer negiah). 

Truly all these laws are standard fare in any kosher Jewish day school and from any Orthodox rabbi--to say that they are not halacha is rather extraordinary and requires at least some proof, don't you think? 

So what is the bottom line, Dan?  It seems to me the law creates a standard that brings people closer to Hashem and closer to righteousness.  With or without a "slippery slope" connotation, even a "wanton glance" is to be avoided and considered serious so we have to atone  at Yom Kippur.  The point is that the law brings us to a higher place for a better purpose.  The defense of hanky panky must first ignore the law and say that the whole topic is not important or relevant and that is a total fabrication.  Since Tamar agrees that we see things differently, I am traditional and she is not, I am trying to come at the topic from the utility and consistency of *her* perspective.  There must be some important principle and some vital standard that is at stake that gives the authority to assume the stand.  I will happily stand up for the fact that a simple act of touching or a wanton glance is a net negative.  She says hanky panky is not only defensible--it is desirable.  So what is the goal, what is the standard?  Nothing has been stated so I must use my imagination.  It seems it comes down to something about curiosity or pure pleasure.  I am quick to say that the benefit of guarding sexuality overwhelms any alleged cost of frenetic experimentation. You or she must say that the benefit of the hanky panky overwhelms the clear and present risks and the obvious damage to one's character and personality.  I have asked on several occasions and I will ask again:  what are the benefits, what is the upside?

I'll try to keep this brief.

    David has still not responded to my point that his sociological argument is fallacious.  Even assuming that a lower percentage of marriages in the OJ community end in divorce, that's not evidence that strictness in sexual conduct before marriage _causes_ that.  I suggested a different mechanism (a higher percentage of marriages in which partners share a commitment to a particular way of life -- shabbat and kashrut) that seems more plausible to me, but in any case, there's no showing that restricting pre-marital sexual conduct reduces divorces.

    David responds to the halachic arguments by saying essentially, of course shomer n'gi'ah is a fundamental part of Jewish law -- that's why everyone calls it a "law."  He hasn't responded to the point that it really has a tenuous basis in Jewish law, based on bootstrapping -- relations with a nidda is prohibited; the keepers of the mikva'ot don't like the idea of non-marital sexual relations (by which I _don't_ mean _extramarital_ relations), so they bar singles from the mikva'ot; touching can lead to intercourse; ergo, touching is forbidden.  

    David also claims that sexual modesty is "all over the Torah."  Excuse me, but where?  The Torah knows how to prohibit sexual relations -- it explicitly prohibits adultery, various kinds of incest, relations with a nidda, etc., but _nowhere_ does it prohibit relations (let alone touching) with a woman purely on the basis that she's single.   Even various perfectly traditional authorities (most famously, R' Yaakov Emden) have given permission in certain circumstances for a man to have a sexual relationship with a single woman, provided that the relationship is public and (on her part) exclusive, and that she observes the laws of nidda.

    David cites Yosef and Mrs. Potiphar as a Torah example.  Mrs. Potiphar was _married._

    "Shomer n'gi'ah" practice is certainly endorsed by contemporary OJ authorities, and (based on my awareness of my kids' acquaintances' practices) has become more normative among the more stringently observing teens and 20-somethings in the OJ community.  However, I think people can reject this practice and still be considered seriously observant Jews, and that they need have no fear that they're going to ruin their own futures or the future of Am Yisrael.

David, since you are more versed in Torah and Talmud than I (and I do not say that sarcastically), could you please point out the texts which explicitly outline the law of shomer negiah?  I merely pointed out that others have made the claim that there is none, and am still waiting for an actual textual reference that contradicts those claims. Until that is done, all my other points still stand.

As to whether written Torah contains examples of sexual modesty or immodesty, the simple fact is that it contains plenty of both.  That those examples exist is not evidence in and of itself that there are laws relating as such.  (On a side note, surely you must know that at least one basic law pertaining to Shabbat exists in written Torah: to keep and remember Shabbat.  There is not, however, a similar commandment in written Torah to guard one's touch.  That is why your point about Shabbat is invalid.)

You state that the modesty exhibited in the Torah is the example for Christian and Muslim abstinence.  Are we now allowing the practices of other religions to determine what is or is not halacha? (I'd also like to point out that Joseph's conduct in regard to Potiphar's wife may be even more easily attributed to the prohibition on adultery.) I am not disagreeing that there may be a case for sexual modesty being better for someone in psychological, or even moral, terms. That evidence cannot enter into a discussion of halacha, however, unless there is a halacha that says "whatever is better for you psychologically/morally, you must do."

The "defense of hanky panky" only ignores the law if that law exists in the first place.  The central issue is that the existence of shomer negiah as a law, and not simply as a widely-practiced custom that is treated with the same reverence as a law, has been disputed on these pages.  I am still waiting to see a clear textual reference to back up the claim that shomer negiah is, in fact, halacha.

