Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[GaryTaylor]

Well it is becoming more common for theologians to interpret any inherently infertile sexual act between two people as sodomy. So this would include contraceptive usage as contraception, oral/anal sex, intentional ejaculation outside one’s wife, etc.

As for the OP:

I defined romance in another thread as “an expression of one’s [non-filial] love for another.” This can mean an expression of erotic love (romantic sex), an expression of agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example), or an expression of storge love (a romantic commitment to another).

When discussing the issue of heterosexual vs. homosexual love, we must consider this trichotomy of romance, and how individual acts are meant. One would assume the Church would frown upon expressions of erotic love (e.g. erotic romance) in homosexuals/unmarried people in all circumstances. And indeed, the Church does consider it grave matter to make out with anyone that you are not married to for the purpose of erotic expression/delight.

So then the question becomes, what are the bounds wherewithin an act that is not inherently immoral can fall under agape romance or storge romance, and when are these two types of romance licit under the Church for those of the same sex to engage in. I would argue that storge romance is absolutely licit for any two people unbound by prior commitments to engage in, as the vow of commitment to another need not be a marital vow, although marital vows are the strongest act one can make of storge romance.

Which leaves us with only agape romance. So the ultimate two questions of these threads are:

• “Is agape romance licit in the Church for any two unbound people to engage in?” and:
• “Where does agape romance end and where does erotic romance begin?”

Personally, I believe that the answer is yes to the first question. There’s not really much I can expound on with that answer though, so I will instead direct myself to Question 2:

I think agape romance and erotic romance have a murky divider; I think that divider is higher or lower for any individual person, and a mutual romance is defined by whoever has the lowest barrier for erotic romance. As long as a couple’s acts are not inherently immoral (e.g. extramarital sex, even if done for agape reasons, is inherently immoral), I see no reason to bar them as long as they remain within the confines of a mutual agape romance. I think everyone can agree that a mutual erotic romance, defined by the lower threshold of the two partners, is off-limits in an extramarital friendship/relationship.

In addition, the storge romance is what underlies the commitment two people make to each other. Whereas marital vows undertake acts of both storge and erotic romance [consummation], and are thus the highest act of storge romance, there is no reason to believe two people could not engage in storge romance with each other in a non-erotic way; that is to say, two people could commit to each other with no intentions of ever engaging in erotic romance. And a relationship, at its deepest core, is first and foremost a storge romance, right?

Anyways, I hope I helped explain my position from a philosophical view. I am very interested to see if anyone can find any Church discussion of this issue; so far I have been unable.

I follow but I’m a little unsure of this… “I think that divider is higher or lower for any individual person, and a mutual romance is defined by whoever has the lowest barrier for erotic romance.”

Why is “romance” defined by those with the lower barrier? How is that mutual?

 

[SMGS127]

I follow but I’m a little unsure of this… “I think that divider is higher or lower for any individual person, and a mutual romance is defined by whoever has the lowest barrier for erotic romance.”

Why is “romance” defined by those with the lower barrier? How is that mutual?

Alright, just for the sake of this argument, let’s assume making out is licit or illicit based on the intentions of those who engage in it. Let’s say Partner 1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all. Let’s say Partner 2 struggles with avoiding erotic romance when engaging in passionate kissing. Even though Partner 1 can make out without sin, they are still leading the other into sin. Therefore, the mutual romance is dependent on the lower barrier, so that both members are free from sin. In other words, if it is erotic for one person, then both people are engaging in an erotic act, because at the very least, one person is sinning and the other is leading the first into sin, which is a separate sin in and of itself.

Make sense?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Alright, just for the sake of this argument, let’s assume making out is licit or illicit based on the intentions of those who engage in it. Let’s say Partner 1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all. Let’s say Partner 2 struggles with avoiding erotic romance when engaging in passionate kissing. Even though Partner 1 can make out without sin, they are still leading the other into sin. Therefore, the mutual romance is dependent on the lower barrier, so that both members are free from sin. In other words, if it is erotic for one person, then both people are engaging in an erotic act, because at the very least, one person is sinning and the other is leading the first into sin, which is a separate sin in and of itself.

