A Chaste Homoromantic Relationship

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriositasEtFidem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Romance without sex isn’t really possible though. Homosexuality in any form also is a desecration of creation, for it does not reflect the image of God in man.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
If you are truly asexual, you don’t suddenly find yourself developing a sex drive one day. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in a romantic relationship for years or whatever. You just aren’t sexual.
Click to expand...
The “if” here is relevant.

I’ve so far never met someone in real life (off-internet) who, after identifying as asexual, doesn’t eventually develop sexual feelings and stop identifying as asexual (even if it takes a few years).

They may exist. I can’t rule it out.

But I can absolutely say that some people who initially self-identify as asexual, do indeed “suddenly find [themselves] developing a sex drive one day.” I’ve watched it happen. I have friends who went through this exact sequence (in their cases, eventually settling on same-sex attraction).

Not commenting regarding the OP since I can’t know her experience. Only commenting on the experience of friends I’ve had, and that it’s actually fairly common (in my experience) for people to self-identify as asexual for awhile (especially when young) and then suddenly have their sex drive ‘kick in’. Not rare at all.

Incidentally for the OP’s sake, that’d be among my concerns for her. That sexual feelings can develop, especially if we’re encouraging them (even accidentally or indirectly) through activities like cuddling. And as others have noted, romantic love (as opposed to, eg, filial or agape love) is tied to sex. Even if intercourse does not occur, romantic feelings by definition are tied to our erotic or sexual energies. They’re ordered in the same ultimate direction, which is why I personally can’t see a path forward to chastity permitting ‘romance’ with any person (of any gender) we aren’t married to (or in the case of dating, moving towards marriage with).
 
Last edited:
There are indeed true asexuals. The ones I have met were not young or confused people in the stages of figuring themselves out sexually. They were older people with PhDs who spent a good deal of time with other asexuals and in asexual support groups, partly to get away from others who either thought they were freakish, or kept suggesting maybe they were going through a phase and eventually they’d want to have sex just like everybody else.

There are of course also people who “initially identify” as all sorts of things including asexual, bi, gay, gender dysphoric, etc who later change their tune and decide they’re really a different way after all. However, one should not automatically lump every person you meet who says they’re asexual, bi, gay, gender dysphoric etc in with the bunch who just aren’t sure and will change and be a different way. Some people are definitely what they are, whether you’ve happened to meet them or not.

I think I’ve answered enough on this thread, and I also think this thread is demonstrating very well why the OP should be speaking with a priest and not with a whole bunch of strangers on the Internet.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
However, one should not automatically lump every person you meet who says they’re asexual, bi, gay, gender dysphoric etc in with the bunch who just aren’t sure and will change and be a different way. Some people are definitely what they are, whether you’ve happened to meet them or not.
Click to expand...
I haven’t disagreed with this. Only replied to your comment with one of my own.

The OP’s post reads as young to me, not one of these older PhD support-group-goers you describe.

I could of course be wrong about that. Maybe she’s 72.

Then again I haven’t claimed to know anything about her. I’m not sure why you seem upset. I explicitly said that I can’t rule out existing what you’re now saying exists. So I’m not sure what I’ve said that you’re really ‘arguing’ with.

Many young people today really do need to hear that much of what we’re told we can know for ‘certain’ about our identity while young, is possibly just a phase. Because many of us do go through such phases. It’s not some cruel old-person finger wag to acknowledge that reality. It’s actually helpful (name removed by moderator)ut from people who have lived life longer and are aware that life actually involves a lot more change (including of the self) than we expect when young.

Also note that with the other examples you pulled in (bi, gay, etc) I didn’t say a word to suggest we should call those a phase. Actually what I noted was that my personal friends who used to identify as asexual, now identify as gay. And the gay identity seems more stable across time for more people.

Gender dysphoria is a totally different topic and I don’t want to derail the thread. But for the record there are also many ‘transitioned’ trans people (e.g. Blaire White, Rose of Dawn) who also publicly acknowledge that trans identity is increasingly becoming a popular identity phase for many young people who don’t actually have the underlying condition and do indeed come out of it eventually (or ultimately detransition after transitioning, and what a trauma that can be).

There are no easy answers here. I haven’t tried to provide any. I’m not labeling or dismissing the OP. I stand by my comments and wish her every good thing.
 
Last edited:
Of course, I do plan on speaking with a faithful priest about this. Thank you all for your comments.
 
I’ll bow to your knowledge on the matter. I am confused by the lesbian romantic part of the situation. If we are willing to say that romantic same sex relationships are so far removed from marriage if there is no sexual component I’m wondering how I ca sell this idea to my wife without the same sex attribute. I’m guessing she won’t accept me having long walks in a moonlight beach with Susie as long as there is no sexual contact…
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
There are networks, groups, and websites to help asexuals find friends and partners on the same page with them.

If you are truly asexual, you don’t suddenly find yourself developing a sex drive one day. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in a romantic relationship for years or whatever. You just aren’t sexual.
Click to expand...
Would it be like a relationship between a mother and child as in loving to hold and kiss bub in what is normally considered a ‘romantic’ fashion between adults, but not feeling any sexual component?
 
Motherwit said:
Would it be like a relationship between a mother and child as in loving to hold and kiss bub in what is normally considered a ‘romantic’ fashion between adults, but not feeling any sexual component?
Click to expand...
It’s honestly pretty difficult to put into words.

OP is probably referring to attraction without sexual desire. I.e. When you kiss a boyfriend, or hold his hand to show affection, you’re not remotely aroused or want to have sexual contact with him, but that type of affection is rather different from how you would kiss a friend or a parent.
 
redcatholic said:
I’m guessing she won’t accept me having long walks in a moonlight beach with Susie as long as there is no sexual contact…
Click to expand...
I think this analogy makes it a bit clearer. She would have a problem even if she knew you won’t sleep with Susie, because the love/affection you’re showing Susie is certainly different from a platonic or familial love.

