Homosexuality unnatural? Was Re: Taliban-like extremists
Steven Goldfarb
at the end. I tried to respond in the original thread, but too many
headers.
In <lwaR7.11043$5W5.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> "Sheldon Glickler"
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>Sex has many purposes. Genetically, it is for the procreation of the
>species. That is the number one, two and three. Socially, it is for
>bonding one person to another. Yes, homosexual relations can satisfy the
>second, but only male-female can satisfy the procreation aspect. It is
on
>the basis of this that I call it "unnatural". I don't call it
non-existent
>or even uncommon, just "unnatural".
Gotta disagree with you on this one, Shelly. The genetic meaning of life
isn't simply to create offspring, but to perpetuate as many of one's genes
as possible. This means not only reproducing, but ensuring that one's
close relatives will survive in order to reproduce themselves. Don't
forget, our sisters and brothers are as closely related to us as our
children.
So in the case of humans, "bonding" is much a much, much higher priority
than you rank it -- I'd say it's #1. If sex were only for reproduction,
then we would be able to tell when human females were fertile and only
have sex with them when they were "in heat," as is the case with most
animals.
I'd guess that upwards of 90% of human sex does NOT result in procreation.
Therefore, it is clear that procreation itself is not the primary purpose
of sex for humans. (in non-primates, I hypothesize that the "succesful"
sex to conception rate is much higher)
So in "selfish gene" terms, there's nothing "unnatural" about a certain
percentage of homosexuality in the population, as although gay people
might be less inclined to spread their genes through sexual reproduction
(although of course they can if they choose to), they may well contribute
a great deal to the survival of their own genes by supporting close kin
who share them.
As to whether or not it's "wrong," well, that's a moral judgement - based
on my own code of ethics I don't have any reason to judge it "wrong," but
that's what religions are for, right? To declare things "wrong." But it's
certainly not "unnatural."
OK, to try to bring it back on topic -- it struck me just now that one of
the purposes of the laws of Niddah is presumably to try to increase that
ratio of sex to successful conception, right? As are the prohibitions on
birth control, masturbation, etc... but I wonder, is it necessarily the
most successful strategy? On the face of it it would seem so -- after all,
it certainly seems to lead to more children. But more children does not
necessarily equal more surviving descendants... something to think about.
OK, so maybe that wasn't enough to get us back on topic... but I tried!
--sg
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
Sheldon Glickler
relationship aids in the "selfish gene".
Shelly
"Steven Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9v3e5a$g4o$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Steven Goldfarb
>I understand what you are saying but tell me please how a homosexual
>relationship aids in the "selfish gene".
In "selfish gene" terms specifically it probably doesn't - you'd only get
that effect if the non-reproducing (for whatever reason) person chose to
stay close to his or her family, and defend/support his or her close
relatives. Choosing to defend/support a non-relative doesn't do anything
for that person's genes, although I think it can support the community as
a whole. (because any time people take care of each other they put less of
a drain on society, if for no other reason, plus we typically make
non-reproducers do more dangerous jobs)
But I was just trying to show that homosexuality wasn't "unnatural," I
wasn't making a point about homosexual pair-bonded relationships.
Anecdotally, homosexual pair-bonds often don't seem to last as long as
heterosexual ones - but there are potentially lots of reasons why that
could be, other than they're being "unnatural." (I'm thinking that
children help hold relationships together, society puts extreme stress on
such relationships, without the contractual component of marriage there's
less incentive to stay together, etc., etc.) But even if it could be
proven that the biological drive to pair-bond doesn't work on homosexuals
(I doubt this, but it's possible) so what? What's it to me?
I know, I know, if you allowed gay marriages that would have repercussions
on the institution of marriage itself. That is true. But I think there are
ways around that.
But I'd best stop before I go way off track, as I can't think of any way
to tie this back to Judaism right now...
Sheldon Glickler
1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including sex
choice.
3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
Shelly
"Steven Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9v3okp$cjk$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Colin Rosenthal
>OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
>
>1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
>2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including sex
>choice.
>3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
>
>What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
>said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
>meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
Well, if #3 were "I find the sight of epicanthic folds disgusting" would
that make you a racist? Maybe not, but it wouldn't net you a lot of
chinese friends.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Sheldon Glickler
"Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
news:9v4g49$6cr$1...@readme.uio.no...
Colin, I am not an ass. I don't go up to a homosexual as say #3. I don't
talk about it. The subject never seems to come up (and I do know more than
one homosexual). We are friendly. In fact, one of them is a close relative
and I love him as such.
Now, that still doesn't change how I **feel** about the subject. So long as
I practice #1 and #2 and don't bring up the subject of #3, there should be
nothing wrong. Except that Lisa believes that because of #3 I am a
homophobe. Nonsense.
If I were asked directly then I would answer honestly. However, they
**know** how I feel and that is why the subject is never brought up by them.
Shelly
Dan Kimmel
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:v4oR7.13266$5W5.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:9v4g49$6cr$1...@readme.uio.no...
> > that make you a racist? Maybe not, but it wouldn't net you a lot of
> > chinese friends.
>
> Colin, I am not an ass. I don't go up to a homosexual as say #3. I don't
> talk about it. The subject never seems to come up (and I do know more
than
> one homosexual). We are friendly. In fact, one of them is a close
relative
> and I love him as such.
>
> Now, that still doesn't change how I **feel** about the subject. So long
as
> I practice #1 and #2 and don't bring up the subject of #3, there should be
> nothing wrong. Except that Lisa believes that because of #3 I am a
> homophobe. Nonsense.
>
> If I were asked directly then I would answer honestly. However, they
> **know** how I feel and that is why the subject is never brought up by
them.
Turn it around so you're on the other side of the equation: A Christian
friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and is
against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following a
false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved." How
does that make *you* feel?
Henry Goodman
"Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
news:9v4g49$6cr$1...@readme.uio.no...
Translation please! That word is not in the 2 volume Sorter OED. Is it
Norwegian, Chinese or what? Chag Sameach
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
3rd candle
GAN EDEN WINES
> OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
>
> 1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
> 2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including
sex
> choice.
> 3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
>
> What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
> said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
> meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
BS"D
This is one of those rare instances I agree with Shelly on all counts,
except the "unnaturalness" of it. Animals do it, and in animal populations
the relative proportion of homosexual acts seems to increase with population
pressure. One could say it was nature's relief valve against a population
explosion.
Be that as it may, homosexual acts are prohibited by d'oraisa and
rabbinically, to Jews, and widespread homosexual activity even among the
goyim is looked down upon, if not prohibited (I don't know whether it is
classed among the 7 mitzvos bnei Noach, but it was listed as one of the
reasons that the Bnei Yisroel were given The Land in defeat of the
Canaanim).
Craig Winchell
cst...@rochester.rr.com
> >
> > Well, if #3 were "I find the sight of epicanthic folds disgusting" would
> > that make you a racist? Maybe not, but it wouldn't net you a lot of
> > chinese friends.
> >
> Translation please! That word is not in the 2 volume Sorter OED. Is it
> Norwegian, Chinese or what? Chag Sameach
It's an anatomical term to describe the fold of skin of the upper eyelid
that partially covers the inner corner of the eyes of Asian people, i.e.,
it's what makes Asian people appear to have "slanted" eyes.
--Cindy S.
Laura Appelbaum
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:A6pR7.218628$3d2.10...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Turn it around so you're on the other side of the equation: A Christian
> friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and is
> against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following a
> false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved."
How
> does that make *you* feel?
That was just the example I was going to make but you beat me to it. ;D I
think what Sheldon is really missing is that for someone who is gay, being
gay IS natural. It's not natural *for him* but it's natural for *them.*
But then this discussion really doesn't have to do with Judaism anymore,
does it?
LMA
Lisa
take it to email. ]
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<v4oR7.13266$5W5.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:9v4g49$6cr$1...@readme.uio.no...
> > On 11 Dec 2001 02:02:05 GMT,
> > Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
> > >
> > >1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
> > >2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including
> sex
> > >choice.
> > >3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
> > >
> > >What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
> > >said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
> > >meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
> >
> > Well, if #3 were "I find the sight of epicanthic folds disgusting" would
> > that make you a racist? Maybe not, but it wouldn't net you a lot of
> > chinese friends.
>
> Colin, I am not an ass. I don't go up to a homosexual as say #3.
Shelly, are you saying that if you did go up to a homosexual and say
#3, that would make you an ass? Think carefully. Because you told me
exactly that.
> I don't
> talk about it. The subject never seems to come up (and I do know more than
> one homosexual). We are friendly. In fact, one of them is a close relative
> and I love him as such.
You volunteered the information that you thought homosexuality was
unnatural, repulsive, and wrong. To me. In private e-mail. I grant
myself the right to say this, even though it was in private e-mail,
because of your public denial.
> Now, that still doesn't change how I **feel** about the subject. So long as
> I practice #1 and #2 and don't bring up the subject of #3, there should be
> nothing wrong. Except that Lisa believes that because of #3 I am a
> homophobe. Nonsense.
To repeat, if someone were to say (particularly to a black person), "I
think blacks are cursed of God and certainly not as intelligent as
normal white folks, but I believe in equal rights for them", that
person would be a racist. What you have said is no different at all.
Is it better for you to oppose discrimination against us, whatever
your personal homophobic views, than to support it? Of course it is.
Judaism, for one thing, is a religion of actions. Do you want a
stroke for being so kind and nice to us unnatural and repulsive types?
Fine with me. Shelly, that's damned white of you. Feel better now?
> If I were asked directly then I would answer honestly. However, they
> **know** how I feel and that is why the subject is never brought up by them.
Memory problems again, I see. As if I ever asked you any such thing.
Lisa
cst...@rochester.rr.com
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:A6pR7.218628$3d2.10...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
It doesn't bother me at all. If Christianity preaches that you will burn in
hell unless you are "saved" and the Christian allows for the possibility
that one who is not "saved" will not burn in hell, then isn't he saying the
fundamental basis of his religion is incorrect? (If some people can go to
heaven without being "saved" then why does anyone need to be "saved" at
all?) As long as he's not discriminating or interfering with my right to
practice Judaism, etc., the Christian is entitled to his belief as far as
I'm concerned.
Likewise, as Jews, we obviously believe that Judaism, not Christianity, is
the true religion (at least for us). If we didn't believe that way, we would
all convert and become Christians. That we don't accept Christian theology
is very offensive for many Christians (and we have an entire history of
persecution to prove it), yet I don't see any of us running around preaching
the "truth" of Christianity just to spare their feelings.
--Cindy S.
Colin Rosenthal
cst...@rochester.rr.com <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>It doesn't bother me at all. If Christianity preaches that you will burn in
>hell unless you are "saved" and the Christian allows for the possibility
>that one who is not "saved" will not burn in hell, then isn't he saying the
>fundamental basis of his religion is incorrect? (If some people can go to
>heaven without being "saved" then why does anyone need to be "saved" at
>all?) As long as he's not discriminating or interfering with my right to
>practice Judaism, etc., the Christian is entitled to his belief as far as
>I'm concerned.
A better analogy - imagine you have a christian friend. Then one day you
discover (from reading usenet, say) that he holds you, as a Jew, personally
responsible for murdering christ. But he's never _said_ anything to you
because he values your friendship. How would you feel? Now imagine you're
one of Shelley's gay "friends" discovering that he finds them disgusting
and unnatural.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
>
>> >OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
Oy is that a loaded question. :-)
>> >1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
>> >2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things,
>> >including sex choice.
>> >3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
>> >
>> >What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
>> >said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
>> >meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
>>
>> Well, if #3 were "I find the sight of epicanthic folds disgusting" would
>> that make you a racist? Maybe not, but it wouldn't net you a lot of
>> chinese friends.
>>
> Translation please! That word is not in the 2 volume Sorter OED. Is it
> Norwegian, Chinese or what? Chag Sameach
Um Henry, he _did_ translate. In the next sentence he said it's
"chinese". BTW, I can go one-up on you. _My_ Babylon
translator _did_ have the word.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Charles Vitez
homophobe? For that matter, what is wrong with being a homophobe? Is it now
a crime in America? I thought that the crime is the discrimination against a
person because of their sexual orientation ir if a homophobe takes matters
too far and commits a public order offense or worse. You have clearly
indicated that you would have no hand in such a crime and indeed would
condemn it. Exactly what I would have expected from a decent man.
As far as your views on such sexual relations are concerned, they are what
they are - just as if you were a spinachphobe (has v'sholem) or had personal
prejudices against 1000 other things.
As far as I can see the use of the epithet must be just her way of saying
that she does not like you. Well not everyone in this world will, but please
don't lose sleep over that.
Charles Vitez
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:v4oR7.13266$5W5.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
Sheldon Glickler
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com...
> [ Moderator's Comment: We've gotten waaaay off-topic here. Let's end it or
> take it to email. ]
No! Lisa has made a public, untrue accusation of me by bringing in a
slanted, untrue version of private email. I believe I have the full right
to counter publicly these new charges. "Taking it to email" would not serve
that purpose, and at this point in her demonstrated breach of trust I would
never "take it to email". I am owed the right to respond to this slander.
You, the moderators, let her [inaccurate] "disclosure" of private email into
this forum. You owe me the right to counter with the truth.
Yes. I read this entire thing before answering. You seem to have memory
problems. See below.
>
> > I don't
> > talk about it. The subject never seems to come up (and I do know more
than
> > one homosexual). We are friendly. In fact, one of them is a close
relative
> > and I love him as such.
