“I don’t know what to say to her… she’s become so Orthodox…”
Just say hi.
“I wouldn’t know how to answer her questions; what if she
asks me why I wear skirts or something??”
asks me why I wear skirts or something??”
Just say hi.
“He’s intermarried; what should I say when we meet?”
Just say hi.
“I think he became a Buddhist now… I wouldn’t even know what
to talk about.”
to talk about.”
Just say hi.
“I think she’s involved in a cult…”
Just say hi.
Just be nice.
Just be friendly.
Smile.
Show an interest in the human being…
And remember to just say hi.
Even in line at the grocery store.
Even in synagogue.
Even at a wedding.
Even at Target.
Just smile and say hi.
Is it so hard?
It's a good point.
Thank you, twitter Sarah!
🙂
Very well said! Shammai has a reputation for strictness, but even he advised greeting every person cheerfully. I think we can all think of a few times in which this would have made a world of difference. Whether we know the person or not, or their current situation or not, a smile and hello can be huge. And wouldn't it be amazing if we found out something like that was the tipping point and brought Moshiach?
So very true, and good point about Shammai.
Oh, and welcome to the blog, Kate! Everyone say hi to Kate. And check out her beautiful blog.
Sorry, I am just now seeing this. Thank you, Ruchi. Hi, everyone!
I recently found out that my non-Orthodox sister-in-law used to find my religiosity quite intimidating. I didn't think I was particularly intimidating or bossy, but for years she was concerned about offending me (while in reality, maybe I was the offensive one!). It was really an eye-opener for me to hear that from her.
This might be personal, tesyaa, but what eventually opened the lines of communication?
Probably a combination of me mellowing out but (more importantly) just spending more time together – they don't live locally, and until a few years ago we weren't able to have an extended visit with them.
It's a very good point, indeed. It's so easy to look at our differences, but most of the time, I think we have a lot more in common than we think we do.
Couldn't agree more.
Does the man/woman thing, or an O/non-O thing, affect the 'just say hi' dictum for O Jews? I tried a few cheerful-but-reserved hellos to O families passing by on the sidewalk in Israel (which has its own dynamics, as has been said before) and people just ignored me.
Re: the man/woman thing – in theory, it shouldn't. In practice, it does. There is no reason a man can't exchange basic polite greetings with a woman. I've never met Rabbi Koval, but I am sure he greets all women with a smile. However, some O men think they should avoid greeting or looking at a woman, particularly if she is less covered than they are used to. In addition, a lot of O men lack basic social graces as a result of living in a very isolated primarily male community and they may just be too shy or awkward to acknowledge a woman.
Re: the O/non-O thing – I think that is exactly Ruchi's point. In practice it does, but it absolutely shouldn't.
I am always amazed when I initiate a cheerful greeting (to anyone, not just Orthodox or Jewish) and am ignored. I really just flat out don't understand it. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, like maybe s/he is very shy…didn't hear me…has a phobia of me…is consumed in thought…?
I agree with miriambyk's response, although I have seen men raised in very insular environments with warm, outgoing personalities and they figure out how to greet people pleasantly. In fact right now at least ten men in my community who fit that description just popped into my head.
And I must admit that my very kind and warm husband, who, incidentally, was not raised in a very insular environment (at least not from my vantage point ;), strives to greet all people he meets with a warm smile and hello (see the "mensch" post – it's one of the things I absolutely admired about him when we were dating).
I don't think it's just an O/non thing. When I'm at the kosher market and I see an unfamiliar face, I push myself to greet and introduce myself. Sometimes it's a stretch for even this extrovert.
Amen. I think we sometimes get so stuck on labels that we forget about the a human being exists behind them. Thanks for the reminder!
Good post. I can only add:
Hi 🙂
I can confirm, having met the Kovals in person, that Ruchi smiles and greets men and Rabbi Koval smiles and greets women. 🙂 They're super warm and friendly and it wouldn't matter whether they're O or not or living in Cleveland or not— it's just who they are.
Unfortunately, in another place we lived, we experienced a lot of grumpiness and a lot of unspoken chumros that came from nowhere—– where we used to live, Orthodox teenage girls would NEVER look at or speak to my husband. It made Shabbos meals at friends' homes uncomfortable as we were fairly new to Orthodoxy ourselves and trying to communicate with the entire family (I always speak directly to young children when I meet them, remembering how I felt at age 6, 7, 8 when adults only asked my parents questions about me, for instance).
In Cleveland, we've noticed that teen girls are very good at looking men in the eye and speaking TO them! So sometimes it might be a community norm type of thing. In parts of the country you would NEVER just smile and say hi to people for no reason (well, *I* still would, but it would get frustrating), but I like to smile and speak with all types of people.
