thegameiam ([info]thegameiam) wrote,
@ 2006-08-02 12:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:undisclosed
Current mood: thoughtful
Entry tags:religion

Shmirah
First, this was seen in a .sig:
Soccer/Futbol. IPv6. Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time catching on in North America.

Second, a person IMed me saying "Dot1x told me to tell you that you suck" Bwaaa!

====

Sarah and I saw a female friend the other day, who upon leaving gave Sarah a hug, and looked a little awkward as she said goodbye to me.

She (the friend) told Sarah that she wasn't sure whether I was shomer negiah or not, and didn't know what to do.

I haven't actually done the learning about the true sources, although the ones listed on wikipedia are a decent start. The problem is that all of the sources I've encountered are specifically about having sex (the passage linked by Wikipedia specifically is talking about incest [ewwww....]) - none of the primary sources seem to be reference the concept of touching in any way other than wholly sexual. The Talmudic references are to a husband sleeping clothed in the same bed with his wife when she is a niddah - not quite germaine to the conversation, imo.

So the question is this: from exactly where does the concept of not touching members of the opposite sex (other than immediate family & spouse) under any circumstance come from? I know that there's The Magic Touch, but negiah is fully assumed by the book, and then it's a polemic about why it's a good thing (in the context of single people dating).

I also know that there is a general prohibition on being alone yihud with members of the opposite sex - that actually makes some sense to me, because nearly all of the various issues of infidelity and harrassment which important people seem to encounter would be thoroughly prevented.

So perhaps negiah is to be understood as a subset of yihud, then? Just another prohibition to remove oneself from the possibility of sin? Now, I'm down on sin just like everyone else (hey, I heard that!), but there seems to be a cart before horse issue here: once we do things like say "no handshaking" and "no listening to women's voices" we're encroaching on some of the questions about actually experiencing the world which God has made for us. To wit, the general concept is that a Biblical prohibition is really, really serious, so we have around that Rabbinic prohibitions which are not as strict and have a bit of wiggle room - but living according to those Rabbinic laws keeps us from transgressing the Biblical commandments. How many fences do we need?

My understanding of the fundamental purpose of human existence is the sanctification and glorification of the Holy One, Blessed is He - but what sanctification comes from the avoidence of all experience? Isn't it a greater sanctification to do those things which are permitted, and abstain from those things which are prohibited? Blending the two of them, and saying that the permitted is forbidden is no less a sinful action than the converse.

But all of that is a preamble - I am quite conflicted, because while I don't find (for instance) handshakes particularly sexual, backrubs are. And really, from a legal basis, what is the difference between the two (other than of course that one will get our current President some grief). Certainly in my prior life I encountered lots of situations where seemingly innocent contact led to things which were anything but, so the concern is not entirely unfounded.

But then again, you do get total whackjobs like Rabbi Shmuel Neiman who wrote 9 to 5: a guide to [being a total flaming asshole in everyday encounters, written from the point of view of someone who could not possibly have ever actually worked more than one day in his entire sorry life]. (whew! sorry) - anyway, nutjobs like R. Neiman are helpful in the way that flat-earth society members are helpful at an AAAS meeting.

So I'm left with a reactionary position (pun not intended), where I try to mirror the expectations of others so that they're comfortable, but I suck at it. I function much better in environments where I know the etiquitte (as do most people), so workplace etiquitte is easy: handshakes and nothing else. Perfect! easy, simple.




(Post a new comment)

9 to 5 is my favorite book!
[info]efratti
2006-08-02 10:06 pm UTC (link)
David,

Firstly, I want to say that I love your blog. You update frequently and your entries are sufficiently varied, always keeping it interesting.

W.o directly commenting on the issue you raise, which I never do-- always a tangent, I must say that I love 9 to 5. What other book so easily lends itself to dramatic readings among groups of friends? What other text can be so easily ad libbed so as to be even funnier, although reading it straight is funny enough?

I'm impressed that you found the summary. This guy has "extensive experience in counseling Jews who find themselves confronted with challenges to tznius at the workplace"?? And he has *zero* "sensitivity and keen insight," "clarifies" nothing and offers nothing practical. I bet he helps Jews go into bankruptcy and poverty. But, otherwise he would not be funny... And that would be our loss :(

eb

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: 9 to 5 is my favorite book!
[info]thegameiam
2006-08-02 10:24 pm UTC (link)
heh. In the words of despair.com, "it could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others." THAT's how I'd describe that Rabbi's victims...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-08-03 01:48 pm UTC (link)
Unless you've heard this kind of comment from several other sources, I wouldn't take it too seriously. My guess is that Sarah's friend is the one with the problem, not you. I think it's very likely that something about you resembles very closely a person in that woman's life who hurt her very deeply. It wouldn't suprise me at all that she's projecting all of those feelings on you. She may not even be aware that she's doing it. It can happen on as basic a level as smell or posture triggering a reaction. Unfortunately, if that's the case there's nothing for you to do. It's her issue and it has nothing to do with your behavior. Unless you can confirm that there's a problem in your actions through other sources, I'd just try not to worry about it. And I've never thought you acted inappropriately in any way. If you ask my advice (which you didn't) I wouldn't change anything about my behavior until I had some other sources confirm there's a problem and give me specific information about what I'm doing that's inappropriate

