Contact that is not intended sexually is not considered affectionate contact?

Haim.
Since there is room to be lenient regarding polite contact that involves no enjoyment at all, like a handshake, then one could argue that it may also be possible to be lenient about contact between homosexuals and women generally, since there is no element there of arousal toward sin at all. And also in terms of the issue of “pleasure,” that element is far weaker there.

It may also depend on the dispute whether the prohibition of contact such as a hug or a pat on the shoulder is rabbinic, as a safeguard to help prevent reaching a transgression (and then perhaps there is room to be lenient when it comes to homosexuals, where the concern of reaching a transgression does not exist at all in contact with women), or whether it is an independent Torah-level prohibition.

Personally, by the way, even though this logic is clear, I don’t understand the Rabbi’s answer, because it has been said here countless times on the site that the correct approach, historically and practically, regarding Jewish law is that one cannot cancel or be lenient in laws merely because of their reason—unless these are explicitly laws established only as a decree or only with respect to a certain reality (like the attitude toward gentiles, for example). For even if I, as a straight person, have absolutely no risk of coming to sinful thoughts with women, in terms of all the psychological and sociological data, and I do not derive much pleasure from, say, waiting for a light hug from a woman, it would still be forbidden for me to act that way. So how is that gay man different from me?

Unless one of my basic assumptions in what I wrote is incorrect, or I made a serious mistake.
In any case, pardon me. I of course did not come to argue with someone who understands Jewish law more than I do; it just raised a certain question for me.

And there is also the issue that he is supposedly causing arousal in the woman he touches, even if from his own side it is permitted to him, no?

The affection being discussed here is sexual affection.

Rational, the question is whether contact itself was forbidden, or whether what was forbidden is an act that arouses improper thoughts.

Indeed, contact that arouses improper thoughts in the woman is forbidden for her, and also for the man because of “do not place a stumbling block.”

That is indeed how I understood it.
But today it is obvious, according to all halakhic decisors from all Orthodox shades, that contact is entirely forbidden even if it does not lead to improper thoughts. I know there are disputes about things like a handshake and the like, but even there we are talking about polite contact in specific situations, not as a regular practice. If so, what is the difference here between a homosexual, for whom contact does not lead to improper thoughts, and an ordinary person for whom contact with women does not lead him to such thoughts? (And true, a person’s inclination in these matters is strong, and there is no guardian against sexual transgression, and nevertheless…)

Again, it may be that I’m mistaken of course. But from a brief memory of having once learned this topic, and also from polemics I followed on the subject—for example the dispute whether it is permitted to extend one’s hand to a woman and so on—it seemed clear to me that nobody disagrees that whether the reason for the prohibition is because of arousal toward sin and bringing one to transgression, or whether the prohibition is independent, in any case even if there is no arousal at all (as is presumably the case in many places where there is regular affectionate contact between a man and a woman and it does not lead to improper thoughts), it is still forbidden. And precisely because of that I do not understand why this consideration comes in when dealing with homosexuals.

The Rabbi wrote that contact that arouses improper thoughts in the woman is forbidden for her, and also for the man because of “do not place a stumbling block.” But seemingly how does “do not place a stumbling block” apply here, since this is not a case of “two sides of the river”?

Thank you very much!
I’m a 17-year-old boy and at the moment I’m still in the closet. It doesn’t seem to me that I have any way to avoid physical contact among my friends. How should I act?

Pop,
First, it is a case of “two sides of the river.” Without him, she would not have those thoughts. If she wants to have thoughts about someone else, that is another matter. A nazirite, too, could get a cup of wine from someone else across the river.
Second, even on one side of the river there is still the prohibition of assisting (a rabbinic form of “do not place a stumbling block”) according to most opinions.

Shoel,
In my first message there is a link that answers similar questions. I think you can touch where you have no choice, and try as much as you can to guard yourself from forbidden thoughts. The Torah was not given to ministering angels.
At the margins of my remarks, I would add one more general comment. As far as I know, at such an age inclinations are not always clear and final. It is worth consulting a professional (preferably an open-minded religious one) and clarifying this. If you have concluded that this really is your inclination, perhaps you should consider coming out of the closet. At some stage you will probably do so anyway.
Good luck. Be strong and courageous, and do not let your spirit fall.