It's frustrating for me in some regards that my children are too special needs to be integrated well (yet?) into a typical Jewish day school environment and attend public school, but on the other hand I LOVE that they have black friends, rich friends, poor friends, Asian friends…. my daughter even has a Muslim friend who wears a hijab at 5 years old!
An Orthodox friend once told me that she didn't greet men on the street if she didn't know them, because if they were among the men who didn't talk to women, they wouldn't answer and then they'd be guilty of being rude. And since she was living in a place where both greeting strangers and not greeting them were considered normal, she decided it was better to say nothing.
Personally, I'm very uncomfortable around people who aren't comfortable speaking to me.
Heather, I am a little surprised that you are encouraging of your daughter having multicultural friends. I thought, in part based on Ruchi's somewhat incendiary post on intermarriage, that part of an O ideal would be to stick with an O community to assure Jewish marriages. And also it is a lot easier, what with eating rules and so forth. Or is this a difference between you and Ruchi?
Do you end up being friends with the parents, or is the O Judaism an obstacle to deep friendships outside the community?
The Muslim friend is obviously a girl too, so no chance for intermarriage… I second your questions though, I was surprised too reading Heather's comment.
Slightly off topic, but would little O girls be allowed to have boy friends? (not boyfriends, just friends who are boys) Would it be more or less OK if the little boys were O too?
Ruchi (or other O commenters here), do you have any male childhood friends?
How old boys and girls are when they stop playing together is very dependent on how left-wing or right-wing the community is. For example, there are three Orthodox day schools here in the Cleveland. In the most right-wing one, the kids are mixed only in the 3-year-old program. In the middle one, the kids are mixed up till and including kindergarten. In the "Modern-Orthodox" or centrist Orthodox one, the kids are coed much longer than that (I'm not sure exactly which grade). So that's sort of an indicator. I do find that my son who is kindergarten and does have girls in his class is not really interested in playing with them outside of school, but that's just him, maybe.
In my experience, the kids sort of naturally socialize separately when they are separated at school, so when you choose your school, you are sort of choosing that too. Although, on my block where I used to live, the boys and girls sometimes play together for longer (maybe till like 7 or 8). We don't tell them not to. The separation develops on its own.
I had one male childhood friendship that I can remember. We were both 4 and we used to play wedding all the time. I had a white poncho that would conveniently convert into a veil. We have not been in touch since 🙂
It's true there is a phase when children naturally separate according to genders. I remember distinctly when I went to primary school (so I was 6) and played with boys during recess, and the girls in my class made fun of me for that (so then I knew better and played only with girls).
That being said, in my mind it only applied to the school setting. My parents are very close friends with a couple who have a son exactly my age. We would visit with them often, or they would come over, and I always played with the boy (we both had a Lego obsession, so it allowed for gender-neutral games – he would certainly never agree to play wedding 🙂 ). We've stayed friends throughout, and I think of him as my cousin/family. And it seems to be mutual, as his daughter calls me "aunt"!
What happens in O families that have a similar configuration? Or do you simply not visit with children, when you go to see friends?
Like W, I have a lot of questions about separate socialization for little girls and boys.
1. Is it following a direct Torah prescription? Maybe the age of separation is not specified in the Torah, hence the varying practice of separation in different O 'branches'?
2. I can see why teenagers are separated, given the restriction of sexual activity to within marriage and the wish, as you have explained, to avoid young people falling in love outside of the dating procedure. But what is the idea with separating 3-9 yr olds? Is it just to facilitate the separation of teenagers later? Is it sort of like Rena's description of the avoidance of street greetings–to emphasize the separation of genders in all possible spheres? Is it seen as just not a good idea that boys and girls be comfortable with each other in an everyday way? But isn't that comfort in being with each other and having some boy-girl friendship experience one ingredient to happy marriage later?
3. I definitely know the self-segregation thing among 5+ yr olds. But for my kids the ability to sometimes 'cross the line' and go play with the 'other' gender group has been useful in negotiating various social conflicts and cliques, try out different social possibilities, and so forth. What about a girl who is more comfortable, at least for a time, with the boys and their games (we used to call these 'tomboys', ugh), or vice versa? (Note: I am NOT talking about homosexuality. I am talking about young children who are exploring different ways of playing, socializing and interacting with the world.) If you had another family over for dinner, could a little girl join in with your boys and go play Lego (or whatever) in their room?
4. Do adults not have friends of the opposite sex? I know the gender roles are more divided, but if a dad was alone with his kids for an afternoon could he invite a mom and her kids to go to the zoo? Could you still be friends with the 'groom' of your old days, or would you not be comfortable for instance meeting for coffee someplace in public?
