November 11, 2013 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #987646
WIY, are you a man? What’s your reaction? The fact is that noticing that a woman is attractive isn’t assur. otherwise Beis Yaakov meidlach wouldn’t make an effort to look attractive, get dressed up and made up, for shidduch dates. “Evil thoughts” are assur. Most men, Jew and Gentile, don’t entertain such thoughts. Unless you are a man and actually have such thoughts, what you were taught is nonsense.November 11, 2013 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #987647
Im a man, the point is that when a woman dresses Tzniusdig the thoughts dont usually lead to anything inappropriate but when the woman dresses in a way that is not just attractive but attracting it causes a man to look and desire her. For most women to desire a man in such a way requires she know him personally and like him very much and have some kind of personal relationship with him. For a man though, if she looks provocative the thought can be triggered over a perfect stranger. We work very differently than women. Thats just the way Hashem made things.November 11, 2013 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #987650streekgeekParticipant
Mods, I’m giving this thread one more try and then I’m done. Please see this revised edition:
WIY – when I first brought up this topic I included an extreme example I’ve heard from a teacher that (I thought) made no sense. (Which the mods deleted it, and rightfully so…) I know a woman dressing provocative can be harmful for a man, but some of things we are told not to do is not in any way provocative or demonstrative. So I was just wondering how different a man’s brain could be already and if it actually makes sense… But from the amount of posters that are saying it does – I guess I’ll never understand 🙁November 11, 2013 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #987651
I think it is safe to say that a woman will have a difficult time understanding what goes through the mind of a man, while a man will have a tough time trying to understand what it is that makes women want to dress a certain way.
(I hate using the term tzniyus as a verb, but it seems such a common usage I will use it for my point) Acting tsniyusdikly can also be attracting, as evidenced by the chazal that Boaz “noticed” rus. It isnt necessarily the “attracting” part that is in poor taste (one can make a positive impression too), it is what one does to attract the attention that can be problematic.November 11, 2013 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #987652
WIY firstly, i disagree with your basic premise about instant desire. While I concede that men are more easily enticed than women, for most men in my experience, Jew and Gentile, admiration does not imply deep desire anymore than admiration of a beautiful house or car implies instant deep desire to possess same. Secondly, the thread is not about women dressing provocatively. It specifically refers to “technically” tznius attire. By definition, women’s attire that conforms to halacha is not provocative. It may be attractive but that’s okay. Halacha does not require women to dress like slobs or Muslim women in burqa.November 11, 2013 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #987653twistedParticipant
“its chukas haztionim”
I got it Popa, I work ergo I am a tzioni. I work in shmutz, and wear blues and khaki so I am a farbrente tzioni. It happens to be that I am tzioni, because Hashem is also a tzioni, directing that we should live in EY and demonstrate sovereignty. I know the sovereignty is not the right flavor yet, but we have to do hishtzdlus. The bones of Nachal Dura had to start off with bones, then giddin…And since my work is somewhat essential to yishuv ha’aretz, my denim is a hechsher mitzva.November 11, 2013 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #987654
When was the last time you were a man that you talk so authoritatively about what goes on in mens minds?November 12, 2013 5:07 am at 5:07 am #987655jewishfeminist02Member
“For most women to desire a man in such a way requires she know him personally and like him very much and have some kind of personal relationship with him. For a man though, if she looks provocative the thought can be triggered over a perfect stranger. We work very differently than women.”
I can’t speak for men, but I do know that women (based on my experiences and those of my friends I would even say most women) do NOT need to have a personal kesher with a man in order to desire him. The thoughts that I had about men I didn’t even know at the pool was exactly what led me to stop going mixed swimming when I was in high school (I thought I had written about this here 4 years ago, but I can’t find the post now). Now, men who are not “classically good-looking”– yes, we need to know who they are before we start having those thoughts. But there is such a thing as an objective standard of beauty, and someone who fits that standard– especially while wearing very little– can be very distracting.November 13, 2013 9:09 am at 9:09 am #987656frumnotyeshivishParticipant
Jfem – you said: “I can’t speak for men, but I do know that women (based on my experiences and those of my friends I would even say most women) . . . desire [unknown men].”
How is it that you “can’t speak for men” but could speak for “my friends”? Are you saying you don’t know any men?
