Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[SMGS127]

Agree’d and you see the responsibility

Yes of course.

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

Do people not talk anymore? I’d just ask her…

So within sex its meaning is what?

It’s part of the sexual act when done within sex. You do it to intensify each other’s pleasure from the act itself. I think everyone here would agree that making out with the intensification of pleasure as your goal is clearly a violation of chastity.

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

I don’t think most are incapable. I think that most haven’t thought about it. I challenge any married person on this board to try this, if they think they can only make out in an erotic context. Try making out, but the entire time you are making out, focus only on…your partner. Their reactions, their touch, their smile. I think learning how to make out with agape love would be useful for any couple, even those with marital aims, and especially those IN marriage.

 

[One_point]

Lol. SMGS, I don’t mean to offend but I honestly let out a chuckle when I read “how agape making out feels” I must say I would never in a milion years associate “agape” with making out even in a heterosexual couple that was still unmarried and that swore they were not sexually aroused by the making out. Indeed if they were sexually aroused their catholic faith would demand of them to avoid it entirely. Maybe I dont understand agape but it is really not giving and receiving physical pleasure whether that pleasure is experienced as sexual or simply emotional. As I understand it, agape transcends all kinds of loves like these, it is not them. What you are describing is Eros not agape. Kamaduck said that Eros does not have to be explicitly sexual to be Eros and I agree with her.

 

[SMGS127]

Lol. SMGS, I don’t mean to offend but I honestly let out a chuckle when I read “how agape making out feels” I must say I would never in a milion years associate “agape” with making out even in a heterosexual couple that was still unmarried and that swore they were not sexually aroused by the making out. Indeed if they were sexually aroused their catholic faith would demand of them to avoid it entirely. Maybe I dont understand agape but it is really not giving and receiving physical pleasure whether that pleasure is experienced as sexual or simply emotional. As I understand it, agape transcends all kinds of loves like these, it is not them. What you are describing is Eros not agape. Kamaduck said that Eros does not have to be explicitly sexual to be Eros and I agree with her.

But it’s not eros…

Eros doesn’t require sexual passion, but it does require possessive passion. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue then. I just know two very different ways of making out, and I guess most people just don’t have self-control of their emotions?

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think most are incapable. I think that most haven’t thought about it. I challenge any married person on this board to try this, if they think they can only make out in an erotic context. Try making out, but the entire time you are making out, focus only on…your partner. Their reactions, their touch, their smile. I think learning how to make out with agape love would be useful for any couple, even those with marital aims, and especially those IN marriage.

One of the common experiences of people falling into affairs is that they experience their sensations as just ‘really good friendship’. When you feel powerfully drawn towards something illicit… the conscience disengages and revises the meaning of feelings to allow guilt free indulgence. It happens all the time. That is why our inclinations are deemed objectively disordered or ordered. Our subjectivity is severely unreliable when it comes to passions.

 

[One_point]

But it’s not eros…

Eros doesn’t require sexual passion, but it does require possessive passion. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue then. I just know two very different ways of making out, and I guess most people just don’t have self-control of their emotions?

SMGS, eros does mean possession? Don’t know. But you described something that was clearly possessive in that other thread. Something that is more than friendship and falls short of sexual (at least explicitly). Something that requires exclusivity is possessive. It is not for example, forbidden to heterosexual female friends just because they will go on to date males leaving you high n dry and feeling used. Agape wouldn’t care, you see.

 

[SMGS127]

One of the common experiences of people falling into affairs is that they experience their sensations as just ‘really good friendship’. When you feel powerfully drawn towards something illicit… the conscience disengages and revises the meaning of feelings to allow guilt free indulgence. It happens all the time. That is why our inclinations are deemed objectively disordered or ordered. Our subjectivity is severely unreliable when it comes to passions.

You do know that the Catechism’s usage of “objectively disordered” means “disordered in its object,” not “non-subjectively disordered,” right? That is a verifiable fact, and it kinda makes your post look silly, no offense.

 

[LongingSoul]

You do know that the Catechism’s usage of “objectively disordered” means “disordered in its object,” not “non-subjectively disordered,” right? That is a verifiable fact, and it kinda makes your post look silly, no offense.

You are completely wrong. Objectively means able to be known objectively without prejudice or bias. It does not mean what you suggest.

 

[One_point]

You do know that the Catechism’s usage of “objectively disordered” means “disordered in its object,” not “non-subjectively disordered,” right? That is a verifiable fact, and it kinda makes your post look silly, no offense.

I have read this before on other threads here and I am not sure I agree. I had always read “objectively disordered” to mean it is actually/truly (objectively) disordered, the intentions of the parties notwithstanding. I don’t know why this other interpretation (that you’ve described here) is taken here as THE meaning of this phrase, did the church say so? I’m open to a moral theologian explaining it in a citation if that is possible.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS, eros does mean possession? Don’t know. But you described something that was clearly possessive in that other thread. Something that is more than friendship and falls short of sexual (at least explicitly). Something that requires exclusivity is possessive. It is not for example, forbidden to heterosexual female friends just because they will go on to date males leaving you high n dry and feeling used. Agape wouldn’t care, you see.

Ah but there are two types of exclusive. There is possessive-exclusive, which is eros, and there is commitment-exclusive, which is storge. A proper marital relationship has both, but the one I am describing only has storge.

And I disagree that what I described was possessive. It was a commitment to the person (storge), and a wanting to do what’s right for her (agape), but there was no desire for unity or possession (eros).

 

[One_point]

You are completely wrong. Objectively means able to be known objectively without prejudice or bias. It does not mean what you suggest.

Yes, that had always been my assumption until I read several opinions on this board giving that other meaning S refers to.