>
> You volunteered the information that you thought homosexuality was
> unnatural, repulsive, and wrong. To me. In private e-mail. I grant
> myself the right to say this, even though it was in private e-mail,
> because of your public denial.
You have a memory problem. What I said was in response to your statement
after a discussion of the problem where you said (not exact wording) "I'm
glad to see you are cool with it". The "cool with it" had the definite
implication, in the context used, that I approve of the situation. My
statements were an explanation of exact position and that I was not "cool
with it", but that I "tolerate it since I view them as human beings with all
the rights that belong to them". I did this because I thought we were
having a continued open and honest discussion of feelings and views. I did
not "go up to you and say", even in email. You brought up the topic of how
I felt about it after I stated my position on how you should be treated.
Obviously I misjudged you then. Now it is doubly apparant.
I also feel that it is a severe breach of trust to bring in ANYTHING someone
else says in private email, told in confidence, to this public forum. It is
doubly wrong when that is brought in, out of context, so as to convey an
erroneous impression. You are more expert on halacha than I will ever be
and I am sure you can find more than one serious violation in what you did.
What now? Will you disclose more private information. I recall how irate
you were when someone "outed" you on SCJ. I agreed with you then and I
agree with you now on that. Private is private. So, are you ready to
disclose anything else spoken privately to you by me or anyone else? (No, o
ther readers, what I am referring to, and Lisa knows what it is, is not
about me personally).
Shame on you, Lisa.
>
> > Now, that still doesn't change how I **feel** about the subject. So
long as
> > I practice #1 and #2 and don't bring up the subject of #3, there should
be
> > nothing wrong. Except that Lisa believes that because of #3 I am a
> > homophobe. Nonsense.
>
> To repeat, if someone were to say (particularly to a black person), "I
> think blacks are cursed of God and certainly not as intelligent as
> normal white folks, but I believe in equal rights for them", that
> person would be a racist. What you have said is no different at all.
Nonsense, and not even worth countering.
> Is it better for you to oppose discrimination against us, whatever
> your personal homophobic views, than to support it? Of course it is.
> Judaism, for one thing, is a religion of actions. Do you want a
> stroke for being so kind and nice to us unnatural and repulsive types?
> Fine with me. Shelly, that's damned white of you. Feel better now?
I don't need your "strokes".
> > If I were asked directly then I would answer honestly. However, they
> > **know** how I feel and that is why the subject is never brought up by
them.
>
> Memory problems again, I see. As if I ever asked you any such thing.
Essentially, you did. Yes, memory problems again but this time not mine.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
this forum as yet. Hopefully, it will soon.
Shell
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rpAR7.41892$jf.93...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Sheldon Glickler
It still doesn't bother me. He is following a false belief in his religion.
It is wrong, but so what? He still treats me and other Jews as human beings
with all rights. How do I feel? Sorry for him, that's all.
Correction #1: I don't find **them** "disgusting and unnatural". I find
one thing they do (a very important one, admittedly) "disgusting and
unnatural".
Correction #2: They were not "friends" that I spoke about. They were
either relatives or partners of relatives.
Correction #3: Once and for all, let me clear up what I **meant** by
"unnatural". It was not that it doesn't exist, even in other animals. It
is just that I believe nature created sex for procreation first and foremost
(other reasons came later in addition). It is "unnatural" only in the sense
in that it cannot accomplish that purpose. Owing to the fact that interpret
ation read by almost everyone was not the one I intended, it was a very bad
choice of word. Had I thought about it and realized that, I would not have
used it. From this point forward, please read the previous usages of the
word as I meant it and I will try to not use the word, even as a shorthand
for what I mean.
Shelly
Dan Kimmel
> news:A6pR7.218628$3d2.10...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Turn it around so you're on the other side of the equation: A Christian
> > friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and
is
> > against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following
a
> > false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved."
> How
> > does that make *you* feel?
>
> It doesn't bother me at all. If Christianity preaches that you will burn
in
> hell unless you are "saved" and the Christian allows for the possibility
> that one who is not "saved" will not burn in hell, then isn't he saying
the
> fundamental basis of his religion is incorrect? (If some people can go to
> heaven without being "saved" then why does anyone need to be "saved" at
> all?) As long as he's not discriminating or interfering with my right to
> practice Judaism, etc., the Christian is entitled to his belief as far as
> I'm concerned.
Different issue. Even an antisemite is "entitled to his belief" as long
he's not "discriminating or interfering" my rights. If, say, your *boss*
said it wouldn't affect your pay or your advancement opportunities, but as a
Jew you're damned to eternal torment, wouldn't that make you -- at the very
least -- uncomfortable in that work environment?
> Likewise, as Jews, we obviously believe that Judaism, not Christianity, is
> the true religion (at least for us). If we didn't believe that way, we
would
> all convert and become Christians. That we don't accept Christian theology
> is very offensive for many Christians (and we have an entire history of
> persecution to prove it), yet I don't see any of us running around
preaching
> the "truth" of Christianity just to spare their feelings.
That's because in the U.S. (and in most Western societies) we're brought up
to respect differences of opinion, including on the matter of religion.
(It's a fairly modern concept with regard to religion.) But would you tell
a friend or co-worker that they were worshipping the "false god" of Jesus?
And if you wouldn't, do you find yourself consciously noting that about your
Christian friends? Or, more likely, do you simply note -- and then file
away -- the observation that their ways are not our ways, and live and let
live?
*That's* the difference.
Dan Kimmel
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9v7dr2$d97$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Maybe I am missing a trick here. What is wrong with being called a
> homophobe? For that matter, what is wrong with being a homophobe? Is it
now
> a crime in America? I thought that the crime is the discrimination against
a
> person because of their sexual orientation ir if a homophobe takes matters
> too far and commits a public order offense or worse. You have clearly
> indicated that you would have no hand in such a crime and indeed would
> condemn it. Exactly what I would have expected from a decent man.
"Homophobe" is a neologism and doesn't mean what it says. It *should* mean
"fear of man/men" but what it was created to mean was "hatred/dislike/fear
of gays."
No, it is not illegal to be a homophobe. It's right up there with being an
antisemite (which, of course, is not about being "against Semitism") or a
sexist or a racist: perfectly legal as long as one doesn't put those views
into action that violate the law but not something that a person should be
proud of being.
Sheldon Glickler
Thanks Dan. You expressed this better than I did.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9v7dr2$d97$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> homophobe? For that matter, what is wrong with being a homophobe? Is it
now
> a crime in America? I thought that the crime is the discrimination against
a
> person because of their sexual orientation ir if a homophobe takes matters
> too far and commits a public order offense or worse. You have clearly
> indicated that you would have no hand in such a crime and indeed would
> condemn it. Exactly what I would have expected from a decent man.
>
> As far as your views on such sexual relations are concerned, they are what
> they are - just as if you were a spinachphobe (has v'sholem) or had
personal
> prejudices against 1000 other things.
>
> As far as I can see the use of the epithet must be just her way of saying
> that she does not like you. Well not everyone in this world will, but
please
> don't lose sleep over that.
>
> Charles Vitez
Thank you and you make a valid point. However, "homophobe" does not carry
the same implication as "bibliophobe", for example. The connotation is one
of being against **people**, not simply the acts that they engage in. It is
that connotation that I find upsetting, as it is in direct contrast to my
stated and practiced beliefs.
Shelly
Susan Cohen
Charles Vitez wrote:
> Maybe I am missing a trick here. What is wrong with being called a
> homophobe? For that matter, what is wrong with being a homophobe? Is it now
> a crime in America? I thought that the crime is the discrimination against a
> person because of their sexual orientation ir if a homophobe takes matters
> too far and commits a public order offense or worse. You have clearly
> indicated that you would have no hand in such a crime and indeed would
> condemn it. Exactly what I would have expected from a decent man.
You are confusing crime with sin. (Therefore, you must be a Conservative
(That's a joke I picked up).). We are condemning an attitude, as is our right
as human beings. No one anywhere has suggested anyone go to jail for being
bigoted. Unless I'm missing something you caught.
Susan
Colin Rosenthal
Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Correction #3: Once and for all, let me clear up what I **meant** by
>"unnatural". It was not that it doesn't exist, even in other animals. It
>is just that I believe nature created sex for procreation first and foremost
>(other reasons came later in addition). It is "unnatural" only in the sense
>in that it cannot accomplish that purpose.
Ok, now we know what you mean by "unnatural" can you please tell us what
you mean by "believe" in the above statement? Do you mean "believe" as in
religious faith?
Susan Cohen
Colin Rosenthal wrote:
It would have to be, as there is no evidence that homosexuals
*can't* reproduce. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.
"Not wanting to" or even "finding it disgusting" is one thing.
"Not able to" in entirely different.
Susan
Sheldon Glickler
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:3C176BF9...@hers.com...
Not the point. A homosexual act cannot result in procreation. Once again,
Susan, I am talking about the homosexual acts, not the homosexual people.
You seem to want to remain confused on that subject. I don't know how many
times is required for me to say this before it will begin to sink in with
you.
(One relative of mine who is gay has four daughters, so empirically I
couldn't hold what you seem to want to accuse me of).
As for Colin, and "believe", I mean what I deduce from the real world and
hence it is the conviction I hold based upon that. No, it is not religious
faith.
Shelly
Susan Cohen
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
Not at all. You have been talking about "homosexuality".
That is "the state of being homosexual"
This is the first time I have ever seen you discuss just the act itself.
> I don't know how many
> times is required for me to say this before it will begin to sink in with
> you.
All it takes is saying it instead of what you've been saying, if only in other
posts.
> (One relative of mine who is gay has four daughters, so empirically I
> couldn't hold what you seem to want to accuse me of).
No, emprically it only means that you have gays in your family.
Susan
Sheldon Glickler
Really? You didn't see the #1, #2, #3 that expounded upon. You didn't see
the corrections in this subthread to which Colin responded? You didn't see
the entire discussion in many other places in this overall thread where I
talked about the act and not the person?
OK, I'll accept that you saw none of those many times and assume that you
see it now. Let's drop it.
>
> > I don't know how many
> > times is required for me to say this before it will begin to sink in
with
> > you.
>
> All it takes is saying it instead of what you've been saying, if only in
other
> posts.
I said it many times.
>
> > (One relative of mine who is gay has four daughters, so empirically I
> > couldn't hold what you seem to want to accuse me of).
>
> No, emprically it only means that you have gays in your family.
No, empirically it means that I have close experience with gays having
fathered children, so it disproves what you said earlier about me with
respect to the ability of homosexuals being able to reproduce when you said
"It would have to be, as there is no evidence that homosexuals *can't*
reproduce"
Haven't we exhausted this one yet? You should know by now exactly how I
feel about the acts (blech!), the people (they are human beings), their
rights (they have the same as you and me) and how I act towards the people
(I like the good ones and don't like the bad ones). If you don't, well then
you will never learn. So, in conclusion, I have decided to cease responding
to you on this subject.
Shelly
Martin Green
> Turn it around so you're on the other side of the equation: A Christian
> friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and is
> against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following a
> false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved."
How
> does that make *you* feel?
It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't think it should bother
you. However, I find it annoying and presumptuous of the
odd one who actually tries to "save" me by persuading me of
the error of my ways. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt
by assuming that he feels a sense of duty to make at least one such
token effort on my behalf.
Martin Green
http://www.onforeignsoil.com
Teach yourself Yiddish while you read
the autobiography of Falk Zolf.
Sheldon Glickler
"Martin Green" <btes...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3auR7.48126$pP5.6...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> >
> > Turn it around so you're on the other side of the equation: A Christian
> > friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and
is
> > against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following
a
> > false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved."
> How
> > does that make *you* feel?
>
> It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't think it should bother
> you. However, I find it annoying and presumptuous of the
> odd one who actually tries to "save" me by persuading me of
> the error of my ways. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt
> by assuming that he feels a sense of duty to make at least one such
> token effort on my behalf.
I said the same thing but that post has not yet made it past the moderators.
It seems that MANY people are saying the same thing in response to this
question. I added a line to the effect of thanking Dan for helping me make
my point by showing how I would not care, so should they not care.
Shelly
Susan Cohen
Martin Green wrote:
> I find it annoying and presumptuous of the
> odd one who actually tries to "save" me by persuading me of
> the error of my ways. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt
> by assuming that he feels a sense of duty to make at least one such
> token effort on my behalf.
You are kinder than I. I think the "obligation such as
they feel is part of the problem, and quickly disabuse
them of such an arrogant notion, should they attempt
to "fulfill" it.
Susan
Lisa
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3C176BF9...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > Colin Rosenthal wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 Dec 2001 11:53:12 GMT,
> > > Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Correction #3: Once and for all, let me clear up what I **meant** by
> > > >"unnatural". It was not that it doesn't exist, even in other animals.
> It
> > > >is just that I believe nature created sex for procreation first and
> foremost
> > > >(other reasons came later in addition). It is "unnatural" only in the
> sense
> > > >in that it cannot accomplish that purpose.
> > >
> > > Ok, now we know what you mean by "unnatural" can you please tell us what
> > > you mean by "believe" in the above statement? Do you mean "believe" as
> in
> > > religious faith?
> >
> > It would have to be, as there is no evidence that homosexuals
> > *can't* reproduce. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.
> > "Not wanting to" or even "finding it disgusting" is one thing.
> > "Not able to" in entirely different.
>
> Not the point. A homosexual act cannot result in procreation.
If a couple is infertile, is it "unnatural" for them to have sex?