5. For teenagers and adults, what I don't get is how the anxiety around attraction developing seems to trump any value that might exist in having different kinds of friendships, including opposite-sex ones. To me those friendships are so important and enrich my life a lot. It seems to me a basic difference between O and non-O Jews that the risks of attraction are seen as so huge that the sphere of friendship is entirely foreclosed.
You say: "But isn't that comfort in being with each other and having some boy-girl friendship experience one ingredient to happy marriage later?" Do you find this to be true in the secular world? Even if it is, my kids have lots and lots of cousins that are friends without the suggestion of it being anything more. And of course, siblings.
You ask: "If you had another family over for dinner, could a little girl join in with your boys and go play Lego (or whatever) in their room?" Absolutely.
You ask: "if a dad was alone with his kids for an afternoon could he invite a mom and her kids to go to the zoo? Could you still be friends with the 'groom' of your old days, or would you not be comfortable for instance meeting for coffee someplace in public?"
This would not be the norm in my community. At most our families would become friends and hang out all together – not us one-on-one, even in a public setting.
You ask: "But what is the idea with separating 3-9 yr olds? Is it just to facilitate the separation of teenagers later?" First of all, kids are talking "boyfriend/girlfriend" as young as fourth grade. The short answer to your question is "yes" but as I mentioned the kids play together outside of school for longer, so I don't actively separate my kids from the opposite sex at this young age. I am happy, though, that the tension of having the opposite sex in their class is absent.
Maybe I can give you some perspective like this. There are three cardinal sins in Judaism: idolatry, adultery, and murder. Idolatry and murder are not a problem for most people today. Being unfaithful is far more tempting. "Cardinal sins" in Judaism means we must be willing to be killed rather than violate these three sins. So we have all kinds of "fences" or protective measures in place to make sure we don't come anywhere this. Ostensibly (not that it couldn't be circumvented) keeping the genders separate, again, the degree of which varies by community, serves this goal.
This is one of the place I think Chareidi Judaism is not for me. I've been platonic friends with women my whole life, and their friendship has greatly enriched me.
Sometimes at night, I see their faces
I see the traces they left on my soul
Those are the memories that made me a wealthy soul.
– Bob Seger (Google gives me differing answers as to whether or no he is Jewish)
Are there places where you do think it's for you?
There was a funny video going around the web recently with someone stopping all these guys and girls on campus and asking them if guys and girls can be "just friends." The girls all said yes. The guys all said no such thing.
1) Yes – the emphasis on constant Torah study is one I find very appealing, although my idea that studying physics and biology is also Torah study is not widely accepted there.
2) I guess I'm a girl. Alternatively, I think there one can be "just friends" and have desires one simply never chooses to act on. Whether some, all, or most men can do this may be a matter of dispute, that at least one such man exists is not. My suspicion is that men who are brought up with idea that men can relate to one other than sexually have an easier time with this. Neither charedi society nor contemporary American society is doing a good job at that, IMO.
The guys in the video also chose not to act on their desires. But they described having the desires as not being "just friends." How long will they continue the friendship? Will they start acting on their desires? Will they give up the friendship because it isn't satisfying them? In part 2 of the video, they make it clear that it would bother them if their girlfriend had a platonic friendship with another guy. Sounds to me like those friendships — in which presumably the male friend is interested in something non-platonic — are bad for the relationship.
That doesn't mean you can't have a conversation with a person of the opposite sex. It doesn't even mean you can't have a friendly relationship. What it means is that you protect your marriage by not getting too close to someone of the opposite sex. You don't socialize alone with that person, for instance.
I agree with Larry. I have male friends who are just that: male + friends. I don't even want to say that we have a platonic relationship, because that would suppose some attraction or romantic feelings we choose not to act upon. Whereas it's definitely not the case.
I also noticed that even in the secular world some men (or women) don't get it at all. I've been asked many times about my male friends "but why don't you guys date" and our (me and the male friend's) reaction is pretty close to "Eeeewwww!". I guess it depends on your upbringing?
Also, I would like to stress the distinction between the male friends who are just not attracted to me romantically, and those who are but do not act upon it. I sense which is which, and honestly, keep the second type at bay…
I also agree with Larry – the gender separation issue is part of why I consider myself Modern Orthodox not Yeshivish despite living in a Yeshivish community and sending my kids to Yeshivish schools. I think it is a negative aspect of my daughters' upbringing that they have no male friends and are not learning how to interact with boys in any context. They have no brothers, and have only a few male cousins who live across the country/across the world. They have been gender segregated in school since kindergarten. This has been one factor in choosing to send them to non-Jewish co-ed academic enrichment camps – to get broader interpersonal experiences. I am encouraging co-ed Modern Orthodox high schools, although it may not work out that way.
