 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Relationships
-> Simcha Section
↑
batya_d
↓
|
 Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:27 pm
| Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | | In clothing that's clinging to the skin? |
or a baggy sweatshirt... |
It will still cling to the skin. |
If it's big enough it won't. |
If it's big enough the person will probably not get a lot of swimming done. |
this is getting a little off topic, but recently I have seen ads for tznius swimwear that covers everything that needs to be covered, doesn't cling, and still enables you to swim without a sweatshirt dragging you down. Aqua Modesta is the brand name I recall.
The question that raised for me was whether this type of gear is intended to make mixed swimming more acceptable, or if it's just for more comfort for those who swim with women only. My hunch is the latter, but I thought it was an interesting question. Is it the act of swimming that is untznius, or just the clothing it requires? Because this could be a remedy to that. Just food for thought.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
↑
batya_d
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:29 pm
[quote="cassandra"] | Crayon210 wrote: |
Anyway, the whole thing is a Catch-22, since the Rama states that the reason for avoiding chiba with your wife in publc is so that it doesn't arouse thoughts of s-x in the minds of those who see it. But in a society where innocuous PDAs like hand-holding or a delicate kiss do not immediately arouse these thoughts, the reasoning wouldn't seem to apply anymore. But if your community holds that these things should not be done in public, then seeing them probably would arouse s-xual thoughts. |
My understanding is that this is the rationale for people who wouldn't normally hold hands with their DH in public where they live, might do it while on vacation.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:37 pm
| Quote: | | Is it the act of swimming that is untznius, or just the clothing it requires? Because this could be a remedy to that. Just food for thought. |
Yes, that was my original question.
| Quote: | | My understanding is that this is the rationale for people who wouldn't normally hold hands with their DH in public where they live, might do it while on vacation. |
Which again furthers us from Crayons testament that PDA are absolutely forbidden according to halacha.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Atali
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:38 pm
| batya_d wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | | In clothing that's clinging to the skin? |
or a baggy sweatshirt... |
It will still cling to the skin. |
If it's big enough it won't. |
If it's big enough the person will probably not get a lot of swimming done. |
this is getting a little off topic, but recently I have seen ads for tznius swimwear that covers everything that needs to be covered, doesn't cling, and still enables you to swim without a sweatshirt dragging you down. Aqua Modesta is the brand name I recall.
The question that raised for me was whether this type of gear is intended to make mixed swimming more acceptable, or if it's just for more comfort for those who swim with women only. My hunch is the latter, but I thought it was an interesting question. Is it the act of swimming that is untznius, or just the clothing it requires? Because this could be a remedy to that. Just food for thought. |
I also assumed it was made for the latter, as there are people (like me) who prefer to be as tznius as possible at all times, including swimming.
Clarissa,
I have mentioned before the idea that in any discussion on any topic there are certain "givens" that it is assumed that the other people in the discussion accept.
Most Orthodox Jews (Modern Orthodox included) accept as a given that everything that one does must be in accordance with some halachic opinion. Therefore, most posters would take issue with the fact that no halachic authority, MO or otherwise, has (to my knowledge) permitted wearing a bathing suit in front of men, which is what one does when mixed swimming.
If, however, you were referring to mixed swimming while fully clothed, that may be a different issue (although probably still a problem).
If you do not accept the premise that everything one does must be in accordance with some halachic opinion, you should say so, since that was the impression that everyone here was under.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Crayon210
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:39 pm
| cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: |
Has a specific rav paskened based on that that it is indeed okay? As in, why doesn't the chareidi community hold of that? |
A specific Rav doesn't need to pasken that it's ok, but your Rav can poskin that his followers should hold by this chumra. Obviously the chareidi community has certain sensitivities, and that's fine. But clearly this isn't black and white halacha. |
You make it sound like chareidism is a recent invention. What do you think things were like in the shtetl and earlier...?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:43 pm
| Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: |
Has a specific rav paskened based on that that it is indeed okay? As in, why doesn't the chareidi community hold of that? |
A specific Rav doesn't need to pasken that it's ok, but your Rav can poskin that his followers should hold by this chumra. Obviously the chareidi community has certain sensitivities, and that's fine. But clearly this isn't black and white halacha. |
You make it sound like chareidism is a recent invention. What do you think things were like in the shtetl and earlier...? |
I don't really see how I made it sound like that. But now that you ask, I do think there were people like you and people like me. I also think that times change, and halacha adapts to these changes to a certain extent. And even if you don't want to admit that it adapts, you must admit that it is evolutionary to a degree.
But I'm not really sure what you are driving at here... can you explain it a little better?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:52 pm
I think what crayon is trying to say is that untill the haskala movement came along there was only one type of frum (aside from different minhogim and such)
As far as I'm aware you were either chreidi frum or not frum at all
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:54 pm
| amother wrote: |
As far as I'm aware you were either chreidi frum or not frum at all |
I guess that's what they teach you in chareidi school...