Rabbi, isn’t it possible to undergo a psychological process to change one’s inclinations? It sounds strange to me that the atheists who support brain flexibility and so on, to a very extreme level of postmodernism, are unable to accept flexibility in the other direction only on this issue.
I think they say that Freud said that we are all bisexual, and the question is only the degree. After all, this is a very basic inclination, so certainly it would be difficult to change it.
But how can it be that today there are men who are not attracted to heavy women, whereas once that was the beauty ideal? And once people were not attracted to thin women. Especially since there are periods in which the most beautiful women look really strange—today people would not understand at all what was beautiful about that, because it goes against the whole current culture.
And also, how can it be that at a time when it is accepted to come out of the closet, many more people come out of the closet? So everyone was always in the closet throughout all periods? It seems to me simply that there are many in the middle whom the global movement influences.

You are mixing together two claims. The question whether an inclination can be changed is a scientific question, and it is disputed, with biases on all sides, so it is hard to get a clear picture without delving into the matter ourselves. The question why this group or that refuses to accept the possibility of change relates to intellectual honesty. It is lacking on all sides of this debate (and in general). Your own arguments as well contain clear biases and a lack of honesty. For example, you decide that it is unreasonable that throughout the generations many were in the closet, and you prefer the interpretation that the phenomenon used to be rarer (because of the norms). And how do you know that? Because you assume prior value-laden assumptions. That is a lack of honesty.

These prior assumptions are stated almost explicitly. Certainly I thought one could disagree with them, but they sound reasonable to me. And together with the change in the beauty ideal, it sounds very plausible to me.
In any case, the point is that when a certain treatment is outlawed, it will never be possible to know whether it is effective…

I don’t know, to me it sounds very strange if there is some essential reason why we are attracted to image Y and not image X. Clearly, if everyone were straight then one could explain it through evolutionary motives. But if that’s not the case, and there are homosexuals, then it sounds very plausible to me that a significant part is shaped by the general public perception.

These really are ridiculous arguments. If you think a bit more, you will see the foolishness and blatant bias in them.

Indeed I assume that is true. And I also have explanations. I don’t understand.
If sexual attraction changes throughout the generations, and that is agreed upon, there is no reason not to think that the orientation itself can change from female to male. The fact that a woman has a thin voice and long hair and different facial features and a few other protruding organs causes such an essential change that something fixed in the body from ancient times will be attracted דווקא to that description?
It seems simple to me that through various people at the beginning, who are combinations of half-and-half or various divas, they too could arouse sexual inclination, and afterward fully men.
It sounds to me like the most natural and simple process imaginable… I don’t understand the complication. And indeed recent history shows that.
Obviously one can build closets upon sealed closets and claim that they were simply not ready to come out and all kinds of such conspiracies. Or one can simply claim that sexual orientation is something partly inborn and largely acquired from the environment itself.

Thank you very much for the answer.
I’ll share that I’ve already been to a psychologist, and although I haven’t had sexual experience, I’m fairly sure about my sexual orientation.
I’ll make a comment; I hope you’ll receive it:
It is not advisable to tell people to come out of the closet without knowing them personally. As you know, today, even in Israel, there are communities that may harm a person with a different sexual orientation (whether physical harm or emotional harm—for example harmful conversion therapy).
Of course, as a 17-year-old boy I have to make these calculations and decisions myself, but reason does not always play the central role in such calculations (there is a powerful emotional desire to unload this burden, and personally, I have or had a certain search for validation that would tell me to come out of the closet).

Personally, I am not in such a state or place, and I am certainly grateful for that. On the other hand, I live in a religious society. The gay spectrum, like the homophobic one, reaches every society, including mine, and unfortunately also my parents and a large portion of my friends. Not a few times have I heard about “the disgusting perversions of those people.”
I would add that my parents are still the most significant part of my life and the people I love most on earth. I prefer to think that they are like children captured among the gentiles (and this is true of many of my friends as well, of course) (:
My society right now is still dynamic and changing. I have no reason to cut off relationships or sour them (especially since those relationships are to a large extent beneficial to me myself).
I’ll add another thank-you, for your sane and genuine attitude toward the matter.