Particularly because I am divorced, I worry extensively that my daughters have no model for healthy male-female interaction or even basic male-female communication. I grew up with male friends, and have male friends now, and I hope they see that as possible. (And no, my male friends and my ex's female friends did not contribute to the failures of the marriage in any way.)
I went to girls' school for some years (not Jewish). It didn't lack for distractions in the classroom. And there were crushes among the girls. The gender segregation in school made the external interactions with boys feel SO overcharged when they did happen, which was not infrequent outside school. Single-sex school in a secular environment might perhaps be the worst of both worlds: presume that the boys are SUCH a distraction from schoolwork, and then expect normal (secular) socialization to happen in a way that lets kids be everyday friends. Mixed signals, anyone?
But it is a good question you ask about whether childhood boy-girl friendship makes for better marriage partners later. Any sociologists around here?
I see the logic you describe–if it's a cardinal sin, better set things up so that it never could happen. I guess the price of that is that it makes the mixed-gender world seem like a really dangerous place. Like any woman greeting my husband on the street might come onto him just because I'm not present. (I guess O couples also can't joke about this stuff; at my house the suggestion of this possibility would be a ripe occasion for humor.)
To me it seems like the prohibitions would precisely EVOKE all kinds of sexual possibilities lurking everywhere. So those restrictions could paradoxically make a mostly-humdrum world seem pretty steamy and naughty.
Please tell me if something I write here is nearing the boundary of offense. I think I'm close to that line, but my judgment for the sensibilities on this topic is possibly off.
DG
Thanks for your reply – I think it cleared something up for me. I've spent the larger part of my life unmarried. During the long period between my first and second marriages I had plenty of non-sexual friendships with both men and women. After my second marriage it was the most natural thing in the world to continue them. Frankly, if my wife or I had suggested the other give up their existing opposite sex relationships it would have set off alarm bells – to me it would be a warning sign of abuse.
If one goes directly from dating to marriage, or from no relationships to being in the shidduch parsha (marriage market) to marriage, then I can see that opposite sex friendships might seem to have an element of danger to them that I simply don't perceive, based on my own life experiences.
"To me it seems like the prohibitions would precisely EVOKE all kinds of sexual possibilities lurking everywhere. So those restrictions could paradoxically make a mostly-humdrum world seem pretty steamy and naughty."
I agree. When people go too far, making up extra prohibitions, they can become obsessed with the matter, considering everything sexual and declaring themselves helpless in the face of provocation instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. But the sort of thing Ruchi is describing doesn't go that far. We aren't supposed to put ourselves into situations where we're likely to do something we shouldn't. And teenagers aren't so good at resisting when their hormones get involved. Why make it harder for them?
That said, I'm not in favor of keeping the sexes so separate that they barely know the other exists.
Wow. The video says it all. With all due respect, the female commenters here have no clue whatsoever about how men inescapably think about women friends. Of course there may exist exceptional cases representing a small proportion of the male population. But as a rule of thumb, the chance of a mutual male-female platonic relationship is so small that it can be ignored as negligible. Women can NEVER understand this fact. And the men are politely keeping their mouths shut. Ladies, ask your husbands if they agree with me. They will laugh.
I'm sorry, but I can't really accept this argument. If you state "men can't be friends with women they feel attracted to", they I could maybe agree. But frankly I feel you're reducing men to just hungry animals who'll throw themselves at ANY female, given the opportunity. Maybe I'm just not oozing pheromones, but there are men around me who appreciate my humor, my intelligence, my insightfulness, but who do not find me attractive. There is no romantic chemistry there.
Now, I do have one friend who was probably interested in me when we met 15 years ago. But I was in a relationship, so it evolved into a friendship, and quite soon down the line it appeared we had some irreconcilable differences of character/personality/worldview that would make us miserable if we were a couple. But that make us good sparring partners in some debates.
Your opinion suggests that all women are irresistible and/or all men undiscerning. Whereas friendship requires very different ingredients from a romantic relationship. But as I stated above, it may be a question of upbringing/culture: I'm European, and when I went to the States it struck me that in cafés, restaurants etc. you'd see groups of girls/women, or groups of boys/men, but very few mixed ones (unless it was obviously a couples' outing). You get much more mixed socializing on this side of the pond, and maybe the culture over here stresses more that not every spark is of romantic nature.