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Wed, Dec 26 2007, 11:57 pm
| Quote: | | With attitudes like the one to which you responded, it's a wonder any frum person can have a normal marital relationship. |
And yet, wonder of wonders, there are actually a couple of frum people who have normal relationships! 
I always wondered why there were so so many more divorces among the chareidi than the MO. So NOW I know! 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Crayon210
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 12:25 am
| cassandra wrote: | | amother wrote: |
As far as I'm aware you were either chreidi frum or not frum at all |
I guess that's what they teach you in chareidi school... |
You think Modern Orthodoxy has been around for 100s of years?
Oh right, I forgot, Moshe Rabbeinu went to YU.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Atali
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 12:50 am
| amother wrote: | | Quote: | | With attitudes like the one to which you responded, it's a wonder any frum person can have a normal marital relationship. |
And yet, wonder of wonders, there are actually a couple of frum people who have normal relationships!
I always wondered why there were so so many more divorces among the chareidi than the MO. So NOW I know! |
Do you have a source for your "statistics"?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 1:57 am
| cassandra wrote: | | amother wrote: |
As far as I'm aware you were either chreidi frum or not frum at all |
I guess that's what they teach you in chareidi school... |
 so you tell me then cassandra, when did "Modern" Orthodoxy come into being.
The name speaks for itself
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 7:43 am
Crayon, you didn't address my last comment, and I'd like to stay on topic please. How is it that every conversation I have with you manages to devolve into a tirade against Modern Orthodoxy? You said PDAs are absolutely assur, and I said that while the chumra might exist in halachic literature it is in no way absolute. Then you tried, not very cleverly, to steer the conversation in another direction, since I'm still not quite sure what your comment about chareidism had to do with what I said. Let's take it from there.
(Public Service Announcement: if any of you here really think that chareidism today is what Judaism looked like hundreds of years ago, and that MO is a new invention you'd really benefit from some research. Start with Navi and work your way through Jewish history and you will see that there have always been those that have successfully engaged with the outside world and those that have tried to keep themselves insular. Kollel is more modern of a modern invention than YU. I am not name-calling just pointing out a historical fact. I stand by my comment that you must have been taught these things in chareidi school, because there is nowhere else to get this kind of historical bias from. It' not your fault, really)
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
neshamale
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 7:52 am
|
Of course charedi today is a new thing... My grandparents, and I'm sure many of yours - did not wear black&white and the women wore minis etc. my grandfather z"l was a huge chareidi rav here in israel and my grandmother's dad was also and she used to tell me about how the yeshiva boys would come intot he kitchen and "hang out" with the rabbi's daughters and it was so ok- today when I answer the door at my grandfathers house the charedi guy standing there goes bazerk and stares at the floor and cant even talk to me- he has to ask the wall if soandso is home!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
louche
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 7:57 am
| amother wrote: |
so you tell me then cassandra, when did "Modern" Orthodoxy come into being.
The name speaks for itself |
Technically, mid 1800's, with HaRav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch being the Father of Modern Orthodoxy. Not that the descendants of his Kehilla would necessarily be happy to be labeled MO, but there you have it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:43 am
clarissa, could you pm me the name of the rabbis allowing mixed swimming? I have only seen some allowing it if people wore "shvim kleid". I thought no one wore it anymore, but recently I saw pics!
physical affection in public: yes, there are rabbanim allowing it for sure.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:48 am
| amother wrote: | I think what crayon is trying to say is that untill the haskala movement came along there was only one type of frum (aside from different minhogim and such)
As far as I'm aware you were either chreidi frum or not frum at all |
in hashkafa, probably. But the practices in Europe about tznius were sometimes surprisingly "modern"...
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 10:45 am
| Crayon210 wrote: | | Oh right, I forgot, Moshe Rabbeinu went to YU. |
So which chareidi school did he attend?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Clarissa
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 10:51 am
| amother wrote: | And yet, wonder of wonders, there are actually a couple of frum people who have normal relationships!
I always wondered why there were so so many more divorces among the chareidi than the MO. So NOW I know! |
So you think that the number of divorces (or lack therof) always directly correlates with happiness and satisfaction? You don't think that there is more pressure to stay married in chareidi culture, in spite of possible happiness or lack of connection and satisfaction?
People who are more modern might feel comfortable admitting that they are mismatched, unhappy, neglected and/or abused, and might therefore be more comfortable ending a marriage.
People in a more "modern" culture are probably more inclined to seek happiness elsewhere and admit publicly that they would not accept life in an unhappy marriage. Also, people who are more "modern" might be more likely to use birth control, and therefore might have fewer children with a person who turned out to be the wrong partner, which makes separation and divorce more feasible, and remarriage more likely.
Maybe I missed your point, but I think you can really over-simplify these issues.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
