Is Dating Tznius?

Home Forums Shidduchim Is Dating Tznius?

Tagged: ,

Viewing 50 posts - 201 through 250 (of 264 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1212095
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    I was trying to figure out if it was meant to be LF or LU.

    #1212096
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LF would have made more sense, but I wanted to check

    #1212097
    Joseph
    Participant

    If the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, in both Eretz Yisroel and America, came out with a Kol Korei that Bnei Torah and Bas Yisroels should not date but rather should conduct shidduch meetings exclusively in the parents homes or otherwise under direct parental supervision or nearby presence, how would the hamon hoam react?

    #1212098
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    It’s not going to happen. At best they would recommend it, but they wouldn’t demand it from everyone. It’s not realistic, and it’s not applicable for everyone. It’s not applicable for most or many older singles, people from Modern Orthodox families or baalei teshuva or anyone who is from the type of family that would make such a thing awkward.

    Additionally, until now I haven’t heard anyone suggest that there is any problem with the current system. And with the shidduch crisis and divorce crisis, I don’t think that making dating more formal and constrained than it already is is going to help.

    I think if anything, the solution to those issues is to make dating more casual and certainly not less so. I read an article about how the bas kol that comes out telling people who their zivug is something that the person is supposed to hear inside themselves when they meet their zivug but the problem is that there are too many people telling them what to do so they are not able to hear it.

    I think there is a lot of truth to that. I know a family that has a bunch of older single daughters. The mother told me once years ago that she feels a bit guilty because one of her daughters was once going out with someone whom she actually liked and she made her stop going out with him because he only learned half a day. This happened many years ago and both the girl and all of her sisters who were single at the time are still single and they are all in their 30’s or 40’s. I think that changing the system to the way you are suggesting would exacerbate some of these problems.

    I could hear where it might make sense to change certain aspects of the dating system (like the part about his picking her up in a car as was discussed in this thread), but I don’t think that everyone should start having sit-ins.

    I’m curious as to why you feel so strongly about it. Are there things that you’ve seen or heard that made you feel this way? Why is it such a big deal to meet in a hotel lobby?

    #1212099
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    There is something I have been wondering about. When I first started dating, I was super-uncomfortable, having basically never spoken to a boy in my life. I am sure that there must be many others who feel this way.

    Who are all these people engaging in “schok and kalus rosh” on dates? Does this really happen or is this an assumption being made? Who are you talking about? Are these modern boys and girls? I find it hard to imagine that the average Yeshivish Yeshiva Bochur or Bais Yaakov girl is so comfortable going out with members of the opposite gender that that is a problem. Am I very naive? Are we talking about a completely different type?

    #1212100
    benignuman
    Participant

    Lilmod,

    From what I have seen, early dating is as you describe. But as the couple become more relaxed with each other, and/or as the individuals have dated more people, things change. Yes, the less yeshivish you get the worse the problem becomes, but even with BMG boys schok (as I defined it earlier) is the norm not the exception for later dates.

    I don’t think these Yeshiva boys and Bais Yakov girls think they are doing anything wrong. They are simply not informed.

    #1212101
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Benignuman, thanks for clarifying. I have a lot to say when I have time to think about it, but I appreciate your clarification because I was confused about that.

    I don’t think that Joseph is talking about the exact same thing as you. He seems to think that everyone should start having b’shows, which does not follow from what you are saying.

    #1212102

    lilmod ulelamaid,

    Same here

    “There is something I have been wondering about. When I first started dating, I was super-uncomfortable, having basically” rarely spoken to a girl

    #1212103
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    IITFT – Thanks for the confirmation! +1

    #1212106

    lilmod ulelamaid

    Would you explain how you managed?

    #1212107
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    My first two dates were horrible. After that, I was fine. Meaning, I wasn’t uncomfortable, and I had no problem sitting there making conversation. But it was kind of like the same way that I would have no problem sitting and making conversation with a wall.

    #1212108
    TruthWins
    Member

    When our communities sustain an environment that doesn’t allow for any interaction between the two sexes, we are ultimately causing boys and girls to be so completely uncomfortable with each other that the only method that allows them some level of productive interaction is when they’re huddled in the parents’ dining room, with their parents with them.