The video is not to me proof of much. It was made at Utah State. I wonder if a lot of students there are Mormons, who (I believe–someone here is Mormon, no?) also have some prohibitions on female/male socializing. Which might predispose their views to agree with some OJ views. We don't know anything about how the video was edited. Did NO guy believe it was possible to have female friends? Or were those answers edited out? Also I am guessing that most of the students are not married. I can imagine that for young singles it might be more common for guys to 'want more' than among marrieds.
That said, I am enough of a Freudian to believe that *no* relationship is totally 'pure' of attractions, charms and such. I believe that also within genders there are subtle kinds of charming, playfulness and stuff going on that in an opposite-gender relationship would be seen as flirting.
Wow, Ruchi, we've steered quite far from your original post! I hope you don't mind? (if you do, I apologize. And put the blame on heatheramyprice 🙂 )
“There is the danger … of being so obsessed with not thinking about women that we can’t think about anything else.” — Rabbi YH Henkin.
I love this idea by W: "all women are irresistible and/or all men undiscerning" !
I also agree with W that even the secular USA has implicit restrictions about male/female socializing. During my time in Europe it was normal for me to ask a married guy to meet up for coffee. Not possible here, it seems. Also 'dinner' was not necessarily more datelike than lunch or coffee, that took me awhile to realize!
Here is where I differ from the just-friends view of W and others: I think and hope that even my no-romance-whatsoever friendships have a little 'spark'. The spark of teasing someone for some quality that they have and I know they know that I know they have (you get the point); of making them laugh really hard; of reaching some deep understanding of some part of their emotional world. And I consider this intimacy. Without it, I personally would starve. And, yes, intimacy IS tied to eroticism, in my Freudian-influenced view and that is why it is a source of pleasure and nourishment. But that tie can be veeeery thin, or highly sublimated, or mixed with other things, or part of a context that doesn't permit its development, or just acknowledged and let alone. To me the fabric of intimacy is what sustains me. There are risks to it–not talking adultery here, although I see how that plays into what I'm saying, but I mean risks of showing vulnerability and causing hurt feelings and knowing more than I wanted.
Has anyone asked their husband yet?
Has anyone asked their husband yet?
I don't have a husband. Also, I have no clear idea of exactly what question you want answered.
This conversation seems to have veered from kids to adults. I'd say that teenagers need more limits than adults. They're less capable of (and less interested in) restraining themselves, and their desires are probably much more powerful. Nevertheless, they should be taught that they are responsible for restraining themselves.
I see no reason why adult men and women shouldn't interact. They should be capable of setting appropriate limits to the interaction. There are some universally applicable halachic limits, but if those aren't enough for you, you may need to set stricter ones for yourself. I disagree with SBW in that I think deliberately going for a spark of eroticism goes way beyond those limits. Unless, of course, you're both single and the spark could lead to marriage.
Marriage is exclusive. Cultivating a spark with someone else eliminates that exclusivity and is dangerous to the marriage.
SBW: exactly what you said. That's why I said that not every spark has to be romantic in nature. But the spark must definitely be there! That's what differentiates people I'm friends with from people I'm friend-ly with – be it men or women.
Randy: I've actually just asked my ex-husband (yes, we're friends now 🙂 ) and he tends to agree with me…
Amen DG on your last paragraph about the 'spark.'
Hi Larry. I was wondering if any of the husbands of the female commenters thought that meaningful platonic relationships between men and women were possible.
Speaking as a husband, and assuming platonic means 'clearly understood the relationship will not include serious romantic interaction' the answer for me is yes.
DG, I agree that marriage is exclusive. Friendship isn't. In my mind the line between what's exclusive to marriage and what is allowed in social interactions is very clear. I consider myself a moral person and if I felt that there is an ambiguity in my relation with a third man, I would certainly put an end to it. My point is – with my male friends, there isn't any ambiguity.
I think that we come from a different culture, so it's very difficult to see a different perspective on what is considered intimate, etc. To give you an example: I have a (female) British friend, who once told me à propos of something else, that she kisses her dad on the lips. I was shocked, because for me a kiss on the lips is always inherently erotic and reserved for my romantic partner. After asking some other British and Irish friends about it, I discovered it's apparently fairly common for children to kiss their parents on the lips. Does it make it incestuous? It would be for me, because it's not my custom, and actually something taboo. It's not for them though, it's a codified way of showing family affection.
So maybe it's the same here, and if Randy suddenly got himself a female friend, his wife should worry, because he's crossing a line (a line fixed by his upbringing). Whereas if Larry did, it there wouldn't be anything to read into it, he just has a friend, and the friend happens to be female.
Once again, a spark isn't necessarily romantic. It can be a feeling of sudden mutual understanding, a common interest in a topic, a similar sense of humor, something that makes me feel connected to another human being. It's quite rare to feel it, and it would make me sad if there was even 50% less chance of feeling it, just because the other person happens to be of the opposite gender.