Lisa
Dan Kimmel
"Martin Green" <btes...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3auR7.48126$pP5.6...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
> >
> > friend or co-worker respects your right to practice your religion, and
is
> > against any sort of discrimination, but believes that you are following
a
> > false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are "saved."
> How
> > does that make *you* feel?
>
> It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't think it should bother
> you. However, I find it annoying and presumptuous of the
> odd one who actually tries to "save" me by persuading me of
> the error of my ways. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt
> by assuming that he feels a sense of duty to make at least one such
> token effort on my behalf.
It doesn't bother you at all but you sometimes find it "annoying and
presumptuous."
Okay.
Sheldon Glickler
No, Dan, you conflated two things.
You asked how it makes one feel when the other **believes** that you are
following a false religion and will end up burning in hell unless you are
"saved." To that he (and I) answered "It doesn't bother me at all, and I
don't think it should bother you. "
Then he went on to say "However, I find it annoying and presumptuous of the
odd one who actually ***tries*** to "save" me by persuading me of the error
of my ways." (emphasis mine).
IOW, Dan, what he believes is of no consequence. It only matters when he
tries to do something to further those beliefs on us. Understand your error
now?
Shelly
Colin Rosenthal
Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Then all I can say is that from my perspective your "belief" is as well
founded as other people's belief in Kabbala, which you deride in
scatalogical terms. So far you haven't even defined what you mean by
"natural", and your statement that "nature invented sex for a purpose"
sounds indistinguishable from pure kabbala to me.
Let me try one more analogy to see if I can make sense of where your coming
from ...
1. Nature invented gravity for a purpose.
2. That purpose is to keep things on the ground.
3. Aeroplanes defy that purpose by flying.
4. Therefore flying is unnatural.
5. Therefore flying is immoral.
So far as I can see, _every_ part of the above argument is pure zohar, but
even if 1-4 were entirely true, I would not be able to see how to deduce 5
from 4.
(If that doesn't help clarify things, perhaps we'll have to pull out the
big guns and try "Nature invented cancer for a purpose".)
Lisa
> > OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
> >
> > 1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
> > 2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including
> sex
> > choice.
> > 3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
> >
> > What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
> > said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
> > meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
>
>
> This is one of those rare instances I agree with Shelly on all counts,
> except the "unnaturalness" of it. Animals do it, and in animal populations
> the relative proportion of homosexual acts seems to increase with population
> pressure. One could say it was nature's relief valve against a population
> explosion.
>
> Be that as it may, homosexual acts are prohibited by d'oraisa and
> rabbinically, to Jews,
Untrue. *One* sexual act is prohibited d'oraita to two men, whether
they are heterosexual or homosexual. There are heterosexual men who
engage in it, and there are plenty of homosexual men who do not.
And according to Rashi, the only thing that is prohibited to two women
is intimacy "derekh tashmish gever v'isha" (see Yevamot 76a), which
means mimicry of heterosexual intercourse. Every other description in
the Rishonim of what "nashim ha-mesollelot zu b'zu" means is
consistent with Rashi's statement (all are different views of what
that kind of mimicry might be, ranging from the Rivan, who felt it
meant a kind of artificial insemination, to others who felt that it
meant rubbing genitals against each other). I categorically refuse to
educate you as to what women do in bed together, but suffice it to say
that most lesbian sex does not and cannot fall into the category of
"mesollelot".
I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
not.
Yes, I'll agree, based purely on hearsay (if a great deal of it) that
the act forbidden to two men is probably the most common sexual act
between two gay men. But (again, based on hearsay), this is not the
case for frum gay men, most of whom control themselves, just as all
frum Jews refrain from doing things that are forbidden.
As far as "spilling seed" is concerned, I doubt very much that this is
more of a problem among gay men than it is among straight men.
> and widespread homosexual activity even among the
> goyim is looked down upon, if not prohibited (I don't know whether it is
> classed among the 7 mitzvos bnei Noach, but it was listed as one of the
> reasons that the Bnei Yisroel were given The Land in defeat of the
> Canaanim).
Mishkav zachor is among the things prohibited to the B'nei Noach.
Nothing whatsoever is forbidden to two non-Jewish women.
Your problem here, Craig, is that you're taking popular translations,
which aren't intended to deal with halakhic issues in depth, and using
them as psak. I've seen translations of "mishkav zachor" as
"homosexuality". Since there are women who are gay (homosexual),
that's clearly a bad translation. I've seen translations of "nashim
ha-mesollelot" as "lesbianism", and in at least one case, I've
actually asked the translator what he thinks the word meant, and he
replied that it was clearly something sexual between two women, so
"lesbianism" was clearly a proper translation. Is that the way you
think halakha works?
> Craig Winchell
Craig, I'm disappointed in you. Repeating assumptions that you've
picked up along the way and which have absolutely no basis in rabbinic
writings is inappropriate at best, and lifnei iveir at worst.
Lisa
Dan Kimmel
Not an error. The point is that those beliefs -- when expressed -- are
"annoying" (to say the least).
Sheldon Glickler
> On 12 Dec 2001 15:31:01 GMT,
> Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >As for Colin, and "believe", I mean what I deduce from the real world and
> >hence it is the conviction I hold based upon that. No, it is not
religious
> >faith.
>
> Then all I can say is that from my perspective your "belief" is as well
> founded as other people's belief in Kabbala, which you deride in
> scatalogical terms. So far you haven't even defined what you mean by
> "natural", and your statement that "nature invented sex for a purpose"
> sounds indistinguishable from pure kabbala to me.
>
> Let me try one more analogy to see if I can make sense of where your
coming
> from ...
>
> 1. Nature invented gravity for a purpose.
> 2. That purpose is to keep things on the ground.
> 3. Aeroplanes defy that purpose by flying.
No they don't. The lift on the wings is equal to the force of gravity (in
level flight). It is produced by the difference in velocity on the upper
and lower side of the wings (Bernoulli's principle).
> 4. Therefore flying is unnatural.
Staightforward, PROVABLE, physics and so not unnatural. Extremely natural.
> 5. Therefore flying is immoral.
Uh, did I say anything about morality? The Torah may say it is immoral, but
I didn't make any such claim.
>
> So far as I can see, _every_ part of the above argument is pure zohar, but
> even if 1-4 were entirely true, I would not be able to see how to deduce 5
> from 4.
Are you talking into the wind or something?
>
> (If that doesn't help clarify things, perhaps we'll have to pull out the
> big guns and try "Nature invented cancer for a purpose".)
Perhaps it did. Perhaps it is a method of population control so that the
aged (the most common of the victims) will die off earlier. Perhaps it
didn't and cancer is just a defect in our bodies that we have to try to cure
with our intelligence.
Look, this discussion (which is far more peaceful with you than with some)
has gone about as far as it can go. I presented what I think and how I act.
I think it time to stop as neither you nor I are going to change -- and I am
tiring of this discussion. Furthermore, is has moved considerably off topic
from Judaism.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
Maybe to you. However, you asked me. I, and numerous others, said
otherwise that it didn't bother us. We said that it was only when they
acted on it that it bothered us. So, as far as your question is concerned
you seem to be in a minority of one in the responses so far. Also, it still
is an error on your part in your previous comment (which had a cutting edge
tone) in that you confused the two points he was making. You implied that
he answered both ways in one paragraph. He did not. You were wrong.
Shelly
Susan Cohen
Lisa wrote:
> "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote in message news:<9v69al$59s$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:jMdR7.11161$5W5.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > OK. My question is what is wrong with honesty.
> > >
> > > 1 - I believe in equal rights for all.
> > > 2 - I believe in no discrimination based on all those things, including
> > sex
> > > choice.
> > > 3 - I find the very thought of a homosexual relationship repulsive.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with being honest about it? That is all I have ever really
> > > said. I may not have expressed myself well, but 1-3 is all I have really
> > > meant. Yet just saying #3, according to Lisa, that makes me a homophobe.
> >
> > BS"D
> >
> > This is one of those rare instances I agree with Shelly on all counts,
> > except the "unnaturalness" of it. Animals do it, and in animal populations
> > the relative proportion of homosexual acts seems to increase with population
> > pressure. One could say it was nature's relief valve against a population
> > explosion.
> >
> > Be that as it may, homosexual acts are prohibited by d'oraisa and
> > rabbinically, to Jews,
>
> Untrue. *One* sexual act is prohibited d'oraita to two men, whether
> they are heterosexual or homosexual. There are heterosexual men who
> engage in it, and there are plenty of homosexual men who do not.
I'd like to thank Lisa for trying to educate people, and for gritting her
teeth against what must be a distasteful subject. I know *I* wouldn't
like to have to discuss detailed intimacy on an international forum, but
she manages to do so with dignity.
Susan
Sheldon Glickler
.....and I would like to further clarify what I said in number 3 above. By
"homosexual relationship" I mean "the physical acts involved in a homosexual
relationship", not the partnering and caring. Now to let the topic die.
Shelly
GAN EDEN WINES
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com...
BS"D
Heck, Lisa, we all know your views, you've spouted them often enough. I
have yet to know a posek who says that *any* homosexual act is not
prohibited, at least rabbinically. Now, when I asked the question, there
was no reason other than curiosity, and therefore, it was not a psak
halacha, just a point of information. But I think it's pretty clear. Is
there a posek who might agree with your reading of it? Possibly. Oral sex
between two women not prohibited? Maybe. Certainly, it is doubtful that it
is prohibited d'oraisa, from what I understand. Oral sex between two men
not prohibited, at least rabbinically? I would think there was less of a
chance of *that* being the case. Gee, I'd love for the former to be the
case, as I'd never had a menage a trois. The latter case leaves me less
enthusiastic initially, but it could be a good way to get through my wife's
niddah periods, so I could probably get used to it. Neither of these things
is new, by any means. And one would think that these things would be
relatively normal in Jewish relationships, if they were not prohibited,
either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, Jews being, at least in my experience, a
relatively horny lot. But they are *not* relatively normal in Jewish
relationships, at least in my experience. The relative lack of their
practice in Jewish households proves the point. Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women. Most Jewish
men would love a sexual outlet during niddah. So I think one of us Jewish
men should ask the shaila, and get the ball rolling. But of course, the
reason we don't is that we know the answer. You want to do your thing with
your partner? Live long and prosper! It's none of my business.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
> Lisa
Susan Cohen
GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
Speak for yourself.
I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
Susan
Ron Aaron
Is this a question that comes up often?
My experience parallel's Craig's in this realm, I think.
Ron
Sheldon Ackerman
>Speak for yourself.
>I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
>
>Susan
What kind of conversations do you have with men? :-)
Susan Cohen
Ron Aaron wrote:
> In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> >
> > GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> >
> >> Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> >> men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
> >
> > Speak for yourself.
> > I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
>
> Is this a question that comes up often?
Whenever references are made - either on tv, or in jokes -
my husband (for instance) will usually make a face at
least.
> My experience parallel's Craig's in this realm, I think.
>
> Ron
I'm sure there's enough men out there to perpetuate the idea
that it's wide-spread. I understand it's a staple of porno movies.
Terrific.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
I'm one of those people that others feel they can tell things to.
Guess it's all that motherliness oozing from every pore...
Seriously, I am, of course, talking about my *husband*, as
well. I'm pretty sure I'm *allowed* to talk to him.....
Susan
Yisroel Markov
Hmm. IMHO, unless it is a situation where one or both women are there
only to please the man, I would say that one or both of the ladies are
very likely to come out of this dissatisfied - unless they also get
involved with each other. Lots of men have trouble satisfying even one
woman; a man needs to be an athlete (in more ways than one) to do this
for two. (In my wayward youth I once found myself in bed with three
girls, and I totally bungled it. What do you _do_ to avoid upsetting
at least one?!) Two men and one woman is a much more realistic menage
a trois. Again, MHO and not a halachic one.
In Talmud Nedarim 20b the rabbis suggest that it is forbidden to think
of another woman during relations even if the other woman is also his
wife. This would seem to preclude a menage a trois even for a
bigamist.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Ron Aaron
>
....
> In my wayward youth I once found myself in bed with three
"kol hamosif gore`a" ???
> In Talmud Nedarim 20b the rabbis suggest that it is forbidden to think
> of another woman during relations even if the other woman is also his
> wife. This would seem to preclude a menage a trois even for a
> bigamist.
Correct. *Even* thinking here is prohibited, in marked contrast to most
of the rest of halacha! Chazal realized how easily humans were led to
stray, and if thinking about it were ok, one might get fixated on the
idea, and lead to action on the idea. Since the prohibitions on illicit
relations are so strict, they felt the need for an added fence lest we
go down the "slippery slope" <so to speak>.
Ron
Ron Aaron
>
> Whenever references are made - either on tv, or in jokes -
> my husband (for instance) will usually make a face at
> least.
ok...
> I'm sure there's enough men out there to perpetuate the idea that it's
> wide-spread. I understand it's a staple of porno movies.
I think for men it's more the idea of "the more the better" rather than
anything else. I could be wrong...
> Terrific.
(said ironically, I expect? :-)
Ron
Susan Cohen
Yisroel Markov wrote:
> In Talmud Nedarim 20b the rabbis suggest that it is forbidden to think
> of another woman during relations even if the other woman is also his
> wife. This would seem to preclude a menage a trois even for a
> bigamist.
This has GOT to be one of the reasons polygyny was finally
outlawed by the rabbis. How is it possible to direct one's
thoughts so rigidly??
Susan
Abe Kohen
Depends on who the women are.
;-)
Abe
Harry Weiss
> preaching
>> the "truth" of Christianity just to spare their feelings.
> That's because in the U.S. (and in most Western societies) we're brought up
> to respect differences of opinion, including on the matter of religion.