    We continue this trend even once they’re engaged: We discourage too much interaction between them, limit how often they can see each other, and then force an exuberant wedding on them so they don’t have to focus on each other, but rather, the beautiful venue, food, flowers, and untold amounts of needless gashmius. We then continue to distract them from each other for the next week with Sheva Brachos, until finally, reality sets in, and they’re forced to learn how to interact and live together. For some, it’s too late.

    #1212109
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    For some, it’s too late.

    The solution is NOT to let them hang out like Perutzim before Kiddushin. If you want to argue that they need to be taught how to live with others and how to budget, I’m all ears.

    #1212110
    TruthWins
    Member

    “The solution is NOT to let them hang out like Perutzim before Kiddushin.”

    GAW, did my post imply that anywhere? Of course I don’t endorse that as a solution.

    In reality, there is no one correct method, because people are wired differently. Some need significant interaction and a certain level of comfort before committing to a lifelong relationship. Others can just jump right in and work it out themselves after marriage.

    The solution is to know yourself, know what works best for you, and that the people whom you trust and depend on should empower you to follow through with it, and not force you into using a method that you aren’t comfortable with.

    #1212111
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “The solution is NOT to let them hang out like Perutzim before Kiddushin.”

    +1 (although personally, I don’t think that going bowling counts as “hanging out like perutzim”).

    #1212112

    When wedding celebrations started having separate seating as de rigueur

    Rav Joseph Breuer was perturbed .He asked'”How else are young men and young ladies going to meet “

    Separate seating today is proper and good ,but probably there should be a mixed smorgasbord or something for those in their 20s & ready for shidduchim in a another room

    #1212113

    typo an another

    #1212115
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    In reality, there is no one correct method, because people are wired differently. Some need significant interaction and a certain level of comfort before committing to a lifelong relationship. Others can just jump right in and work it out themselves after marriage.

    The solution is to know yourself, know what works best for you, and that the people whom you trust and depend on should empower you to follow through with it, and not force you into using a method that you aren’t comfortable with.

    As long as it is L’Toeles and not S’chok, I have no issues. You seemed to bring up the old argument that boys need to interact with girls in order to be comfortable when dating, which is hogwash.

    #1212117
    TruthWins
    Member

    “As long as it is L’Toeles and not S’chok, I have no issues.”

    Some people need to know they can laugh and joke together in order to have a connection. In which case it is l’toeles.

    “boys need to interact with girls in order to be comfortable when dating, which is hogwash.”

    My point is that many boys and girls have an extremely difficult time being open and engaging in normal dialogue on dates because they’ve been hardwired to repel exactly that. For them, a potentially more constructive option is to have it all “set up” in their parents’ dining room beforehand.

    So on your point, I’m not suggesting they need to interact with the opposite sex in order to be more comfortable on dates. I’m suggesting that they at least understand HOW to have such interaction when the proper time comes, and realize the following:

    1. Your date is not to be treated or talked to the way you treat and talk to your buddies.

    2. Your date is of the opposite sex, and therefore, you should understand that you will see things differently. Internalize and respect that.

    #1212118
    reuventree555
    Participant

    For all of you who are advocating essentially only having beshows, did you have one? Or do you plan to have one when you start dating? If you didn’t and don’t plan to, then stop advocating for it. Very simple. You just sound delusional and hypocritical- if you are saying that the current dating system is wrong and yet you’re not willing to do what you think is right.

    Either follow through with what you’re saying is right or please stop talking.

    #1212119
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Some people need to know they can laugh and joke together in order to have a connection. In which case it is l’toeles.

    Laughing and joking and fun is not the “S’chok V’Kalas Rosh” that we are discussing. Please see earlier in the thread.

    Is Dating Tznius?

    So on your point, I’m not suggesting they need to interact with the opposite sex in order to be more comfortable on dates. I’m suggesting that they at least understand HOW to have such interaction when the proper time comes, and realize the following:

    1. Your date is not to be treated or talked to the way you treat and talk to your buddies.

    2. Your date is of the opposite sex, and therefore, you should understand that you will see things differently. Internalize and respect that.

    So you believe the real problem is that boys are not getting appropriate hadracha from either their parents or their Yeshiva.

    #1212120
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Laughing and joking and fun is not the “S’chok V’Kalas Rosh” that we are discussing.”

    Actually, I thought that was what Benignuman had been talking about. I also thought that you had agreed with him, but apparently I was wrong about that.

