| נשלח ב-9/10/2005 14:48 |
 |
| |
Sex in Judaism vs. in Western Culture
Halak'ha mentions a few justifications for having sex, namely:
1. Reproduction
2. Marital duty (for the woman's needs whether psychological or physical)
3. Health problems (Maimonides)
4. Hormonal release (appeasing the tendency supposedly when "mareivo savea" somehow doesn't function properly).
I may have omitted some other Halachic considerations, but I think they should all be somehow included in the above and that none of them refer to the concept of "lovemaking".
I would like to ponder over here on this point whether Judaism omittance of that western concept is or not justified. We know that at some later stages like the kabbalistic nakedness/oneness and the kiruv apologetism, that notion has been inserted, but lets discuss this very issue "ha gufa" if it is justified.
We know that that sex without love exists and also that true deep love exists without the necessity for sex. Thus we may conclude that sex is rather a combination of hormonal release which is "using" togetherness-security as a powerful spice. Since shame of nakedness and reluctance of inner bodily touching has been established in the human psyche, the act of intercourse involves the intimacy of exposure (gilui erva). This caused sex to be closely associated with the intimacy of love.
If that assumption is right, then "lovemaking" is not essential in sex and just happens to be an associative element which in many cases (especially rape) is absent. This seems to justify the absence of this concept from the more ancient Judaic sources (assuming that Zohar is recent).
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-10/10/2005 07:33 |
|
| |
As you are seeking justification for a particular act, you seemingly associated that act with guilt, or some other reason for the limitation of that act.
Can you please elaborate on the foundation for the limiting of the sexual act?
Thank You.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-10/10/2005 11:39 |
|
| |
Shalom, Aleichem_Shalom
Thanks for your remark.
I really should of have pointed out that I don't intend at this point to delve into the value of sexual pleasures versus other (moral) values with which they could clash. Although those other values are the basis for the halachic opinions over the meaning of sex, I think the moral discussion should be addressed at a later stage (and maybe in a separate cluster). Only once we reach clarity about what sex is all about, can we be exact about its values and its eventual conflicts with other values.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-10/10/2005 21:57 |
|
| |
If the issue you'r looking at, is what sex is all about, then why look in "halacha"?
I would much rather look in real life, and thus come to the conclusion, that sex is a matter that is well connected to love.
Albeit, that its not a prerequisite to love, but for that matter, I would compare it to the simple act of "kissing".
It's definitley possible to love and refrain from kissing, but it remains a genuine way of showing affection.
Same to the above.
Of course I recognise, that kissing has no other value (in our culture), than the basic show of love, but so don't many aspects of love making either, have any other value, than the pure show of love and affection.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-11/10/2005 16:19 |
|
| |
Dear SA
Of course the ideal would be to learn directly from real life, but in real life it is so confused that I preferred to use sources such as the ancient one with which I was brought up and the prevailing modern one.
If sex is a sort of kiss, why isn't the normal kiss enough, that one has to resort to such an acrobatic and un-hygenic way of the sexual act?
As I wrote earlier, besides hormonal lust I would only identify in this act only the intimacy that is associatied to love. However the lust factor is so powerful that it renders all other aspects to a very low level of relevance. Rambam says that one should think how we feel about it right after having had sex and being tired of it, in order to recognize its real value to us.
So the question remains, do we justify the western notion that sex means "lovemaking"?
Chatima Tova.
תוקן על ידי - שכליאל - 11/10/2005 16:22:02
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-12/10/2005 15:50 |
|
| |
Sachliel,
Let me please remark that it seems that you have omitted a most original Judaic source in this matter which appears to convey the most exact meaning of male-female intercourse for which I would rather use the term conjugality than lovemaking.
In the third book of Moses; Leviticus at the end of the portion "Acharei Mot" [which shall be read tomorrow], we find the topic of conjugal laws. The torah refers to incestual intercourse as revealing the pubic exposure of the remnant of one's flesh - "Sheer Basar". On the other hand we find in Bereshit that pairing man and woman means to become one flesh - "Basar Echad". This points to the meaning of intercourse that it creates oneness of flesh - conjugality, which means that the pair become fleshly related similar to the seven closest relatives.
Now whether love is involved or not is a separate question just like we may ask when a little baby brother or sister or one's child is born is s/he loved or not.
I do not disagree with your conclusion about the association between love and intimacy, but just want to add what seems the main aspect of intercourse; conjugality - the creation of "one flesh".
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-12/10/2005 17:23 |
|
| |
Dear Sachliel,
After having the benefit of reading your posts I would suggest the following.