Make sense?

Lets assume its illicit, partner 1 follows an illicit path “agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example),”. How do we arrive at this conclusion for example? What is romantic here?

 

[SMGS127]

Lets assume its illicit, partner 1 follows an illicit path “agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example),”. How do we arrive at this conclusion for example? What is romantic here?

I’m really confused what you’re asking me. Can you rephrase?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m really confused what you’re asking me. Can you rephrase?

Let’s say Partner 1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all.

Lets assume its illicit, partner 1 follows an illicit path “agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example),”. How do we arrive at this conclusion for example? What is romantic here?

How is this a pure agape romance and where did erotic begin? Whats romance?

 

[SMGS127]

Let’s say Partner 1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all.

Lets assume its illicit, partner 1 follows an illicit path “agape love (treating someone to a romantic date, for example),”. How do we arrive at this conclusion for example? What is romantic here?

How is this a pure agape romance and where did erotic begin? Whats romance?

I’m still super confused by your question.

It’s agape love because your intentions are to do what’s best for the person you’re with, not erotic. In other words, you’re taking someone on a date to make them happy (or they vice versa). It’s romantic because it’s an expression of non-filial love.

I hope that answers your question, because I don’t know what I’m being asked

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m still super confused by your question.

It’s agape love because your intentions are to do what’s best for the person you’re with, not erotic. In other words, you’re taking someone on a date to make them happy (or they vice versa). It’s romantic because it’s an expression of non-filial love.

I hope that answers your question, because I don’t know what I’m being asked

I’m sorry if I have confused you, I’m attempting to grasp this concept and admittedly I too am confused. How are your intentions whats best for the person if… "1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all. and we agree this is illicit?

What is the intention of “making out”? How would you conclude this is not erotic. So whos responsible for who here? Also I just don’t see a collective understanding of romance or further now erotic.

 

[SMGS127]

I’m sorry if I have confused you, I’m attempting to grasp this concept and admittedly I too am confused. How are your intentions whats best for the person if… "1 can make out with pure, agape romance without engaging erotic romance at all. and we agree this is illicit?

What is the intention of “making out”? How would you conclude this is not erotic. So whos responsible for who here? Also I just don’t see a collective understanding of romance or further now erotic.

Oh I see what you’re saying. I don’t believe making out is inherently immoral by itself, so I don’t think it is illicit unless done for erotic purposes.

Erotic romance is the desire to possess one’s partner as one – the unitive nature of marriage. It is inappropriate outside of the marital context. If one is making out in order to engage erotic romance – in other words, if one is making out in order to engage their sexual appetite that is reserved for marriage – that is grave matter, unless done within the context of a marriage.

Making out as agape romance is admittedly a concept many on this forum have struggled to understand me on, but I will try to explain it. It is the action of, say, French kissing in order to increase one’s emotional bond with one’s partner. In other words, it is done to increase the love between the two of you, the comfort your partner feels, and the happiness of your partner. For it to be pure, agape romance would mean that it would not involve a desire to sexually possess one’s partner, nor would it induce lusting after one’s partner. It would have to be purely to obtain a good for the partner (stronger trust, stronger bonding, stronger love, better mood), and only under this circumstance do I see it as moral.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh I see what you’re saying. I don’t believe making out is inherently immoral by itself.

But here as I was saying we are talking individual opinion so its not a matter of illicit or licit which we earlier were “assuming” either way, thus I chose illicit. So we still are on opinion of licit or illicit here…

It is the action of, say, French kissing in order to increase one’s emotional bond with one’s partner.

Yes I agree I think its called first base in the world.

In other words, it is done to increase the love between the two of you,

So a kiss on the cheek and a heart felt I love you wouldn’t do?

the comfort your partner feels, and the happiness of your partner. For it to be pure, agape romance would mean that it would not involve a desire to sexually possess one’s partner, nor would it induce lusting after one’s partner. It would have to be purely to obtain a good for the partner (stronger trust, stronger bonding, stronger love, better mood), and only under this circumstance do I see it as moral.

