Raising Children and Gang Rape: Between Psychology and Logic (Column 227)

To murder the fetus and not the worker.

I tend to agree. One must remember that non-religious youth are very exposed to pornography, which of course distorts sexual perception (sexual orgies, or conquering a woman by force while supposedly she enjoys it), and about this it was said: “What is the son to do and not sin??”

There have been quite a few articles on the subject of minors being exposed, through WhatsApp groups, to sexual propositions as well as pornography. And as someone once said, if a gun appears in the first act, it will be used in the final act…

Whoever gives his children the tools to access such content should not be surprised if it also leads to the result of gang rape.

(As an aside, it would indeed be interesting to conduct a study among men from the religious sector who raped—where this is generally also a transgression punishable by karet—to see what caused them to commit such an ugly act. That is, what are its roots (whether they were exposed to pornographic material, etc.).)

Is sexual permissiveness good or bad?
The very phrasing embodies a false assumption, as if there has to be some sweeping social decision on the matter. For some people it’s good, and for others it isn’t. (Just as in swimming-pool locker rooms you’ll find people from across society walking around naked without any shame, while others are embarrassed and dress quickly while wrapped in a huge towel. Human nature is not uniform.)
A Christian approach to sex may be good for part of society, but bad for many others. It is also hard to say that it prevents extreme cases of rape.
It seems that an educational approach that on the one hand allows permissiveness, but on the other calls for examination and for sensitivity and humanity toward the will of the other person, should solve most of the problems. And this without suppressing natural and healthy drives. No?
And another note about the post before the previous one: there you did not rule out conversion therapy. But such treatments are psychological in character. And here you hint that you do not regard psychology as such as something reliable and serious. How do these things fit together?
And regarding the post before the previous one—I indeed broke down fairly near the beginning. Maybe it would actually be better to shorten things when they are harder for people?

Nice post! I suggest you move to a shorter concept. Much easier to read.

I didn’t understand why, when it comes to a popsicle, we succeed excellently in educating a child that he may eat freely, but if he takes from someone else he has to ask permission—and with sex it’s impossible to educate that it’s a legitimate thing as long as you want to, provided that you ask permission

From a non-religious perspective there is no reason sex shouldn’t be like a popsicle, and therefore in your proposal you are suggesting that we deny children something they can enjoy and for which there is no reason to deny them, just so they will relate to it as something one does not do freely, so that tomorrow they won’t be swept into doing it in a forbidden way
In my opinion that’s a bit unfair [it’s like in a society where thieves might grow up, we would prevent children from eating tasty things so they would regard them as special, and then tomorrow they wouldn’t steal them— even if in terms of the result it would help, it’s unfair to deny it to them, and most of the sane world won’t go for such ideas
Which means that mixed into your article is the fact that you are religious, or that you belong to a world that did not see sex as a popsicle, whereas our generation did the right thing [unless religion is true] and comes with the approach that if I’m not hurting anyone, then why not? For someone with that outlook there is no logic in preventing a child from sex because maybe tomorrow children will commit gang rape

“From a non-religious perspective there is no reason sex shouldn’t be like a popsicle”—are there no values at all in the secular point of view?
Prostitution, orgies, etc.—everything is permitted? Would a secular parent educate his children to such things?
Apparently either you’re Haredi and have created for yourself an image of a secular person devoid of any morality and values who spends all day looking to carouse, or you’re secular and have lost every moral norm, and therefore are not appalled at saying that “sex is like a popsicle” and that this is how one should educate in secular society..

Shimi.
This isn’t Facebook, and Rabbi Michi doesn’t prattle on in easy-to-read posts in order to get another unnecessary dopamine shot. The request for a shortened concept on Rabbi Michi’s home site—a respected philosopher and rabbi—if it does not verge on insolence, mainly teaches ignorance.

Thanks. Fixed.

I don’t think research is needed. The drive is a strong drive, and when it has no legitimate outlets, people act through illegitimate ones.

D
You’re playing innocent. With a tet and with a tav. Parents are not a factor in secularist society. His father and mother are the television and the smartphone. True, whoever placed him before this bowl of prostitutes are his parents, so in a certain sense there is some point in what you say (even a broken clock etc.)—that a parent in secular society has some part in his education.

Success

You did not understand me correctly. I did not say one has to be puritanical about sex. What I said is that you can’t dance at two weddings at once.

Usually we succeed both here and there, but in the sexual context the cases in which we did not succeed are more painful.

Eli, what are you talking about?
“Why is it that with a popsicle we succeed excellently in educating the child that he can eat freely, but if he takes from someone else he has to ask permission”
Do you know how many children actually do take a lick from a friend’s popsicle without asking? (Hint: many, many more than children who rape.)
What great success are you talking about?

D and Eli, see my remarks here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%97%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%9a-%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%93%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%90%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%a1-%d7%a7%d7%91%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%a4%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%9b%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%92/#comment-24386
D, you in particular seem not to have understood my words. Do whatever you want, just don’t come afterward with complaints.
Do you deny that in our society sex has become quite banal? Do you disagree that children and casual couples do it quite freely? It’s easiest for you to take this in the direction of orgies (though that too exists) and whine in passive-aggressive fashion about my unfamiliarity with secular people and my slandering them (I actually know them quite well. As in: …some of my best friends are). Why acknowledge facts if you can just wail?

Words of good sense from Rabbi Brandes. His words as a shofar for the generation, with a touch of prophecy in them;
Adultery, pride parades, and sacrificing sons and daughters to the Moloch of sexual freedom are the idolatry current today. The war against them is like the war of the prophets of Israel against paganism.

When one draws a symmetric parallel between the first five commandments and the last five, one finds that “You shall not commit adultery” parallels “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Adultery is the counterpart of idolatry on the plane between man and his fellow. The prophets likened the sin of idolatry to a wife’s betrayal of her husband.

In our day we are required to contemplate the parallel in the opposite direction—to infer from idolatry to adultery. Adultery, in our era, is the most sophisticated idolatry, and the war against the culture of adultery is entirely similar to the war of the prophets of Israel and our forefathers in earlier generations against the culture of idolatry. Like idol worship in its time, the ruling culture of adultery scorns and mocks anyone who does not believe in its beliefs and does not conduct his life according to its ways. Anyone who does not bow to the idols of promiscuity and does not sacrifice his sons and daughters to the Moloch of sexual freedom is perceived as conservative, outdated, and primitive.

Sex idols and rock idols

The amora Rav Ashi wondered how it could be that King Manasseh, son of righteous Hezekiah, devoted himself so fully to idolatry and caused all Israel to stumble with him. That wicked man explained to him that had he lived in his days, he would have grasped the hem of idolatry’s garment and run after it. So great was the power of paganism’s temptation in its time. When, a few generations from now, people come to investigate the history of our period, they will stand open-mouthed and astonished, perhaps also horrified, at the phenomena of this generation and the silence of its leaders and men of spirit. Like Rav Ashi in his time, no one will understand the force of the primitive subculture in which we lived and the helplessness in facing it.

How, the historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and philosophers who will examine our generations from the future will ask themselves, were mothers enticed to send their daughters into modeling, when everyone knew what that occupation meant in terms of the lifestyle it required, when all were exposed to the idolatrous image of that profession? How did they succeed in convincing the mothers and their daughters that there was a difference between selling the girl’s body to fashion photographers and selling it to pedophiles hoarding such pictures on their computers?

