The time of stress in a relationship regarding matters of purity

In honor of Rabbi Michael Shalom,

As an introduction, I would like to say that I am a person who in the past felt like I belonged to the religious community and studied in yeshivahs, and now I feel that I cannot identify with the religious collective, and I try to maintain the halacha, contemplate the Torah, and engage in the mitzvot, but more personally.

The following detail is intended to explain why I feel I need a secular woman.

I observe the commandments and seek the ethical essence in them (I simply connect to the world of Judaism, to tradition, regardless of the historical status of receiving the Torah, but I feel the holiness of the law, sometimes in the details of the law, sometimes in the context of ideas from the interiority of the Torah and the secret law), and the ethical essence is more important to me than the technical fulfillment. There are periods when I feel that I need to accept the entire package of the law – sometimes with a thought of mystical holiness, and there are periods when I often go beyond the framework in order to observe the essence because what is most important to me is logic. For example, this happens to me especially in prayer, when I break the lines and start praying in my own words, as if to say, "Do not make your prayer a fixed prayer, but a supplication." I always pray at home, a mass synagogue for me, I want my connection with God and it is difficult for me to do this in a crowd.
My thinking is very critical and philosophical. I study a lot of philosophy (general and Jewish) and humanistic studies, and in addition to Torah studies, I also study other religions. I am vegan and do not belong to the right-wing bloc. I always feel a little suffocated in a religious society, as if I cannot say anything, so many taboos. This is my feeling. Some people probably feel the same way in a secular society, but I feel much more flourishing with secular friends when I philosophize with them and talk to them about the world and natural inner experiences, about reality, about doubts, when I point out injustices that also exist in the religious world from which I come, when I say that I keep the commandments because of reason and not because of blind faith, when I scientifically and philosophically criticize the Holy Scriptures, etc.
I feel that fundamentally, a relationship with a secular woman is much more suitable for my soul. With religiosity, it's much more difficult for me, without any connection to sexual openness. On the contrary, I like modest clothing or I have no need to move forward quickly in sexual matters and even appreciate a thought that hinders, but simply emotionally this is the direction. I'm already 28 years old and I search a lot on dating sites and try to find opportunities and dates, and I also have a disability that I can't do anything about, a cruel world, labels me, and I don't have all the choices in front of me. And they ask pointed questions about why I didn't serve in the army, and what the implications of the disability are for the future, etc. And what is most important to me is to be a philosophical woman, because otherwise it's simply no fun and there's no connection, and I need an open mind…
In terms of my opinions, I can hardly get along in a relationship with a religious woman, and also from a halakhic perspective – if only because I believe that it is permissible to use electricity on Shabbat, and that is how I do it, and also ideally, in the hope that people will ask me halakhically about it and I will explain my thinking and also follow my lead.

The problematic situation as a given condition-

But the difficult problem for me in a relationship with a secular woman is the issue of family purity (let's skip the fact that I embrace mistress relationships as healthy, natural, and romantic relationships between two people who truly love each other and want to live together, and I am against owning a wife), because on the one hand, there is logic in the issue of family purity, like any mitzvah, and on the other hand, there is also logic in considering the woman's opinions and needs for a natural flow in these matters, and I don't see any logic in what legality is specifically a two-week separation. If she was a religious woman – great, but if not, it seems to me to be meaningless to demand such a time, and the issue of baptism, which is generally more related to the woman's feelings than to mine, is less meaningful. At the same time, I think I would like to demand that we try (an experiment for both of us, I also feel the need to look into the issue) to wait two weeks, and discuss the mikveh issue, in the hope that this will not cause my partner much suffering and great repulsion, but logic is more important to me than the dry law, and I do not want it to be what will separate me from a relationship, which is like saying that we are not willing to go to battle to defend the homeland because people will die (not to be in a relationship at all because of a mikveh issue that is supposed to improve the relationship itself). I know the rabbi's approach that the secular side also needs to consider my religion, and at the same time, one of the most important things for me in the relationship is to maintain the logic of the compromise that we both examine the logic of the halakha. What can be done, there has to be some kind of compromise, and the compromise that I believe in is to examine it together .

That's why I'm trying to find compromises . And I'm relying on the opinion of an individual, so that even in times when I feel more committed to halakhah and in other times, I'll have some kind of anchor, and there won't be too serious upheavals in the relationship in this matter. And I thought about a halakhic move that also comes from other lines of thought regarding reducing the use of immodest media on the Internet and the like, which I'm trying to overcome as much as possible from the values ​​of reducing exploitation and objectification in these various industries.