Beyond that, quite an interesting thread has formed here. Dear T, your claim is interesting, but it has no practical implications. It is agreed that in societies where there is acceptance of homosexuals, there are more openly declared homosexuals (and from the complementary angle: the more oppression there is against same-sex inclinations, the fewer openly declared people there are). Even if we assume that many homosexuals are “created” because of the acceptance that exists, what practical implications does that have?
To claim that homosexuals should not be accepted so that they won’t “multiply” is a bizarre and immoral claim. Shall we decree a life of suffering upon people who harm no one, in order that there should not be more people who harm no one?
As for conversion therapies, it seems to me that a much broader and deeper theoretical basis is needed than “it’s something social.” I am not familiar with theories that convert a person and guarantee not to harm him. These are people’s lives, not things we “check to see if they are effective.” Even if I think human beings are very similar to birds, and that if we throw them off roofs as babies they will start to fly, I don’t think you expect the state to legally allow me to conduct such an experiment (even though no one has tried it, so we really do not know whether it is effective). Moreover, on the empirical plane, your claim simply does not hold water. I know one story firsthand, and three more stories secondhand (all three told by very conservative people), about people who tried to change their sexual orientation and did not succeed. In fact, I know for certain that one of the people in question was very harmed by the treatment (I do not know whether the others came out with damage). There are many thousands more such stories around the world, despite the relative unpopularity of conversion therapies. As far as I know, by the way, the Rabbi does not think conversion therapies should be legally forbidden (I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).
I’ll conclude by noting that this is only a speculative way of looking at things, since on this issue I side with Rabbi Michi’s view. In my humble opinion, there were always homosexuals; they just were not always open about it.

A person has many values, and sometimes it is worth taking a risk of suffering for the sake of XYZ goals; I don’t see a problem with that. Especially if it comes from the person himself. There are people who undergo bodily conversion treatments, and certainly there is suffering and pain and also risk in that, and still it is worth it to them.
But since I don’t know the treatment itself, it may be different if I read what it includes. If it is a treatment that really makes no sense, like jumping off a roof, then I agree with you that a person should not undergo it, and we as a society can also prevent it. But all in all, if it is an ordinary psychological treatment, I don’t see anything so impossible about a person trying it. Of course, one can surely train therapists not to aim 100% at changing the orientation and pressuring the guy, but only to “try”; if it works, great, and if not, that’s also fine. And maybe that would greatly ease the difficulty.

And I also understand the pain of a minority within the general society, but still sometimes it is “worth it” for the sake of society as a whole, in the sense of “He did not create it to be a waste.” Especially since we are not talking about nobody speaking to them and them being ostracized, but rather that homosexuals should not publicize and flaunt it outside all the time. I didn’t mean to say what they should do in bed with their partner, but rather not to write about it on Facebook, for example, and not to hold demonstrations. I think that is a pretty legitimate demand, if indeed it seriously affects others in society.
I personally think, as I wrote above, that in the past not everyone was in the closet; there were simply fewer. And in periods when there were more, that also burst outward.

I didn’t understand the Rabbi’s words regarding “do not place a stumbling block.” Is the Rabbi comparing the difficulty and opportunity involved in crossing a river with finding another man to think improper thoughts about?
Good morning.

Pop, this is not a question of difficulty. There is also no difficulty in finding someone else on the other side of the river to hand me a cup. If one cannot do it alone, then “do not place a stumbling block” applies here. Some have questioned this, but this is the plain meaning of the Talmudic passage and the halakhic decisors.

But she can have improper thoughts all by herself, can’t she?

Good luck to her.

And regarding immodest dress in the street, is it the same?
Are pants and so on included in this? Since after all it deviates from the Torah norm.

Why are pants a deviation from the Torah norm? I don’t know of such a verse, or even such a Jewish law. What exactly is the question?

With all due respect, Rabbi, the woman can also touch the man on her own initiative and not he touch her.
The two of us—one asks properly and the other answers relevantly. And it is precise that if one does not ask properly, one is not answered relevantly. But in our case, I asked a halakhic question and the Rabbi answered me irrelevantly. I am astonished.