How could it be that an entire country was shaken once every few weeks, for two days, when it became known that a group of middle-school children had enticed or raped a girl from their class and distributed her pictures through cellular media—but after two days the media, and the state following it, turned to another news thrill, and nothing was done to reduce the availability of propaganda for licentious sexuality in all the media accessible to those children? How did they elevate to the rank of idols—and even use this very loaded term—to define “sex idols” or “rock idols”? How could the discussion around singing or theater and film idols be reduced to the question of whether the naive girls who thronged around them were minors or adults, and whether they themselves knew that they were minors? How could it be that when the discussion over the issue of minors ended without conviction, that was enough to return them to center stage and allow the priests of the cult of the “Baal” to continue nurturing, among additional battalions of fools, blind admiration for their idols?

The sages of future generations will study with amazement the testimony preserved from our time when they discover another strange custom. Whenever a public figure—an important politician, a manager in a public authority, a senior officer in the army or police—was suspected of adultery with a married woman or an unmarried woman, an emotionally charged discussion ensued over the extent of coercion he had employed. The use of authority against an adult woman, who “could not refuse” because she was surprised and embarrassed and feared for her continued employment, was considered a criminal offense justifying removal from office and even lengthy imprisonment. And rightly so. But how was it that almost no discussion took place, and certainly no significant conclusions were drawn, about the fact that an entire social mechanism had brought the woman to the point where it was not clear to her that she was supposed and entitled to refuse—to say “no” clearly and unequivocally, if not actually slap him across the face, or else: to leave her cloak with him and run outside, like Joseph, even at the price of imprisonment in the Egyptian jail. Is a culture whose behavioral codes it fosters are such not required to give an accounting and examine its conscience in the wake of these repeatedly recurring affairs among the great men of the state?

Betrayals as a decree of fate

And ordinary adultery? A man betrays his wife, a woman betrays her husband. This has happened forever, because the sexual urge is the strongest of urges. The novelty of our era lies in the moral legitimacy granted to adultery, and more than that—in turning the adulterous way of life into a social-cultural value. Cinema, theater, literature, popular music, internet sites and digital media, exemplary figures for imitation and admiration. No one condemns a celebrity, politician, artist, media figure, or writer discovered to have led a double life. His wife is expected to tolerate the existence of his “beloved,” and public discourse contains the experiential world of his children by his wife alongside his children by his lovers, without criticizing the phenomenon itself, as though this were a decree of fate or a deterministic natural law—that a person’s urges drive him to betray his wife, crumble his family, and there is no need to confront the sin before it happens or to agonize over it after the failure.

As part of the phenomenon of the cult of sexual immorality one could also count the issue of LGBT people. There is a significant difference between coping with personal human, psychological, and physical needs, and the “pride parade.” This parade, and everything culturally bound up with it, testify as a thousand witnesses that this is a culture with the characteristics of a classic religion. It has rituals, ritual objects, and as is customary in every religion—also severe prohibitions on voicing criticism or, heaven forbid, demonstrating against it. Even the champions of protest rights joined in defending the LGBT religion and in imposing a ban on any protest against it or emotional injury to its believers. For if there are still a few sanctified concepts left in our world about which one may not mock or criticize—LGBT people are certainly among the most sanctified.

As in the ancient days of idolatry in the pagan sense, guardians of tradition are pushed into a persecuted and defensive position. Some imagine that it is relatively easy for religious and Haredi society to cope with the ruling religion. Ostensibly, religious society shuts its children up in religious communities and separate educational institutions, with relatively careful supervision and militant counter-propaganda. But it is a mistake to think that religious society is not harmed. It is harmed directly by the fact that the plagues of promiscuity also affect it. It is harmed indirectly by the negativity inherent in the struggle: by turning all discourse on marital matters into discourse of “modesty.”

Religious society and promiscuity

Religious society adopts, as a mirror image, the licentious discourse: every meeting between boys and girls is perceived as an arena of promiscuity, the woman’s body has become an “object of prohibition,” and every thought and speech on these matters is lewdness. The consciousness deeply anchored throughout the Written and Oral Torah, and in the living tradition of Israel, according to which sexuality is a normative part of normal life and is meant for a life of purity and holiness, has been deeply damaged.

The problem is not religious and is not unique to religious society. The problem belongs to society as a whole, in Israel and throughout the world, even among the civilized nations, upon whom as well rests the obligation to observe the seven universal Noahide commandments, among them the prohibitions of sexual immorality. The responsibility of every person who has fear of God in his heart and for whom the future of the people of Israel in its land matters, is to fight—like the prophets who fought the prophets of Baal—the idolatrous culture surrounding us on all sides. I do not know what the right way is to conduct such a struggle, and whether a forceful struggle helps or harms, but it is clear to me that there is one kind of struggle whose damage exceeds its benefit: the “religious” struggle, which takes into account only the needs of the religious public.

Since the problem is a general social-cultural problem, one must create coalitions of organizations from all strata of Israeli society, which will place on their banner the defense of women’s dignity, the struggle against objectifying the body, and the reaffirmation of the “old family” against all who undermine it.

One must work to change the public attitude toward gossip columns, celebrities, and paparazzi, and to redefine objects of admiration and status symbols. Support and resilience must be given to individuals, institutions, and organizations that cope on the intellectual, spiritual, and practical plane with approaches encouraging permissiveness and promiscuity in philosophy, psychology, culture, and art. The concepts of good taste must be redefined, so that a respectable theater critic will not fear to write—if that is indeed his view—that a director who places nudity on the stage in a Shakespearean play is not necessarily “advanced,” but is engaged in prostituting art and cheapening it in order to attract an audience and publicity. So too a music critic should not refrain from writing that the success of a famous rock singer does not rest on her musical abilities, but on the fact that her lyrics and stage performance are more provocative than those of her peers who have not chosen to use prostitution-like tools at so extreme a level as she has.

The concepts “purity,” “modesty,” “love” (in its old sense, not the promiscuous and horrifyingly shallow one open to all), “fidelity,” and “holiness” are not religious concepts. They are foundational elements in the culture of the people of Israel, and as such they ought to be made accessible to Israeli society. Alongside “Israeli Shabbat,” “Israeli Shemitta,” and Israeli prayer groups, there is room to act in the sphere of the Israeli family. Clearly, as in the areas of Shabbat, Shemitta, and prayer, if all that the Torah of Israel has to say to Israeli society is halakhah, it will remain irrelevant and will fail to protect even its own sons and daughters. But when the language of Torah is translated into contemporary, up-to-date language, it will be possible to find many partners for the enterprise of smashing the idols that stands at our doorstep.

*

The eleventh commandment: it is impossible to add, and whoever adds detracts. The world was created with ten utterances; the Egyptians were struck with ten plagues; the kabbalists counted ten sefirot; ten Israelites are required for a minyan. But from the teaching of Hillel the Elder we learned that there is one commandment that can be counted before the Ten Commandments—not as an addition but as a meta-commandment, upon which the entire Torah stands, including the Ten Commandments: “Love your fellow as yourself.” It should be explained at length why all the other commandments are only detail and elaboration of this one. And about that Hillel the Elder himself already said: “And the rest—go and learn.”