Very busy and no computer time…but am enjoying "listening" to this exchange immensely.
Speaking as a female who grew up with a lot of male friends and spent a lot of time in heavily male environments (a couple of jobs and ROTC in college, amongst other places), I think it's absolutely possible for men and women to be platonic friends. I would say that seventy to eight percent of my friends in elementary and high school were male, and I never even had a boyfriend until college. I had friends who were boys, and plenty of them, but they were friends- we wouldn't have even gone to prom together, because it would have been weird.
As an adult, I tend to hang out with men and women equally. I enjoy doing a girls' movie night or going out shopping with girlfriends, but I also have a great time playing video games with my guy friends (some of whom are married, some of whom are not). I agree with Larry: the friends I have who are of the opposite gender from myself have enriched my life in all kinds of ways, and I can't imagine having just completely cut them out of my social circle for all of these years.
So here's a question I have, and i hope it doesn't come off as confrontational. I see in the non-Orthodox world, it is considered very appropriate, expected perhaps, for men and women (that are married to other people) who are friends to greet one another with a hug and kiss. Is this not weird? Does no one's spouse mind this? I have wondered this for a long time. I've even felt a tad annoyed sometimes that I, who won't touch another person's husband, am considered "oddball" by today social standards.
Ruchi: I guess the simplest answer is that in American culture it isn't considered derech chiba (sexually affectionate?). Imagine the reaction of someone from Japan seeing all these men shaking each other's hands instead of bowing. Isn't it unsanitary? Doesn't it bother anyone to have their personal space invaded that way?
In my case over the years my friends and I (prior to my becoming observant) determined how much physical contact each of us was comfortable with (and with each person.) So I smile at A* and hug C* and kiss S* (all women) and I shake hands with F* and hug M* (both men).
My wife shares your opinion about disliking the norms of physical touching. She has a variety of techniques she uses (making sure she is holding something at a party, for example) to avoid having to just tell someone to please not touch her. And there are some people (mostly elderly male relatives of mine) who will not get the idea, and after 10 years she's finally decided she just has to endure it.
I remember when we were first exploring Orthodoxy and I had almost no experience with the laws of yichud and negiah. (I knew 3 girls in public school who were shomer negiah, 2 of them gave it up before graduation,) A woman who we were guesting with over Shabbat mentioned that one of the reasons the break away shul formed was that there was a deep division between people who wanted to kiss other people's spouses in public and those who felt such behavior was inappropriate. I managed not to look at her as if she was from Mars, but that is certainly how I felt about it at the time.
Oh please, I even saw this on Shabbos when I lived in a modern Orthodox community – husbands kissing another man's wife on the cheek at the kiddush, with no one at all scandalized. So it's not scandalizing in the secular community, no.
Ruchi, I don't read your question as confrontational, and after all I bug you with so many questions about the O world that I welcome the chance to be on the answering end, for once.
So no, it's not weird for me to kiss or hug other people. It's just a cultural norm where I live. Imagine it's like a salesperson who asks you how you're doing today – it's just a social standard, and you give a standardized answer, because you both know she/he's absolutely not interested in how you really are doing.
The above example is meaningful for me personally, because where I grew up (Eastern Europe) it's not part of the social ritual. So when we were learning English at school our teachers kept telling us that when someone asks "how do you do?" or "how are you?", you're not supposed to answer honestly (otherwise we'd tell each salesperson "not so great" "fine, though I have a cold" "a bit tired" etc). It's an empty question that calls only for a codified answer.
Social kissing works in exactly the same manner – it's completely devoid of meaning. And you're not really kissing – you kind of peck the air next to someone's cheek 🙂 If someone actually presses his lips against my cheek, I'd find that creepy – probably because by breaking the code he's putting meaning to where there can't by any. So if I meet a group of friends and greet each of them in this manner, I won't consider I kissed anybody that day.
Now, when a friend is asking you "how are you?", you know they really want to know, and you're allowed to tell them honestly what's good or bad. By analogy, if your husband kisses you, it's not a social norm, it has meaning.
In France it's completely normal to kiss your friends, your acquaintances, or even people you are meeting for the first time – but ONLY if it's in a private context. You don't kiss, say, your colleagues in the morning, or your boss, or your cleaning lady, or your postman.
Hugs are reserved for special occasions, and for CLOSE friends (of both sexes). I'll hug someone for their birthday, or if I haven't seen them in a long while. But it isn't romantic at all – it's the same kind of hug you give to your children, to your father, or your brothers (though now I wonder if maybe in O families you don't hug members of the opposite sex). It's a sign of affection, but without any erotic subtext.