For most people lust is probably the stronger factor in the act of sex and love takes secondary position. It's also true that it adds spice to the lust part, but why say that the love factor is ONLY a spicing?
You would also agree that for people who happen to love their mate very much will sometimes find the act of sex as primarily love, and the lust will be a spicing to it.
It seems that lust has less of a value to you than love, (love is helping rid oneself from the insensible self-centredness) if so then why shouldn't the Halacha coax us to shift the balance? Try to do it out of love and have the lust as spicing.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-14/10/2005 11:39 |
|
| |
Dear Veto,
Thanks for your input. You have raised a point that I omitted and which definitely adds to our discussion, namely to the point raised just above by Ani_Bapetach.
Dear Ani_Bapetach,
Thanks a lot for your idea which takes our discussion to a further step.
Of course, the ideal would be the one which you presented, that sex should be a spice to love like Aleichem_Shalom's kiss idea. This would justify the term of lovemaking. Let's assume that man is capable (nowadays or in utopia) to reach such a level, would this acrobatic form of huggin/kissing/genital-shake (or whatever appropriate name you find for that love expression) add to the existing love between those involved in the act?
I have very true friends whom I deeply love and whom I definitely would see as life partners in creating a common home, but the fact that they are male and that I am not homosexual does not in any way diminish my attitude towards them and I do not think that the above acrobatic (or less so in such a case) exercise, would in anyway add to the nature of our relationship. You may argue that I am wrong and that I think the way I do because of my natural aversion to homosexuality (which needs a separate discussion) and therefore you would say that without that aversion, sex would add to love. So I will proceed further to reveal that I am a married man who deeply loves his wife (most of the time  ), and I fail to see that sex in itself adds to our love besides the intimacy association that I mentioned earlier and the fact that sex being a common fun-occupation it adds to the relationship similar to a ping-pong game with a close friend.
Here comes Veto's argument that with sex one creates "Mishpacha" (which I would say is our Sages' saying about one's sex partner remaining with us for the world to come; "lihyot Ima"), but I could say the same about a good game or a very enlightening learning etc...
I appreciate a lot any input that would help us clarify this entangled and relatively taboo subject.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-16/10/2005 05:05 |
|
| |
Love is the fusion of two entities but to simplify things lets think of two elemental concepts [A and B], now what does it mean that two becomes one? If there are two concepts then its two not one? It must be (at minimum) that one concept ceases to be, ceases to exist. (it could also be that the other concept ceased too and that a totally new entity, a third concept took its place but that's not a necessary requirement to the fusing process. Also that wouldn't really be called fusion as there is nothing from before no A and no B)
In real life (based on the above model) the fusion has to happen with one person giving up his/her individual wants, which is really giving up his/her individuality to the other.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of thing, one can give up only a limited amount of their own wants and then have a limited amount of love in the relationship, it can also be shared, i.e. each gives up part of their wants.
It all boils down to letting the other subsume ones being (the level of such will determine the level of love)
Kissing
The process of fusion progresses according to the level of awareness in my consciousness of the my beloved.
Touching makes one aware but the lips are much more sensate, you're simply more aware. The fact that people touch each other very frequently whereas kissing is done only with a limited amount of people, makes the kiss touch a very strong awareness of our sharing each others lives etc.
Sex
A combination of many factors
The male is Giving the female a gift of life.
It is done along with a full body embrace (strong awareness)
The accessibility to the private/secret parts of each other makes us very aware how much of ourselves is shared with each other (even things/places that in general I find it off limits so that it makes me feel very separated from a friend which I can't feel out his/her whole being (just like if a friend won't share their life story with me [more so if I know that there's a story that he/she is hiding])
The physical fact is that my sensations are heightened so that, again, I feel and am aware of my partner very strongly.
All of the above happening while he/she is making me very happy i.e. giving me a lot of pleasure.
So there, you got my quick thoughts on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-16/10/2005 18:16 |
|
| |
Dear The_Word,
Thanks for your enlightening remarks. I see in them an illustrative and clarified elaboration of what I called "intimacy association". Toda.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-20/10/2005 01:43 |
|
| |
Dear S'
Sex: sexual intercourse has nothing to do with hormone release (for that masturbation is enough ). Sex, as I understand, is mainly a evolutionary way to force reproduction of breeds .
We as a knowledge species add to it – or even more accurate: to the way to gain some sex- notions and spices.
The role of Halacha is or to restrict sex some time for reasons that is hard to comprehend. And as well some rules drove from the same origin of the usual sex drive (said enough..)