See my response above.

Gil and Toheh,
In the future, place your reply in the relevant sub-thread (click “reply” after the first message in the sub-thread, not in the box at the bottom of the whole page).

With God’s help, 20 Tammuz 5779

In any case, in educating children and youth, whatever the goal may be, the foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to convey the messages in a short and easily grasped form. As the Sages instructed: “A person should always teach his student in a concise way.”

Especially in a generation and at an age in which hands are too weak to delve deeply in thought and study, so that it may come true: “And Amalek came [too long; didn’t read] and fought with Israel at Rephidim” 🙂

With blessings, Shatz

And on the substance of the matter, it seems to me—contrary to the education expert—that precisely standing firm on honoring grandmother even in a way that does not fit what the child feels like doing at that moment is what accustoms the trainee to the idea that another person’s honor requires giving up one’s own desire…

A word fitly spoken. I am glad for the coalition formed here with my friend Rabbi Brandes. This teaches you that a wise, open, and educated rabbi does not necessarily agree with all the crazes of contemporary modern society. It is definitely not a package deal, and one who accepts values like equality, human rights, attitude toward the different other (including women and gentiles), democracy, and freedom of speech does not also have to accept the rampant, self-congratulatory permissiveness in our midst.

In the last paragraph, line 1
… it seems to me, contrary to the education expert, that precisely the demand to honor…

The Talmud begins with tractate Berakhot and continues with tractate Pe’ah. Tractate Berakhot is the foundation of commandments between man and God. Tractate Pe’ah is the foundation of commandments between man and his fellow. The Rosh wrote in his commentary to tractate Pe’ah: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires more the commandments in which one also fulfills the will of people than commandments between man and his Creator.

Accordingly, Shadal wrote in the book Yesodei HaTorah: “If we wish to guide the child in a good path, and that our guidance truly be effective in correcting his traits, we have no choice but to strive to strengthen the sense of compassion planted in his heart, through speech and deed. For just as, if we accustom him to see acts of cruelty and to hear praise of the strong-hearted, there is no doubt that the compassion in his heart will weaken, and little by little the child will be transformed and become a hard and stout-hearted man, so if we accustom him to see acts of compassion and kindness and to hear praise of kindness and compassion and condemnation of hard-heartedness and toughness, the trait of compassion and mercy will grow stronger in his heart, and the child will grow and become a compassionate and merciful man, righteous, upright, and faithful.”

Modern adultery is a mass expression of a culture of “my power and the might of my hand.” Against it Zechariah preached: “Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.”

And the Gemara’s general guidance is: “Be careful with the honor of your fellows, and keep your children from higgayon, and seat them between the knees of Torah scholars” (Berakhot 28b). If adults do not respect one another and do not relate to one another as friends, how will they be a good example to children? If one burdens children’s minds with reasoning unsuited to their age, how will they not become confused? If one does not seat them between the knees of Torah scholars, from where will they learn the importance of peace?

My main problem with the Adlerian school, though I am not well versed in Adler’s writings, is that on the one hand they advocate respectful and open education toward the child/student.
And that in itself is necessary, because perhaps the parent or teacher does not know what the right path is, in addition to the fact that coercion does not really help the child, who must himself search for the right action.

But on the other hand they maintain that if you did not do this, then everything is pretty much lost as a deterministic derivative consequence, and that’s it.

Very disappointing. The parents had free choice, but the grown child does not?

With God’s help, 21 Tammuz 5779

To M-80—greetings,

The point of the commandment of Pe’ah (and of land-dependent commandments בכלל) is not only assistance to the poor, but the internalization that even my field and the produce in which I labored and invested are not truly mine. The true owner of the land is the Holy One, blessed be He, and the human being is in truth a “sharecropper” on his land.

Just as in Egypt, after Joseph’s “agrarian reform,” the lands were regarded as the king’s property. Their owners indeed received four-fifths of the produce, but the fifth given to the king clearly signified that the king was the landowner, and the farmer’s four-fifths were only his portion as a sharecropper.

So too the Israelite farmer must give a “fifth” to Heaven—first and second tithe (or poor man’s tithe) and terumah, such that before separating them he is not permitted to enjoy even his own four-fifths, for even in them he “receives from the table of Heaven.” And greater than them is the commandment of Pe’ah, in which the owner has no “benefit of discretion” to give them to whichever poor person he wishes; rather, he must leave part of his field ownerless and allow the poor to walk freely through his field and take as they wish the “gleanings, forgotten sheaf, and corner.” And in the sabbatical year, the entire field becomes “Pe’ah,” and the field owner is equal to the poor person.

Likewise, the commandment to bless God before every enjoyment ingrains in a person that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof,” and only after a person has acknowledged that everything belongs to God may he take and enjoy. Man is like a guest in the world, needing at every step the permission of the “Master of the house,” namely the Master of the universe. When a person is subject to the “Governor of the palace,” he is careful also with the honor of His creatures.

With blessings, Shatz

From the outset the Torah wanted the children of Israel to be landowners, and that their livelihood would come from honest labor dependent only on their toil and on blessing from Heaven, so that they would not need one another; however, if they should need one another, they should practice righteousness and kindness with one another.

The commandment of Pe’ah is not ownerlessness. If it were ownerlessness, the poor would be entitled to take whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and however they wanted—but that is not the case. Rather, the corner of the field belongs to the poor as a matter of law from the outset, and it is given in a way that guards against robbing the poor, against burdening the poor, against appearances, and against swindlers, and under conditions that take the field owner into account. The commandment of Pe’ah is a foundation for the commandment of charity, and it is specifically commanded to landowners, because their work is responsible for producing food, which is the most basic human need, and the Torah, which is a Torah of justice, obligates them first of all to care for the poor. Therefore, the obligation of Pe’ah precedes the obligation of tithes and offerings, and he always gives as Pe’ah and is exempt from tithes until he smooths the pile. And the poor’s gifts themselves are exempt from tithes and offerings. All this teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, cared about His own honor and gave precedence to the honor of the poor over His own honor, and just as He is merciful and gracious, so you too shall be merciful and gracious. And everything depends on the size of the field, on the number of the poor, and on humility. For because of humility comes fear of the Lord.

Thanks for Rabbi Brandes’s words! Where were they published?

Simply wonderful. Thank you, and I’d be happy to read more. Really many thanks.

“One cannot educate children and youth in an atmosphere of complete sexual permissiveness and even turn it into an ideology (while mocking the benighted religious people who make an issue of it), and then when the results arrive, wail and complain.”

“When the results arrive”? Can a direct and clear connection be proven?

I read your reservations, and the advantages you noted over the Walla post. Still… not from Walla shall the matter be decided.
Is there a way to find out the truth of the matter?

It would be important to see serious research data on this issue, in order to receive an answer to the question:

Are there *fewer* cases of rape in religious society, or in the religious society of the type that advocates your method?

Common sense says yes…

But I must admit that on more serious reflection, it sounds like there could be enormous difficulty in gathering data in religious societies… for reasons of cultural barriers and cooperation with authorities, etc.