    If that’s not what he meant, I wish he would clarify. I thought that he was saying that having fun on a date is by definition “s’chok v’kalus rosh”, and I thought the discussion here was about whether or not it’s okay to have fun on a date as opposed to just sitting in your parents’ living room having a boring conversation.

    Not that there is anything at all wrong with the latter if it works for people, but it seems to me that there are people for whom it doesn’t work.

    How exactly are you defining “schok v’kalus rosh” if that’s not what you meant?

    #1212121
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    How exactly are you defining “schok v’kalus rosh” if that’s not what you meant?

    Is Dating Tznius?

    It has to be flirtatious. As pointed out there, I can play a game with my SIL (who is a woman) and have fun, even laugh, but not be flirtatious.

    #1212122
    TruthWins
    Member

    “So you believe the real problem is that boys are not getting appropriate hadracha from either their parents or their Yeshiva.”

    Correct. What they are getting instead is an unequivocal message that having any interaction with women is wrong on all accounts (save, perhaps, for immediate family), and then they are suddenly thrust into a world of dating where they are expected to have meaningful and productive conversation with a woman they don’t know.

    #1212123
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Gavra at Work – thanks for clarifying. I don’t think that’s what Benignuman was saying though. He seemed to be saying that just having fun and/or laughing on a date were problematic. He also seemed to think that what he is talking about is something common amongst typical Yeshivish youth, and I don’t think these people flirt.

    And Joseph was talking about how everyone should have b’shows.

    #1212124
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    He seemed to be saying that just having fun and/or laughing on a date were problematic.

    And Benignuman was Modeh that I may have a point. See earlier in the thread.

    His concern that a couple will flirt once they know they are getting married.

    I can’t speak for your doppelganger Joseph 🙂

    #1212125
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW, Benignuman wrote: “From what I have seen, early dating is as you describe. But as the couple become more relaxed with each other, and/or as the individuals have dated more people, things change. Yes, the less yeshivish you get the worse the problem becomes, but even with BMG boys schok (as I defined it earlier) is the norm not the exception for later dates.”

    He is not only talking about once they know they are getting married. And either way, I can’t imagine that he thinks that flirting is the norm for typical seriously-Yeshivish youth.

    Unless he is defining flirting very differently than I would. Maybe he is defining flirting as any kind of “laughing and having fun” in which case we are back to Truth Wins and my contention that some people need the “laughing and having fun” before they can get engaged/married. And I think this is particularly true for older singles.

    #1212126
    kitov
    Participant

    On the subject of dating.

    First we have to admit that yichud is prohibited.

    There can be no lieniency on this point.

    Furthermore the prohibition of yichud dating is veharag Val yavor.

    We have to withdraw from this type of dating as soon as possible.

    Having made that point it’s important to note that there is a shiduch crises going on and we need to find solutions before it gets worse.

    There are kosher dating alternatives for our generation.

    I believe speed dating events organized and supervised by our rabbinical leadership can solve the problem.

    #1212128
    kitov
    Participant

    Modern technology is also a solution.

    Men an woman can hold video conferences.

    Woman dressed modestly of course

    And talk as long as they want untill they are ready to take the next step.

    To marry after only a brief beshow.

    May end in a tragic divorce.

    No one should be hustled into a marriage before they know each other well.

    Those frumies who pressure people into quickie marriages should be put into chairim (excommunicated)

    #1212129
    kitov
    Participant

    Someone said yeshives couples have fewer divorces.

    That maybe true but it doesn’t indicate these couples have happy marriages

    It may indicate these couples have unhappy marriages but are staying together for the sake of the children or the fact that divorce is often more painful then staying together.

    A Talmud chacham actions are more rational then emotional.

    #1212130
    kitov
    Participant

    Stika kehoda ,if there is no rebuttal to my controversial statements then according to the Talmud I must be right.

    #1212131
    Meno
    Participant

    “if there is no rebuttal to my controversial statements then according to the Talmud I must be right”

    Or people might be sleeping/getting ready for Shabbos. Don’t ask what I’m doing here.

    #1212132
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Applying shtikah k’hodo’oh here makes even less sense than your other comments.

    #1212133
    Lightbrite
    Participant

    “Those frumies who pressure people into quickie marriages should be put into chairim (excommunicated)” (kitov)

    kitov: It’s not just certain individuals. It’s cultural pressure. It’s societal pressure to get married or else you cannot participate in x, y, z, aleph, and so on.