But “French kissing in order to increase one’s emotional bond with one’s partner.” your drawing your own lines of morality by your suggested control of yourself? How does responsibility interact as you originally suggested?

 

[3DOCTORS]

I am not talking about subjective experiences because we know we are fallen so not everything we experience is correctly ordered necessarily. When you say for you they are not connected, I take that to mean simply, I am romantically attracted but I do not indulge in explicitly sexual acts or thoughts leading to them. I accept this to be true as you describe it so I do not debate your personal experience.

However, that does not mean that romantic interest is not by design a part of our sexuality. To help with what I mean, I would be curious how you would define that romantic interest I described above in a manner that ultimately does not include sex in terms of its meaning. How do you differentiate it from a regular friendship or how do you know it is “romantic”? See what I mean? I hope that helps.

I get what is being described - and I’ll explain how and why I do. Kamaduck does a good job of explaining the “what” that I can relate to:

OK, then I’ll try my best. The thing that I call romantic attraction is a desire to be in a romantic relationship with someone- not a “mere” friendship, exactly, but something similar. I can really only describe it in terms of how it differs from a desire for friendship, so that’s what I’ll do.

When I want to be friends with someone, I will seek them out when we’re in the same room. I’ll think about them occasionally and worry about them when I have reason to. I’ll look for excuses to get to know them better, but I won’t spend a lot of time agonizing over it while they’re not around.

When I have “romantic” interest in someone, I’ll think about them whether they’re there or not, sometimes for quite a long time. If I’m in the same room as them I can’t help but pay attention to what they’re doing- it’s like everything they do is an action that my brain marks as important, so it’ll give me an alert whenever they move. Everything they do is sort of fascinating. The world kind of shifts focus and centers on them in some ways, instead of on me.

There’s also this strong desire to be liked in return, whether romantically or in a lesser sense. If I want to be friends with someone, I might get a little nervous around them, but not to this extent. Romantic interest causes both excitement and nervousness.

Ultimately, there’s a desire to spend time with them, talk to them, and be with them. Obviously this is present for friends, too, but with romance it’s less that I want to visit them and more that I want to just consistently exist alongside them, all the time. That’s how a romantic relationship would be different than a friendship, I think- it’s like a constant tie, and there’s a desire to avoid being separated. Of course, friendships can be like that, too, which is why I don’t think there’s necessarily a clear line between this and friendship.

So. I don’t know if any of that is relevant to this thread, but that’s what I experience. That, whatever it is, is not directly linked to sexual attraction, in the sense that people can and do have one feeling without the other. Whether we’re supposed to feel it without also experiencing sexual attraction isn’t something I can say, and I look forward to whatever you uncover on that front.

Okay, I will now describe my personal experience, which took many years for me to realize probably was outside the norm. I led a sheltered existence as a girl, teenager, and into young adulthood for the most part. My adolescence was in the 1970s but I was reading teen romance books written in the 1940s-50s. These were, of course, very G to PG-rated. There was romance galore but not sexual feelings being described. Also during that era, most people in real life still got married and didn’t cohabitate beforehand, at least not people I knew. If people fooled around, or got pregnant out of wedlock, there was still a stigma.

So that was my world - and what resulted was, I guess you’d call it a bit of a disconnect between the romance part and the sexual arousal part of the equation. “Making out” was so hard for me to process that I actually got into situations in a confused fashion and it was difficult to find something to read that was specific enough or made sense to me that I had crossed some lines. And I sure wasn’t going to ask my mom! (Also, the romance books had such happy endings but no guy asked me out until I was in college, so I may have been more “in love with being in love” and let down my guard too much.) Well, I got it all sorted out eventually but it was way more of a headache than it needed to be.