In any case
I liked the post very much
Many thanks

P.S.
Don’t shorten the posts! ? It’s fun to read every time. Even if there are no comments, know that the posts are interesting, enlightening, and inspiring (at least for me)

Avraham

Rabbi Brandes’s words are from the newspaper Makor Rishon, the Ten Commandments project, several years ago. It appears on the paper’s website. Search Google using a quotation from a few of the sentences I brought.

Rabbi Michael,
In my opinion, you are mistaken.
The idea here is similar to the Talmudic concept: because you were stringent with her at the end, you were lenient with her at the beginning, and vice versa.
Precisely because women decided to be sexually liberated, they must be stricter about the prohibition against crossing the boundary of consent,
and conversely, the knowledge that any deviation from consent is considered rape allows them greater sexual liberalism.
In my opinion, you are intervening in a game that is not yours but belongs only to women.

Can this be translated into Hebrew?

alert('Hello')

So therefore there are no sex crimes in religious society, and certainly not in Haredi society—because there is no permissiveness there.
And among the methodological advantages of the method—there’s logic in it!

Honestly, what a collection of nonsense.
A man who understands a lot about the difference between casuistry and homiletics, but has never heard the word methodology in his life, argues on the basis of self-importance against a professional woman.
Did sir actually raise his children himself at all, or did some half-slave concubine—who is sometimes impure and one may not even take a fork from her—bear the burden?

Hello,
It seems demagogic to me to mix together irrelevant issues, as though if one agrees with you on one of them—then one agrees with you on all of them.

Rape is first and foremost a cultural-social matter, like most human behavior.
There are cultures that encourage it in certain cases—for example, against the background of indifference toward members (in practice daughters) of another people,
or that do not prohibit it unequivocally at certain ages (because it is “like putting a finger in the eye”)
(As an aside I would note that such approaches create an unequivocal separation in education between boys and girls;
boys are educated to indifference toward the other in general, and toward women in particular, and to the idea that women are objects whose value is measurable and whose feelings are of no interest to anyone, while girls are educated to contain the boys’ behavior, even when it concerns their own daughters.),
or, for example, against the background of blind attraction to authority figures (a Christian approach in itself), which distorts for authority figures their connection to reality (perhaps the phrase “a servant when he reigns” fits here, one who took “It is not in heaven” to a completely different place).

I would be happy to clarify any unclear examples.

Other cultures oppose rape in every context, including between a man and his wife, including with respect to the helpless and/or unaware, and including if the raped woman withdrew at the last moment, although until that point it felt fine to her (and let us ignore for the moment the difficulty of proving it. We are speaking here about principles. Right?), and learn to place the blame on the perpetrator with no connection whatsoever to the behavior of the raped woman, because—well—even modest girls are raped, and even by their modest family members.

About this the Sages said, “Remove the beam from between your eyes,” regarding the education of secular society, because the religious one is no better, only better at hiding it.

Hello Reut.
Allow me to begin with a recommendation. In the future, it would be advisable first to read, then cool down, and only afterward, if you still disagree, to write a reasoned and clear response. From what you wrote here it appears that you did not read my words, and certainly did not cool down, and therefore your response too came out as a collection of inflammatory declarations without arguments, and meaningless sentences.
This is first-rate methodological advice from one who has no understanding of methodology (only of the difference between homily and casuistry). As part of my methodological contribution to you, offered free of charge together with personal information, here are a few examples among very many:

1. I did not write that there are no sex crimes in religious society. On the contrary, I explicitly wrote that there are, and I even added that perhaps there are no fewer than in secular society. Here is a first example of why it is advisable to read the things before writing a response about them.
2. If you had cooled down a bit and only then written your answer, perhaps you would have produced sentences in which the words relate to one another, unlike the exemplary sentence: “Did sir actually raise his children himself at all, or did some half-slave concubine—who is sometimes impure and one may not even take a fork from her—bear the burden?” I have a guess what this sentence intends to say (utter nonsense, by the way), but in the future it is advisable to write in a way that will not require interpretive guesses.
3. Had you perhaps waited a little and not let your belly speak instead of your head, you might have checked a bit and seen that I have dealt quite a bit with methodology in various fields, and it seems to me that at least in light of what you wrote here I display greater competence in it than you do.
4. If you had read and/or waited, you would have seen that even here I explicitly addressed the methodological point, and wrote that my claim is one of logic and not the product of empirical research, and therefore does not require empirical confirmation.
5. If you had thought for a moment before writing, perhaps you would have troubled yourself to bring some scrap of an argument in addition to the collection of inflammatory declarations whose intellectual value and contribution to the discussion are zero.
Since the number of errors in the little passage you wrote is greater than the number of words appearing in it, I cannot continue. I hope that these few examples suffice to validate my advice to you.
Good luck, and think nothing of it.

To the one who “understands the matter,” may she live and be well. I am too insignificant to argue with such people who understand the matter, but in any case allow me first to refer you to my remarks to the one who preceded you (Reut). Now I will add a few responses specific to your message.

Rape is the product of several different causes and contexts, among them what you wrote. I wrote nothing different, and therefore I did not really understand why this introduction was necessary.
You are right that in a society that encourages rape and/or indifference, one may indeed expect the number of such cases to grow. I wrote nothing else.
But by the same token, one may expect that in a society that presents sexual relations as a banal, everyday act, the number of such cases will also grow. This does not contradict the previous claim.
I did hint at that factual claim in my words, and it seems to me difficult to dispute, but note that even this is not the main point of my claim in the post. The main point belongs on the logical plane, not the evaluative or factual one: whether these acts happen often or not, the outcry against them in a permissive society is hypocritical, because it stands in logical contradiction to the permissive atmosphere within which they are performed. That was my main claim.
For some reason I did not find in your words any reference to this claim of mine, but only to claims I did not make or incorrect objections to claims I only hinted at. I recommend to you, as to your predecessor, in the future respond to what I write and not to other things. One can of course write an independent message or article about whatever comes to mind, but a discussion is supposed to be conducted about the subject under discussion.

If we return to the factual plane with which you dealt, perhaps the conclusion from my words at the outset is that it would be worthwhile to build some kind of balance between these two models—not conservative Haredism and not permissive liberalism, but something in the middle. But as I said, my post did not deal with one model or another, nor did I criticize anyone on the evaluative plane or compare between them. In my words I only pointed to a contradiction in liberal discourse. That’s all. Once one understands this, all your remarks become completely irrelevant to my words in the post. Therefore your warm recommendations that I remove the beam from between my eyes are also incomprehensible to me. I did not say that Haredim are better morally, only logically. What I said was only that in liberal discourse there is an inherent contradiction: one cannot create a permissive atmosphere in which sex is a banal matter, and then when such an act (improper though it is) occurs, cry out as though the holy had been profaned. That’s all. My remarks deal only with logic.

Let me clarify again what I wrote also in the post: this is a logical claim, and as I explained it is not connected to research and the gathering of empirical information, nor to facts and reality.
Let me sharpen the point further. Even if you completely deny the influence of education and social atmosphere on what happens in society, at most you could argue that despite permissiveness one should not expect an increase in such acts on the factual plane. But this still does not touch my words, since I did not focus on the facts (whether such acts are expected or not) but on their meaning (whether when they occur this is some terrible desecration of the holy, or violence like any other violence).
Of course, given the strange assumption that education and atmosphere have no influence at all (which, as I said, does not touch the main point of my words), perhaps one can educate people that the act is banal and still expect them not to do it violently (and still one cannot cry out about the Holocaust and destruction). But then this whole discussion really loses its meaning. Why discuss something over which we have no influence?!
So there you have it: I have removed the beam from between my eyes and placed it between my teeth.

