A Chaste Homoromantic Relationship

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriositasEtFidem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lea101 said:
65 replies in, and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of official Church teaching but opinions and assumptions (from both sides).
Click to expand...
I imparted the Church teachings on the theology and purpose of marriage.
 
Last edited:
CuriositasEtFidem said:
To redirect us back to our original question, is it sinful for two women to date while remaining chaste?
Click to expand...
To maybe redirect this a bit, I might consider the question:

Is it purposeful for a man to date his female cousin while remaining chaste?

If the cousin relationship is close enough, valid marriage cannot be contracted (it’s incest). And if marriage cannot validly be contracted, there’s no point in a man dating a woman since the purpose of dating is to discern marriage.

To redirect from another angle (and only if this might help you, and us readers/fellow commenters, better understand what we’re all talking about here): if separating the concept totally from sexuality, could you list the things you consider part of ‘romance’, that aren’t equally part of a regular deep, affectionate friendship?

Because the Church certainly permits (and encourages!) deep friendships. It’s when we express our sexual energies in a way that is contrary to their purpose, that we start to go off track.

And I’m wondering (like it sounds like others are) whether at the end of the day you’re describing a deep friendship. Not a romance. In which case there’s no constructive purpose to us having the conversation through the language of ‘romance’ or ‘dating’ (romance typically being associated with the sexual energies and dating being a temporary period of discernment ordered towards eventual lifelong marriage). And we could all happily be telling you that absolutely, you can enjoy deep friendship with another woman! There’s nothing sinful about friendship. Friendship is good.

Agree with others that talking to a (trusted) priest about this could be good.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that romance is an aspect of sexuality, and would be appropriate only for those heading toward marriage.
I’m confused by the term “asexual.” Every human being is male or female–they are sexual. If it only means feelings related to sexual activity, then most people are asexual during most of their lives.
 
There is a Healthline article here which says:
Healthline:
Inhibited sexual desire (ISD) is a medical condition with only one symptom: low sexual desire.

According to the DSM/ICD-10, ISD is more correctly referred to as HSDD or hypoactive sexual desire disorder. A person with HSDD seldom, if ever, engages in sexual activities. They don’t initiate or respond to a partner’s sexual overtures.

It’s important to distinguish HSDD from asexuality. Asexuality is a type of sexual orientation defined as a general lack of sexual attraction, while HSDD is a condition focused on a lack of sexual desire.
Click to expand...
So if the OP is genuinely claiming to be asexual, rather than suffering from HSDD, that means that the OP is claiming a secondary sexual orientation (after homosexuality) rather than a medical condition. The OP hasn’t volunteered any information about her contact with a medical clinic, so I think it’s safe to assume that she has not been medically evaluated, so it is difficult to differentiate here.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli said:
40.png
tuffsmurf:
She wrote that she is asexual. I don’t really understand how you can experience romantic feelings without sexual attraction
Click to expand...
Biologically sexuality and intimacy have different mechanisms and work in different areas of the brain. All mammals don’t even have a similar concept of intimacy while they still have sexuality.

Sexuality focuses on arousal and climax, while intimacy is based on trust and understanding. They both produce pleasant feelings but very different.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason you switched from the term romance (in someone else’s question) to the word intimacy (in your answer)? “Romantic” and “intimate” aren’t synonyms. At least not in a contemporary linguistic context.

Emotional intimacy isn’t (typically) what people in contemporary linguistic context mean by ‘romance’. Emotional intimacy is an element of romance – but it’s also an element of family relationships, friendship relationships, etc.

Reminds me of an essay C.S. Lewis once wrote about the deterioration of the English word ‘gentleman’ to the point where it became a useless synonym for other perfectly good words which already existed (like ‘mannerly’ or ‘polite’ or ‘kind’), while leaving no longer a special word in the English language to denote what the word ‘gentleman’ originally denoted (“one who has a coat of arms and some landed property”). Seems similar to me, to take the word ‘romance’ and try to suggest that the only meaningful thing about it is that which it shares in common with other words, like emotional intimacy being somehow involved (thereby losing any distinctive and set-apart meaning of its own).

Apologies if this comes off intense or too-detached, by the way. I don’t have many personal feelings about this myself and recognize this overall thread topic may be an emotionally precious one to many.

At the same time I do think it seems worthwhile to carefully consider our terms and make sure we aren’t losing our understanding of discrete concepts, by using one word to mean another until there’s no longer a special word with a special meaning anymore. (Like whatever we mean by the particular affectionate intimacy a man and a woman properly share between each other (not just hormonally but emotionally and socially) when they move towards the bond of marriage. I think it’s reasonable that many people still see ‘romance’ as referring to, well, approximately this. It’s those types of feelings and activities which are particularly conducive to a marital relationship, which are ‘romantic’. And the emotional intimacy between two dear friends, or between a grandmother and her granddaughter, are their own special relationship types deserving of their own special language.)
 
