C
chevalier
Guest
Here is the original thread in which the discussion started as an off-topic one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=668286#post668286
After (and please, only after) reading the relevant posts there (you could probably recognise them all by my nickname as the author of the post or of the quotes included), please reply here.
For a brief summary, I believe someone who isn’t ready to devote some special attention, some more of his own time, and some special devotion to another person, also known as a relationship, shouldn’t be dating.
Call it hanging out, seeing people, meeting people. It doesn’t have to be a date when you take your good opposite-gender buddy out for a dance. Here’s the catch: you are buddies. You are friends. You aren’t anything “more than friends, less than lovers”. No friendships with benefits.
And, when you don’t want any relationship with the person, you shouldn’t be giving any signs possibly pointing otherwise. Even if you say things about non-exclusivity, it still doesn’t make it right to get sweet nookie if you have no intention of following through with a relationship and/or don’t have decidedly romantic feelings for the person. If there is more than one such person, then, logically, N-1 persons must be those you can’t ever marry (because you can only marry one person).
Next, romantic feelings are exclusive and they are given from God for discerning marriage, which is also exclusive. Without romantic feelings, the act is done for questionnable physical pleasure, moving dangerously close to the sexual pleasure area. It also builds unhealthy attachment, unhealthy dependence and improper relationships. Kissing buddies, friends with benefits, more than friends but less than lovers… however you call it, it’s wrong.
We engage to get married. We get a girlfriend or boyfriend to engage, find a fiance(e). We date to find a girlfriend or boyfriend. It’s all monogamous. We can’t have two wives or three fiancees, so we can’t have six girflfriends or a dozen of kissing buddies. Someone is probably going to lash out on me for the dozen. But if it’s right to have two or three, then why not a dozen? Logically, a hundred would still have to be morally proper.
In the end, a suggestion, especially for the younger readers: don’t date unless you are ready to have a girlfriend or boyfriend. Don’t get a boyfriend when you already know you aren’t going to be engaged with the person (and you can’t be engaged with more than one at a time!). Don’t engage if you don’t intend to follow through with marriage. No commitment, no nookie. Cutting it at sex doesn’t make it and cutting it even lower doesn’t give you any right to a little nookie.
Need a hug? Hug a friend. Need a kiss? Kiss you mother. Or sister. Or friend – on the cheek, of course. And all those girls you’re potentially interested in, can and should be your friends. Don’t cross the line. Don’t push it. No friends with benefits.
What I mean by romantic things being exclusive doesn’t mean that you can’t get a coffee with your friend if you have a girlfriend or boyfriend. Or that you can’t dance with anyone else. Or any other such rubbish that being “exclusive” tends to mean in highschools. You are not married and can’t normally have any certainty that you ever will. And even in marriage, you can still have friends. We are not speaking about any more exclusivity than is required of married couples – this would be absurd. But what you wouldn’t do when married, don’t do when you have a fiance(e)… what you wouldn’t do when engaged, don’t do when you have a girlfriend. Purity is not only of the body. It’s most of all in the heart. What can we say of a heart when it prompts the person to act romantically with multiple people? It’s normal that you get attracted to many different people of the opposite gender. But you aren’t expected to act on it. Don’t lick the coating if you don’t want the cake.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=668286#post668286
After (and please, only after) reading the relevant posts there (you could probably recognise them all by my nickname as the author of the post or of the quotes included), please reply here.
For a brief summary, I believe someone who isn’t ready to devote some special attention, some more of his own time, and some special devotion to another person, also known as a relationship, shouldn’t be dating.
Call it hanging out, seeing people, meeting people. It doesn’t have to be a date when you take your good opposite-gender buddy out for a dance. Here’s the catch: you are buddies. You are friends. You aren’t anything “more than friends, less than lovers”. No friendships with benefits.
And, when you don’t want any relationship with the person, you shouldn’t be giving any signs possibly pointing otherwise. Even if you say things about non-exclusivity, it still doesn’t make it right to get sweet nookie if you have no intention of following through with a relationship and/or don’t have decidedly romantic feelings for the person. If there is more than one such person, then, logically, N-1 persons must be those you can’t ever marry (because you can only marry one person).
Next, romantic feelings are exclusive and they are given from God for discerning marriage, which is also exclusive. Without romantic feelings, the act is done for questionnable physical pleasure, moving dangerously close to the sexual pleasure area. It also builds unhealthy attachment, unhealthy dependence and improper relationships. Kissing buddies, friends with benefits, more than friends but less than lovers… however you call it, it’s wrong.
We engage to get married. We get a girlfriend or boyfriend to engage, find a fiance(e). We date to find a girlfriend or boyfriend. It’s all monogamous. We can’t have two wives or three fiancees, so we can’t have six girflfriends or a dozen of kissing buddies. Someone is probably going to lash out on me for the dozen. But if it’s right to have two or three, then why not a dozen? Logically, a hundred would still have to be morally proper.
In the end, a suggestion, especially for the younger readers: don’t date unless you are ready to have a girlfriend or boyfriend. Don’t get a boyfriend when you already know you aren’t going to be engaged with the person (and you can’t be engaged with more than one at a time!). Don’t engage if you don’t intend to follow through with marriage. No commitment, no nookie. Cutting it at sex doesn’t make it and cutting it even lower doesn’t give you any right to a little nookie.
Need a hug? Hug a friend. Need a kiss? Kiss you mother. Or sister. Or friend – on the cheek, of course. And all those girls you’re potentially interested in, can and should be your friends. Don’t cross the line. Don’t push it. No friends with benefits.
What I mean by romantic things being exclusive doesn’t mean that you can’t get a coffee with your friend if you have a girlfriend or boyfriend. Or that you can’t dance with anyone else. Or any other such rubbish that being “exclusive” tends to mean in highschools. You are not married and can’t normally have any certainty that you ever will. And even in marriage, you can still have friends. We are not speaking about any more exclusivity than is required of married couples – this would be absurd. But what you wouldn’t do when married, don’t do when you have a fiance(e)… what you wouldn’t do when engaged, don’t do when you have a girlfriend. Purity is not only of the body. It’s most of all in the heart. What can we say of a heart when it prompts the person to act romantically with multiple people? It’s normal that you get attracted to many different people of the opposite gender. But you aren’t expected to act on it. Don’t lick the coating if you don’t want the cake.