After offline discussions about this both with Rabbi משה (Ratt, who brought an important part of this article in a Facebook post) and with Rabbi Michi, I still want to add:
It’s exactly like with you and me, where openness creates challenges, but we do not give it up. The permissive person will tell you: what have you added? True, my approach creates a challenge, but I do not give it up, and I demand of myself and of others to cope with it.
That is the bottom line in my view. You have not added anything. So why did you write the article?
My farther-reaching claim is that once an article like this, which in fact adds nothing, is written by a rabbi for the public arena, in the end it produces a desecration of God’s name. Because its formulations contain all kinds of things to latch onto in order to attack, and in the bottom line, because there is no innovation whatsoever, the gain is not worth the king’s loss.

Hello Tzvika, as I explained to you repeatedly in our conversations, these remarks of yours, like the previous ones, are simply irrelevant to the discussion.
I did not argue that liberals need to give up their sexual openness, only that if they decided not to give it up, then they should not wail about it. There is a logical contradiction in their discourse. That’s all. If liberalism is good—health to them; let them embrace it and even increase it. That is not my subject.
I must say that this does not seem all that complicated to me, and I do not understand why it is so hard for you to understand what I wrote (because from your words it is evident that you simply did not understand. You are making claims that are beside the point).

What I’m trying to explain is that this is not just wailing. It is coping with a complex reality and a difficult task. Just as you take upon yourself to cope with modernity with openness, and know that this may produce casualties and nevertheless do it—on the one hand—and on the other hand do not stop educating and teaching how to behave and how to cope, and give your students tools for how to conduct themselves in this complex reality. Those “wailers,” in your words, are doing something similar. They are demanding different conduct in the face of a difficult challenge. Entirely legitimate, and to call it “wailing” is unnecessary and adds nothing.

(Now in the right place):
What I’m trying to explain is that this is not just wailing. It is coping with a complex reality and a difficult task. Just as you take upon yourself to cope with modernity with openness, and know that this may produce casualties and nevertheless do it—on the one hand—and on the other hand do not stop educating and teaching how to behave and how to cope, and give your students tools for how to conduct themselves in this complex reality. Those “wailers,” in your words, are doing something similar. They are demanding different conduct in the face of a difficult challenge. Entirely legitimate, and to call it “wailing” is unnecessary and adds nothing

I’ve given up.

Or somehow you missed something. I really don’t think I’m one of those who don’t know how to read a text, or who care to nitpick over trifles. My main claim is that the article is unnecessary. It adds neither information nor insight. Analytical emptiness, to use what I learned from you.

Sorry that I wasn’t clear; I’ll try to organize my claims
1. I understand that from your point of view, a woman who has no problem changing bed partners should not take her rape too hard
2. In my opinion your judgment is based on a lack of understanding of women’s feelings.
3. Apparently most women feel a dramatic and essential difference between consensual sex and forced sex
4. Therefore, from the standpoint of those women, there is no hypocrisy in holding a permissive outlook and being horrified by rape
5. I suggested as a conjecture that דווקא for women who advocate sexual permissiveness, it is important to entrench the horror of rape, because it is precisely for them that it is important to sharpen boundaries (between consensual sex—legitimate, and forced sex—extremely wrong) that enable them to behave permissively, in the knowledge that they can stop the situation at any stage

She can take the rape however she takes it. I am not telling women what to feel, nor am I arguing with what they feel. What I am claiming is that society’s free attitude toward sex does not fit the deep horror it expresses regarding sexual violence. That’s all.
And by the way, in the attitude of the women themselves there is also a contradiction. If they are horrified, let them think again whether they are willing to lend their hand to an atmosphere of sexual permissiveness. And if so—then let them go on being horrified for their own enjoyment.

Blah blah

And one can do “both and.” To explain the subject at length in all its sides and details, and at the end to provide a concise summary. As is the custom of the beloved king of his subjects: “Leonard Ferdinand Fedatzur, in short” 🙂

By the way, one may note what could appear to be a contradiction on the opposite side: the conservative attitude toward sex in the ancient world, and perhaps the lenient attitude (perhaps) toward rape in the form of a fine of fifty shekels of silver and an obligation to marry the woman (if she wishes), according to the Torah. Though it should be noted that fifty shekels of silver is the valuation of an adult male in the biblical period (that is, perhaps it can function as a kind of ransom for life), and the obligation of marriage to the woman (which includes the prohibition on divorcing her), which is a kind of taking responsibility for the reduction of her value on the marriage market.

I would add to your claim about sexuality as a popsicle—the exposure to pornography. And our culture, which has become more and more pornographic. And this is only a (well-known) result of such a culture.
One can also argue that it is a self-feeding cycle: a pornographic outlook that gives rise to an attitude toward sexuality that in turn feeds the pornographic outlook.

From the comments it seems to me that many did not understand Rabbi Michi’s popsicle analogy, so with his permission I will try to explain the same thing in another way. We educate that it is forbidden to murder and forbidden to steal. The prohibition against murder is more severe than the prohibition against theft, because a person’s life is more important than his property. Both are important; a person does not simply give either one to anyone who asks, but he gives his life up far less than he gives his money. Taking a person’s life by force is more severe than taking his money by force. What a person gives away less readily is more important to him, and taking that from him by force is more severe. Therefore it is a contradiction that in a society it should be accepted to give one’s sexuality with no problem, and on the other hand to claim that if it was taken by force, that is very severe. Another analogy: there are people who have a phobia of water and never enter a pool or the sea, and there are people who jump into the water every day. A person who is pushed into the water against his will—that is in any case not okay—but was something severe done to him?! If he is the first type, then yes, but a person who jumps into the water every day, then when he is pushed in too, even if it is not okay, cannot claim that something severe was done to him.

It seems that not only from a permissive point of view is it impossible to explain the depth of the injury in such an act. From any point of view one cannot understand the meaning of the thing. One can only see that in practice it is a terrible injury that leaves awful destruction and is described by victims as “the murder of the soul” and the like.

Definitely trivial, so I commented. Even though the previous one was even more trivial.

R. Michael, pardon me, I cannot manage to understand your argument.
The logic is clear, but it rests on an unclear assumption,
you assume that sexual permissiveness necessitates a cheapening of the concept of sex (the popsicle analogy), and therefore their exaggerated wailing regarding forbidden sexual acts is not understandable.
One can interpret sexual permissiveness in the opposite way—not as a cheapening of the concept of sex but as a moral loss of direction on an important issue involving drives, emotions, and values among the most important in human eyes,
(if sex were as marginal a matter as the popsicle analogy, then even in our permissive times novels would not be written and endless films whose central axis is sex and relations between the sexes would not be made)
It turns out that the interpretation of permissiveness is not lack of importance of the matter but exactly the opposite: it is such a strong and important matter that moves human beings (cf. Freud) that without a moral (divine) compass it is very hard to justify limitations on the matter when both sides are flooded with very strong drives,
but when the boundary is crossed, as in rape for example, where there is no mutual desire for the act, then an act very important in the eyes of both sides becomes the most terrible act imaginable.