The following is the question I'm really asking, and you seem to be missing that point, David.  If, for the sake of example, it turned out that there was no explicit halacha prohibiting pre-marital sex, would it then be permissible according to Jewish law for Jews to engage in pre-marital sex?  Unless you're employing some bizarre logic or esoteric principle that I can't understand, you can throw around the "more moral," "more righteous," "more healthy" argument all you want, but if there's no halacha, then isn't it not prohibited?

Dan, I would like to thank you again for staying with this and asking questions.  First to correct you, I am not a guy from Brooklyn or Lakewood. 

I think you are driving a hard bargain in search of a loophole.  It is clear that the Rabbis had a lot at stake in not allowing unmarried women or men to be promiscuous and hence the prohibition.  Such a well-known, widespread and vital prohibition does not require specific halachic cover to make it respected in the community.   This reminds me of the abortion debate where the Jewish left is quick to tell the world that according to Judaism, abortion is not murder and the Jews therefore support the "right to an abortion" without equivocation.  This destroys the Jewish concept completely and simply because Judaism allows for abortions in certain circumstances, very rare instances, abortion is still a moral wrong and very tragic waste of human life according to halacha.  Instead of choosing life, many Jews are running towards the wrong side, dragging the exception and the technicality in defense of the indefensible.

There is similar mischief in this example.  Dan drives a hard bargain in insisting that unless there is a specific prohibition--all bets are off.  This is the "poor" part I am trying to expose.  I wish to get your agreement, Dan.  I do not know if there is a specific prohibition but I will ask.   Perhaps it is not stated explicitly to protect a woman who in good faith had relations with her chosen husband before marriage and it is unfair to make her stand against the law in such a circumstance.  You want to know the truth, Dan--that is laudable.  I will search for it--forgive me if my opposition to hanky panky is not dependent on explicit restrictions.

This is why I highlighted the fact (inadequately I think) that in some cases, the spirit of the law stands as a compelling substitute for the letter of the law while in some cases, a rabbinic prohibition is clearly understood as a fence that is far from the red line.  My point here is that because we are dealing with an area fraught with so many risks and so many vital concerns--the difference between halacha and a fence makes very little difference.  My guess is that this is why these areas are treated as halachically in the eyes of many Rabbis and I bet one might find a difference of opinion.  The fact that you require a stone-cold explicit law in all cases is too hard of a bargain.  This is why I have highlighted the question of what is the upside of championing aggressive kissing, touching and hanky panky?  

I sense people would look at a lack of an explicit prohibition as a license to run afoul of both the law and the spirit of the law.  *If* it is true that an unmarried Jew has halachic cover to  have a sexual liason--there may be a technical way to do it.  It seems to me that the very act of navigating this technical minefield is a clear violation of the spirit of the law.  Perhaps a woman could travel to the ocean or a river since she cannot go to a mikveh, recite a kosher beracha and have sex with a man. He cannot wear a condom since that is an explicit halachic violation. It seems obvious that this cannot be done safely and without potential dire consequences--on the other hand-  the requirements of the slick scheme involve exposing oneself to other potential aveirahs.  So why do it?  What is the upside?

This is needlessly complicated.  The loophole in the law (if it really exists!!)is there to protect good-faith exceptions, not to explode the whole nexus of laws involving tsunius, niddah, and family purity for everyone else.  Sexualizing our young people is a crime and a real problem that tears at the very fabric of our community.  It has become a bad habit and is inconsistent with having good moral character.

Dan, you offer a trap.   I offered the example of Shabbot since it is easy to see that the Jews of Jewcy routinely break many structures of halacha with impunity.  The response is to say--we are not Orthodox, we are not traditional--who cares about threshing or borah? Then, absent a defense based upon logic or principle--the response is to say sexual misadventures are not an explicit halachic violation!!  Sorry, this is not good faith.

Tarfon, I easily reject your thinking concerning the merit of abstinence.   A strictness in sexuality is the not the cause of a stable and successful marriage--this is not the argument.  The argument is that those couples who can guard their sexuality and find real intimacy and real compatibility have a much, much better chance at having that great marriage and this is why Orthodox marriages are so successful.  I find it astonishing that our community refuses to champion this great success--we know how to do marriage right.  Our traditions demonstrate the MODEL for married life.  Tragically, the liberal portion of our community that has taken on the lifestyle of the secular culture and they divorce and have unhappiness at about the same rate as the population at large.  The Orthodox choose well because they/we are not burdened with the problems that sexual intimacy before marriage bring to a relationship.  Our ability to bring Hashem into our lives and have a holy union makes the bond unshakable.  A traditional Jewish wedding is truly unique.  It is not simply a commitment to a Jewish way of living--it is the perception that the union is precious. When one is trained to look at the opposite sex as potential sexual playthings--it is very hard to turn that off after marriage.  When one is trained to not look or touch members of the opposite sex--it is so much easier to maintain a precious bond with one's spouse.  Therefore to a degree, a well-meaning Jew is either trained to have his emotions sparked by lust or trained to have his emotions in check.  Successful marriages are much more likely to have couples trained to have their emotions contained.