Additionally, even if you could accurately speak for your friends, it may be a stretch to project their experiences onto “most” [religious] women. It may just be a flawed sample.
While women too were created with some animalistic tendencies, they are [thankfully] not nearly as overpowering as those that men have, giving women a far, far, easier time controlling inappropriate thoughts. Witness in the secular world, who is trying to convince whom to be immoral sooner.
That said, women can likely desensitize themselves, and sacrifice some of their inherent advantage over men in this area.
Feminists and their friends, who campaign against things like abstinence education, and advocate for things like birth control to be more and more available, to younger and younger women, are likely desensitized, and are therefore a flawed sample.
All that said, when a woman dresses within the realm of normal, and is far less exposed than what we all see regularly in the world around us, it should not be a nisayon for most men, and therefore, it should not be our business. Individuals who have issues should work on themselves.November 14, 2013 10:17 am at 10:17 am #987657
JewishFem, while i’m sure that you are correct about attraction, there are different nuances, k’d”amri inshi, “An ugly, rich man is a rich man.”November 14, 2013 10:22 am at 10:22 am #987658
WIY, I was a man last week, I think. At my age, my memory isn’t so good. Seriously, if you’re a man, you know from your own experience that what you say isn’t so. Certainly there are menuvalim in the world, but you’re not one of them. You know what feelings you have and you know how to control them. Why do you suppose the rest of us aren’t the same as you are?
P.S. I apologize for the harsh tone of my last response to you. The above is what I should have said.November 14, 2013 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #987659jewishfeminist02Member
“How is it that you ‘can’t speak for men’ but could speak for “my friends”? Are you saying you don’t know any men?”
I’m saying that I don’t discuss these things with the men I know who are not my husband. That would be completely inappropriate.
“Additionally, even if you could accurately speak for your friends, it may be a stretch to project their experiences onto ‘most’ [religious] women. It may just be a flawed sample.”
I have a diverse group of friends, including many who are not religious and some who are not even Jewish.
“While women too were created with some animalistic tendencies, they are [thankfully] not nearly as overpowering as those that men have, giving women a far, far, easier time controlling inappropriate thoughts.”
I am not arguing this point. Reread my post. What I said is that women HAVE inappropriate thoughts just as men do. I said nothing about controlling those thoughts.
“Feminists and their friends, who campaign against things like abstinence education, and advocate for things like birth control to be more and more available, to younger and younger women, are likely desensitized, and are therefore a flawed sample.”
Thank you for making assumptions. I do not “campaign against” anything, and the vast majority of my friends do not identify as feminists.November 14, 2013 2:22 pm at 2:22 pm #987660
JFem, FNY, you are both missing a critical point. Halacha doesn’t really care at all if women are attracted to men, if they have “inappropriate” thoughts, or even if they act on those thoughts alone within the privacy of their home (as long as they don’t act on them with the man himself). For a man Halacha does care.November 14, 2013 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #987661
GAW, Now you are getting to the crux of the matter. Unfortunately the issue cannot be discussed further without getting somewhat more explicit and this is not the venue for that. But, you’ve hit the nail on the head.November 15, 2013 5:02 am at 5:02 am #987662mddMember
GAW, you are wrong (again). It is assur for a woman to have inappropriate thoughts about a man to whom she is an ervah, kol she’ken acting out chas ve’sholom. Feeling attracted is also a problem — see Rashi in the last perek of Kiddushin about the issur of sheilas sholom.
Redleg, certain things might not be explicitly proscribed, but are nevertheless not good.November 15, 2013 10:56 am at 10:56 am #987663
MDD, I wasn’t necessarilly agreeing with GAW’s psak(!?). I was noting that the he was approaching the root of the issue and that further discussion would be getting into specifics that aren’t appropriate for the CR.November 15, 2013 1:13 pm at 1:13 pm #987664
MDD: The Rashi there (70b, you could have been nice and given me the Maree Makom) literally has no Shaichus whatsoever to our discussion. There is no personal connection (as there is there), and that is the only Halachic concern (that she may reach out to him because of that personal connection).