An interpretation like yours could create a similar logical contradiction regarding murder.
Why make a big deal out of murder? Human beings beget human beings endlessly—what importance is there in one less person? After all, producing human beings is a trivial matter. In the old world, when the world’s population did not grow for thousands of years, every person alive was a big deal, but today the population grows to the point of explosion—what is all the wailing about murder?
Obviously that is utter nonsense,
but surely it is because of the importance and power of bringing life in the eyes of human beings that there is population growth, not because of a devaluation of human life.

With God’s help, 23 Tammuz 5779

To Ailon—greetings,

The natural attitude of Hebrew society (as opposed to Canaanite society*) toward rape was: “to kill the rapist and his accomplices.” Thus Simeon and Levi did to the men of Shechem, saying, “Should he treat our sister like a harlot?” And thus Absalom avenges his sister Tamar against Amnon. The incident of “the concubine in Gibeah” was the one thing around which all the tribes of Israel succeeded in uniting during the period of the Judges, and they went out in a war of vengeance against the tribe that covered for the perpetrators of the crime.

The Torah did not encourage personal blood vengeance. In the case of a murderer, the Torah transferred judgment from the “avenger of blood” to the court, which takes care to distinguish between intentional murder, which is liable to death, and accidental killing, for which refuge was provided through exile. And in cases of causing death through negligence due to failure to guard a goring ox, the Torah allowed the death penalty to be commuted by a ransom payment, and so too in the case of causing a miscarriage… and as the Sages explained, even in one who caused his fellow the loss of a limb, the Torah allowed the offender to escape the bodily punishment he deserved by means of a ransom payment.

In the case of direct killing, the Torah did not allow one to escape punishment—death for intentional killing and exile for accidental killing—but in cases of causing death through severe negligence, or of severe injury that did not result in death—although it brought severe consequences, severe physical and psychological harm—the Torah allowed one to escape bodily punishment by means of a ransom payment, which would give the victim an opening for rehabilitation.

And so too in rape: although it involves severe physical and psychological injury, it is impossible in rape to carry out “as he has done, so shall it be done to him”—and therefore the Torah preferred a punishment that contains both effective deterrence and an opening for the victim’s rehabilitation. In this way the endless chain of reciprocal acts of vengeance was also prevented.

Fifty shekels was an enormous sum in biblical times. With that amount one could buy “the sowing-land of a homer of barley” (about 18.75 dunams). Fifty shekels was the accepted sum of the “bride-price of virgins,” which was intended to give economic security to the woman in the event of the husband’s death or divorce. Payment of such an enormous sum, together with the need to be trapped for life in an unwanted marriage, constituted effective deterrence for one overcome by his urge.

And there was also in this an opening for the victim’s rehabilitation, as she was left with almost no chance of finding a proper match. Likewise, in the case of the loss of a limb, despite the severe physical and psychological harms, the Torah allowed escape from severe bodily punishment by means of ransom that would aid in compensating and rehabilitating the victim.

With blessings, Shatz

*) In Canaanite and Egyptian society, known for their permissiveness, as described by “the practices of the land of Egypt and the practices of the land of Canaan.” Every king and authority figure permitted himself to take “women from all whom they chose” without asking their consent, and Abimelech king of Gerar did not even understand what God wanted from him for taking Sarah, saying, “Will You slay even a righteous nation?” It did not occur to him that taking an unmarried woman against her will involved any moral defect whatsoever.

By contrast, among Abraham’s family, even for idolaters and deceivers like Laban, it was obvious that before marriage one must “call the girl and ask her opinion,” and even after marriage one may not treat her like a captive of war; and it is forbidden not only to afflict her, but even to take her from her native land and her father’s house against her will. Not for nothing, even though Jacob was commanded by an angel to return to his land, he sought the consent of his wives.

Both in severe bodily injury and in rape, there is always a problem of finding conclusive evidence as required in capital cases. Acts of this sort by their nature are not committed in a place where there are “two or three witnesses,” but in places where “the young woman cried out, and there was no one to save her.”

To bring a woman to testify and make her undergo again the trauma she experienced or witnessed through the “cross-examination” required of witnesses in court—the Torah did not want this at all. All the more so in situations where, in order to punish the offender, one must prove that there was no aspect of consent מצד the victim—so it is preferable to bring deterrence and compensation through “civil law,” where one can reach a reasonable “plea bargain.”

With blessings, Shatz

Honorable Rabbi,
A friend of mine is a therapist, so this is from a firsthand source..
Although they don’t talk about it in the Haredi community, I will shed some light on shocking data.
And on the fact that in Haredi society, which ostensibly maintains the utmost modesty and fences and so on,
there are many more cases of sexual abuse within the community and the family—not to mention how they are handled. Usually, that is; not across the board.
And if you ask me how?
After all, your claim says don’t permit, don’t cheapen, guard, prevent…
If you can explain that,
more power to you!
And another thing—according to your logic, nude beaches should be places where many rape cases occur!
And you’ll be surprised: that is not what happens in practice.
So I would suggest that you speak to people’s hearts regarding mental modesty as a way of life.
And deal with life, of which sex is a part,
in front of our children, in a gentle, calm way,
explaining to each child according to his age and understanding.
And above all, serving as a personal example as a parent and a human being.
Maybe then….
Phones used without restraint should be filtered—there is no shortage of software.
Guard their soul, heart, and eyes.
Speak cleanly and respectfully about the subject of sex if it comes up,
and if a question on the subject comes up, be ready with a clear, simple, lucid answer, because it is a natural part of life and of the Creator’s design.

Today you are the second person to raise an important issue in a negative way.
Try again in a positive light this time—come out with an appeal to parents of children, and there offer, in positive terms, everything you have:
how to guard, how to avoid, how to be careful, and of what,
there is no shortage…

And good luck,
Dabush Sarit

In the comment “Punishing the Offender or Rehabilitating the Victim”

In paragraph 2, line 3
… the Torah allowed to commute…

There, line 5
… who caused the loss of a limb…

In paragraph 5, line 1
… one could buy, for 50 years, land the size of “the sowing-land of a homer…

With God’s help, on the eve of holy Sabbath, “We will build sheepfolds here and cities for our little ones,” 5779

In Rivki Goldfinger’s article “Without Secrets” (Arutz 7 website, 17 Sivan 5779), the אנשי מכון “Bikdusha,” headed by psychologist Dr. Eliyahu Ackerman, provide “tips” for increasing safeguarding in the religious public, and emphasize the importance of the connection among children, parents, educators, and professionals, enabling early guidance for children about how to guard against abuse and how to deal with it if, Heaven forbid, it occurred.

