What do you think about this article?

I never respond like this, but I haven't read as much nonsense as in this article in a long time.

Among other things, he quotes here the sacred Ezer Responsa, which claims that a single man and someone who has relations with a woman who is no longer fertile are the same in terms of sperm being void, and that there it is not void because there is no possibility of procreation in such a situation. He cites the Maimonides, if I am not mistaken, and other Rishonim who say that sperm being void is like shedding blood. And he says that in his opinion they meant the situation of a fertile and pure woman who wants to have relations with her husband and also wants a baby, apparently. I would add that perhaps she also has to want it, but one can say that she is obligated to her by the mitzvot of atonement, because then there is potential for a baby, but it is like shedding blood. And in his opinion, when the Rambam says about those who commit adultery, he means in such a situation that all the conditions are here and the thing seems to have come into the world. He gives an example of harm. I'm thinking of a tree without fruit at the moment, but a tree that bears fruit. He adds that it is not a waste of the drops that are considered like water, but the continuation of the seed, and this is what the Arah and the Onan did. He brings an opinion that in metal, for example, there is a potential for safety. He has another article with Shai Stern that I didn't bring here on the subject of looking at women washing in the river and the reason for the prohibition. He says that he will not approach her and come to talk about indecency, but if he sins with her, he will also be obligated to look. But according to him, looking in itself is not a prohibition. The same is true in his opinion of films, pictures and paintings, where there is no chance at all of committing an offense with that woman, but also where if it is someone he knows and committed an offense with, then he will also be obligated to look. That's it. I would love to hear your opinion.

It is difficult to address such serious issues here. Simply put, there is a prohibition in the very act of looking, and the fact that it will lead to a transgression is only an indication. Therefore, the conclusion that when there is no chance of committing a transgression with that woman, there is no prohibition is not reasonable. And even if it does not lead to a prohibition with any woman, that is also not reasonable. Furthermore, the fear that Kerry will come to my aid at night is also a basis for the prohibition.

Okay. Regarding looking, I forgot to add that looking at a screen is not like looking at a real woman, since you only look at points of light on the screen that turn it into an image. He says, it seems to me that in such a situation, one does not pass by looking unless it is someone you know. Now, regarding sperm for nullification, his whole perception is completely different, and that is that as long as you do not prevent procreation in a place where you are supposed to procreate, then it does not count. Therefore, it would be possible to say about me, Keri Leila, that only in a situation where it prevents procreation. For those who say that nullification does not mean necessity. And they have determined what is necessity and what is not, and that is the majority, then yes, you are right. In conclusion, for those who say that it is from the point of bloodshed, then every time there is no chance of procreation, the prohibition exists. Then it does not matter in old age or a person with himself. If you want, also from the Kabbalistic aspect of the creation of angels of destruction, it is the same thing, unless a body and soul are created.