I would therefore like to ask whether this halakhic move is appropriate in a time of stress , and I am raising arguments here that are related to a time of stress. It is important to me to know that what I am doing is halakhically correct, and this is not just to make excuses for myself, but out of an understanding that there are periods in my life when strict adherence to halakhic law is very important to me and there are periods when it is less so and I need stability , and also because my mind is very sensitive (and I take pills to stabilize it). And to that end, I am willing to compromise on the opinion of a single person.

This is the halakhic thought-

—

A. I usually shake hands with women, both single and married. (This is part of my life in a secular world and it makes sense to me.) From a halachic perspective, I rely on the opinion of Rabbi Padat, according to Rabbi Tam and Rabbi Yisrael in the Tosafot (on Shabbat 13. – ("Mifrash Rabbi Dafligah Dr. Padat Dakhion") The Torah only forbade incestuous sacrifices. Therefore, we cannot forbid or condemn anything except as the Scripture forbade. That is, opinions without change, such as the husband may not eat with the wife, but he is in his garment and she is in the garment. Such opinions and changes do not hold that Rabbi Pid't Dafi' holds that a man's wife is in his garment and she is in the garment. Shari and Rabbi Pi' and Peliga Dr. Pid't Since you said that the language of intimacy does not belong except in actual incest,"), and on the fact that Rabbi Huna mounted the bride on his back. And since I am used to this, I usually do not reflect at all, especially since this is the way of the world today, and the point of reflection is not to reject the way of the world, as is the issue of the hereafter (Bava Batra 57:).

on. I believe morally that pornography is severely harmful to industry participants and consumers (in my opinion, Maimonides expressed this in the matter of the one who speaks to a woman behind a fence, and it is the same if it is a camera and a reporter who would rather die, even though the bearers of the tools have softened this, and this is the same logic of veganism that I hold to). And I feel guilty when I fall for it for these reasons. I understand that I cannot overcome my urges and therefore I believe that to the extent that this reduces sexual harm and exploitation, it is right and proper to vent the urge in a less harmful way (such as in media made with less exploitation and less prostitution) in order to avoid reaching harsh media (according to the wisdom of Solomon on the Shulchan Ibn HaEzer 263, that one should spend Shaz"l for good deeds, whose histories of righteous people are good deeds, according to the book of Hasidim, which was also cited in the section on the Legislator and Ibn Shmuel). And in any case , as for the continuation – the question here is also whether reflecting on one's wife is better than internet media and not necessarily the actual deceased .
Even when living with a woman, it is very difficult during the two weeks of the Nida because the urge is used to being satisfied, and the more romantic feeling is used to flowing in the heart.

C. Here is the main question – if contact is permitted without actual incest, as Rabbi Tam and R.I. on Rabbi Peddat say, is it correct to have marital relations without actual incest with the woman during the niddah with the release of desire (which is considered the prohibition of contemplation without a woman) without ejaculating, and perhaps, among other things, in order to avoid using media that causes prostitution and sexual exploitation (and here I really think this is a moral virtue, otherwise the niddah would be a stumbling block in pornography)?
I am talking, for example, about friction of the organs together with a tantric method, in which the sperm is blocked and it is dislodged from the eggs and reaches the urine and mixes with it and is eliminated in it before it comes out (and this is a kind of prostate surgery that blocks the sperm ducts, which they wrote that it is permissible to have intercourse afterwards, such as Tzitz Eliezer, Part 14, paragraph 25). And here the reflection is on his wife, and also that she is in Nidah , for which they wrote that his heart is coarse in her.
Or perhaps even with penetration with a condom according to the permissive ones (as Krogochober in Tzafnet Pa'anach, Part 1, Section 9, Section 124, who claims that the Blessed One does not include here, only reflection) because is a condom considered an instrument of actual incest? And after all, incest is not revealed but covered, and certainly it is not about the woman's sight but about the revelation of the cavernous organ, which sight is not considered actual incest. And there is no such thing as a man and a woman as there is between two males, a "like putting a brush in a tube" boundary, but rather the question of whether the cavernous organ is visible or not.
And there are two sides to the reflection – on the one hand, that she is his wife, and on the other hand, that he will not be tempted by harlotry.

—

I ask-
A. In a formal weighing of the individual's opinions – does it indeed follow that such relations are permissible (with friction of organs or with a condom)?
on. Can we rely on that in times of need? What's the math here?

Many thanks.