<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.17924"></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial>From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah
<avodah@lists.aishdas.org><BR><BR>>> In RMB's second point, he
contrasts survival without sex and survival<BR>without food. While it is true
that sex is not required for physical life,<BR>psychologically it's a whole
different story, and that's the approach<BR>the Torah uses for
Onah.<BR><BR>[snip]<BR>It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of
objectifying males. <<</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><BR>Akiva Miller<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex
absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive
without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in
particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is
absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu"
is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically
pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions
and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are
these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology
but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically
impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was
but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of
"objectifying men" is just ridiculous.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of
RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from
being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings
derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a
stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful,
cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if
another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that
person.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for
survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT><BR><FONT color=#0000ff><STRONG>--Toby
Katz<BR>t613k@aol.com</STRONG></FONT><FONT lang=0 color=#ffffff size=2
face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR><STRONG>..</STRONG></FONT><FONT
lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR><STRONG>=============</STRONG><BR><BR><BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><BR></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>