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-31/10/2005 19:30 |
|
| |
Dear Cosmo,
I totally agree with you that for hormonal release alone, no sex would be necessary and this is the reason I opened this cluster. Namely to discuss what is it that sex adds to the hormonal release. My conclusion was that sex is not as we fantacize and romanticize to view it as "lovemaking" that merely uses hormones in order to add a spice to love just like a kiss to a relative adds to one's love to him, but rather the opposite. It is only a hormonal release which uses a semblance of love as a spice. This enables sex without real love and it explains why once the release is done or why one who is impotent does not feel that his love in any way misses sex. I think that we agree that sex mania is no proof of love but rather of an animalistic overdrive to self simple gratification. I don't think that you believe that those who are unsatisfied with masturbation and therefore rape or even visit prostitutes, really think to themselves that they love their sex objects beyond a very low level of semblance to the standard human fraternity.
As I wrote to Aleichem earlier, I did not intend to debate the merits of the halachic limitations in this cluster. Such a debate can follow after we clarify what sex is all about. If we agree to my conclusion, then we may understand that there is a moral purpose to enable man not to be animalistically controlled by sex but that he should be in control of his hormonal urge and be able to differentiate between the love part and the hormone part.
At such a point we should debate whether the halachic restrictions serve or defeat this purpose. It may be that halacha does a kind of mixture of both, meaning that in some cases/individuals it helps and in others it hinders. I suggest that such a discussion takes place in a separate cluster.
תוקן על ידי - מנהלמשנה - 04/11/2005 13:05:08
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-4/11/2005 13:10 |
|
| |
Sachliel,
Again, the conclusion of your elaborations could be summed up by learning from the Torah itself what intercourse is all about. The Torah calls it: "Metzachek" - having fun belaaz!
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-6/11/2005 07:46 |
|
| |
אני מבקשת את סליחת הכותבים והקוראים על העברית שבמקלדתי - למרות שהקריאה באנגלית שגורה לעיני וללבי, הכתיבה בה דורשת ממני כוחות וזמן שאינם ברשותי. אני מקוה שאין בכך כדי לעבור על חוקי הפורום, שבכתב ושבע"פ.
שכליאל,
אם הבנתי נכון את מגמת דבריך, אתה מנסה להפריד בין המושגים "אהבה" ו"יחסי מין". לטעמי, הפרדה זו חשובה מאוד, אבל יש לה מגבלות, שראוי להציגן.
חשיבותה של האבחנה בין המושגים מתחדדת, בעיקר, בקצוות ה"סוטים" של הקשת האנושית (אלה הכמהים לאהבה רגשית ומפנים מרצם להשיגה באמצעות הגוף, או אלה שאינם מפרידים בין מגע גופני המושג באלימות ובכפיה, לבין אהבה וקשר אנושי עמוק).
למרות זאת, אני מאמינה כי יחסי מין אינם רק "תבלין" לזוגיות טובה, אלא חלק חשוב ומהותי ממנה. המגע הגופני בין בני אדם, הוא חלק הכרחי ממערכות היחסים הנבנות במהלך החיים - כך באהבה בין הורים לילדיהם, וכך באהבה בין בני זוג. תינוקות שאינם נהנים ממגע גופני (חיבוק, ליטוף, נשיקה), הופכים אומללים וחולים (פיזית!), ויש מחקרים שמעידים על כך. ברור שלא כל מגע גופני הוא "יחסי מין", והתרבות העולמית (לפחות זו המודרנית, שאני מודה לאלהים על השתייכותי אליה, ולו רק בשל סיבה זו) ייחדה את אלה לסוג מסויים של קשר אנושי - בין שני אנשים שווי מעמד (פחות או יותר), שיש ביניהם קשרים הדדיים.
הצרכים הגופניים של האדם אינם פחותים במעמדם או בחשיבותם מאלה הנפשיים, והרבה פעמים הם קשורים בהם קשר בל יינתק. הצורך באהבה (וגם הוא, כמדומני - ואולי יש לדון בכך - צורך מודרני לחלוטין), באינטימיות, בתחושת בטחון, הוא צורך קיומי לאדם. הצורך הזה מושג גם באמצעים גופניים, ולא רק נפשיים. במערכת זוגית, הצורך הזה גדול מאוד, שכן הבטחון בקשר מחד, והתלות בו מאידך, קטנים מאשר בכל קשר אחר: ההנחה של הורים וילדים היא שהקשר שלהם נצחי (במשפחות נורמליות, כך אני מקוה) ויהיה כזה, גם אם אין שם "אהבה"; בין חברים, גם אם הקשר חזק ומתמשך, אין הנחה של נצחיות, והתלות והמחוייבות אינם נדרשים (גם אם מופיעים במקרים קיצוניים), וכד'. בין בני זוג, יש מחוייבות ל"נצחיות" (והמרכאות כאן אינן רק "תבלין"...) וציפיה לתלות הדדית מחד, אך מכיוון שמדובר בבחירה מתחדשת מדי יום ביומו, הבטחון בקשר ובאדם השני אינו יציב לעולם (ואולי טוב שכך, שכן זה דורש השתדלות רבה יותר). משום כך, חשיבותו של הקשר הגופני ושל יחסי המין, אינם רק בהיותם תוספת נועם ושמחה לחיים המשותפים, אלא גם בחיזוק הבטחון ותחושת השייכות.