    Unless unmarried men in his community also wear tallis gadols, a man needs to otherwise be married to done one in shul.

    Not being married is a very obvious thing for Jewish men and women who want to be a part of a community. Being married opens one up to social and economical benefits.

    The people doing the pushing are just a reflection of the greater pressure to be coupled up and have this Jewish life of family and children to get to the next level.

    At least that’s how I see it.

    #1212134
    Lightbrite
    Participant

    *don

    #1212135
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Or people might be sleeping/getting ready for Shabbos.”

    Or keeping Shabbos, and then sleeping through the Taanis.

    #1212136
    benignuman
    Participant

    To be clear “schok” and “kalus rosh” are two different, but related, things.

    In my understanding “kalus rosh” means “flirtatious talking or behavior.”

    In my understanding “schok” means having fun or laughing together in a non-platonic manner.

    While I fear that kalus rosh is problem particularly in the post-engagement stage, my primary concern is with the schok that goes on after the first few dates when the couple start trying to have fun together. It seems to me that “having fun together” on a date is by definition schok because the purpose of the fun is to create and bolster a non-platonic relationship (unlike playing ping-pong with your sister-in-law).

    What I understood gavra-at-work to be arguing was that “schok” requires something beyond non-platonic, (i.e. something that would lead to a more immediate danger of issurei kares). I am not sure I buy the chiluk (are there any objective activities that are forbidden according to GAW because of schok? Does it all depend on the intent of the parties?).

    #1212137
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – I’m using the Shach’s language of “Margilin L’Ervah” in YD 195. So yes, that does depend on intent in many scenarios. The source (Avos D’Rav Nassan) compares it to Chibuk V’Nishuk.

    Where I think we disagree is that having fun together is bolstering the “non-platonic”ness of the relationship, just because the relationship will culminate in a non-platonic fashion (hopefully). One can and should bolster the “platonic” aspect of a relationship even when they are married (during certain times .), and that doesn’t mean a couple can’t talk and laugh together as long is it is not “Margilin L’Ervah” (For example, one tells over something funny that their child did that day).

    #1212138
    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Where I think we disagree is that having fun together is bolstering the “non-platonic”ness of the relationship, just because the relationship will culminate in a non-platonic fashion (hopefully). One can and should bolster the “platonic” aspect of a relationship even when they are married (during certain times .)”

    I don’t think things are so black and white – that something either is completely platonic or non-platonic. I thought that both aspects are usually there. Even when one is “bolstering the “platonic” aspect of a relationship” it doesn’t mean that it the relationship (at those times) is completely platonic.

    The same would go with dating. I have always been told that any relationship between a male and female is by definition non-platonic which is also why I was under the impression that it is assur for men and women to talk to each other more than necessary. It doesn’t mean that it is completely non-platonic, but it is not completely platonic either (which would therefore make it non-platonic, since anything that is not completely platonic is non-platonic).

    I very distinctly remember one of my Rebbeim (someone who was a known Talmid Chacham) saying, “There is no such as a platonic relationship.”

    #1212139
    benignuman
    Participant

    GAW,

    My understanding is that schok is assur because it is a type of activity that is margilin l’erva. It is a gezeira that applies to people even if they are certain that it won’t be margil them. (?????? ???????? ??????, ??????? ????????? ?????, ???????????? ????????? (Avos 3:13)). If a gezeira only applies to the action when it is undertaken with the intent of being margil l’erva, then just say it is assur to be margil l’erva. Remember chibuk v’nishuk with ishto niddah is assur even without any intent.

    The Shach is explaining kalus rosh with words. He is saying that if these are the types of words that are margilin l’erva, it is assur, regardless of any actual intent to be margil. I think you’re better argument is that this type of fun is objectively not schok. But that begs the question of what activities would constitute schok.

    With respect to married couples, because they are already married the are not trying to laugh and have fun together to strengthen (or create) their non-platonic relationship, they are just going about their regular day. But to go out on a date-night to an arcade b’es niddasa would be assur.