Last edited:
Kissing on the cheek and holding hands do not a romantic relationship make. If they did, all of my family and a lot of my friends would be romantically attached to me and each other.

The difficulty is that in many such situations one party is much more invested in keeping things platonic and chaste than the other. So even if you are not attracted to the other person, consider the difficulties and awkwardness if they are, or become, attracted to you in a non-chaste way.

Even the use of the word “romance” implies, not sex necessarily, but certainly a relationship that is more “eros” (which is strictly for marriage or marriage-bound relationships) than “agape”.
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
Kissing on the cheek and holding hands do not a romantic relationship make. If they did, all of my family and a lot of my friends would be romantically attached to me and each other
Click to expand...
This is true for me too, lol. It’s quite common for female friends here to be extremely touchy-feely. I grew up in a girls school and it’s not unusual to sit on each others laps or cuddle (however it does get frowned upon if you’re gay). Older women tend to feel grossed out though, so either it’s a cultural/generational thing.

One thing that’s pretty tricky is that gay people usually don’t tend to look at their desired sex in the exact same way most of us do with the opposite.

As in, they’re able to have intimate and close (but chaste) same sex friendships just like we do with each other, even though we usually don’t achieve this level of platonic intimacy with the opposite sex. We generally desire great same sex friendships, regardless of sexual orientations.

It’s tricky because we don’t fully get OP’s feelings, as what most of us tend to do is imagine her feelings to be the exact same way as a straight woman for a man, when in reality she may desire for a fulfilling friendship with a woman, but at the same time, she desires for romance like most people. So the lines get blurry for all of us.

That’s why, IMO, OP should consult with priests and/or chaste gay Catholics for some clarity and peer support. Otherwise, she may leave with the impression that she’s not allowed to have emotional intimacy with women.
Lea101 said:
The more you describe your thoughts, the more it seems like a deep friendship than anything else. OP, deep and emotional friendships aren’t forbidden by the Church, it’s just difficult to imagine romance without sexual desire as most people here aren’t asexual. Friendships in the past seem romantic today because of cultural norms now. Fr Mike Schmitz has briefly talked about this when he gave a speech about same sex attraction before, when he was talking about someone who asked him if he could have a ‘boyfriend without sex’ but ended up giving a description of a friendship.
Click to expand...
(I’m quoting this because I want to the emphasise this point for OP)
 
Last edited:
Very good points about the need for distinct definitions of words. Personally, I’m fascinated with language, so the linguist in me did a little happy dance lol
 
Take care of yourself! Log out if the topic makes you feel distressed.
 
Cousins can marriage with dispensation and it is not incest, it happens all the time in some areas (like the Middle East). It has nothing to do with this situation.
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
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).
Click to expand...
From my understanding the phenomenon of totally losing any sex drive or interest in anything sexual occurs among elderly people. Not all of them of course, and probably not even many but there are cases, often caused by reduction of sexual hormones. Of course they don’t actually identify as asexual but to all intents and purposes it ticks all the boxes.
 
Here’s an article that I think may be of interest:

spiritualfriendship.org

“Chaste, Gay Couples” and the Church

I’ve noticed curiosity recently about the idea of “chaste, gay couples”—couples who accept the Church’s historic teaching on sexuality, yet live together in an exclusive, committed partnership. Cel…
spiritualfriendship.org spiritualfriendship.org

Something I wish I found ages ago.
 
This blog is firmly rooted in the shifting sands of error and dissent.
 
I think we’ve had discussions on CAF before asking if two heterosexuals of opposite sexes can have a close friendship. Many felt that it would eventually lead to sin but a few thought otherwise. I found that discussion interesting as in high school, I had a very deep friendship with a guy for several years that was platonic but very deep. We even discussed why we didn’t particularly want to have sex with each other even though we were both full of raging hormones at the time. The closest answer we came up with was the possibility that it would change our friendship from what it was to something else.

We also had discussions that if neither of us found and married a partner, we would live together and get our sex elsewhere…we both later married. It was not a typical friendship, I’ll agree but it was very special. He’s the only male friend I never really was sexually attracted to.

I certainly think, regardless of your sexual attractions being same sex or opposite sex, that two people can have a deep meaningful friendship and yet no sex involved. If someone has a very low sex drive to begin with, I think the possibility is even greater. If two similar people find a deep friendship and both have low to no sex drives, I’d say that’s a match made in heaven! Not all sisters nor brothers have that close friendship but many do and they are asexual relationships. I’m envisioning the OP as looking for that type of relationship that some sisters have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top