Show me where it says it in Shulchan Aruch and I’ll agree to you.November 15, 2013 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #987665mddMember
GAW, I am not going to argue with you here. Ask an established, respected Rov that you trust about it. (For a quick shortcut — there is a teshuvah in “Igros Moshe” about it).November 15, 2013 5:16 pm at 5:16 pm #987666
MDD: Where is the Igros Moshe?
Redleg: I’m a Gavra, not a Rabbi.November 17, 2013 12:39 am at 12:39 am #987667
?”? ??? ?’ ??’ ?”?November 18, 2013 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #987668
?”? ??? ?’ ??’ ?”?
If anything, that proves exactly what I am saying. Other than the general Issur to fantasize about doing actual Issurim (which I think applies to a Ham sandwich as well), Rav Moshe explictly says there are no Issurim of Hirhur or Histaklus for a woman.November 18, 2013 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #987669
??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????
He clearly doesn’t agree with Jfem, though.November 18, 2013 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #987670
??? ????? ????? ????? ????
Exactly. To “do” the Avairah (just like to “eat” the Ham sandwich). That is not the “Hirhur” that applies to men.
As far as JFem, one is certainly not allowed to go mixed swimming. Other than that, I’m not sure to what you are refering with Ra Moshe not agreeing.November 18, 2013 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #987671
He specifies ????, not ham sandwiches. ???? ?????? doesn’t refer to ?????? ??????. There is no ????? to fantasize about eating ham sandwiches, AFAIK.
He doesn’t assume that ??????? normally causes ??????? for ????; Jfem does. In a case in which it does, it would be ????.November 18, 2013 5:12 pm at 5:12 pm #987672
DY: I originally thought you were right about “???? ??????”. Then I remembered in the “Al Cheit”s, there is one for Hirhur HaLev, which is fantasizing about doing all Issurim (not just Zenus and Avodah Zara). If we say an Al Cheit for it…..
You may be right (which in that case, I will go back to fantasizing about that dry-aged porterhouse :-). I’ll agree if you can bring a (real) source. It doesn’t really change the main point, though.
As far as Jfem, it once again depends on the type of Hirhurim you (or she, or Rav Moshe) is discussing. Once again, Rav Moshe is discussing a specific thought of doing a very specific action, not the thought of the person themselves (which is what “Hirhurim” means Legabey men). You may be right, you would have to ask Jfem what she meant.November 18, 2013 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #987673
It is assur to fantasize about any aveirah. An Olah is mechaper on forbidden thoughts of all types (as well as on mitzvos asei that one failed to do).November 18, 2013 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #987674
Gavra, WIY, I think it’s muttar (maybe m’chuar, though) to fantasize about that ham sandwich, but you certainly need a kapparah if you planned to eat it. There’s a difference.November 18, 2013 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #987675
Kedoshim Tihyu. It doesnt have to be assur, it might be 100% muttar. Doesnt mean you should do it. Rav Henoch Lebowitz Z’l used to use the term “nit shein” to describe those things which are technically kosher but.November 18, 2013 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #987676
Allow me to quote from the ????? ?????:
?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???: ??????? ?????? (???? ?? ?”?,?????, ???? ?????, ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????). In the footnotes, he quotes the ???? ???? that even ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? need ????.November 18, 2013 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #987677
DY: The ????? ????? is a good quote, but it also proves that the Issur of Hirhur Halev expands past “Lo Tasuru” for Arayos & Zenus exclusively. I am very interested to find a source that gives a full list to the exclusion of all other Hirhuri Avairah.November 18, 2013 8:13 pm at 8:13 pm #987678
I think he listed every hirhur which is inherently assur – avodah zarah, chemdas hamamon (lo sachmod), arayos (acharei eineichem), hirhur Torah in inappropriate venue.
The quote from the Dover Shalom indicates that others aren’t inherently assur.November 18, 2013 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #987679
DY: That (if Hirhur for women is inherently Assur) is our point of contention. Saying Hirhur is assur is certainly true, but possibly (and I believe) only for men.November 18, 2013 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm #987680
The quote from the Dover Shalom indicates that others aren’t inherently assur.