Since it's a social norm, or let's say a "social contract", then the spouse won't find it surprising or inappropriate, because the spouse knows it's devoid of any meaning. Just as you know that a salesgirl asking your husband how he's doing today isn't really showing him any special interest of flirting, she's just being polite within your culture's guidelines (whereas if I wasn't familiar with this custom in your culture I would have thought that every salesperson is flirting with me, or at least showing inappropriate curiosity about my private life…)
It came out long and rambling, but I hope it answers your question somewhat.
I am likewise honored to be on the receiving end of a question for once!
I agree with Larry's and W's descriptions above about how a cultural norm feels totally, well, normal. Larry's point about how OJs tend to marry young and have little experience with adults of the opposite sex was especially helpful for me in understanding how these interactions might seem overcharged to O Jews.
I guess the whole point of your 'fences' is to prevent flirting. But a greeting-kiss-and-hug from someone else's spouse can be (like any greeting) perfunctory, warm, awkward, giggly, fake-feeling, tentative, and so forth. And like any gesture it *could* be done flirtatiously. But it's not because it's a kiss/hug that it is flirtatious. People can exchange glances across a room flirtatiously as well (or warmly, awkwardly, etc.). There is nothing inherently more flirtatious about the greeting-kiss, it's all in the delivery. Just like your greetings at the kosher butcher. Rena's husband (or his wife) might feel like that's a come-on, for you it is simple friendliness.
Weirdly, in thinking this through I now understand the hyper-separation of genders among people like Rena describes. I guess if inter-gender flirtation is to be prevented at ALL costs, then NO contact, including visual, is the way to go. They are in a way the logical extension of Randy's fantasy that sexual desire informs–and even wants to govern–all man-woman interaction.
I prefer normal interactions between men and women. That means we can have conversations, even joke around, but not go beyond a certain point. Flirting, if either person is married to someone else, is going too far. But you don't have to ban all visual contact. You just have to exercise self-control. Sure, you could glance across a room flirtatiously. Or you could restrain yourself, just as you have to restrain yourself in speech and action. You don't have to take it to extremes and hide out. But if you cultivate flirtation, even with no intention of acting on it, you're liable to stir up desires that aren't based in reality and be unsatisfied with your spouse.
I really hear you all and I can't deny that you have valid arguments in favor of platonic relationships between genders All I can say is that I and others follow the warnings of our rabbis that we may not be sufficiently proficient use this match carefully enough that it not burst into flame on occasion – which does happen, if only infrequently. It is these cases that justify our extreme care.
yes, we do lose out on some temporal richness in our lives and gain in other respects.
SBW said: "I guess the price of that is that it makes the mixed-gender world seem like a really dangerous place. Like any woman greeting my husband on the street might come onto him just because I'm not present. (I guess O couples also can't joke about this stuff; at my house the suggestion of this possibility would be a ripe occasion for humor.)"
I don't know that I personally view the mixed-gender world a dangerous place, it's merely a place that I choose not to visit. and yes,we do joke about these norms, no differently than you. Our sense of humor is bh intact and what better outlet than to poke fun at ourselves?
So really, what you are saying is "different strokes for different folks." Hard to argue.
I know this discussion is dying its natural death, but I've just come back home from visiting a friend, and since this topic was kind of stuck in my head, we talked about it, so I wished to add something.
I imagine that from the O perspective it may seem like a "free for all", because people seem to be hugging and kissing just about anybody… So maybe it's useful to underline that there are in fact very clear lines of what is appropriate and what crosses the line. They may be less obviously codified, they are implicit, but they are definitely there. They are what makes me kiss X hello and not think twice, and think Y is creepy. They are what makes a husband be fine with his wife having coffee with X, but say "I don't like how Y is looking at you, I'd rather you kept your distance". They are what makes it natural to hug a friend if he needs comfort, yet never touch a colleague. The rules are there, they are different from country to country, from one culture to another, even from one social group to another. It can be difficult, because people could have a hard time stating what those are (in this respect it's easier for the O, the rules are explicit), but yet if you break them it'll be considered tactless at best, offensive or even taboo at worst.
I see in the non-Orthodox world, it is considered very appropriate, expected perhaps, for men and women (that are married to other people) who are friends to greet one another with a hug and kiss. Is this not weird? Does no one's spouse mind this?