The CEO of “Bikdusha,” Elazar Ansbacher, when asked, “Is there a difference in the scope of abuse between the religious public and the general public?”, replies:

“I distinguish between harassment and abuse… there is more harassment in general society than in religious and Haredi society, because harassment is connected to norms of modesty, and the norms in religious society are different. But abuse, which sits on other places in the soul, of violent drives of force and control, exists in all populations. I do not think one can determine that there is less abuse in religious society…”

And he recommends:

“The more we sharpen awareness, educate for sharing and discourse with parents and educators, and give abilities to set boundaries and say ‘no’ when necessary—the more we will provide our children with better protection… when you speak with your children honestly and openly, share with them and they share with you, the child will be protected. The depth of the injury does not depend only on the act itself, but also on what happens afterward. Will the child feel open enough to come immediately and share, and not allow the abuse to continue. The protected space exists not only by giving tools to avoid abuse, which is extremely important but not always in our hands, but also by creating at home a place of sharing, protection, and resilience.”

I recommend reading the full article.

With blessings, Shatz

Your explanation is a classic example of demagoguery; everything sounds nice and logical, and logically there are no jumps,
the problem lies in the assumptions and the analogies,
you compare sex to property, and in your golden language, “therefore it is a contradiction that in a society it should be accepted to give one’s sexuality with no problem, and on the other hand to claim that if it was taken by force, that is very severe”
In having relations, a person gives his sexuality? Is that what you feel? You give something to some woman?
Just because the same words are used in subjects different in essence does not make them similar; the fact that in both money and sex one uses terms like “entering one’s domain,” “coercion,” “granting permission,” and so on, does not make them similar,
The fact that permissive people have multiple relationships does not mean sex lacks importance in their eyes; it seems to me rather that it is very important to them and they long for connection with other human beings—they just do not know how to regulate their drives and emotions morally and logically,
Does the fact that a person has many children mean that his children are of no importance in his eyes?
Make an analogy between children and property: a person who has billions of dollars and had several million shekels stolen from him—nothing happened; so also a person who has many children and one dies—nothing happened?

The comparison should be to a society in which murder is considered a terrible thing, but suicides and assisted suicide are accepted and unproblematic.
In such a case there really should be a cheapening of murder.

That is not an addition but another aspect of the same thing.

Yaakov, I cannot even manage to extract an argument from this, so it is hard for me to respond.

The question is whether this does not mean that the permissive policy is problematic. The depth of the injury shows that there is some depth in sexual relations that ought to be preserved. But that is of course for the permissive people to decide.

??

I do not understand what is unclear. When people have casual sex whenever they want and with whomever they want, that is cheapening. It makes no difference at all whether it is because they fail to overcome their urges (many of them make an ideology of it). That’s all.
The analogy to murder is so absurd that I do not see any possibility of even responding to it.

Sarit, you need to examine your logic and your reading comprehension. I myself remarked on sexual abuse in Haredi/conservative society. Urges are not reserved only for the permissive. These arguments are beside the point. I explained my logic very well.
As far as I know, people at nude beaches go without clothes. I do not know whether there is cheapening there of sexual matters. And it is also possible that there are other reasons there that offset the issue. In short, in order to criticize my claims you need to grapple with the logic itself. Good luck.
One more clarification. If at nude beaches such acts occurred and people there cried out bitterly as though it were a Holocaust and a desecration of intimacy, perhaps there would be room for the comparison (subject to what I wrote above). It can be seen in the post, and I also explained it again above, that my main claim is not on the factual plane (that permissiveness causes such acts), but that a permissive approach that treats sex as something banal cannot cry out bitterly when such acts occur. Bitter cries are reserved for the desecration of a very deep dimension, not for banal acts even if they involve violence. Taking a popsicle by force does not justify laments of this sort, although it is not a legitimate act.

The meeting point between the social formation of a group of boys around a distorted model of “masculinity” dictated by a strong leader or by peer pressure, and a permissive Western culture of alcohol or drug parties—is destructive. Only when the majority of the public prefers in choosing its political leaders those who are “slow to anger better than the mighty, and one who rules his spirit than one who captures a city,” will the moral state of the youth truly improve.

Noam
And yet, even in today’s Western society, in which suicide, assisted suicide, and abortions are accepted, murder is a terrible thing,
(it seems to me more severe than in the old world). Do you think people are lying in their terrible attitude toward murder and rape?
It seems to me that people in permissive society are truly sincere in their severe attitude toward murder and rape; they are really sincere and not just wailing outwardly.
You surely agree that in nature there are no contradictions. Today’s psychological knowledge is admittedly not science, but surely there exists a scientific psychology that perhaps one day we will succeed in reaching, and certainly in that psychology (may we merit it speedily in our days, amen) there are no contradictions; it is part of the natural world,
how is it possible that a person who believes human life is cheap relates with very great severity to murder? Can one person believe contradictory things?
How is it possible that a person for whom sex is meaningless is genuinely shaken by an act of rape?
These are impossible contradictions in the human soul.

Answer: apparently a view that permits suicide, assisted suicide, abortions, etc. does not come from cheapening human life, but from additional values and conceptions, such as a person’s right over his own body, viewing the fetus up to a certain month as not a person, etc. etc. (each of which is a separate discussion)
Likewise regarding rape: permissive conceptions about sex do not come from cheapening sex but from values and conceptions that Judaism rejects.

It is worth noting that precisely the horror people feel at manifestations of violence, murder, and rape leads to the increase of those very acts. Media outlets interested in increasing “ratings” show scenes of horror endlessly, both in the news and in films. Teenagers and adults who watch every day an enormous quantity of horrific scenes develop either a craving for thrills of this sort, or conversely, coolness and moral indifference toward such acts. Either way, the horror “fulfills itself”…

And whoever is the man who desires life—let him accustom himself “to see good” and fill his life with positive content. The great primary sources of impurity are idleness and emptiness, which bring one to “boredom” (= “madness,” in the language of the Sages), and conversely, lives full of meaning and the joy of creativity reduce the risk of falling into a “spirit of folly.”

With the blessing of “Shabbat Shalom,” Shatz

R. Michael,
I assume that you too agree that the main thing in the sexual act is the intention and the psychological context in which it is done; the mechanical act is indeed devoid of real significance.

You write, “When people have casual sex whenever they want and with whomever they want, that is cheapening.”
If I understand correctly, you mean to say that if a person has casual sex there is no meaningful psychological layer at all in his actions; everything is done incidentally (there is no “intentional labor” here, he is “engaged unawares”), and this can be disputed. In my opinion there is a meaningful psychological layer even among people who have casual sex; apparently a warped meaning has been created for them, but one can give a psychological description of the deep psychological meaning even in a person who has casual sex.
You assume that your psychological meaning of sexual life is also their meaning. Truly, according to your conception of the meaning of the sexual act, it is inconceivable to have casual sex, and from this you infer that sex for them is meaningless.
Is it not possible to say that for them sexual relations have a meaning different from yours?

R. Michael,
What do you conclude from the contradiction you present—that there is no sincerity in the “wailing” about rape in permissive society, that it is all hypocrisy,
or that their mouth and heart are in agreement, only that they believe contradictory beliefs?

How many times does it happen that we ask a child to share a toy / gift / money with a sibling / friend / cousin? How many times do we not give in, and then a long and exhausting chain of persuasion begins: “It’s not nice, he’ll be hurt… he wants it too.” If that’s the case… don’t be surprised if your child grows up and commits an armed bank robbery

Michi

1. Not very long ago you wrote in some article about the distinction between a contradiction and a tension.
2. I think that in this article of yours you yourself failed in making that distinction.
3. The opposition between the permissive ethos and the horror (“whininess,” in your refined language) at sexual violence is not an internal contradiction of the permissive person.
4. It is only a tension.
5. Had your criticism of the permissive person been from the outset that he is not aware of this tension (or does not admit it), I would have agreed with you completely.
6. But you claim that “there is a logical contradiction in their [the permissive people’s] discourse.”
7. Since this is only a tension (and not a contradiction), I do not see any logical problem in permissive discourse.