> (It's a fairly modern concept with regard to religion.) But would you tell
> a friend or co-worker that they were worshipping the "false god" of Jesus?
> And if you wouldn't, do you find yourself consciously noting that about your
> Christian friends? Or, more likely, do you simply note -- and then file
> away -- the observation that their ways are not our ways, and live and let
> live?
> *That's* the difference.
No that is the same thing. I have many xian friend (including some
fundamentalists) even though I know Yoshke is a fraud. They also know I
don't believe in him and may think I am going to hell for it. That just
never enters into our relationships which are based on the things we have
in common.
The same is with gays. I agree with most of what Shelly is saying, and
have problems with their actions based on halacha that he doesn't find
important. That in way stops me from having gay friends. I don't
discuss what I do or others do in the bedroom with my straight friends,
why should I with gays? We can still have many other things in common and
be friends or respect their accomplishments.
The same would apply to intermarried people.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Abe Kohen
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3c18ffa7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 13 Dec 2001 17:32:15 GMT, raa...@goahead.com (Ron Aaron) opined:
>
> >In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> >>
> >>> Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> >>> men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
> >>
> >> Speak for yourself.
> >> I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
> >
> >Is this a question that comes up often?
> >
> >My experience parallel's Craig's in this realm, I think.
>
> Hmm. IMHO, unless it is a situation where one or both women are there
> only to please the man, I would say that one or both of the ladies are
> very likely to come out of this dissatisfied - unless they also get
> involved with each other. Lots of men have trouble satisfying even one
> woman; a man needs to be an athlete (in more ways than one) to do this
> for two. (In my wayward youth I once found myself in bed with three
> girls, and I totally bungled it. What do you _do_ to avoid upsetting
> at least one?!)
Let's just say there are other parts of man's body that are capable of
satisfying women. Theoretically an athlete could near simultaneously work on
satisfying 4 women.
Alas I am no athlete.
Now what does this have to do with Judaism? Perhaps Mitzvah #1, Pru Urvu -
go forth and multiply.
Abe
Yitzchak Goodman
> And according to Rashi, the only thing that is prohibited to two women
> is intimacy "derekh tashmish gever v'isha" (see Yevamot 76a), which
> means mimicry of heterosexual intercourse. Every other description in
> the Rishonim of what "nashim ha-mesollelot zu b'zu" means is
> consistent with Rashi's statement (all are different views of what
> that kind of mimicry might be, ranging from the Rivan, who felt it
> meant a kind of artificial insemination, to others who felt that it
> meant rubbing genitals against each other).
Rashi says "Derech tashmish zachar v'nekeivah meshafshefos nikvasan
zu lezu." I don't see how you can say that "derech tashmish etc." means
that even if it is not what Rashi says, it must be some form of
mimicry.
I categorically refuse to
> educate you as to what women do in bed together, but suffice it to say
> that most lesbian sex does not and cannot fall into the category of
> "mesollelot".
So the Torah took the trouble to forbid some sort of
marginal act that even Lesbians aren't all
that interested in, and that is what is "Ma'aseh Eretz
Mitzraim," but not other Lesbian sex? There isn't any
hint of this in the Midrash on Vayikra 18:3.
And anyway, if Lesbian sex in general is OK,
what has the Torah got against nashim mesollelos?
This doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm missing something.
> I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
> doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
> intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
> not.
Nobody is saying it means lesbian sex if you drop out
the word "nashim," right?
Yitz
Ania
]
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3c18ffa7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 13 Dec 2001 17:32:15 GMT, raa...@goahead.com (Ron Aaron) opined:
>
> >In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> >>
> >>> Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> >>> men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
> >>
> >> Speak for yourself.
> >> I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
> >
> >Is this a question that comes up often?
> >
> >My experience parallel's Craig's in this realm, I think.
>
> Hmm. IMHO, unless it is a situation where one or both women are there
> only to please the man, I would say that one or both of the ladies are
> very likely to come out of this dissatisfied - unless they also get
> involved with each other. Lots of men have trouble satisfying even one
> woman; a man needs to be an athlete (in more ways than one) to do this
> for two. (In my wayward youth I once found myself in bed with three
> girls, and I totally bungled it. What do you _do_ to avoid upsetting
> at least one?!) Two men and one woman is a much more realistic menage
> a trois. Again, MHO and not a halachic one.
Strange. That's for the first time I hear this. I always thought it was the
other way round - not just because men want sex much more, but because there
are so many times when women are not interested and/or can't - late
pregnancy, after delivery, periods, and just when they forget.
I thought that was the reason why poligamy is more common when it's one man
and more than one woman.
Ania.
Susan Cohen
Ron Aaron wrote:
I've heard at least one other theory that isn't so "cool" -
but I don't know if I could properly articulate it for
public consumption.
> > Terrific.
>
> (said ironically, I expect? :-)
And who said SDNWOTN? :-)
Susan
Susan Cohen
Abe Kohen wrote:
plplplplplplplplplplpl
Susan
Joel N. Shurkin
wrote:
Name one <g>
j
--
Joel Shurkin
HopkinsHealth
Baltimore, Maryland
Joel N. Shurkin
wrote:
> Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
And he told you he would not find a menage a trois exciting?
Eliyahu
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9vbab4$616$1...@news.panix.com...
we'd find it difficult to have any friends at all. In fact, I suspect that
were I to find a friend who completely agreed with me on everything, he'd
drive me nuts... :-)
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Lisa
> li...@starways.net (Lisa) wrote in message news:<cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > And according to Rashi, the only thing that is prohibited to two women
> > is intimacy "derekh tashmish gever v'isha" (see Yevamot 76a), which
> > means mimicry of heterosexual intercourse. Every other description in
> > the Rishonim of what "nashim ha-mesollelot zu b'zu" means is
> > consistent with Rashi's statement (all are different views of what
> > that kind of mimicry might be, ranging from the Rivan, who felt it
> > meant a kind of artificial insemination, to others who felt that it
> > meant rubbing genitals against each other).
>
> Rashi says "Derech tashmish zachar v'nekeivah meshafshefos nikvasan
> zu lezu." I don't see how you can say that "derech tashmish etc." means
> that even if it is not what Rashi says, it must be some form of
> mimicry.
Simple. Rashi's statement has two clauses:
- Derekh tashmish zachar u-nekeiva
(in the manner of intercourse between a man and a woman)
- meshafshefot nikvatan zu l'zu
(they rub their genitals together)
Which clause is ikkar (primary) and which is tafel (explanatory)? If
you say Rashi is calling mesollelot "rubbing two sets of female
genitals together", the result is that Rashi is cholek (in dispute)
with the other Rishonim. Not the end of the world, because that's
often the case, but our preference is always to minimize machloket,
yes? On the other hand, it gives us a problem with the sugya
(talmudic discussion) of the mother who was mesollelet with her minor
son. Did the minor son have female genitals?
If, on the other hand, the first clause is primary, and the second one
is merely Rashi's illustration of what that means (since I doubt even
Rashi, with all his greatness, had first hand, or even second hand
information as to what two women actually do in bed together), he's
not in dispute with other Rishonim at all. Every other Rishon who
describes "mesollelot" describes something that could reasonably be
seen as "in the manner of intercourse between a man and a woman".
Take the Rivan, for example:
==================
A woman would lay with a man and then lay with a woman, transferring
the man's semen to her.
==================
To the Rivan, heterosexual intercourse is about procreation, so his
interpretation of "mimicking heterosexual intercourse" would naturally
take this form.
Plus, the discussion about the mother and her minor son becomes
consistent as well. She was pretending to have sex with him, and
accidentally let him penetrate her.
For both of these reasons, the normative way of learning would lead us
to read Rashi as having meant his first clause as the definition of
"mesollelot" and his second clause as merely illustrative.
> > I categorically refuse to
> > educate you as to what women do in bed together, but suffice it to say
> > that most lesbian sex does not and cannot fall into the category of
> > "mesollelot".
>
> So the Torah took the trouble to forbid some sort of
> marginal act that even Lesbians aren't all
> that interested in, and that is what is "Ma'aseh Eretz
> Mitzraim," but not other Lesbian sex?
You can put it that way, if you like, but I don't think that's
accurate. It makes perfect sense for the Torah to davka forbid women
from that kind of mimicry. After all, the very phrasing of mishkav
zachor does the same thing for men. It has a precise definition of
anal sex, but it could have been phrased otherwise. The Torah chose
to compare it to mishkavei isha. That's not a "reason" to read Rashi
the way I suggest, but it is certainly consistent.
As to it being marginal, well... maybe it's not. After all, al taam
v'reiach. Maybe there are more women who are into that than I
imagined. It strikes me as uncomfortable. But then again, I've heard
of sex toys that let women play at penetration (also not to my taste),
which could also be seen as mimicry of hetersexual intercourse. Maybe
that's more common.
And while it is not of any halakhic significance, of course, it might
be worthwhile to see how the contemporaries of the Talmudic sages
viewed sex between women. The following appears in the entry on
"Homosexuality" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary:
==================
Perhaps the cultural predominance of the penetration model of sex
obscured non-penetrative eroticism among conventionally feminine
women, for which in any case there seems to have been no established
terminology. The female same-sex sexual practice that imperial Greek
and Roman writers alike singled out for comment was 'tribadism', the
sexual penetration of women (and men) by other women, by means of
either a dildo or a fantastically large clitoris.
==================
So maybe that was the prevailing assumption of men at that time. Or
maybe it was even accurate. Who knows?
> There isn't any
> hint of this in the Midrash on Vayikra 18:3.
Do you agree that the Midrash in question (that's midrash halakha,
folks; not midrash aggada, so his citing it is completely legit)
refers to sexual acts, rather than to quasi-marriage?
> And anyway, if Lesbian sex in general is OK,
> what has the Torah got against nashim mesollelos?
> This doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm missing something.
First of all, there's no such thing as "lesbian sex" from a Torah
point of view. There are concepts in the Torah which don't exist in
modern Western thought, and vice versa. The Torah doesn't have any
concept of "homosexuality", as such. For example. What the Torah has
against "nashim ha-mesollelot" (not that there needs to be an answer;
after all, what does the Torah have against eating pork?) seems to be
the same thing it has against mishkav zachor.
One of the most important concepts in the Torah is that of havdala.
Separation. Distinction. We have asara yuchsin (more, really),
distinctions made between Jews and non-Jews, regular non-Jews and
Egyptians and Moabites and Amonites, between Kohanim, Levi'im,
Yisraelim, etc, between men and women, between day and night, holy and
secular, and the list goes on. Intercourse between a man and a woman
is a special act. Both materialistically and spiritually.
Kabbalistically. Two women, or two men for that matter, can be
intimate, and Hashem knows it, and has never expressed any problem
with it. But that intimacy is something different, and the
distinction needs to be maintained. So prohibiting davka those acts
which most closely mimic it makes tons of sense.
> > I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
> > doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
> > intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
> > not.
>
> Nobody is saying it means lesbian sex if you drop out
> the word "nashim," right?
So it means "sex"? Gee... I thought that was "bi'ah". In the Torah,
Yitz, words have specific meanings. Words aren't used as loosely as
they are in modern English.
Lisa
Lisa
Thanks to the moderators who let "spouting" through, btw.
Craig, here's a drash I heard some years ago in Jerusalem. Lot, as we
know, was not exactly a tzaddik she'ba'tzaddikim, yes? He went to
Sodom, and it suited him well. And yet, when the malachim came and
told him that Hashem was going to nuke the cities, he asked no
questions, did not hesitate, but got moving.
His sons-in-law, who probably weren't cut from very different stuff
from Lot himself, just laughed. Why was that? Why didn't Lot laugh
as well?
And the answer is, because he'd heard Avraham Avinu's teachings. He
hadn't accepted them, perhaps, but he'd heard them. And they sat
inside of him like a seed, so that when the day came that he was ready
for them, or when they were really needed, they were there. Those
words.
Now, I know there are people (you there, Shimshoni?) who think that
all analogies imply a comparison between the individuals of the mashal
and the individuals of the nimshal, so to forstall such naarischkeit,
I'll point out that I'm obviously not comparing myself to anyone in
that story, as a person. The point of the story is the dynamic. That
you don't stop telling the truth because people aren't listening.
Shtika k'hoda'a, Craig, and I won't do that. You don't want to
listen, fine. Maybe someday you'll happen to be learning that sugya
through daf yomi or something and you'll say, "Hmm... you know, what
Lisa said way back then actually seems to be pshat."
> I have yet to know a posek who says that *any* homosexual act is not
> prohibited, at least rabbinically.
How many poskim have you asked? How many of them have learned the
sugyas involved? How many of them, if you ask them, will say that
they just assumed the gemara in Yevamot was talking about "lesbian
sex" because "what else can it be?"
> Now, when I asked the question, there
> was no reason other than curiosity, and therefore, it was not a psak
> halacha, just a point of information. But I think it's pretty clear. Is
> there a posek who might agree with your reading of it? Possibly. Oral sex
> between two women not prohibited? Maybe. Certainly, it is doubtful that it
> is prohibited d'oraisa, from what I understand.
I can't imagine how you could see even a rabbinic prohibition.
> Oral sex between two men
> not prohibited, at least rabbinically?
Sure it is. So's using a phone on Shabbat. Unless certain conditions
apply.