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ninaclock
2006-08-03 01:49 pm UTC (link)
oops, that's my comment above

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Way off base here
[info]courtney_martha
2006-08-03 09:22 pm UTC (link)
Nina, I couldn't disagree more. It's not a "problem" to want to show affection in a socially acceptable manner. Someone wanting to hug or kiss someone on the cheek is not pathological -- it's normal and it's kind.

For the record, my friend didn't complain or whine about this; she simply said she feels warmly towards David, but she wasn't sure if he hugged women other than me. It was extremely respectful.

If there is any pathology involved with this, it's making something sexual out of something platonic. See my further comments under a separate heading.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thegameiam
2006-08-04 12:34 am UTC (link)
I don't think it's a projection of a problem, more a question of etiquitte which brought one of my personal inner conflicts to my attention.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Social Norms
[info]courtney_martha
2006-08-03 09:41 pm UTC (link)
The difference between hugs and back rubs, David, is one of social norms. In America, in 2006, non-lingering hugs and kisses on the cheek are standard greetings between the sexes and specifically are not sexual.

I have heard numerous people say they were offended when an Orthodox, Jewish man or woman refused to shake their hand in business or social settings, and I understand the offense. It flies in the face of American secular etiquette. Whatever the motive -- even religious -- it is a form of rejection. You might remember the tete-a-tete in the New York Times etiquette column; a realtor wrote an indignant letter because an Orthodox male refused to shake her hand to seal the deal. I understand the misguided notions behind not wanting to engage in any potentially intimate touch with someone other than your spouse, but I think people who think that way are in their own way hypersexual. If someone can't differentiate between a handshake and a Cincinnatti Bow Tie, dude, that's a bigger problem than we can attack on a blog.

In fact, I think it's good to differentiate touch and to have different kinds of touch from different people. We are islands to each other and I think we do need informal physical bonds to stay connected.

On the other side, I am very physically expressive and affectionate with people I like, and I find it off-putting when men don't want me to hug or kiss them on the cheek. However, of course I respect it and I don't begrudge them for it. I know it's for religious reasons and I don't begrudge them for it. I just assume they're misguided and I try to send lots of cosmic lovin their way and hope they receive it. "We got a thing that's called radar love! We got a line in the sky. We got a thing that's called radar love!"

On the farthest extreme of being shomer negiah, I fear for people not in a relationship who don't touch or be touched. Human beings wither without physical contact; we know that from tragic real-life circumstances and through primate studies. It's bad news.

I'm not suggesting that people need to get into swinging to stay connected to the world, but I do think its civilized to be able to graciously accept and give platonic touch.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Social Norms
[info]thegameiam
2006-08-04 12:30 am UTC (link)
If someone can't differentiate between a handshake and a Cincinnatti Bow Tie, dude, that's a bigger problem than we can attack on a blog.

bwaaa!

but seriously, yes, there is a qualitative difference between a handshake and a backrub. I don't have a problem with the former, do with the latter. But there are lots of in-between things - hugs, etc, which could be viewed as sexual or not depending on the people and situation involved, and worse, could be read differently by the two people in question. THAT's where the problem is, because "no touching" is an easy-to-understand bright line. Something other than that is going to be a less bright line...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bow Tie
[info]thegameiam
2006-08-04 01:37 am UTC (link)
For those who want to know, a definition of a Cincinnati Bow Tie can be found at the urban dictionary (NSFW).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bow Tie
[info]courtney_martha
2006-08-04 02:23 am UTC (link)
Most of you probably don't want to know, so don't click.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Social Norms
[info]ninaclock
2006-08-04 04:25 pm UTC (link)
My appologies to all. I misread David's post. I read it as Sarah's friend felt uncomfortable around David (ie, she thought he was acting inappropriately). Now I understand that Sarah's friend was trying her utmost to respect David and make sure he wasn't put in an uncomfortable postition. Sorry for ruffling feathers unnecesarily.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Social Norms
[info]thegameiam
2006-08-04 04:41 pm UTC (link)
s'all good :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Social Norms
[info]courtney_martha
2006-08-04 07:39 pm UTC (link)
No apologies necessary. No one is offended :)
The concept of shomer negiah is hard enough to understand, even if you are Jewish.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…