simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 18:40:

My Brother,
I appreciated your deep point and the valuable discussion surrounding it.

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 11:40:

lchora,
the fact that the gemara says 2 different reasons then you,
is מוכח that it בעצם its totally fine when those reason dont apply,
in fact it actually may be allowed if it will enhance the sexual experience ect..

anyway how by having lights on and looking @ your lovely wife will that make you "perceive" the sex action as a lie??


cande

Who says there's such a thing as the reasons בעצם not applying? I understood the opposite - there is a חוסר קדושה inherent to the seeing of it, or doing it in a זמן of גילוי even if you're not seeing it.

As far as the main point - I am not saying it will make you perceive the sex action as a lie. I am saying that every sensual perception brings with it a certain message. Meaning for example - if you hear a sad song the perception of it as being sad is something within the experience of hearing. So you could say your ears perceive a sadness in the music. With this מעשה the תפיסה of it which is נתפס when it's בגלוי, and especially in sight, contains a message about it which is false. What is that message? I don't know. But whatever that message is is false.

But when you perceive it with צניעות which requires not seeing, then you can perceive what is is באמת.

Regarding what it is - @yosefms suggested, and this idea does ring true to me, that just as we need to cover our eyes when we say שמע in order to block out the פירוד of the world which will get in the way of focusing on or perceiving the אחד, so too the ikkar of intimacy is the becoming אחד, and when it's done בגלוי you're seeing the act without the אחד, which is a פן שקרי of what it is (meant to be)

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:36:

Is this the same guy that said, " I cant say what it says in Kabballah"?!? 

Just kidding man, sounds like you got it all figured out!! 

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 18:40:

Aderaba. I'm glad you brought it up. I feel like you put your finger on something very essential. We all "know" that running after porn and self-pleasure is like trying to catch wind. It's futile and empty.

But why is that true? Why is this pastime of devouring women with our eyes so empty? If I would watch a movie (copy R' CO's disclaimer here ) I wouldn't feel empty after. But after a porn sesh I do. 

So there's a whole lot that goes into that. But I feel like you're bringing out a crucial nekudah, and I'm gonna toss out a wild theory to back it up. What are we craving when we watch porn? We want sex, love, intimacy, lust, a faceful of icing and a plateful of cake. But we're trying to fill that with pixels on the screen. It's like eating clay painted to look like cake. Just leaves you disgusted and still hungry.

But more than that. It's not just that we're trying to fill a real-life desire with a fake digital substitute. Follow along as I take this mashal too far. Deep down we have a genuine need for love (cake). We have a superficial desire for lust (icing). Sex can be done as cake or icing, but looking at digital things has a resemblance to lust* but no resemblance to love. It's like we're hungry for cake, but we think we want icing so we go eat icing-colored plastic. We're not just trying to fill a hole with a fake thing or a wrong thing. We're trying to fill a hole with a fake copy of the wrong thing. And that leaves you eeeeeeeemptyyyyy.

Although I just said looking at things has no resemblance to love, it's not true that it has no place in love. This point is relevant to the lingerie discussion too. Undoubtably, looking is a powerfully stimulating thing. And using looking as a warm-up chelek of love might very well be a very enjoyable and beautiful thing. But, as ST is pointing out, it's not the thing itself. It's only a prelude or way to come to the thing itself. Hence, you can have all the lights in the world on  - until you start that moment of connection, that moment of love.

Very speculative. And I think there's more to the point you're making. But yasher koach for sharing something that got me thinking. I appreciate it.

*I think there is some small drive to just see beautiful things, including women. And that drive is maybe, maybe, filled. But that's a tiny part of picture.

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:36:


there are times were doing it by day or seeing is  actually תוספות קדושה


with love
cande

Man I was in the middle of an edit after better understanding candes point and then i closed my browser!

​So now I'm typing in notepad in the hope that i won't accidentally close that.

The גמ never says things like this. If we just parrot gemaros we won't have too much interesting things to say, and it certainly won't be us saying it.

One of the טעמים the גמ gives is קדושה. What is קדושה? Yes פרושים תהיו. But that's not the only פן of קדושה. The מסילת ישרים says that קדושה is a מדריגה where even the מעשים גשמיים are קדושים and the איש himself becomes like the משכן והמזבח. That the חומר itself becomes something עליון. 

And אליבא דאמת the תכלית of all the existence is to become a גילוי of something עליון. 
הוי אומר הקדושה היא המדריגה שעל ידה מתגלית אמיתיות הדברים.

To say that משום קדושה jews refrain from doing this in the day is to say that doing this act in the day is היפך קדושה, meaning taking something which should be a place where there is בפרט a גילוי of how what's למטה is to bring out what's למעלה and being מסתיר that. ואין לך שקר גדול מזה.

I hope I dont get in trouble for this point but clearly the perception of day is a perception which has in it a שייכות to the perception of light even when the light is off.

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:36:

the reason that the gemara gives because of צניעות
has nothing to do do with YOU not seeeeeing, it has to do with dark.
see דברות משה there

cande'

cande wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:55:

Please refer to R' chaimoigens post.

cande wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:55:

Really? When?

cande wrote on 16 Jan 2025 19:58:

Thank you I will see the דברות משה בע"ה

I am trying to tayna that you seeing is a הגברה of what's there in perception of בגלוי in general and therefore not a separate thing from צניעות לעומת פריצות

Now can someone please turn off my computer before i spend anymore time here?

I would imagine that if a person is going to have lots of bad thoughts and feel frustrated, he absolutely should be with his wife by day. That much is mefurash in rambam and Sh"A. 

Additionally, maybe you are denying yourself the pleasure by trying to be too holy and that's never a good thing. 
If you aren't on a high madreigah and it's just gonna make you upset, holding back isn't good. 

From now on 12 oclock noon on the button (unless there's clouds, then we'll wait till they pass)

simchastorah wrote on 16 Jan 2025 11:40:

If you don’t mind me saying it, and I don’t mean it in a hurtful way chaver, (I enjoy your thoughtful thoughts  ) but I would prefer sticking to the reasons that Halacha explicitly mention and not learn something entirely new into it. 

I do understand why a guy should not be singularly focused on his wife’s body. A darkened room helps so that he should not see her imperfections. 

But why do we need to strip the act of sexual intimacy from one of it’s core elements? How does seeing your wife’s body, the beauty and femininity that God put there for this purpose, somehow make intimacy a lie?