I know that you want a detailed response. To me, it is not worth my while to go through my line of thinking in detail. My simple response is that you have brought up topics that you find interesting. There is so much junk out there and I am not searching for more of it on Jewneric. I am simply taking my blog reading elsewhere. Keep it up. You are simply adding more junk to the already overflowing garbage pile of blogs out there.

I guess a response that I will probably receive to this (which I will probably not read because I’m more-or-less finished reading Jewneric) is that I am burying my head in the sand or I am easily offended. I know of myself that neither is true. I just do not see high-quality, worthwhile posts. A top of it, numerous posts that I have read are lacking in age-appropriate maturity, intellect honesty, or sensitivity. There are posts from people who are not sensitive to those more or less religious than they. For example, David, you bring up minutia and stories about Chassdim , which granted in some circumstances may be true. Did you ever stop to think about the impacts of the stories on truly pious Chassidim? How might this affect him or her by someone who reads your post and generalizes such stories to all? Is there not enough of this already going on? Why are you adding to it? What was gained?

Okay, I’m done responding. Again apologies for offending: nothing personal at all. Remember that these are letters on a computer screen and that’s about it. So don’t get all worked up.

While it could be that Nimoy was just trying to push some buttons and make some money, he would never admit that in an interview. His artistic goal was certainly not to desecrate spiritual devices. In his mind he was combining spirituality and nudity in an effective, beautiful way.

As you are well aware, Rabbi Mo, Judaism does not believe that sex is sinful or dirty, but rather a spiritual experience (and not just in the euphemistic way, but really and truly). As much as Nimoy’s work may disturb some, a black and white photograph of a woman wearing Tefillin wrapped around her arm with a Talit (even the silken, see through one) covering her nakedness, poised in a position that could be seen as prayer or an otherwise spiritual connection is a world away, in my mind, from a woman on all fours with a Bayit of Tefillin resting on her buttocks and a seductive visage.

Regarding most of the other aspects of my report I don’t consider myself capable of passing judgment. As with Nimoy’s book, I can see the good intention with the Tefillin date, the mikvah list, the pilegesh agreement, the shadchan’s acceptance of a chassid trying to get physical, et cetera.

But I don’t see the attempt to use Tefillin as a prop for a porn film as anything less than an utter disrespect for religious articles and religiosity as a whole.

As opposed to the Kof-K stamp on the porn film which was hilarious. (It wasn’t intended to offend.)

-Firstly, you are a terrible and hilarious person. Your hilarity makes up for your blasphemy in my mind (but just barely, you’re definitely pushing it)..keep it up, ya wacky psycho

-Secondly, Leonard Nemoy made a book a few years ago called “Shechina” which was bascially pictures of naked women wearing tallit and tefillin. That seems to give credence to your view that tefillin can be erotic. Or it could just be that Nemoy’s a bit nuts. I think it’s a bit of both.

I love reading great posts on Jewneric too, and welcome your future contributions?

nudge@jewneric.com

And I would laugh at the Leather Haggadah if they hadn’t done such a good job with it. There are a couple of places within where the BDSM reference they make is a non sequitur. (The second son is a prime example.)

I try to establish the balance of always being serious when I’m joking; and to always be joking when I’m serious, so I can see how it can be confusing.

That J considers this junk confuses me. J, are you not accepting of the “loshon hara” I am writing? Would you be a better person if you didn’t know what goes on? Or do you think that I am wrong for shining light onto it? Or do you maybe just not find any problem with it and think I should mind my own business, and not care how other people treat my religion? (Mind your own business was never a driving motto of the internet or of an open press.)

I was not writing for the sake of humor. I’ve written for the sake of humor before, but that was not my goal here or I would have used the innuendo I intentionally left out (”Care if I say a Bracha on (slide my lox into) your bagel?”/ “I like my men like I like my chulent- a huge piece of meat and a couple of beans” (et cetera)).

Which, by the way, is why Pro-phylactics was not in the running for post title. I was weighing the bondage of our servitude to God with the bondage of sexual demons. The Tefillin, which are intended to focus our minds and our hearts, are pitted against our lusts, which very often serve to skew our minds and our hearts.

Maybe I should have mentioned the clan of people who have written a “leather haggadah.” Something, which when reading, I found to be fascinating. Interesting comments and customs. Does it disturb you to know that the BDSM community adapted the Seder to be particularly relevant to them? Does it disturb you that they adapted it to their lifestyle or that is so easy to make a Seder relevant to people practicing BDSM?

This was the point of the question of Jewish sexual practice from a historical perspective- do things disturb you because of you or because of them. With intellectual honesty, disapproval of polygamy is something that disturbs a Torah observant person because of that person’s beliefs… beliefs which are not consistent with those of the Torah.

My intention was to be informative. You can be offended by the information I provided, but realize all I did was provide information. I left out many of the links of my research because some lead to pages where what I found would be the least offensive material on the page.

J, I’d really appreciate a detailed response from you, if you do not wish to post it in public, I would be happy to provide you a method to send it to me which would assure your anonymity.

Maybe you’re right, Zechariah. Maybe I’m just too esoteric and use too much allusion to make useful points. Sorry for breaking brains.

I thought my Eruv article was much less of a useful piece of writing than this. And nobody complained regarding its lack of strong purpose.

Maybe I am just a Soap Box Hobo after all. (Stay tuned for my article titled, “Soap Box Hobo.”- it may be the last disappointing thing you ever read in my name.)

J: I am quite frankly more offended by your comment then the concept of phylacteries being used as a sexual aid. I assure you that Jewneric will survive no matter how many esoteric articles David or any other Jewneric Author posts and please the next time you feel the need to disagree or disapprove of any posting on this blog please do so in a more respectful manner.

David: In retrospect I find myself disappointed that you didn’t name this article Pro Phylactics.