Now as for the gay vs. straight question, I would maintain that if it really should only be done by a straight married couple, then it shouldn’t be done either by a straight dating couple, or by a gay couple. (By the way, I’m curious why in any discussion of homosexuality on this forum, it’s rare to see lesbians mentioned - just academic curiosity on my part - I was a liberal arts major and there was a Women’s Studies Department with plenty of lesbian faculty, and I have had some lesbian friends as well as gay male friends.) Making out is basically foreplay, so it’s off-limits for dating couples, and for same-sex attracted trying to live chastely, it isn’t chaste.

 

[SMGS127]

So a kiss on the cheek and a heart felt I love you wouldn’t do?

I mean that would be part of it too…again, the limits are determined by the lowest threshold for erotic pleasure between the two partners.

But “French kissing in order to increase one’s emotional bond with one’s partner.” your drawing your own lines of morality by your suggested control of yourself? How does responsibility interact as you originally suggested?

Well, no. The morality of the action is dependent on the partner with the lowest threshold for erotic romance. In other words, it is only moral if both parties are making out with an intention to increase the emotional bond. It is only moral if both parties act out of pure agape romance. Either party can make the action illicit by engaging sensual desire or a lustful intent.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Making out is basically foreplay, so it’s off-limits for dating couples, and for same-sex attracted trying to live chastely, it isn’t chaste.

I agree, we shall have to see others reasoning. So erotic starts here or the mind? And romance we still have no collective agreement on. :nope:

 

[SMGS127]

Making out is basically foreplay, so it’s off-limits for dating couples, and for same-sex attracted trying to live chastely, it isn’t chaste.

But what about making out that isn’t done for foreplay? You are assigning a modernist cultural definition to the action. It has no inherent tie to sex, just a cultural one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I mean that would be part of it too…again, the limits are determined by the lowest threshold for erotic pleasure between the two partners.

Well, no. The morality of the action is dependent on the partner with the lowest threshold for erotic romance. In other words, it is only moral if both parties are making out with an intention to increase the emotional bond. It is only moral if both parties act out of pure agape romance. Either party can make the action illicit by engaging sensual desire or a lustful intent.

I don’t see where its probable not to have a lustful intent. Further I can’t comprehend how you could embrace this thinking and say “your limits are determined by the lowest threshold for erotic pleasure between the two partners” your partner may have a lower threshold than you?

I may be missing something? So where is the lustful line in thinking but at your own desire?

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t see where its probable not to have a lustful intent. Further I can’t comprehend how you could embrace this thinking and say “your limits are determined by the lowest threshold for erotic pleasure between the two partners” your partner may have a lower threshold than you?

I may be missing something? So where is the lustful line in thinking but at your own desire?

Maybe you’re misunderstanding what I mean by “lower” threshold. If I am engaging in pure agape in making out, and my partner is engaging erotic romance in making out, then the action is illicit because my partner is engaging erotic romance. Both parties have to be making out without lust.

And as I said, I understand that many people clearly cannot comprehend making out without lust. But it’s a reality for me. I’ve made out without lust (as its own separate action) and made out with lust (as part of sex) before; there is a clear difference in intent. When I made out with a girlfriend separate from sex, as its own activity, the intention was to do nothing but make her smile, happy, laugh, and increase our closeness as a couple. When I made out with a girlfriend as part of sex (or when I would hook-up with a girl while single, even if no sex was involved), the action was done with intention to inflame my sensual appetite. I really don’t understand how people have only experienced the latter type of kissing .

I’ve said this before, but each action in my relationships was separate, and they each had their own reasons. Making out for me, when separated from a sexual act, is a pure act devoted entirely to the benefit of one’s partner. I suppose I’m one of the few who does this, judging from the responses to me, and that to me is very sad. It’s such a wonderful experience to have been corrupted by our erotic culture .

 

[GaryTaylor]

I really don’t understand how people have only experienced the latter type of kissing .

I’ve said this before, but each action in my relationships was separate, and they each had their own reasons. Making out for me, when separated from a sexual act, is a pure act devoted entirely to the benefit of one’s partner. I suppose I’m one of the few who does this, judging from the responses to me, and that to me is very sad. It’s such a wonderful experience to have been corrupted by our erotic culture .