Also WADR, is the “Dover Shalom” (I believe stories from the Belzer Rebbe) authoritative? I happen to like Belz personally, but that certainly is not the same as a Teshuvah from Rav Moshe.November 18, 2013 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #987681
R’ Moshe didn’t say otherwise; in fact, throughout that teshuvah he implies that arayos are worse than other aveiros (except a”z).November 18, 2013 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #987682oomisParticipant
(maybe m’chuar, though) to fantasize about that ham sandwich,’
I would tend to think it is NOT m’chuar, because we don’t eat ham, not because it might not be delicious or is in someway disgusting, but because it is assur d’Oraisa, and no other reason.November 18, 2013 9:09 pm at 9:09 pm #987683
DY: Once again, I don’t disagree. Chazal say that Levavchem & Aineichem are Minus & Zenus (also see Rashi in Yoma 29a on top (something I found researching this topic)). But Hirhur Halev (seemingly) applies to other items, and Lo Tasuru is only to fantasize about doing actual Issurim (which is what Rav Moshe explicitly states, as you quoted). The best you can do is prove that Lo Tasuru is Minus & Zenus, and I can’t prove that it is also specifically talking about other things as well, although those are (seemingly) also Assur to fantasize about (and proven via the Al Cheits).
The Gemorah (BB, I’ve quoted it before) says Gezel is even worse that Arayos, which may be why the ????? ????? adds Chemdas Mamon to the items that are examples of Hirhur Halev (although seemingly the list is not meant to be exhaustive).
I feel like we are going in circles.November 18, 2013 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #987684
oomis: Doesn’t mean you are allowed to obsess over it. You should just think the reason I don’t do it is because Hashem said so and no other reason.November 18, 2013 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #987685
GAW, I don’t know how the Al Cheits are supposed to expand the issurim of hirhur beyond what’s explicit. I don’t know why you don’t think the AH”T’s list is exhaustive; if you have a mekor for other types of hirhur being assur, by all means…
Oomis, I think Gavra answered you well.November 18, 2013 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #987686
It is possible to be a menuval birshus hatorah. Just because it isnt technically assur, doesnt mean you should do it. Use your seichel. If you dont have seichel, or dont trust your own judgement, speak to your Rav.November 18, 2013 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #987687
Just reading this thread I find it funny how many Frum people have this weird idea that women don’t have Hirhurim and that it’s all emotional to them. Women have the same desires as men albeit different parts of different acts may be more important to woman then they are to men.
I find it even funnier (and maybe even sad) that even many married frum men still have this misconception. THAT baffles meNovember 18, 2013 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #987688
DY: I’ll take a look & see if anything comes up. Yasher Koach.November 18, 2013 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #987689interjectionParticipant
000646, we are not so concerned with a woman’s thoughts, al pi halacha. To be more clear, if a man wears shorts halfway up his thighs, although it’s not ‘bakavadik’ it’s not an issur. Now, if a woman wore a skirt halfway up her thigh, it’s totally assur. However, it’s the opposite with hirhurim. If a man thinks about a woman, it’s a big halachik no-no; if a woman thinks about him, although she should try to have purer thoughts, she won’t get an actual aveira. In other words, a man shouldn’t dress a certain way but he’s allowed to and a woman shouldn’t think a certain way but she’s allowed to. A woman is forbidden to dress a certain way and a man is forbidden to think a certain way.November 18, 2013 10:42 pm at 10:42 pm #987690
Interjection, there is a difference, but a woman is still not allowed to have thoughts of doing an aveirah with a man.November 18, 2013 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #987691
That may or may not be the case. I am not a big enough Talmud Chachom to have much of an opinion on that. My point was simply that it is funny how many Frum people seem to think that woman are these innocent emotional creatures with very different desires in these areas then men, and that it is baffling to me how many married frum men are of this opinion as well.November 18, 2013 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm #987693
That indicates two things
1.)Woman are culturally conditioned to make believe that these things interest them less then they do or risk being called and thought of as all sorts of nasty things.
2.)Your statement is only somewhat true when it comes to the “video” aspect of the Adult industry. There is the “Toy” aspect that is more female dominated.November 19, 2013 6:34 am at 6:34 am #987694frumnotyeshivishParticipant
000646 – what is your evidence that the undisputed fact that women are less interested in objectifying pritzus is due to cultural conditioning? If anything in the frum world women are far less conditioned to avoid pritzus.
As far as point #2, i have a response, yet i don’t think that this is the appropriate forum to discuss those matters.
- The topic ‘Technically tznius, but…’ is closed to new replies.