Suppose you are on a first date and you notice after a few minutes that your date has not looked at you even once, even while talking to you. He/she always looks elsewhere. When you politely ask why, they get embarrassed and explain that they have trouble with "impure thoughts" very often and that because you are good-looking, they don't want to look at you because it may lead to more impure thoughts.

Is this a good thing? Bad thing? Neither?

How does he know you are good-looking if he won't look at you?
although I would think it's a compliment?

I have to make a concerted effort to make eye contact. And it is not to refrain from impure thoughts....

Now you can freely stare at her ###### the rest of dinner. Who's complaining?

I'd be flattered and insulted at the same time.

If he's such a pervert, I'd get into a cab and get out of there.

Yeah, but the women don't really have anything good to look at.


If the guy has such a taaveh for "impure thoughts", one might wonder how he will handle marriage and interacting with other women.

I would thank them for their honesty an attempt to open a dialogue about human nature. If somene is willing to be that open, they will likely be a source of good conversation.

This may or may not be the reason for lack of eye contact.
In any case, it raises questions.

Hm. Good topic !

So are you suggesting that the date is lying?

This is what the Meam Loez refers to as "making a false showing of piety." The Meam Loez writes at length how one should be EXTREMELY wary of such people. He brings down stories of people who's lives were saved because they were careful to avoid individuals like this!

I wrote more about this in this post.

I am going to disagree with you here, in that I think you're applying the teachings of R. Culi where they are inapplicable, especially in light of the embarrasment felt by the other person. Now, if the case were different, and the other person was not embarrased, but rather used your question as an oppourtunity to boast about their meticulous care, then I would agree with your assessment.

So you're saying it's not possible the boy/girl is being earnest?

One of the stories he write is very similar to this case. A husband asks a wife to take a walk with him outside. She says no. He's upset she won't come with him and asks her why not? She says so men shouldn't look at me. ML writes what she should have said I am too tired to walk or some other excuse. (He does not have any issue with her not going outside by the way.) He further writes that if questioned directly "Is the reason you aren't going outside because you don't want men to look at you?" she should respond honestly and say "yes" and not lie. There is a subtle but important difference.

I think it applies perfectly to this case as well.




Earnest maybe. But pious? No.

Do you feel that the fact there is embarrasement in the case presented by the OP makes it different from the story in Meam Loez, which does not indicate anything but potential boastfulness on the part of the wife?

Not saying he is outright lying, but the mind is complicated and there may be more going on than he is saying or that he is aware of himself.