I never comment like this, but it’s been a long time since I’ve read so much nonsense as in this article.

Among other things, he quotes the responsa Ezra Mikodesh here, which argues that an unmarried man and someone who has relations with a woman who is no longer fertile are the same with regard to wasting seed, and that there it is not “in vain” since procreation is impossible in such a situation. He cites Maimonides, if I’m not mistaken, and other medieval authorities who say that wasting seed is like shedding blood. And he says that in his opinion they meant a case of a fertile and ritually pure woman who wants to have relations with her husband and probably also wants a baby; I would add that maybe he also has to want that, but regarding him one could say that he is obligated to her in the commandment of conjugal duty. Because then there is potential for a baby, but it is considered like shedding blood. And in his view, when Maimonides speaks about those who “commit adultery with their hands,” he means such a case, where all the conditions are present and it is as though the thing was about to come into the world. He gives an example, I think, from damages, with a tree that has no fruit at the moment but is the kind of tree that does bear fruit. He adds that it is not the wasting of the drops, which are like water, but rather the continuation of the seed, and that is what Er and Onan did. He brings an opinion that in metal, for example, there is potentially a sword. Lei Stern has another article that I didn’t bring here on the subject of looking at women washing clothes in the river, and he says the reason for the prohibition is that one might have relations with her and come to sexual transgression, but if he actually sinned with her then he would also be liable for the looking. But he claims that looking in itself is not prohibited. The same, in his opinion, applies to films, photographs, and paintings, where there is no chance at all of committing a transgression with that woman, but even there, if it is someone he knows and he sinned with her, then he would also be liable for the looking. That’s the gist of it; I’d be glad to hear your opinion.

It’s hard to address such weighty topics here. Simply speaking, there is a prohibition in the looking itself, and the fact that it may lead to a transgression is only an indication. Therefore the conclusion that when there is no chance of coming to transgression with that particular woman there is no prohibition is not plausible. And even if he will not come to a prohibition with any woman, that too is not plausible. Moreover, the concern that it may lead to a nocturnal emission is also a basis for the prohibition.

Okay. Regarding looking, I forgot to add that watching on a screen is not like looking at an actual woman, since you are only looking at points of light on a screen that turn into an image. I think he says that in such a case one also does not violate the prohibition of looking unless it is someone you know. Now regarding wasting seed, his whole approach is completely different, namely that as long as you are not preventing procreation in a place where you are supposed to procreate, it is not considered prohibited. Therefore one could say regarding nocturnal emission that it is only a problem in a situation where it would prevent procreation. For those who say that “in vain” means “not for a need,” and they determined what counts as a need and what does not, and that is the majority view, then yes, you are right. In summary, according to those who say it is because of shedding blood, then every time there is no possibility of procreation the prohibition exists. Then it makes no difference whether it is in old age or a person by himself. If you want, from the kabbalistic angle of creating destructive angels, it is the same unless a body and soul are created.