    #1212140
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – That deals with activity. I strongly hesitate saying that playing a game is Margil L’Ervah by definition. The Tur/Shach is almost using the Mishna quoted to define ??????? ????????? ?????. I can do the same exact action with different people, and with some it would be ??????? ????????? ?????, others not. That shows it depends on “intent”. Using your example, I can play arcades with Ittisa, my daughter, my sister, my neighbor’s wife, a co-worker (male or female), or my son. Some are ???????????? ?????????, others not. You can’t say that it is (by definition) for a Niddah, but is not for a real Ervah (such as a sister-in-law).

    I brought the Shach to define the Dibbur. Once you agree that “laughing” is not “Schok”, you need to have a definition of what type of Dibbur is Assur, that which is “Margil”.

    LUL – Your point touches on a large Machlokes Rishonim with many Nafkei Mina in the Halachos of Tznius, Ervah, and Histaklus. We can start a new thread if you would like.

    #1212141
    benignuman
    Participant

    GAW,

    The difference is not intent (subjective) but context (objective). Playing arcades with your sister-in-law on an outing with your wife and children there is not ???????, but playing the same arcades on an outing just the two of you would probably be schok. The difference isn’t the type of Erva but the context. Do you think that it is mutar to have a date-night at an arcade with ishto niddah? If not, how is a dating couple different?

    I believe that the “dibbur” in the Ramah and the Shach is going on Kalush Rosh and the point is that flirtatious talk with an Erva is assur even there is no actual intent to be margil. For example, some salesmen will give inappropriate compliments to female customers in an attempt to make a sale. That would still be kalus rosh.

    #1212142
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    The difference is not intent (subjective) but context (objective).

    I can agree with this. We then have the question if during dating/engagement the context is ??????? or Toeles.

    I believe that the “dibbur” in the Ramah and the Shach is going on Kalush Rosh

    So then please define ???????. You previously said “In my understanding “schok” means having fun or laughing together in a non-platonic manner.”

    How would you define a “non-platonic manner”, and is it automatically a “non-platonic manner” when dealing with an Ervah?

    #1212143
    benignuman
    Participant

    A “non-platonic manner” is when the actions themselves or the context around them indicate that the purpose of this laughing and having fun is not just for the fun itself but to create, strengthen, or maintain a non-platonic relationship.

    To answer your question it is not automatically a “non-platonic manner” when dealing with an Ervah. It depends on the context as I described earlier.

    #1212144
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    A “non-platonic manner” is when the actions themselves or the context around them indicate that the purpose of this laughing and having fun is not just for the fun itself but to create, strengthen, or maintain a non-platonic relationship.

    And I’m not certain that is correct, only if the manner is not platonic (the Shulchan Aruch’s “Shema Yargil”), and not L’Toeles. It certainly could be, depending on the situation and context.

    Have a look at the Beiur HaGRA there in Yoreh Deyah.

    #1212145
    benignuman
    Participant

    GAW,

    I am not sure how to interpret that Biur HaGRA and the quote from Avos D’Reb Nosson. Chibuk v’Nishuk is an issur d’oraisa (according to the Shulchan Aruch) from the posuk of “lo sikrivu” but dibur, even of kalus rosh and schok, is only assur m’drabbanan. But the Avos D’Reb Nosson cited by the GRA conflates them.

    One of my main points in my original post on this subject, and where I thought the most contention would be, was that there is no heter of “l’toeles” for ??????? ????????? ?????. The “l’toeles” heter brought down in the Shulchan Aruch is specifically for histaklus.

    Note: You haven’t answered my question about date-night with ishto nidda.

    #1212146
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – The GRA says Devarim Bteailim, so Toeles seems to possibly apply to Dibur as well.

    I’d need to Chazer the Harchakos to see exactly where the “Date night” comes from, perhaps the idea of making a Tiul?

    #1212147

    LU,

    In which Country were did your dating experiences happen?

    #1212150
    benignuman
    Participant

    Gavra,

    There is an issue of tiul that is brought down in the Terumas Hadeshen (and the Taz cites it) although it is unclear if the issue there is method of travel (shakey wagon) or the outing. But I would have said that this is an issue of schok that is certainly forbidden.

    However, I have just discovered a Sh”v’T Davar Moshe that makes the exact chiluk you made and allows a couple to play ping-pong b’es niddasa.

    http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=887

    #1212151
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – Thank you. I will have to go through the Davar Moshe (Siman 66) thoroughly.

Viewing 50 posts - 201 through 250 (of 264 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.