Well, I'm no one's spouse, but I rarely hug my guy friends and never kiss them. Though I rarely kiss my girlfriends, I suppose because I'm not a terribly touchy-feely person. But still, it's not like my friends and I show up to play video games together, for instance, and we all start hugging each other. If I see my best friend from college, whom I haven't seen in years and happens to be male? Yeah, we'd probably hug. If I'm saying goodbye to someone who's leaving post, and I know I might not see them for another two or three years? Again, most likely a hug-appropriate occasion. But I don't think that hugging and kissing amongst platonic friends is necessarily as prevalent in secular society as you seem to think, and as others have mentioned, it's very dependent on local and regional culture.
I will say that in a Jewish context, any time I'm around a guy who's Orthodox, I won't even move to shake hands unless they initiate, because I have no idea if they're shomer negiah and, if so, to what extent (since some people who are shomer negiah hold that shaking hands in some contexts is acceptable). It's weird, in that I've definitely had encounters that went, "Oh- wait, we can't- oh, we're shaking hands? Okay."
Some more food for thought before stepping down from my soapbox (lent so graciously by our Ruchi):
I am sure you all use safety belts and wouldn't dream of driving without -even though you observe speed limits and all traffic laws (which vary from country to country, according to local norms). A lot of this is due to high awareness of traffic accidents, r'l.
I wonder how traffic accident statistics would compare to statistics of infidelity in society at large? (We could never know of course since those numbers could never become public.) and I also can't help but wonder if the two are generally viewed with equal gravity?
yes, I do believe strongly in "live and let live" but I believe just as strongly in our Sages' wisdom and understanding of human nature.
Rena. This reminds me of one of my arguments with my mother. She said that 'human life was of infinite value." I said if that was true, we should not make cars that ran faster than 5mph, as we would save a vast number of lives if we did that. No matter what the economic costs, since each life was of infinite value we'd come out ahead.
The cost/benefit ratio of seat belts works out very favorably – very small costs very big benefits. If you use the insurance company's valuation of a human life, making all cars run under 5mph has a very poor ratio – the costs are much bigger than the benefits.
I'm not aware of any figures on the societal 'costs' of an affair, and the 'benefits' of a friendship are even harder to assess. But as someone who used to have lots of male female friendships and has acquire many fewer such since moving to an Orthodox community my intuition and experience says the benefits aren't worth the costs.
in our Israeli charedi community it's considered tactless to greet the opposite gender on the street – even if you know them well! in either one's home is viewed entirely differently.
But I've also seen other women not respond to my greeting, as if you need to have been introduced first, or something – and that I consider tactless, as well – but "live and let live" I guess.
[btw – I haven't disappeared, I just didn't have much to add to the discussions for a while, and i guess was also busier than usual.]
So does it mean that it's possible to pass Mr. X on the street pretending you don't know him, and then have dinner at Mr. X's home the same evening?
What's the reasoning behind it? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, I just have a hard time understanding the rationale, though I'm sure there is one)
W – in a word, yes it is possible, but often a mere nod of acknowledgement is in place on the street. This behavior is to emphasize segregation between the genders, an added precaution of tzniyut. and because it's the accepted mode of behavior, nobody is insulted. If I'm in a different area where someone may be insulted, I act differently.
(of course I understand that you are asking from curiosity and not abrasiveness – that's what this forum is all about.)
Rena, would you then feel uncomfortable responding to a man's comment online? Or is this not your own custom, just those around you (who then maybe don't go online)?
Thank you for your explanation. It's funny – I'd think the street would be a perfect place to talk to Mr. X just because it's such a public space that nothing un-tzniyuty (yes, I know I just made the word up) will happen. But I see the reasoning.
If you don't mind, a follow up question: What if Mr. X is walking down the street with his wife or his daughter? Will you then only greet Mrs. X or Miss X and ignore Mr. X, or in that case it's OK if you greet him more openly because he's with a female companion?
When I find myself in a community like that I follow community norms. Some people who live in Cleveland also interact that way so I just follow that lead. But my default mode is definitely to greet!
SBW: yes, it is my favored mode of behavior as well. I guess that online would be the same as talking on the phone – the general rule to follow in all cases is not to fall into over-familiarity. Of course, on an anonymous forum where you don't even know the people you're "conversing" with there's less of an issue, I think – it's not quite like these "customs" are written down anywhere in stone!
W: if you meet a couple walking down the street, one assumes that there's less likely to be a problem, since you're not about to start up with the opposite gender if their spouse is right there.
as far as children playing or interacting together [whether cousins or family friends], basically the same rules apply – they may be more familiar in the home than outdoors or in a public setting.
in our Israeli charedi community it's considered tactless to greet the opposite gender on the street – even if you know them well!
It is interesting to notice that this post started with the prescription "Just say hi".
SO so true. You can do a lot of good in the world just by doing this:)
great! thank you so, so much!
gut schabbes!