I think there is something to Tzvika’s words, because in the bottom line we all do things because that is what we must and believe, and we take into account that there are harsh consequences. Does that make the consequences not harsh? Is it supposed to make us retreat? There is something very rational in this idea of Rabbi Michi’s, which perhaps stems from an approach to life such that he does not get excited when people insult him. Maybe it is simply an excessive maturity that we are not used to. And because of that perhaps Rabbi Michi also cannot grasp why it bothers people, because for them it is hard even though it may come and for Rabbi Michi it is not (difference of approach)

I see it as a contradiction, not a tension. If a sexual act is a banal act, then relating to it as touching the depths of the soul and the foundation of its intimacy contradicts that.

Amichai, when you respond it is advisable to read the previous messages. You are supporting a claim about which there was no disagreement, as I explained in my response to Tzvika.

1. A sexual act is not a banal act, not even in the eyes of the permissive person.
2. At most the permissive person argues that sexuality is something “natural and beautiful” and all sorts of hippie nonsense like that, but not a banal practice like going to the beach or watching television.
3. Beyond that, the tension here is not so much between whininess and the sexual act as between whininess and sexual coercion.
4. In the eyes of the permissive liberal, the “desecration of the holy” is created when one forces someone to do something he did not choose, thereby desecrating the sacred autonomy of the person.

I have already answered all that.

Yaakov M.
There are various kinds of suicides in society nowadays, but not on the same scale.

Yaakov, these are semantic sleights of hand. You can call it meaning, but there is still thinning-out and cheapening here. Therefore the cries of grief contradict their conception.

With God’s help, 27 Tammuz 5779

The end of the Cyprus affair raises the real educational question that ought to occupy us. Actual rape is treated severely by the law-enforcement authorities, but obtaining “consent” by means of seduction and social pressure—is that okay? And transmitting the embarrassing pictures to “the whole world” without consent—is that okay?

Educators must give thought to preventing an atmosphere of a “herd,” in which the individual is compelled by pressure to conform himself to the will of the many and to be “following the many to evil”; and similarly against the “culture” of taking pleasure in seeing another person in embarrassment and disgrace, one must seek ways of repair and prevention.

Not for nothing is the financial penalty imposed on the seducer no less than the punishment of the rapist, for one who causes another to sin is no less serious than one who harms him; and the “slanderer” is more severe than both, for he is both flogged and made to pay, since injury to a person’s honor and good name is no less severe than physical injury.

And the remedy is by cultivating feelings of brotherhood, responsibility, and the kindly eye toward the other, as Hillel explained that the essence of the Torah is: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; and the rest—go and learn.”

With blessings, Shatz

Short posts are excellent,
especially when people pray in express minyanim

In paragraph 3, line 2
… and the slanderer is more severe than both, for he is both flogged and made to pay, since…

Giving the wicked his due according to his wickedness 🙂

4. In the eyes of the permissive liberal, when you force someone to eat something when he doesn’t want to, is that a desecration of the sacred autonomy of a person? Does that even come close to the severity of sexual coercion? When a mother forces her son to eat, is she a criminal like someone who forces another person into a sexual act? The sacred autonomy of a person is not the severe side here; this is an unsuccessful evasion of the issue.

Moshe,

How did you reach the conclusion that I said what you attributed to me? I did not say that from liberal eyes forcing food and forcing sex are close in severity.
Not in the least.
I said exactly the opposite, namely that sex (and certainly forced sex) is not a banal practice like going to the beach or watching television.

Mmmmm

Doron
I referred only to your claim 4

Moshe,
Well..? So how did you reach the conclusion you reached?

Section 4 simply states this:

In the liberal’s eyes, human autonomy is “sacred” in general, not only in the sexual domain. (This is more or less his declared position).

Consequently, when that autonomy is violated in the sphere of sex—a sphere which for him too is more sensitive than other spheres (and this too is his declared position)—the violation is interpreted by him more severely.

In this respect the liberal is actually consistent with his own method, and therefore there is no logical defect in his declared beliefs.

That’s it

https://www.facebook.com/ilay.ofran/posts/2136501169805743?comment_id=2136547929801067&notif_id=1564750913168560&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

A nice and profound response by a psychologist, whom one should not belittle, nor his craft.

I see no logical connection between sexual permissiveness—namely, the freedom to do with my body as I please, in any sexual act—and a sexual act without another person’s consent, namely sexual violence, harassment, rape.
And if in a cultural sense—then there are no supporting statistics linking sexual permissiveness to sexual abuse

As I explained, sexual permissiveness creates an atmosphere that sex is a banal and ordinary act, and therefore one should not be surprised if people allow themselves to do it violently. I did not say that every person reaches violence, only that such an atmosphere brings extreme fringes to violence. In such an atmosphere this is like the violence of taking money by force or beating someone. That is with regard to the logic.
As for statistics, I do not know the data. But insofar as I can tell, the number of gang rapes in a conservative religious world is about 0. I already noted in my words that I am not dealing with the violence of an individual in private rooms, since there are good reasons for it in a conservative society (the strong urge together with inability to give it another outlet). For a collection of people to agree together to do such a thing, it has to be regarded by them as something not utterly unthinkable. If you have data on gang rapes in conservative society, I would be glad to hear.
Beyond that, I also argued that regardless of the prevalence of the acts themselves, the outcries against such acts contradict a permissive atmosphere. The outcries reflect the conception that this is the worst thing imaginable, whereas the atmosphere says it is no big deal.
It seems to me that all these are simple and correct claims.

With God’s help, 4 Av 5779

In my response above (from 23 Tammuz), “A Comparative Snapshot,” I brought an assessment by professionals from the institute “Bikdusha.” Elazar Ansbacher distinguished between harassment, which is less common in religious society because of norms of modesty, and abuse, which comes from another place in the soul, from distorted violent urges, regarding which “in the place where we live, we too are afraid.” (Although in my humble opinion it seems that the prohibitions of seclusion and touching greatly reduce the possibility of abuse and its severity.)

With blessings, Shatz

You are no less mistaken than she is. It seems to you from where you stand, and perhaps as a religious man, that there is some fixed point of reference from which everything becomes permissive or proper or conservative. But the simple fact is that each person draws that line in a unique and very different way. What suits and is natural and right for one does not suit another. The gap is always a gap between unique qualities that clash. For the same reason you cannot really compare between sectors or take one issue and infer from it to the whole, because you may look at modesty and translate it as humility, but perhaps that woman in a skirt and wig translates what appears to you as humility as diminishment or exclusion or humiliation, and as social pressure she has neither the strength nor the chance to free herself from—who knows? You? I understand myself and my experiences in the first person, and even that only in a limited way. People’s tendency to generalize and to know what others are going through, and also to be grandiose and connect their thought and action, as you exemplify in the article, is a large part of the problem.