The fact that we would be upset at our spouses having “emotional affairs” despite knowing that they won’t engage in sex tells us that there’s a difference between romantic and platonic love, and sometimes romantic and sexual desire can be separated (in the case for asexuals).
 
So maybe the op should clarify. What do they mean by the terms asexual, romantic, and lesbian.
Either way I think romantic love Willed by God cannot be something like we are talking about.
 
redcatholic said:
What do they mean by the terms asexual, romantic, and lesbian
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s best if she clarifies (or rather talk to someone offline imo). I’ve read a lot of bizarre definitions of asexual that sometimes just refer to not so visual women, or women who need an emotional connection first, lol. My guess is that she’s just romantically attracted to women but has no desire in engaging in sexual relations. So she may have crushes on attractive women and desire things like holding hands, having deep emotional intimacy in the way couples do for just each other, but minus the sex/waiting for sex.

Think chaste Catholic girlfriend/boyfriend but without any danger of lust, I guess. One wouldn’t say they are just best friends waiting to get married. When I was like 11 or 12 I had the biggest crushes on certain heartthrobs although I barely knew anything about sex, so I think it’s ‘possible’ for romantic love to be separate from sexual attraction for some individuals.

Although I will say this, there’s a lot of old literature about deep friendships like this where we now interpret it as homoromantic/homosexual.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, sorry for not keeping up. Here are some definitions:

Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction, not wanting sex at all.
Romantic- This one is a little tough to define. By romance, I mean, well, romance. A very close emotional and personal bond with another human being. I don’t think the romance I have in mind is quite like the romance a man and a woman would have, since they are complement each other. The “romance” I think of is similar, but lesser.
Lesbian- In my particular case, being a lesbian would mean feeling romantic attraction to other women.
In response to Anesti33, I would like my hypothetical relationship to be a "life partners" type of thing. Finding another person to travel through life together with.
 
I created this thread simply because I was very confused and distressed about the matter, and somewhat desperate for answers. In hindsight, I should have probably just gone to a priest. Oh well.
 
In the Catholic Church, a man and a woman become life partners for the specific purpose of bearing, raising, and educating children in the Catholic faith. The man and wife are married to sanctify each other, to get each other to Heaven. It is notable that a couple cannot be married if they wish to never have children, or if one is impotent and unable to complete the marital embrace.

It seems in your “life partnership” you wish to receive benefits and rights of marriage without the responsibilities and burdens. It would be wrong and unseemly for a Catholic person to dedicate her life entirely to another person of the same sex. Such dedication would be understandable if there were a blood relation such as mother-daughter or sister-sister, especially if you were a caregiver to this woman, and that would be a vastly different relationship dynamic.

But to base your relationship on “romantic attraction” is strange, and even stranger to imagine another woman who would have equal aversion to sexual intimacy but, having a Catholic faith, desire to dedicate her life entirely to you.

Which brings me to a large question: have you got anyone in mind for this theoretical relationship? It would seem that if you are considering entering into a lifelong dedicated partnership and cohabitating with a woman, you have someone in mind. Have you dated? Do you know eligible women in your social circle who have broached this idea? Or is this all strictly a hypothetical for you? It may well remain strictly hypothetical, based on the parameters you have set for the relationship. I don’t have a single Catholic friend who would go for such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
It is notable that a couple cannot be married if they wish to never have children, or if one is impotent and unable to complete the marital embrace.
Click to expand...
How do Josephite marriages fit in here? Was always curious about that.

I honestly don’t know the right answer, but I’m having trouble saying that what she’s talking about is wrong, given that she won’t be having sexual relations or marrying the person in question…so what are these rights/benefits?
CuriositasEtFidem said:
very close emotional and personal bond with another human being. I don’t think the romance I have in mind is quite like the romance a man and a woman would have, since they are complement each other. The “romance” I think of is similar, but lesser.
Click to expand...
Especially since her definition is a close emotional and personal bond, and she said she would avoid scandal (presumably by not using terms like girlfriend?)

I don’t recall the Church outright saying this is sinful, especially since homosexual actions are wrong because it’s against the procreative nature of sex, rather than because deep emotional bonds only belong to heterosexual couples.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Only in the past few decades has society decided that two people of the same sex sharing house and an intimate friendship was a sexual thing.
Click to expand...
What’s equally unfair is that two people of the opposite sex is presumed to be sexual as well.
 
AHapka said:
40.png
TheLittleLady:
Only in the past few decades has society decided that two people of the same sex sharing house and an intimate friendship was a sexual thing.
Click to expand...
What’s equally unfair is that two people of the opposite sex is presumed to be sexual as well.
Click to expand...
Why? Unfair to whom? As I have explained above, cohabitation and intimate friendship between a man and a woman are aspects of marriage. It would be an exceptional situation that a man and a woman in an intimate friendship who are cohabiting would be chaste. It is contrary to human nature.
 
Anesti33 said:
It would be an exceptional situation that a man and a woman in an intimate friendship who are cohabiting would be chaste. It is contrary to human nature.
Click to expand...
So do you reject the possibility for a man and woman to have a Josephite marriage? Though rare, that is a possibility for a couple in agreement, correct?
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
Anesti33:
It would be an exceptional situation that a man and a woman in an intimate friendship who are cohabiting would be chaste. It is contrary to human nature.
Click to expand...
So do you reject the possibility for a man and woman to have a Josephite marriage? Though rare, that is a possibility for a couple in agreement, correct?
Click to expand...
Josephite marriages, and all marriages, should be chaste.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top