> I would think there was less of a
> chance of *that* being the case. Gee, I'd love for the former to be the
> case, as I'd never had a menage a trois. The latter case leaves me less
> enthusiastic initially, but it could be a good way to get through my wife's
> niddah periods, so I could probably get used to it. Neither of these things
> is new, by any means. And one would think that these things would be
> relatively normal in Jewish relationships, if they were not prohibited,
> either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, Jews being, at least in my experience, a
> relatively horny lot. But they are *not* relatively normal in Jewish
> relationships, at least in my experience. The relative lack of their
> practice in Jewish households proves the point.
Not at all. Intimacy between two women has nothing to do with a
menage a trois.
> Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
Most *men* probably would. But that's because most men objectify
women and think we exist for their pleasure. It may or may not
surprise you to know that very few women would find the prospect of a
menage with two men appealing.
> Most Jewish
> men would love a sexual outlet during niddah. So I think one of us Jewish
> men should ask the shaila, and get the ball rolling.
Ask which shaila? Whether you can go and sleep with a guy because
your wife is in niddah? Duh. Whether you can have a menage a trois?
Again, duh. None of this has anything to do with what I posted,
and... you know, I almost said, "and you know it", but I actually
think you don't.
> But of course, the
> reason we don't is that we know the answer. You want to do your thing with
> your partner? Live long and prosper! It's none of my business.
Craig, so long as you misrepresent what the halakha says, I'll keep
correcting you. You are not obligated to reply.
Lisa
Yitzchak Goodman
> yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote in message news:<c338b5c0.01121...@posting.google.com>...
> > li...@starways.net (Lisa) wrote in message news:<cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > And according to Rashi, the only thing that is prohibited to two women
> > > is intimacy "derekh tashmish gever v'isha" (see Yevamot 76a), which
> > > means mimicry of heterosexual intercourse. Every other description in
> > > the Rishonim of what "nashim ha-mesollelot zu b'zu" means is
> > > consistent with Rashi's statement (all are different views of what
> > > that kind of mimicry might be, ranging from the Rivan, who felt it
> > > meant a kind of artificial insemination, to others who felt that it
> > > meant rubbing genitals against each other).
> >
> > Rashi says "Derech tashmish zachar v'nekeivah meshafshefos nikvasan
> > zu lezu." I don't see how you can say that "derech tashmish etc." means
> > that even if it is not what Rashi says, it must be some form of
> > mimicry.
>
> Simple. Rashi's statement has two clauses:
>
> - Derekh tashmish zachar u-nekeiva
> (in the manner of intercourse between a man and a woman)
>
> - meshafshefot nikvatan zu l'zu
> (they rub their genitals together)
>
> Which clause is ikkar (primary) and which is tafel (explanatory)? If
> you say Rashi is calling mesollelot "rubbing two sets of female
> genitals together", the result is that Rashi is cholek (in dispute)
> with the other Rishonim.
He is obviously mechaleik on the Rivan. Calling part of what he says
"tafel" doesn't change that.
Not the end of the world, because that's
> often the case, but our preference is always to minimize machloket,
> yes? On the other hand, it gives us a problem with the sugya
> (talmudic discussion) of the mother who was mesollelet with her minor
> son. Did the minor son have female genitals?
No, there is no problem. Mesollelos as a verb seems to mean something
like rubbing or stroking. That is what Rashi says although you say
he is wrong about what body part is doing it. Since we might
not know the word, we have no idea what "nashim hamesollelos" is,
so Rashi tells us. I think when you just translate what he says,
that conveys the idea. The mother, I guess, is rubbing or
stroking with her her hands.
I don't know if you have to choose one or the other. The culture
of Egypt is seen as so wild that a man is openly marrying a man,
a woman is marrying a woman, etc. I agree with you that the stress
is on the sex.
> > And anyway, if Lesbian sex in general is OK,
> > what has the Torah got against nashim mesollelos?
> > This doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
> First of all, there's no such thing as "lesbian sex" from a Torah
> point of view. There are concepts in the Torah which don't exist in
> modern Western thought, and vice versa. The Torah doesn't have any
> concept of "homosexuality", as such. For example.
All I mean by "lesbian sex" is sex between two women. You
mean "lesbianism" as a state of being, I think, so I think
I understand what you mean when you make statements that go with
that idea. The dictionary allows both ways of using the word.
What the Torah has
> against "nashim ha-mesollelot" (not that there needs to be an answer;
> after all, what does the Torah have against eating pork?
No, there does need to be a reason. You can't call Egypt a corrupt
society for doing these things unless there is a reason. Egyptians
can eat all the pork they want.
) seems to be
> the same thing it has against mishkav zachor.
>
> One of the most important concepts in the Torah is that of havdala.
> Separation. Distinction. We have asara yuchsin (more, really),
> distinctions made between Jews and non-Jews, regular non-Jews and
> Egyptians and Moabites and Amonites, between Kohanim, Levi'im,
> Yisraelim, etc, between men and women, between day and night, holy and
> secular, and the list goes on. Intercourse between a man and a woman
> is a special act. Both materialistically and spiritually.
> Kabbalistically. Two women, or two men for that matter, can be
> intimate, and Hashem knows it, and has never expressed any problem
> with it. But that intimacy is something different, and the
> distinction needs to be maintained. So prohibiting davka those acts
> which most closely mimic it makes tons of sense.
This is a nice derasha, but you have to think of what it makes sense
to condemn Egypt for. You can see that civilization wants to limit
people's possibilities for sexual partners so it is not a
free-for-all. Most of the Torah's sexual prohibitions involve
inappropriate combinations of people. The Rambam, talking about
the prohibition for mishkav zachar for B'nai Noach, brings Bereishis
2:24 "vedaveik be'ishto" (He shall cleave to his wife). The Rambam
writes "be'ishto velo bizechor" (to his wife and not a male)
Hilchos Melachim 9:5.
> > > I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
> > > doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
> > > intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
> > > not.
> >
> > Nobody is saying it means lesbian sex if you drop out
> > the word "nashim," right?
>
> So it means "sex"? Gee... I thought that was "bi'ah".
No, it means rubbing or stroking, as I said. "Lesbian sex"
for "nashim mesollelos" is using more abstract terminology
for something that is actually more descriptive if translated
literally, but the idea is sex bewteen women.
Yitz
Abe Kohen
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote
> "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote
> How many poskim have you asked? How many of them have learned the
> sugyas involved?
Excellent point.
My rebbes in UO yeshivot would always skip over any materials relating to
sex. So I learned Gittin in 7th grade, Kedushin in 8th grade, ... always
skipping over the "good stuff." But we had a weekly Thursday night Mishmar,
and when I was not successful at skipping out, I would sit in Havruta and
learn/teach my classmates the forbidden stuff.
So I too strongly doubt that many would have learned the sugya, or if they
did, I doubt their understanding would be deep.
Yours truly has been reviewing the sugya tonight. (The "speed" in the
Suphedrine and my sinus congestion is preventing me from hitting the bed.)
Tzarich iyun. (Needs [more] research.)
Abe
GAN EDEN WINES
"Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9vhm5m$fa877$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote
> > "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote
>
> > How many poskim have you asked? How many of them have learned the
> > sugyas involved?
>
> Excellent point.
BS"D
Not really an excellent point. A posek cannot afford to skip things like
that. A normal, run of the mill rabbi might indeed be able to skip such
things. There a few rabbis who specialize in poskining shailas, and their
services are in high demand. They are *not* typical rabbis in terms of
their training.
Furthermore, anyone who learns daf yomi would have at least gone through the
gemaras dealing with such things. I don't learn daf yomi, and I haven't.
>
> My rebbes in UO yeshivot would always skip over any materials relating to
> sex. So I learned Gittin in 7th grade, Kedushin in 8th grade, ... always
> skipping over the "good stuff." But we had a weekly Thursday night
Mishmar,
> and when I was not successful at skipping out, I would sit in Havruta and
> learn/teach my classmates the forbidden stuff.
You're discussing introducing adolescent boys to sex through the gemara? If
they have not discussed it at home, with their fathers, why should the
gemara shiur introduce them to the subject? This is, unfortunately, the way
things work. Parents normally leave it up to the rebbes to introduce the
subject to their sons at the proper time, usually when the rebbes perceive a
problem, or right before the talmid gets married. It is just avoided up
until that point. FWIW, I disagree with such passivity on the part of
parents with such an important subject. But I can understand that the
gemara shiur is not necessarily the place to teach sex education. I answer
*any* question my kids have (so far, very few), and if I don't know the
answer, I'll ask a shaila.
>
> So I too strongly doubt that many would have learned the sugya, or if they
> did, I doubt their understanding would be deep.
As I say, a posek, especially in these days, cannot afford to neglect that
part of halacha. I would not be surprised to find that non-poskim may
neglect that part of halacha.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
Lisa
He is not "obviously mechalkeik" on the Rivan, Yitz. That's the
point. You choose to read him so that there's a machloket. I'm
showing that there doesn't need to be one at all. You do realize that
half of learning is finding ways to resolve or eliminate apparent
machloket, right? Not to davka read something in a way that creates
machloket.
> > Not the end of the world, because that's
> > often the case, but our preference is always to minimize machloket,
> > yes? On the other hand, it gives us a problem with the sugya
> > (talmudic discussion) of the mother who was mesollelet with her minor
> > son. Did the minor son have female genitals?
>
> No, there is no problem. Mesollelos as a verb seems to mean something
> like rubbing or stroking.
You think so? Really. What's the root, Yitz? And while we're
playing at creative etymology, can you explain how it is that the word
for rope (meshicha) and the word for "anoint" (meshicha) are the same?
Seeing as how you're an expert in such things, I mean. Or maybe you
could post a source for mesollelot meaning "rubbing" or "stroking"
that isn't based on the assumption that that's what it means in that
sugya? After all, you wouldn't want to argue that the word means that
because it obviously means that, would you?
> That is what Rashi says although you say
> he is wrong about what body part is doing it.
You're willing to say that Rashi is wrong, but you're unwilling to
read Rashi in a very simple pshat way that has the rubbing being just
an illustration? Can you explain what sense there is to that?
Every single Rishon, without exception, who describes what mesollelot
might be, has a single common denominator: it's a stab at what
imitating het intercourse might mean. Because of all the areas of
halakha, this is one that the rabbis are least likely to have any
reasonable data about.
> Since we might
> not know the word, we have no idea what "nashim hamesollelos" is,
> so Rashi tells us. I think when you just translate what he says,
> that conveys the idea. The mother, I guess, is rubbing or
> stroking with her her hands.
But that's not what Rashi says. He says the word means "derekh
tashmish zachar u'nekeiva", Yitz. Playing at het intercourse without
actually doing it. In the case of the mother, she was doing that,
and... oops! It became more than a pretense. The term they used when
I was in high school (pardon the sensibilities of those who are still
reading this) was "dry humping".
The Sifra mentions 4 acts. Three of those 4 involve sexual unions
prohibited elsewhere. Mishkav zachor, polyandry, and a man with a
woman and her daughter. The one item the Sifra mentions that there's
no reference to elsewhere is two women. The Rambam seems to have
concluded logically (since there's no trace of any source prior to the
Rambam linking the Sifra and the gemara in Yevamot, that the Sifra
must be referring to nashim ha-mesollelot.
> > > And anyway, if Lesbian sex in general is OK,
> > > what has the Torah got against nashim mesollelos?
> > > This doesn't make any sense, but maybe I'm missing something.
> >
> > First of all, there's no such thing as "lesbian sex" from a Torah
> > point of view. There are concepts in the Torah which don't exist in
> > modern Western thought, and vice versa. The Torah doesn't have any
> > concept of "homosexuality", as such. For example.
>
> All I mean by "lesbian sex" is sex between two women.
Cool. Define "sex". Just because modern western culture has concepts
such as "sex" and "homosexuality" and so forth doesn't mean that these
concepts exist in halakha. There's "bi'ah". This isn't "bi'ah",
though, which I think you would agree. There's "zenut", but the
gemara is fairly clear that this isn't zenut either. There's "pritzut
b'alma", but that doesn't even necessarily have to be sexual, and it
certainly isn't specific.
If two women kiss, is that "sex"? French kiss? Where does it become
"sex"? According to halakha, probably never, though that's hard to
say, because the concept doesn't really exist in halakha.
> You mean "lesbianism" as a state of being, I think, so I think
> I understand what you mean when you make statements that go with
> that idea. The dictionary allows both ways of using the word.
Not really. Not unless you use an old dictionary, or aim for
pedantry.
> > What the Torah has
> > against "nashim ha-mesollelot" (not that there needs to be an answer;
> > after all, what does the Torah have against eating pork?
>
> No, there does need to be a reason. You can't call Egypt a corrupt
> society for doing these things unless there is a reason. Egyptians
> can eat all the pork they want.
No, there doesn't need to be a reason, Yitz. Does the Torah have a
reason for Jews not being allowed to eat pork? (Which you knew I
meant)
> ) seems to be
> > the same thing it has against mishkav zachor.
> >
> > One of the most important concepts in the Torah is that of havdala.
> > Separation. Distinction. We have asara yuchsin (more, really),
> > distinctions made between Jews and non-Jews, regular non-Jews and
> > Egyptians and Moabites and Amonites, between Kohanim, Levi'im,
> > Yisraelim, etc, between men and women, between day and night, holy and
> > secular, and the list goes on. Intercourse between a man and a woman
> > is a special act. Both materialistically and spiritually.
> > Kabbalistically. Two women, or two men for that matter, can be
> > intimate, and Hashem knows it, and has never expressed any problem
> > with it. But that intimacy is something different, and the
> > distinction needs to be maintained. So prohibiting davka those acts
> > which most closely mimic it makes tons of sense.