אני מסכימה עם 'קוסמו', שיחסי מין אינם הפתרון היחיד לתאוות המין, אולם רואה בהם פתרון אפשרי (ואולי היחיד האפשרי) לצרכים הנפשיים והגופניים של אנשים בוגרים, שאינם מתמצים רק במהלכים הורמונליים, אלא גם בחיפוש אחר קשר עמוק עם אדם אחר, מגע אנושי וחברי, בטחון והשתייכות, ו- אהבה.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-6/11/2005 10:46 |
|
| |
Shalom Emshalom,
I agree with what you wrote about the importance of physical touch (although this "need" may be a creation of human weakness). You mentioned in short that physical touch does not mean sex, but a few lines later you seem to mix in sex again. It is about that mixture that this whole cluster is about. My claim is that in order to enhance our pleasure and therefore we are trying to make from the spice a main dish.
When we talk about love in the immediate family or with real close asexual friends, do you think it would have been better if we were geared to sleep with our parents, kids, same sex friends (for those who are not homo)?
I think it is important not only to differentiate between physical touch and sex, but to point out that the above mixture of sex to be like hugging physical touch, has harmed a lot of physical touch because it was taken as a sexual approach. This damage has been done also in the name of halacha. Now, if halacha had a choice about it or not is another discussion (which as I said in earlier notices, should probably be held in a separate cluster).
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-6/11/2005 11:26 |
|
| |
שכליאל,
כעת מובנת לי טענתך יותר. תודה.
איני טוענת, שיחסי מין הם עיקר יחסי הזוגיות, אבל אני בהחלט חושבת שהם חלק חשוב בתוכם, ואפילו הכרחיים להם. איני מאמינה שתיתכן מערכת זוגית, שיש בה אהבה, חברות ובטחון, ללא קשר גופני כלשהו (ואני מסייגת כאן את דברי, כי אני בטוחה שישנם זוגות, שמטעמים רפואיים כאלה ואחרים, נבצר מהם לקיים יחסים מיניים באופן תמידי, ובכ"ז שוררת ביניהם אהבה בת קיימא, המוצאת לה גם ביטויים גופניים). אני חושבת שייתכנו (ברמת התיאוריה) גם יחסים שיש בהם מיניות בין חברים/חברות, אבל הנורמות החברתיות מכוונות את קשרי הגוף בין כאלה, למקומות אחרים (האם זה טוב? רע? איני יודעת. בעולם בו אני חיה, זה פשוט כך. רוב הזמן.).
אני חוששת, שבעולם בו יחסי המין נחשבים כפסגת הקשר האנושי האפשרי, ונוצרת סביבם הילה של קודש, ייתכנו טעויות רבות הנוגעות לקשרים בין אנשים - כאשר מחשיבים את המין "יותר מדי" ורואים בו תכלית הזוגיות והאהבה, יש מרחב גדול מדי לטעות ולנפילה (למשל, כאשר ההורמונים "משתוללים" והאדם ממתבלבל ומחליף את תחושותיו הלגיטימיות של הגוף ב"רגש" של אהבה או "התאהבות"; או כאשר אחת הסיבות העיקריות לנישואין היא התאווה למין...). בעולם כזה, יש צורך לדעתי בהבנה שיחסי המין הם רק חלק ממערכת זוגית כוללת, ולא תכליתה העיקרית של זו. ומאידך, בעולם בו המיניות נתפסת כטאבו, שמשהו שלא צריך להיות לו נגיעה בחיים שמחוץ למיטת הכלולות, וגם שם עדיף שלא לדבר על זה, יש אולי צורך בהדגשת חשיבותם והכרחיותם של חיי מין מהנים, מרגשים ונעימים, לשלמות הקשר הזוגי.
|
|
|
|
|
|