Trafon reminds me that morality has been traditionally DEFINED as sexual propriety by a Bible-based culture such as early America.  This is because the Torah spends a lot of time with sexual sins. Joseph's ability to conquer his feelings for Potiphar's wife (who was not Jewish so not "married" in the eyes of a Jew) is a righteous man.  Examples of illicit sex are met with sure punishment by Hashem.  Israelite experience with the Moabite women is legendary and many died of the experience at the hand of God.  Prophets castigated Israel as being like a "harlot"--men and women must dress modestly, homosexuality is especially forbidden, husbands and wives cannot show public signs of affection for each other so as not to cause onlookers to be aroused, it is a sin to discharge semen in vain according to the Torah--how much more do you require?

Tarfon says that we can reject the laws, customs, tradition of shomer negiah and still be observant and not ruin a Jewish future. OK.  So I ask again, where does this rejection bring the community--holier or less holy?  The fact that a community can survive a bit of poison begs the question why there needs to be any poison in the first place.  I ask again--what is the upside of this rejection--for what principle and to achieve what goal?  

I want to be persuasive so I must be willing to be persuaded by a counter argument.  Please give me a counter argument or consider the persuasiveness of the Jewish standard. 

David, I thank you for a straightforward response that sticks to the issue at hand.

At the end of my last post, I asked: "If, for the sake of example, it turned out that there was no explicit
halacha prohibiting pre-marital sex, would it then be permissible
according to Jewish law for Jews to engage in pre-marital sex?"  Just so I understand you fully, your answer is essentially "no." Correct?

You hold the traditional opinion that this custom, having been in place so long, is equivalent to a legal standard.  That is certainly a respectable opinion, and one that is relevant for many Jews.  According to you, whether the fence is really that far from the red line is irrelevant, because the fence has been in place for so long.  You also state: "My point here is that because we are dealing with an area fraught with
so many risks and so many vital concerns--the difference between
halacha and a fence makes very little difference."  This really clarifies your position; I now understand why you have appealed so often to what is "better" for people.

There are, obviously, others who disagree with you.  They have their reasoning as well, whether it be that anything outside the letter of the law (being a fence around the Torah) does not need further protection, or by claiming equivalence with other halachic loopholes which are technically outside the red line, but are inside the fence.  The only reason I see that one can claim for this being a less respectable position is the fact that it is less in line with tradition.  For some people, that is enough of a reason to abandon this position, but for others it is not.

Now that I understand your position, I understand why there are those who do not require explicit proof of the law in order to uphold shomer negiah.  It must be pointed out, however, that many liberal-thinking halachicly-minded Jews disagree with your non-halachic factors, which is why they might seek halachic imprimatur to engage in sexual activity.  I assume these are the type of people Matthue Roth encountered and described in his Shomer Negiah in the City article.  I refuse, however, to pronounce judgment on which view is more valid, I only sought to understand the two sides, and for that, I thank you, David.

Thanks for your good-faith response, Dan.    Fealty to halacha is always a standard and an ideal.  Some may achieve the ideal in these kind of cases; the critical part is honoring the standard one way or another.  We all fail to meet the standard, the point is not whether or not we miss--it is whether or not we are pointed in the direction of the standard.  Therefore, the best is to meet the standard all the time, the second best is to aim towards the standard, the minimum is to honor the standard in some substantial way while also failing .  The only thing which is truly objectionable is to take up the banner of opposing the standard and championing the polar opposite and this is why I have spoken on this blog.

The law teaches that a prerequisite for Torah learning is having good character.  It is apparent that good character is NOT evidenced by a sexually-promiscuous lifestyle and it is the interest of the community to reduce promiscuity and increase abstinence.

I do not believe the question is whether or not any individual Jew is to be condemned for pre-marital sex. As for the relative merit of "kissing a lot of frogs in order to find a prince"--this seems to be an implied virtue--I trust that this is not at all the Jewish way in finding a mate and the call to develop and indulge one's physical needs outside of the marital relationship is both dangerous and destructive since this is the common result of such activity. 

The "mistakes" which are referenced with pride are obviously not seen as mistakes by the participants since they are justified as  "learning and growth opportunities."  Real mistakes are not repeated and with teshuva, can be overcome. 

At a time when abstinence is growing in the population at large according to survey polls, it is no merit to our Jewish community that our long-standing standard is under attack from within.

I love Jewcy so much...and this article is an exemplary case in point as to why. Yes it was cerebral, well written, and illustrative of all things Jewy...but the real brilliance lies in the photo of you mid "Scandal". Always good to liven up a little debate with pure humor.

Great article, very on point. Looking forward to more posts.