>
> This is a nice derasha, but you have to think of what it makes sense
> to condemn Egypt for.
That they accepted sexual unions we forbid as a standard thing.
That's pretty clear, no?
> You can see that civilization wants to limit
> people's possibilities for sexual partners so it is not a
> free-for-all.
Why is that? And what kind of free-for-all? I mean, I know there's
promiscuity. Both heterosexual and homosexual. But how does two
women being in a committed relationship, raising a child and being a
regular family constitute a "free-for-all"? Hint: it doesn't.
> Most of the Torah's sexual prohibitions involve
> inappropriate combinations of people. The Rambam, talking about
> the prohibition for mishkav zachar for B'nai Noach, brings Bereishis
> 2:24 "vedaveik be'ishto" (He shall cleave to his wife). The Rambam
> writes "be'ishto velo bizechor" (to his wife and not a male)
> Hilchos Melachim 9:5.
Define "cleaving". Is it emotional? Is it a function of physically
"cleaving"? Physically, I can see how penile intercourse could be
seen that way. But we're concave, Yitz. Not convex like you guys.
The same thing doesn't apply.
> > > > I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
> > > > doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
> > > > intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
> > > > not.
> > >
> > > Nobody is saying it means lesbian sex if you drop out
> > > the word "nashim," right?
> >
> > So it means "sex"? Gee... I thought that was "bi'ah".
>
> No, it means rubbing or stroking, as I said.
And your saying it makes it so? There's no basis for your claim that
it means that. Look:
sal: basket
sila: to weigh/evaluate
salil: coil/spool
salal: to pave
salal: to glorify
mistolel: to be arrogant (related to the previous example)
Find me somewhere in that root the concept of rubbing. If anything,
the closest one of these, grammatically, would be the last two.
> "Lesbian sex"
> for "nashim mesollelos" is using more abstract terminology
> for something that is actually more descriptive if translated
> literally, but the idea is sex bewteen women.
You want it to be general sex between women. But there's no source
whatsoever to say so. Just your assertion.
Lisa
Yisroel Markov
opined:
>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>news:cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>> Craig, I'm disappointed in you. Repeating assumptions that you've
>> picked up along the way and which have absolutely no basis in rabbinic
>> writings is inappropriate at best, and lifnei iveir at worst.
>
>BS"D
>
>Heck, Lisa, we all know your views, you've spouted them often enough. I
"Spout":
1 : to eject (as liquid) in a stream <wells spouting oil>
2 a : to speak or utter readily, volubly, and at length b : to speak
or utter in a pompous or oratorical manner
In my memory of SCJ(M), Lisa has detailed her views on homosexuality
in halacha about 3 times in 5 years. Nor did she do so at any undue
length; on the contrary, since this is something she has obviously
thoroughly researched, she is always as brief as the complexity of the
subject allows. To sum up, I'm disappointed in your choice of word.
>have yet to know a posek who says that *any* homosexual act is not
>prohibited, at least rabbinically. Now, when I asked the question, there
>was no reason other than curiosity, and therefore, it was not a psak
>halacha, just a point of information. But I think it's pretty clear. Is
>there a posek who might agree with your reading of it? Possibly. Oral sex
>between two women not prohibited? Maybe. Certainly, it is doubtful that it
>is prohibited d'oraisa, from what I understand. Oral sex between two men
>not prohibited, at least rabbinically? I would think there was less of a
>chance of *that* being the case. Gee, I'd love for the former to be the
>case, as I'd never had a menage a trois.
Irrelevant.
>The latter case leaves me less
>enthusiastic initially, but it could be a good way to get through my wife's
>niddah periods, so I could probably get used to it. Neither of these things
>is new, by any means. And one would think that these things would be
>relatively normal in Jewish relationships, if they were not prohibited,
>either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, Jews being, at least in my experience, a
>relatively horny lot. But they are *not* relatively normal in Jewish
>relationships, at least in my experience. The relative lack of their
>practice in Jewish households proves the point. Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
>men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women. Most Jewish
>men would love a sexual outlet during niddah. So I think one of us Jewish
>men should ask the shaila, and get the ball rolling. But of course, the
>reason we don't is that we know the answer.
This has to be one of the worst cases of presumption that I've ever
seen! We don't ask because we grow up in 1) a generally homophobic
society, and 2) our own environment emphasizes "traditional families",
so we presume we know the answer. Add the thought: "What would the
rabbi think of me if I asked such a question?!", and you've got a good
reason not to ask. That doesn't justify assuming an answer.
>You want to do your thing with
>your partner? Live long and prosper! It's none of my business.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
Joel Rosenberg
> On 13 Dec 2001 15:23:06 GMT, "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com>
> opined:
>
> >"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> >news:cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Craig, I'm disappointed in you. Repeating assumptions that you've
> >> picked up along the way and which have absolutely no basis in rabbinic
> >> writings is inappropriate at best, and lifnei iveir at worst.
> >
> >BS"D
> >
> >Heck, Lisa, we all know your views, you've spouted them often enough. I
>
> "Spout":
> 1 : to eject (as liquid) in a stream <wells spouting oil>
> 2 a : to speak or utter readily, volubly, and at length b : to speak
> or utter in a pompous or oratorical manner
>
> In my memory of SCJ(M), Lisa has detailed her views on homosexuality
> in halacha about 3 times in 5 years. Nor did she do so at any undue
> length; on the contrary, since this is something she has obviously
> thoroughly researched, she is always as brief as the complexity of the
> subject allows. To sum up, I'm disappointed in your choice of word.
>
Me, too.
In passing, I'm more than a little impressed with Lisa's apparent
knowledge of the material -- I'd probably be more so if her knowledge
of the subject didn't so far surpass my own that I'm barely able to
follow some of the discussion.
It hadn't occurred to me that it might be possible to be gay, involved
in a same-sex relationship that includes physical intimacy, and
observant. (It's not something that a straight non-observant agnostic
spends a lot of time worrying about, for the obvious reasons.)
(I'm also, in passing, also impressed with the dignity that Lisa's
displayed in the discussion.)
--
-------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.
-------------------------------------
GAN EDEN WINES
> On 13 Dec 2001 15:23:06 GMT, "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com>
> opined:
>
> >"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> >news:cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Craig, I'm disappointed in you. Repeating assumptions that you've
> >> picked up along the way and which have absolutely no basis in rabbinic
> >> writings is inappropriate at best, and lifnei iveir at worst.
> >
> >BS"D
> >
> >Heck, Lisa, we all know your views, you've spouted them often enough. I
>
> "Spout":
> 1 : to eject (as liquid) in a stream <wells spouting oil>
> 2 a : to speak or utter readily, volubly, and at length b : to speak
> or utter in a pompous or oratorical manner
>
> In my memory of SCJ(M), Lisa has detailed her views on homosexuality
> in halacha about 3 times in 5 years. Nor did she do so at any undue
> length; on the contrary, since this is something she has obviously
> thoroughly researched, she is always as brief as the complexity of the
> subject allows. To sum up, I'm disappointed in your choice of word.
>
OK, I have no problem "taking back" my choice of the word "spouted" in favor
of the word "opined". In any case, it has happened often enough (maybe not
on scjm, but in the old days on scj). So we who have been around so long
have heard multiple times. She's entitled to her opinion, and she seems to
have gone to great lengths to learn enough Torah to be able to justify that
opinion in her own mind (I'm not saying that she limited her Torah study to
that question, by the way-- she's pretty knowledgeable in other areas as
well).
> >have yet to know a posek who says that *any* homosexual act is not
> >prohibited, at least rabbinically. Now, when I asked the question, there
> >was no reason other than curiosity, and therefore, it was not a psak
> >halacha, just a point of information. But I think it's pretty clear. Is
> >there a posek who might agree with your reading of it? Possibly. Oral
sex
> >between two women not prohibited? Maybe. Certainly, it is doubtful that
it
> >is prohibited d'oraisa, from what I understand. Oral sex between two men
> >not prohibited, at least rabbinically? I would think there was less of a
> >chance of *that* being the case. Gee, I'd love for the former to be the
> >case, as I'd never had a menage a trois.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not irrevelvant at all, from my perspective. If same sex oral gratification
is permissible, then why not marry a bisexual woman and have another woman
there with whom one's wife can have a sexual relationship? It would satisfy
many a man's voyeuristic tendencies and exhibit a strong aphrodisiac effect
upon a man so inclined. And while he is sexually involved with his wife, he
need not think about the other woman (especially if the other woman were
purely lesbian, not bisexual). Not that my wife would get involved with
such things, by the way (grin). It is simply a matter of intellectual
curiosity, really. Because enough men would enjoy the voyeuristic aspects
of lesbian sex as to make the answer to the question of its permissibility a
real factor in determining who to marry.
>
> >The latter case leaves me less
> >enthusiastic initially, but it could be a good way to get through my
wife's
> >niddah periods, so I could probably get used to it. Neither of these
things
> >is new, by any means. And one would think that these things would be
> >relatively normal in Jewish relationships, if they were not prohibited,
> >either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, Jews being, at least in my experience, a
> >relatively horny lot. But they are *not* relatively normal in Jewish
> >relationships, at least in my experience. The relative lack of their
> >practice in Jewish households proves the point. Listen, Lisa, most
Jewish
> >men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women. Most Jewish
> >men would love a sexual outlet during niddah. So I think one of us
Jewish
> >men should ask the shaila, and get the ball rolling. But of course, the
> >reason we don't is that we know the answer.
>
> This has to be one of the worst cases of presumption that I've ever
> seen! We don't ask because we grow up in 1) a generally homophobic
> society, and 2) our own environment emphasizes "traditional families",
> so we presume we know the answer. Add the thought: "What would the
> rabbi think of me if I asked such a question?!", and you've got a good
> reason not to ask. That doesn't justify assuming an answer.
How is it that we became a relatively homophobic society in the first place?
How is it that our own environment emphasizes "traditional families" in the
first place? It wasn't because of the Greek or Roman influences, that's for
sure. It wasn't from the activities of the Canaanim with whom we had
interaction, that's for sure. It is because we, the Jews, had halachos
showing homosexual sex to be undesirable, and traditional families to be
optimal. You can't have it both ways. Either homosexual sexuality, of
certain types, is permissible to everyone of that particular gender, or it
is permissible to noone.
Craig
Abe Kohen
While dictionaries cannot capture Talmudic dispute, I still decided to start
my research with a dictionary.
Alcalay (Heb<->Eng dictionary) defines solel as "rub oneself against
another." In the vernacular, IIRC, it is referred to as mutual masturbation.
This can be of same or opposite genders.
Bli neder, I will check a Jastrow in shul.
(Other meanings for solel, which IMHO are not relevant to the sugya are
paving and winding.)
Bli neder, more to follow.
Abe
Lisa
> In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> wrote:
>
> > GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> >
> > > Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> > > men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
> >
> > Speak for yourself.
> > I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
> >
> > Susan
>
> Name one <g>
Shelly, clearly.
Lisa
Yisroel Markov
opined:
>
>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:3c1e1cd5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
[snip]
>> This has to be one of the worst cases of presumption that I've ever
>> seen! We don't ask because we grow up in 1) a generally homophobic
>> society, and 2) our own environment emphasizes "traditional families",
>> so we presume we know the answer. Add the thought: "What would the
>> rabbi think of me if I asked such a question?!", and you've got a good
>> reason not to ask. That doesn't justify assuming an answer.
>
>How is it that we became a relatively homophobic society in the first place?
>How is it that our own environment emphasizes "traditional families" in the
>first place? It wasn't because of the Greek or Roman influences, that's for
>sure. It wasn't from the activities of the Canaanim with whom we had
>interaction, that's for sure. It is because we, the Jews, had halachos
>showing homosexual sex to be undesirable, and traditional families to be
>optimal.
"Undesirable" != "forbidden".
>You can't have it both ways. Either homosexual sexuality, of
>certain types, is permissible to everyone of that particular gender, or it
>is permissible to noone.
I don't think this is a valid dichotomy. Halachically permissible
heterosexual relationships are indeed the norm. The question is, is
deviation therefrom within tolerable limits or not. There are examples
of halacha being willing to accept deviations from the norm up to a
certain degree when failure to do so would result in damage (including
even non-monetary damages such as embarrassment) to individuals.
Lisa
One problem with dictionaries for something like this is that it can
be circular reasoning. This is particularly the case in modern
Hebrew, where the language has been recreated. The Talmud is one of
the few sources we have for what used to be in the living Hebrew
language, so Ben Yehuda and his heirs have mined it for information.
Which makes sense.
But what happens in our case? We have a word, "mesollelot", which
apparently has no other source. In other words, it exists in the
Talmud, in the discussions we've mentioned (two women, a woman and her
minor son), and nowhere else. So looking at Rashi, who says (as I've
posted before): "In the manner of intercourse between a man and a
woman, they rub their genitals together", the orthographers can
conclude that "mesollelot" means "to rub".
Which would be reasonable, except that they are orthographers, and
they don't get to make halakhic determinations like that. It may seem
that I'm trying to delegitimize a source, but the truth is, the
dictionaries, in this case, aren't an additional source. They're just
a secondary source using the same primary source material we've been
using in this discussion.
I once heard a story that explained where the word "riba" came from in
modern Hebrew. It means "jelly", or "jam". As the story goes, Ben
Yehuda came across a passage in the Talmud that said something like,
"v'riba devarim metukim". This should have been translated as
something like, "and a multitude of sweet things". But he saw it as
"and riba, sweet things", and decided to use the word "riba" for jam.