So your saying french making out isn’t erotic and man and women corrupted a beautiful thing? This act of french making out has what meaning in your understanding? Its a higher standard than a kiss on the cheek and a sincere I love you why?

 

[SMGS127]

So your saying french making out isn’t erotic and man and women corrupted a beautiful thing? This act of french making out has what meaning in your understanding? Its a higher standard than a kiss on the cheek and a sincere I love you why?

I’m saying that making out has no inherent meaning. Different cultures have assigned different meanings to it; unfortunately, this culture is so emotionally-repressed that almost anything physical is seen as erotic .

Making out, to me, is just an expression of one’s love for someone. That’s why I do it. Do I think of it as a “higher” standard than a kiss on the cheek? Yes. Do I see it as a “higher” standard than an “I love you” or a kiss on the lips? No. I just see it as a longer expression of a simple kiss. I see it as a way of expressing “I love you” to someone.

During sex, it has a different meaning to me, but that’s because I am also having sex at that moment. I just don’t understand how people have never experienced the first usage of it, the agape usage .

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m saying that making out has no inherent meaning. Different cultures have assigned different meanings to it; unfortunately, this culture is so emotionally-repressed that almost anything physical is seen as erotic .

But doesn’t it have a meaning which you yourself are defining and admittedly you have met none or few who share this view?

Making out, to me, is just an expression of one’s love for someone. That’s why I do it.

I know and this has a different meaning to them because you admit this is rather unique to you, so are you not responsible for your actions with them?

Do I think of it as a “higher” standard than a kiss on the cheek? Yes. Do I see it as a “higher” standard than an “I love you” or a kiss on the lips? No. I just see it as a longer expression of a simple kiss. I see it as a way of expressing “I love you” to someone.

But it could have no inherit meaning to you, but here its meaning is I love you.

During sex, it has a different meaning to me, but that’s because I am also having sex at that moment.

But you don’t let yourself go this far only when the unique feeling arrives? You who is responsible for others who do not share this unique perspective?

 

[SMGS127]

But doesn’t it have a meaning which you yourself are defining and admittedly you have met none or few who share this view?

Yes, I have my own meaning for it, depending on circumstances.

I know and this has a different meaning to them because you admit this is rather unique to you, so are you not responsible for your actions with them?

I have said many times that BOTH people have to interpret the SAME pure agape meaning to making out for it to be licit. My intentions alone do not suffice to make the act moral; it requires both intentions of both partners.

But it could have no inherit meaning to you, but here its meaning is I love you.

Outside of sex, its meaning to me is “i love you” in a nutshell, yes.

But you don’t let yourself go this far only when the unique feeling arrives? You who is responsible for others who do not share this unique perspective?

I have said that people who see making out as erotic should restrict themselves to only acts they view as agape, whether that limit is kissing, cuddling, etc. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I agree with what you said in this post.

Edit: Oh I think I see what you’re saying. If my girlfriend saw making out as erotic, I wouldn’t make out with her. But she’d also know I was Catholic and what that meant going into the relationship. I might try to help her feel how agape making out feels, but if she was incapable of doing so, I would not lead her into sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I have my own meaning for it, depending on circumstances…

Agree’d and you see the responsibility

I have said many times that BOTH people have to interpret the SAME pure agape meaning to making out for it to be licit. My intentions alone do not suffice to make the act moral; it requires both intentions of both partners…

How is this possible, how would you know when you know you have your own meaning depending on circumstance?

Outside of sex, its meaning to me is “i love you” in a nutshell, yes.

So within sex its meaning is what?

Edit: Oh I think I see what you’re saying. If my girlfriend saw making out as erotic, I wouldn’t make out with her. But she’d also know I was Catholic and what that meant going into the relationship. I might try to help her feel how agape making out feels, but if she was incapable of doing so, I would not lead her into sin.

Yep, And most are incapable? And love is still love with a kiss on the cheek or with sex?