The question is, when Jews live in a society of promiscuity, are we obligated to act more stringently "regarding these matters"?

-1 You seriously misrepresent the Rama. That's simply not what he's talking about. I will be glad to change to a +1 if you remove that section (and you allow me to verify that you quote R Hedaya accurately (as I don't trust you anymore)).

@doubleaa so explain what he is talking about,on a side note see Od Yosef Chai Softim 22

en.wikisource.org/?curid=769574 here is EH 21, in Hebrew and English. @ZachB it's talking about non-Jewish women serving at waitresses, or washing men's feet in a bath house. It's not talking about hugging a friend of the opposite gender.

@Jake Of course it's talking about women serving men, including bathing them in a bath-house. But the halacha is relevant because this is the main source that all of the poskim use to allow touching when it is not derech hibah. That's why I quoted it, because this is the primary source.

"since affectionate touching (hibah) was forbidden only with one's wife when she is a nidah" is absolutely false. The Rama is talking about if Harchakot apply to every Ervah or just a man and his Niddah wife.

@DoubleAA I don't understand your last comment. I think that is precisely how I translated the Rema. He quotes a view that the prohibition on touching perhaps only applies to affection touching of one's nidah wife and not to other women. How would you translate it differently? Indeed, Jake's translation matches mine quite closely.

@ZachB Where are you getting this from? He never says touching! He's talking about Harchakot (cf YD 195) such as sharing food, passing items, serving each other, etc.

@doubleaa hebrewbooks.org/… see 22

@DoubleAA Well, I'm getting it from the Rema. He cites the Rashba who says we are lenient about things which are only of the sort that "habituates one to sin" and with women that we are not too close with. He gives as an example passing a vessel from hand to hand. He doesn't use the word affectִion (hibah). Then the Rema adds the word affection in, and says, like I quoted, that the prohibition was only on affectionate things with one's wife. But affectionate things is certainly more narrow than merely passing a vessel, and thus non-affectionate things is certainly more expansive.

@DoubleAA It's also clear from the Rema's example of being washed by a non-Jewish woman that we are talking about touching (notice the Rema does not draw the distinction between washing and pouring). And see sam's comments from the Ben Ish Chai. I think all of the poskim understand this Rema to be a basis for non-affectionate touching. That's why I cited it, as I explained to Jake. I don't think I am saying anything radical.

@ZachB judaism.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/117973 implies that affectionate touching of anyone else is permitted. I would say that is quite radical indeed.

@DoubleAA please read the Od Yosef Chai i linked which is how the Ben Ish Chai learnt the Rama

@sam I don't see anything controversial in that link. He thinks kissing the Nasi's hand is not affectionate touching. Why are you pointing it out?

@DoubleAA I think you are being very unfair to me. The Rema wrote very clearly ויש אומרים דכל שאינו עושה דרך חבה, רק כוונתו לשם שמים, מותר. And this is the point that sam is trying to make to you, that the Ben Ish Hai allowed kissing hands in a circumstance where it is not hibah, based on this Rema! And that's why I quoted this Rema, because poskim use this Rema as a support for allowing non-affectionate touching. Now if you have a slight translation suggestion in the earlier comment of the Rema, I would be happy to make it -- I just provided a basic translation.

@DoubleAA I deleted the line whose translation seemed to bother you so much and I added the citation to the Ben Ish Hai to make clear how the poskim read and employ this comment of the Rema. I hope this satisfies you.

I never denied that non-affectionate touching is permitted. I don't know why you and sam keep trying to prove that to me. What you had written is that affectionate touching is permitted with other women. That is preposterous.

@doubleaa it was not clear what was bothering you from the answer ,I did not see where he says that by affectionate touching its mutar?

@sam This is now the third comment where I am referencing the offending quote. judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/44835/…

I must be missing somthing,I read the "offensive quote" as derech chibah is only assur with ones wife while niddah but when she(wife ) inst a nidda its mutar