I don't know if it's true or not, but this is the way in which modern
Hebrew was revived.
> Alcalay (Heb<->Eng dictionary) defines solel as "rub oneself against
> another." In the vernacular, IIRC, it is referred to as mutual masturbation.
> This can be of same or opposite genders.
Alcalay is probably the best dictionary out there. In my opinion,
anyway. You can try Ben Shoshan too, if you like. You'll probably
see the same thing.
> Bli neder, I will check a Jastrow in shul.
>
> (Other meanings for solel, which IMHO are not relevant to the sugya are
> paving and winding.)
The original meaning seems to have been something like "breaking
through", as in breaking trail. Paving is a modern application of the
verb. The Yom Kippur haftara (if I'm remembering correctly) begins
"Sollu sollu! Panu derekh!" Meaning "Break through, break through!
Clear a path!" The verb in question is the same. I can't imagine
what the connection is, though.
Lisa
Lisa
Thanks. Both for taking back the offensive word as well as for the
compliment. You do understand that given what I know (whether you
agree or not), I can't just ignore it when someone make a statement I
know to be false, right?
> > >have yet to know a posek who says that *any* homosexual act is not
> > >prohibited, at least rabbinically. Now, when I asked the question, there
> > >was no reason other than curiosity, and therefore, it was not a psak
> > >halacha, just a point of information. But I think it's pretty clear. Is
> > >there a posek who might agree with your reading of it? Possibly. Oral
> sex
> > >between two women not prohibited? Maybe. Certainly, it is doubtful that
> it
> > >is prohibited d'oraisa, from what I understand. Oral sex between two men
> > >not prohibited, at least rabbinically? I would think there was less of a
> > >chance of *that* being the case. Gee, I'd love for the former to be the
> > >case, as I'd never had a menage a trois.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not irrevelvant at all, from my perspective. If same sex oral gratification
> is permissible, then why not marry a bisexual woman and have another woman
> there with whom one's wife can have a sexual relationship?
You think much of yourself, Craig. Men are turned on by this because
they see us as tools for their satisfaction (by and large; I'm aware
that there are men who are exceptions to this rule). I can't tell you
how many times I've received e-mails from gay men asking to be set up
with lesbians, as if a lesbian wouldn't prefer a straight guy if she
had to get married. Their attitude and yours, Craig, simply ignores
the women in the equation, as if we only exist for your benefit.
> > >The latter case leaves me less
> > >enthusiastic initially, but it could be a good way to get through my
> wife's
> > >niddah periods, so I could probably get used to it. Neither of these
> things
> > >is new, by any means. And one would think that these things would be
> > >relatively normal in Jewish relationships, if they were not prohibited,
> > >either d'oraisa or d'rabbanan, Jews being, at least in my experience, a
> > >relatively horny lot. But they are *not* relatively normal in Jewish
> > >relationships, at least in my experience. The relative lack of their
> > >practice in Jewish households proves the point. Listen, Lisa, most
> Jewish
> > >men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women. Most Jewish
> > >men would love a sexual outlet during niddah. So I think one of us
> Jewish
> > >men should ask the shaila, and get the ball rolling. But of course, the
> > >reason we don't is that we know the answer.
> >
> > This has to be one of the worst cases of presumption that I've ever
> > seen! We don't ask because we grow up in 1) a generally homophobic
> > society, and 2) our own environment emphasizes "traditional families",
> > so we presume we know the answer. Add the thought: "What would the
> > rabbi think of me if I asked such a question?!", and you've got a good
> > reason not to ask. That doesn't justify assuming an answer.
>
> How is it that we became a relatively homophobic society in the first place?
It's a relatively recent development. Probably due in large part to
our having been in close contact with Christian culture. The word is
"assimilation". Certainly, our society wasn't homophobic when R'
Yehuda HaLevi and other poets wrote poetry with *extremely* homoerotic
imagery. I'm not suggesting that these men were gay, though I
wouldn't reject the possibility. But regardless of their personal
feelings, if a rabbi were to publish such things today, he'd be
effectively thrown out of the frum community for doing so. Read some
of it, Craig. And think about how different frum society must have
been at the time not to have been threatened by such material.
> How is it that our own environment emphasizes "traditional families" in the
> first place?
Well, sure. We have an imperative of procreation, don't we? And the
means of procreating without het marriage haven't existed for all that
long. There's no question that we want the majority of people to
marry. Just like we want the majority of people to work for a living.
Learning full time is great, but imagine if everyone did it. That
was cool in the desert, with Hashem showing manna down on us, but we'd
get awfully hungry awfully quick if we were to try it today.
Not everyone is supposed to learn full time. It's not appropriate for
everyone. Does that mean it's forbidden to all but certain people?
Who decides, if so? No, it's not forbidden, it's just not appropriate
for most people. We do have such a concept in Judaism, Craig.
> It wasn't because of the Greek or Roman influences, that's for
> sure. It wasn't from the activities of the Canaanim with whom we had
> interaction, that's for sure. It is because we, the Jews, had halachos
> showing homosexual sex to be undesirable, and traditional families to be
> optimal.
Optimal. Yes. It's optimal for most Jews to marry opposite sex
partners. Who disagrees with this? Certainly not Hashem, or He'd
have made you hetero types the 10% and made us the 90%.
We serve a purpose just like you serve a purpose.
> You can't have it both ways. Either homosexual sexuality, of
> certain types, is permissible to everyone of that particular gender, or it
> is permissible to noone.
You think so? I don't know. There's a dayan in England who has
stated that gay men are patur (exempt) from the obligation to marry.
Mishum oness. That wouldn't apply to a guy who was bisexual, now
would it? Halakha is rarely as black and white as you seem to want to
paint it. And I have a feeling that you might not be trying to paint
things as black and white as this if it were some other topic. Do you
think that's possible?
Lisa
Z
<li...@starways.net> writes>F944BF.210...@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
>> In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
>> >
>> > > Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
>> > > men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
>> >
>> > Speak for yourself.
>> > I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
>> >
>> > Susan
>>
>> Name one <g>
ask' thick glasses acts neurotically, he's Jewish isn't he?
>
>Shelly, clearly.
>
>Lisa
Don't fancy it myself much either. Mind getting into a menage a deux is
getting a bit of a challenge as I get older :-)
--
Z
Remove Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Joel Rosenberg
> >
> > Not irrevelvant at all, from my perspective. If same sex oral gratification
> > is permissible, then why not marry a bisexual woman and have another woman
> > there with whom one's wife can have a sexual relationship?
>
> You think much of yourself, Craig. Men are turned on by this because
> they see us as tools for their satisfaction (by and large; I'm aware
> that there are men who are exceptions to this rule).
Well, let me just, in passing, take a bit of umbrage at being lectured
to about what turns men on and particularly and why, even with the
qualifying exceptions.
I can't tell you
> how many times I've received e-mails from gay men asking to be set up
> with lesbians, as if a lesbian wouldn't prefer a straight guy if she
> had to get married. Their attitude and yours, Craig, simply ignores
> the women in the equation, as if we only exist for your benefit.
That latter just went right over my head. Forgetting, for a moment,
the amount of heterosex that goes on among self-labelled gay men and
self-labelled lesbians, why *would* a lesbian who has decided to get
married (for whatever reason) prefer a straight guy to a gay one? (I
mean, I can understand, say, Cindy preferring straight Charlie to gay
Bob because she think's Charlie's a nice guy and Bob's a jerk, but you
didn't frame it that way.)
Sheldon Glickler
Lisa, in this you are absolutely correct. I have a wonderful wife of 38
years and the thought of adding another woman into the mix between us is,
yes, repulsive.
Shelly
Z
<po...@imariZZZZs.demon.co.uk> writes
I mean :-(
The smile meant I was joking,
No actually not joking but making a joke of it.
Susan Cohen
Lisa wrote:
Him, too.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Z wrote:
> In article <cc62d1fa.01121...@posting.google.com>, Lisa
> <li...@starways.net> writes
> >"Joel N. Shurkin" <shu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<shurkin-
> >F944BF.210...@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
> >> In article <3C18D5DE...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
> >> > > men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two women.
> >> >
> >> > Speak for yourself.
> >> > I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
> >> >
> >> > Susan
> >>
> >> Name one <g>
> The chap in ' Everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to
> ask' thick glasses acts neurotically, he's Jewish isn't he?
Nominally. And repulsive in & of himself.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> li...@starways.net (Lisa) writes:
> > >
> > > Not irrevelvant at all, from my perspective. If same sex oral gratification
> > > is permissible, then why not marry a bisexual woman and have another woman
> > > there with whom one's wife can have a sexual relationship?
> >
> > You think much of yourself, Craig. Men are turned on by this because
> > they see us as tools for their satisfaction (by and large; I'm aware
> > that there are men who are exceptions to this rule).
>
> Well, let me just, in passing, take a bit of umbrage at being lectured
> to about what turns men on and particularly and why, even with the
> qualifying exceptions.
Well, Lisa was speaking in general.
If you look at society, and how women are
treated in general, it certainly reflects this view.
Susan
Sheldon Glickler
Eliyahu
"Z" <po...@imariZZZZs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vyGcMABN...@imaris.demon.co.uk...
men don't think it will ever apply to them. :-)
Susan Cohen
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
You, in addition to the ones I know/knew.
And I take this liberty only because you verify it yourself
along with an homage to your lovely wife.
Susan
Abe Kohen
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u2073oa...@corp.supernews.com...
Umm, speak for yourself, please. Of course, I cannot do it 8 times a day
like the younger men.
Abe
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> > "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote
>>
>> > How many poskim have you asked? How many of them have learned
>> > the sugyas involved?
>>
>> Excellent point.
>
> that. A normal, run of the mill rabbi might indeed be able to skip such
> things. There a few rabbis who specialize in poskining shailas, and their
> services are in high demand. They are *not* typical rabbis in terms of
> their training.
>
> Furthermore, anyone who learns daf yomi would have at least gone
> through the gemaras dealing with such things. I don't learn daf
> yomi, and I haven't.
Craig, I am going through Daf Yomi now. It is difficult (impossible?)
Do get much past the surface in the typical hour one can devote to
the Daf. Our teacher spends _hours_ preparing the lesson. You can see
him strugling to get as much "depth" into the lesson as he can.
So, no, just because someone learned it in Day Yomi does not mean he
in any way can pasken a shailo.
>> My rebbes in UO yeshivot would always skip over any materials
>> relating to sex. So I learned Gittin in 7th grade, Kedushin in 8th
>> grade, ... always skipping over the "good stuff." But we had a
>> weekly Thursday night Mishmar,
Oh do I have fond memories of that. (And not for Abe's reson either)
>> and when I was not successful at skipping out, I would sit in
>> Havruta and learn/teach my classmates the forbidden stuff.
So you Abe, were always "precocious".
> You're discussing introducing adolescent boys to sex through the
> gemara? If they have not discussed it at home, with their fathers,
> why should the gemara shiur introduce them to the subject?
Two anecdotes. We had a pre-bar-mitzvah boy in our daf yomi class.
He's still in our class but he finally "put on a hat" about a month
ago. We learned Seder Nashim which discusses marital relations,
sometimes in detail. There were times he asked questions based on
naivete and sometimes the answer would be "when you're older". It
never seemed to bother him, but he is _really_ precocious.
Second is a story I heard. A rebbi stasted learning Kiddushin. The
first Mishna says, "Ha'isha niknes... b'biyah" - "One method of
effecting a marriage is sexual relations". One student, in perfect
sincerity asked "What's "biah"?" This caused some guffaws in the
classroom. The rebbe asked one of those who was snickering id he knew
the answer. When he replied "yes" the rebbe said; "Good. I'm leaving
the room. You can tell him."
> This is, unfortunately, the way things work. Parents normally leave
> it up to the rebbes to introduce the subject to their sons at the
> proper time, usually when the rebbes perceive a problem, or right
> before the talmid gets married. It is just avoided up until that
> point. FWIW, I disagree with such passivity on the part of parents
> with such an important subject. But I can understand that the
> gemara shiur is not necessarily the place to teach sex education.
> I answer *any* question my kids have (so far, very few), and if I
> don't know the answer, I'll ask a shaila.
Interesting topic for discussion.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Sheldon Glickler
I think reports of younger men are greatly overstated.
Shelly
Abe Kohen
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:DJ%T7.24771$5W5.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
I realize my memory ain't what it used to be, but ...
;-)
Abe
Yitzchak Goodman
But you can't avoid the plain sense of what is being said.
Rashi talks about rubbing genitals together. The Rivan
talks about sharing semen. That is what I mean by an obvious
machlokes. They aren't saying the same thing.
> > > Not the end of the world, because that's
> > > often the case, but our preference is always to minimize machloket,
> > > yes? On the other hand, it gives us a problem with the sugya
> > > (talmudic discussion) of the mother who was mesollelet with her minor
> > > son. Did the minor son have female genitals?
> >
> > No, there is no problem. Mesollelos as a verb seems to mean something
> > like rubbing or stroking.
>
> You think so? Really. What's the root, Yitz? And while we're
> playing at creative etymology, can you explain how it is that the word
> for rope (meshicha) and the word for "anoint" (meshicha) are the same?
> Seeing as how you're an expert in such things, I mean. Or maybe you
> could post a source for mesollelot meaning "rubbing" or "stroking"
> that isn't based on the assumption that that's what it means in that
> sugya? After all, you wouldn't want to argue that the word means that
> because it obviously means that, would you?
I am just trusting that Rashi, at least, has the verb
translated correctly, and for that I get accused of
"creative etymology"!