 

[LongingSoul]

Collins dictionary definition of objectively…

1.in a manner that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias ⇒ We simply want to inform people objectively about events.
2.in a manner that is based on facts ⇒ It was desirable to view these things objectively. ⇒ Try to view situations more objectively.
3.(philosophy) in a manner that exists independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions ⇒ It exists objectively.

 

[SMGS127]

I have read this before on other threads here and I am not sure I agree. I had always read “objectively disordered” to mean it is actually/truly (objectively) disordered, the intentions of the parties notwithstanding. I don’t know why this other interpretation (that you’ve described here) is taken here as THE meaning of this phrase, did the church say so? I’m open to a moral theologian explaining it in a citation if that is possible.

There would be no reason for the Church to distinguish between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” things in the Catechism if they meant the exact same thing. Objectively means disordered in its object. Intriniscally means disordered in itself.

 

[SMGS127]

Collins dictionary definition of objectively…

1.in a manner that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias ⇒ We simply want to inform people objectively about events.
2.in a manner that is based on facts ⇒ It was desirable to view these things objectively. ⇒ Try to view situations more objectively.
3.(philosophy) in a manner that exists independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions ⇒ It exists objectively.

Dictionary definitions and Catholic definitions are not always in sync .

 

[LongingSoul]

There would be no reason for the Church to distinguish between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” things in the Catechism if they meant the exact same thing. Objectively means disordered in its object. Intriniscally means disordered in itself.

The catechism wasn’t juxtaposing ‘objectively’ and ‘intrinsically’. They are not the antithesis of each other. In a way they mean the same thing. One applying to an act, the other applying to an inclination.

 

[SMGS127]

The catechism wasn’t juxtaposing ‘objectively’ and ‘intrinsically’. They are not the antithesis of each other. In a way they mean the same thing. One applying to an act, the other applying to an inclination.

One applies to an act, the other applies to the OBJECT of an act. If homosexuality was intrinsically disordered, then the very state of being gay would be a sin without having to perform any action whatsoever. Your definition doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[LongingSoul]

Dictionary definitions and Catholic definitions are not always in sync .

You cannot rewrite the English language to make a point. As I said before… one of the common experiences of people falling into affairs is that they experience their sensations as just ‘really good friendship’. When you feel powerfully drawn towards something illicit… the conscience disengages and revises the meaning of feelings to allow guilt free indulgence. It happens all the time.

 

[One_point]

Ah but there are two types of exclusive. There is possessive-exclusive, which is eros, and there is commitment-exclusive, which is storge. A proper marital relationship has both, but the one I am describing only has storge.

And I disagree that what I described was possessive. It was a commitment to the person (storge), and a wanting to do what’s right for her (agape), but there was no desire for unity or possession (eros).

Hey S (hope its ok to call you S, weve spoken so much I feel like I almost know you!) It would not be possessive if there were no expection on your part that she be exclusive, but as there is, you cannot say that is possessive. Expections of exclusivity come with right, with some form of ownership you see (possession!), else they’d be very greedy. For example, God as creator (not father) is quite possessive! No other gods before me, no siree! God has rights to claim this exclusivity because basically he owns you already. He made you from nada, you are something even more owned (by God) than what we normally call property. A husband has similar rights because upon the vow, they literally exchange persons, own each other! Girlfriends and boyfriends also do it, and no one will claim it is not eros. Expecting exclusivity is possessive and is an expression of some form of rights or even ownership over some aspect of another person or their life.

 

[Bookcat]

…

The fact that a person is attracted to another person need not involve any sin. But certainly care must be taken if say one is married or if they struggle with SSA.

In terms of a person who experiences SSA (a better term than the term that gets used in society of “gay” etc) -they are called (like all of us) to chastity and to avoid the near occasion of sin against such etc. For them this also involves avoiding romantic relationships with a person of the same gender or “dating” etc.

The way for them is noted in the Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Friendship being very key.

 

[LongingSoul]

One applies to an act, the other applies to the OBJECT of an act. If homosexuality was intrinsically disordered, then the very state of being gay would be a sin without having to perform any action whatsoever. Your definition doesn’t make any sense at all.

The inclination to same sex attachment is objectively disordered. This means that it can in no way be deemed to have a natural purpose regardless of the experience of a person. It is a disordered inclination regardless of how an afflicted person feels. That is the proper English meaning of objectivity and you simply can’t rewrite meaning to suit your argument.

 

[SMGS127]

Hey S (hope its ok to call you S, weve spoken so much I feel like I almost know you!) It would not be possessive if there were no expection on your part that she be exclusive, but as there is, you cannot say that is possessive. Expections of exclusivity come with right, with some form of ownership you see (possession!), else they’d be very greedy. For example, God as creator (not father) is quite possessive! No other gods before me, no siree! God has rights to claim this exclusivity because basically he owns you already. He made you from nada, you are something even more owned (by God) than what we normally call property. A husband has similar rights because upon the vow, they literally exchange persons, own each other! Girlfriends and boyfriends also do it, and no one will claim it is not eros. Expecting exclusivity is possessive and is an expression of some form of rights or even ownership over some aspect of another person or their life.

I addressed this earlier in the thread, but I will repeat myself so you don’t have to dig it up. Also, yes it is okay to call me S .

Two people in a romantic friendship do not have the right to the other’s attention, unlike a husband and wife. However, due to the storge commitment, they still can have an expectation of exclusivity. That is to say, either person can end the relationship at any time, as neither person has any right to the other. But they still make a promise of commitment out of storge love that, as long as the two are in a romantic friendship, is reasonable to expect that they will fulfill said commitment. It is the same way that, when a person signs a contract, they expect both parties to fulfill said contract. But they do not possess each other. They have no right to each other. And either can leave at any time. But contractual exclusivity is not the same thing as possession.