>
> > That is what Rashi says although you say
> > he is wrong about what body part is doing it.
>
> You're willing to say that Rashi is wrong, but you're unwilling to
> read Rashi in a very simple pshat way that has the rubbing being just
> an illustration? Can you explain what sense there is to that?
It isn't phrased that way. He doesn't use an expression that
introduces an illustration. The first clause seems to modify
the second.
> Every single Rishon, without exception, who describes what mesollelot
> might be, has a single common denominator: it's a stab at what
> imitating het intercourse might mean.
Is there a third description that isn't based on the two
we have already been discussing?
Because of all the areas of
> halakha, this is one that the rabbis are least likely to have any
> reasonable data about.
>
> > Since we might
> > not know the word, we have no idea what "nashim hamesollelos" is,
> > so Rashi tells us. I think when you just translate what he says,
> > that conveys the idea. The mother, I guess, is rubbing or
> > stroking with her her hands.
>
> But that's not what Rashi says. He says the word means "derekh
> tashmish zachar u'nekeiva", Yitz.
You are quoting what he says about "nashim mesollelos"?
I think that here he is explaining the word along with describing
the act.
Playing at het intercourse without
> actually doing it. In the case of the mother, she was doing that,
> and... oops! It became more than a pretense. The term they used when
> I was in high school (pardon the sensibilities of those who are still
> reading this) was "dry humping".
[deleted stuff]
How Clinton-esque of you. :-)
Just because modern western culture has concepts
> such as "sex" and "homosexuality" and so forth doesn't mean that these
> concepts exist in halakha. There's "bi'ah". This isn't "bi'ah",
> though, which I think you would agree. There's "zenut", but the
> gemara is fairly clear that this isn't zenut either. There's "pritzut
> b'alma", but that doesn't even necessarily have to be sexual, and it
> certainly isn't specific.
>
> If two women kiss, is that "sex"? French kiss? Where does it become
> "sex"? According to halakha, probably never, though that's hard to
> say, because the concept doesn't really exist in halakha.
>
> > You mean "lesbianism" as a state of being, I think, so I think
> > I understand what you mean when you make statements that go with
> > that idea. The dictionary allows both ways of using the word.
>
> Not really. Not unless you use an old dictionary, or aim for
> pedantry.
>
> > > What the Torah has
> > > against "nashim ha-mesollelot" (not that there needs to be an answer;
> > > after all, what does the Torah have against eating pork?
> >
> > No, there does need to be a reason. You can't call Egypt a corrupt
> > society for doing these things unless there is a reason. Egyptians
> > can eat all the pork they want.
>
> No, there doesn't need to be a reason, Yitz. Does the Torah have a
> reason for Jews not being allowed to eat pork? (Which you knew I
> meant)
I wasn't trying to be cute; I was responding
to what you were saying. You can't bring an analogy
from a special mitzvah given to Jews. If you are going
to condemn Gentiles for something and consider
them a corrupt society, it has to be about something
prohibited for a reason.
A lack of restriction on who can be in a "marriage"
and who can't is also a free-for-all. Close relatives
can't, people of the same gender can't, any combination
of people with more than one male can't.
>
> > Most of the Torah's sexual prohibitions involve
> > inappropriate combinations of people. The Rambam, talking about
> > the prohibition for mishkav zachar for B'nai Noach, brings Bereishis
> > 2:24 "vedaveik be'ishto" (He shall cleave to his wife). The Rambam
> > writes "be'ishto velo bizechor" (to his wife and not a male)
> > Hilchos Melachim 9:5.
>
> Define "cleaving". Is it emotional? Is it a function of physically
> "cleaving"?
For purposes of this statment it is physical.
Physically, I can see how penile intercourse could be
> seen that way. But we're concave, Yitz. Not convex like you guys.
> The same thing doesn't apply.
I cited the statement because it seems to imply
the idea of an appropriate combination of genders
for "cleaving."
> > > > > I'd mention as well that the term "mesollelet" is used for a mother
> > > > > doing it with her minor son. While mimicry of heterosexual
> > > > > intercourse is possible in that case, "lesbian sex" most certainly is
> > > > > not.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody is saying it means lesbian sex if you drop out
> > > > the word "nashim," right?
> > >
> > > So it means "sex"? Gee... I thought that was "bi'ah".
> >
> > No, it means rubbing or stroking, as I said.
>
> And your saying it makes it so? There's no basis for your claim that
> it means that. Look:
>
> sal: basket
> sila: to weigh/evaluate
> salil: coil/spool
> salal: to pave
> salal: to glorify
> mistolel: to be arrogant (related to the previous example)
>
> Find me somewhere in that root the concept of rubbing. If anything,
> the closest one of these, grammatically, would be the last two.
I am just assuming that Rashi is an unparalleled
authority on this sort of question.
>
> > "Lesbian sex"
> > for "nashim mesollelos" is using more abstract terminology
> > for something that is actually more descriptive if translated
> > literally, but the idea is sex bewteen women.
>
> You want it to be general sex between women. But there's no source
> whatsoever to say so. Just your assertion.
I take the Toras Kohanim and the Rambam on the prohibiiton
of mishkav zachur to Gentiles as strongly implying that
two people of the same gender are a sexually inappropriate
combination. You seem to take these laws as all about "acts,"
with each position and technique being a different "act."
The act prohibited by the Torah (without the Rabbis)
isn't chosen as simply one act out of many. It is the
"kedarcho" of a man having sex with another man, which
is an inappropriate combination. Look at the reasons
the Sefer Hachinuch gives (from the Rambam, I think)
for the prohibition of mishkav zachur: it is disgusting,
it doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of onah, it doesn't fulfill
the mitzvah of be fruitful and multiply. The second two
reasons certainly apply to any sex between two men.
It comes down to inappropriate combinations of people.
According to your view, can a mother and daughter engage
in sexual relations as long as they don't "mimic"
heterosexual intercourse?
Yitz
GAN EDEN WINES
Yes, I do!
> Men are turned on by this because
> they see us as tools for their satisfaction (by and large; I'm aware
> that there are men who are exceptions to this rule). I can't tell you
> how many times I've received e-mails from gay men asking to be set up
> with lesbians, as if a lesbian wouldn't prefer a straight guy if she
> had to get married. Their attitude and yours, Craig, simply ignores
> the women in the equation, as if we only exist for your benefit.
Why not?
Was there such a time??
I've got no objection to painting it black and white.
>
> Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
The story about "riba" and "jelly" that I heard was as follows;
The Talmud tells of the wickedness of Sodom. A young girl gave a
poor man charity. Her punishment for this "crime" was to smear her
body with honey and leave her tied to an ant-hill. The ants ate her
alive <shudder>. The word used for "young girl" was "riba". For some
reason, Ben Yehuda used it to describe what was smeared.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>> > > > >>"Joel N. Shurkin" <shu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > > > >>> > > Listen, Lisa, most Jewish
>> > > > >>> > > men would be excited to have a menage a trois with two
>> > > > >>> > I know plenty of Jewish men who find the idea *repulsive.*
>> > > > >>> Name one <g>
>> > > > >>Shelly, clearly.
>> > > > >Don't fancy it myself much either. Mind getting into a menage a
>> > > > >deux is getting a bit of a challenge as I get older :-)
>> > > > I mean :-( >> > > > The smile meant I was joking,
>> > > No need to explain... at least not to those of us over 50. And the
>> > > younger men don't think it will ever apply to them. :-)
>> > Umm, speak for yourself, please. Of course, I cannot do it 8 times a day
>> > like the younger men.
>> I think reports of younger men are greatly overstated.
>I realize my memory ain't what it used to be, but ...
Note to Z, and others complaining about old folks vs. young folks:
you might talk to your doctor about changing your BP meds, if you
take any - they can have a lot of negative effect on such things.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy [H|'Ch']an[n][u|'oo'][c[c]|k[k]]a[h]
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote
>> > > Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Correction #3: Once and for all, let me clear up what I **meant** by
>> > > >"unnatural". It was not that it doesn't exist, even in other animals.
>> It
>> > > >is just that I believe nature created sex for procreation first and
>> foremost
>> > > Ok, now we know what you mean by "unnatural" can you please tell us what
>> > > you mean by "believe" in the above statement? Do you mean "believe" as
>> > > in religious faith?
>> > It would have to be, as there is no evidence that homosexuals
>> > *can't* reproduce. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.
>> > "Not wanting to" or even "finding it disgusting" is one thing.
>> > "Not able to" in entirely different.
>> Not the point. A homosexual act cannot result in procreation.
>If a couple is infertile, is it "unnatural" for them to have sex?
Simple answer (from his perspective): lo plug.
Yisroel Markov
[snip]
>> You're discussing introducing adolescent boys to sex through the
>> gemara? If they have not discussed it at home, with their fathers,
>> why should the gemara shiur introduce them to the subject?
>
>Two anecdotes. We had a pre-bar-mitzvah boy in our daf yomi class.
>He's still in our class but he finally "put on a hat" about a month
>ago. We learned Seder Nashim which discusses marital relations,
>sometimes in detail. There were times he asked questions based on
>naivete and sometimes the answer would be "when you're older". It
>never seemed to bother him, but he is _really_ precocious.
>
>Second is a story I heard. A rebbi stasted learning Kiddushin. The
>first Mishna says, "Ha'isha niknes... b'biyah" - "One method of
>effecting a marriage is sexual relations". One student, in perfect
>sincerity asked "What's "biah"?" This caused some guffaws in the
>classroom. The rebbe asked one of those who was snickering id he knew
>the answer. When he replied "yes" the rebbe said; "Good. I'm leaving
>the room. You can tell him."
What, with all the other students present? Bad idea, IMHO, what with
all potential embarrassment. Better, "tell me after school how you'd
explain it, and I'll tell you whether it's accurate enough to tell
your fellow student."
>> This is, unfortunately, the way things work. Parents normally leave
>> it up to the rebbes to introduce the subject to their sons at the
>> proper time, usually when the rebbes perceive a problem, or right
>> before the talmid gets married. It is just avoided up until that
>> point. FWIW, I disagree with such passivity on the part of parents
>> with such an important subject. But I can understand that the
>> gemara shiur is not necessarily the place to teach sex education.
>> I answer *any* question my kids have (so far, very few), and if I
>> don't know the answer, I'll ask a shaila.
>
>Interesting topic for discussion.
Yes. I have once read a transcript of a rabbi's lecture on shiddukhim.
One of the sub-topics was "Telling the bride and the groom the facts
of life." By that time it's a bit late, isn't it?
I intend to tell my kids when they ask, and if they can sit through
the 15-minute explanation, that would mean they're ready for it; and
if not, then not. And if they don't get ahold of a decent sex manual
shortly before their marriage, I intend to provide them with one
(along with a primer on prenuptial agreements - aguna protection). Now
if there only were one written by and for O Jews...
Abe Kohen
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote
>
> Yes. I have once read a transcript of a rabbi's lecture on shiddukhim.
> One of the sub-topics was "Telling the bride and the groom the facts
> of life." By that time it's a bit late, isn't it?
>
> I intend to tell my kids when they ask, and if they can sit through
> the 15-minute explanation, that would mean they're ready for it; and
> if not, then not. And if they don't get ahold of a decent sex manual
I don't know how old yours are, but I don't think they ask.
At my daughters' Modern O school, they had both sex ed in biology as well as
a class taught by the Rabbi and headmaster known as "Sex with the Rabbi."
And we talked to our kids, as much as they were willing to hear.
> shortly before their marriage, I intend to provide them with one
> (along with a primer on prenuptial agreements - aguna protection). Now
> if there only were one written by and for O Jews...
??? I thought it was standard practice, nowadays, among Modern O.
Abe
Z
<jjb...@panix.com> writes
going out the house to meet people, ugly and my personality is a good
form of birth control. Apart from that no problems:-)
Big lack of Jewish females my age too. Don't fancy overly white women
either - they look ill.
GAN EDEN WINES
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2001Dec1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> writes:
> > "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote
> >> > "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > How many poskim have you asked? How many of them have learned
> >> > the sugyas involved?
> >>
> >> Excellent point.
> >
> > Not really an excellent point. A posek cannot afford to skip things
like
> > that. A normal, run of the mill rabbi might indeed be able to skip such
> > things. There a few rabbis who specialize in poskining shailas, and
their
> > services are in high demand. They are *not* typical rabbis in terms of
> > their training.
> >
> > Furthermore, anyone who learns daf yomi would have at least gone
> > through the gemaras dealing with such things. I don't learn daf
> > yomi, and I haven't.
>
> Craig, I am going through Daf Yomi now. It is difficult (impossible?)
> Do get much past the surface in the typical hour one can devote to
> the Daf. Our teacher spends _hours_ preparing the lesson. You can see
> him strugling to get as much "depth" into the lesson as he can.
>
> So, no, just because someone learned it in Day Yomi does not mean he
> in any way can pasken a shailo.
BS"D
Moshe, I was in no way implying that a person learning daf yomi could poskin
a shaila just on that basis-- although there must be poskim who learn daf
yomi, though that is immaterial to the discussion. What I was saying is
that a person learning daf yomi would at least have a rudimentary knowledge
of the gemaras involved in that particular issue.
Steven Goldfarb
>I have no problems physically. I'm just too lazy these days to bother
>going out the house to meet people, ugly and my personality is a good
>form of birth control. Apart from that no problems:-)
>Big lack of Jewish females my age too. Don't fancy overly white women
>either - they look ill.
<grin> you could try that JDate party -- jdate came through for me.
--sg
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo