S
SMGS127
Guest
Right. Sexual immorality.
Right. And my line is above making out. The only unique thing for me with a sexual lover is…sex.
- Status
K
Kamaduck
Guest
It seems the thread has strayed rather far from the question of whether romance is (or can be) independent of sexual attraction, and I was actually pretty interested in the thread’s original subject. 
It’s not akin to telepathy, if that’s what you’re asking.
The person’s physical form doesn’t matter so much. It’s more in what they do and say, I think. I’m not sure how one would have an attraction that wasn’t based on something externally apparent, whether physical form, words, or actions.
It’s not akin to telepathy, if that’s what you’re asking.
R
Rau
Guest
They can! But who sought or had sexual thoughts in the events I described? Not me. Not her (AFAIK). And not the characters on the screen.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think so also, so one wouldn’t have an attraction that wasn’t based on something externally apparent, whether physical form, words, or actions. Right no telepathy, so that rules out love at first sight or is physical form a contingent? The ability to religiously- socially function becomes more efficient through words, and actions in like thinking. So you would be thinking as one in essence not two or working towards this in goalIt’s more in what they do and say, I think. I’m not sure how one would have an attraction that wasn’t based on something externally apparent, whether physical form, words, or actions.
It’s not akin to telepathy, if that’s what you’re asking.
And the french making out happens how? Wait, thats the other book, the romance book or the love-lust dilemma?
R
Rau
Guest
I’ve spent a few minutes trying to find if there is any detailed explanation of what is meant by “objectively disordered”. I could find not much of help, but I did find this:
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Now is this “objective” in the sense of “not subjective”, or in the sense of ordered towards something (an object) that is an intrinsic moral evil (what the catechism calls “Intrinsically disordered”). From this, it sounds more like the latter.
The meaning of “objectively disordered”, and the perspective that SMGS has raised, is discussed in the following (extracted from a non-authoritative source (a blog), so I don’t think useful to link the source, but can if wanted):
*When the Church specifically speaks of the homosexual “inclination” in paragraph 2358, she refers to an inclination to engage in the acts which she unequivocally declared to be “intrinsically disordered” and from what I can gather from the text, nothing else. This is why writers like Melinda Selmys and Joshua Gonnerman aren’t wrong for the things they say. One common objection that is made on this matter and is often used to construct a huge argument that basically amounts to a wicker man in which they are attempting to burn the person with whom they have disagreement is that “‘objectively disordered’ has to mean something, right?” What they don’t realize is that while the homosexual inclination is itself objectively disordered, the overall experience of the homosexual, even including falling in love, is not objectively disordered, and while people like those aforementioned are trying to illustrate a way in which the homosexual person’s experience can be construed as good, even their attractions, which are not inextricably tied to their desire for sex, they are not trying to say that the homosexual inclination itself is good. No one is trying to make this claim or back it up in any way whatsoever. Again, for good measure, I will repeat, once and for all - No orthodox Catholic believes the homosexual inclination is itself good or even bad. It is objectively disordered and bears no moral consequence in itself.
To conflate or to interchange the overall orientation (the overall experience of the homosexual) with the singular inclination to engage in same-sex sexual activity is not only incorrect, but has been used by some members of both the laity and the clergy (albeit mostly in good faith) to educate homosexual persons within the Church about themselves and has caused very much confusion and hurt feelings.*
S
SMGS127
Guest
Speaking of Selmys, this is a wonderful article by her partially on this topic:
sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/2012/05/looking-to-desire.html
B
Bookcat
Guest
May 23, '11, 6:56 pm
“For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.”
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
Question:
The Church does not say anything specifically about this. Can two gay men date, and even get married, but remain celibate and not sin?
Answer:
As to the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has spoken: It is not possibl**e (see link in original text). Since dating is a preparation for and discernment of marriage, it follows that those who cannot marry each other should not be dating.
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862
(there is a link with in the text that one can follow but one needs to go to the original)
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
S
SMGS127
Guest
Are you using “sexual arousal” to mean a physical response, or sexual thoughts? I want to make sure you guys are on the same page. If you mean physical response, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. If you mean sexual thoughts, then it shouldn’t be done.
Because I thought you meant sexual thoughts at first too when you said “sexual arousal,” but then you specifically mentioned physical responses and denied having sexual thoughts.
R
Rau
Guest
Automatic physical response.
S
SMGS127
Guest
See…that’s not the first thing that comes to mind when someone says sexual arousal, at least not for me. I think mental. Involuntary physical responses don’t mean anything. Your physical response doesn’t matter any more than a fear-induced physical response in women would.
But yeah, fyi in the future, don’t use “sexual arousal” if you mean “involuntary physical response”
. You’ve been warned!
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, if I was obligated to avoid such a response, I’m not sure I could have gone on a date in my younger years!See…that’s not the first thing that comes to mind when someone says sexual arousal, at least not for me. I think mental. Involuntary physical responses don’t mean anything. Your physical response doesn’t matter any more than a fear-induced physical response in women would.
But yeah, fyi in the future, don’t use “sexual arousal” if you mean “involuntary physical response”
O
One_point
Guest
I actually did know you meant a physical response.
Lets get this straight: You quoted me saying to Smg that if making out sexually aroused hetero dating catholic couples, their faith would demand them not to do it, and then you mocked this by saying by that standard you wouldn’t hold your girlfriend’s hands in the movies. (Now, never mind that throughout the other thread you kept saying S’s described making out would be fine precisely because she was not sexually aroused by it!
) I then said unequivocally sure! If merely holding hands arouses you sexually, (and as far as I know, this would make you rather special) then you should simply not do it! That is unless you think maintaining or inducing sexual arousal is something single catholics are permitted to do:shrug:If you are saying that a teenage boy who cannot help but be sexually aroused by merely holding a girl’s hand would be able to sustain that arousal without indulging at least a few thoughts on its fulfilment, I again simply find that scenario simply unrealistic. But even without specific thoughts, intentionally allowing arousal to continue because you were afraid of hurting someone’s feelings is still impermissible. While the initial reaction is not your fault, say if you were walking down the streets and saw a half naked woman and your body was aroused, continuing to look at what is making you aroused makes you culpable after that because it is continuing with your consent and is no longer accidental. A person who knows he is sexually triggered by certain things should avoid it where he can, tht is simple catholic chastity wisdom.
Maybe you don’t need to hold hands in a movie hall! Maybe you can reserve the hand-holding to when you are walking her home.
R
Rau
Guest
And what if another social norm, say, sitting across from each other at the restaurant dinner table, me and my teenaged friend (with whom I’m a bit smitten I suppose) tended to produce an erection? Just smiling and chatting with each other. Should dinners together be avoided? Refuse outings with such a pretty girl? Nip out for a quick walk around the block? Or should one just carry on, maintaining perfectly acceptable behaviour and endeavour to ignore the irritating physical response?I actually did know you meant a physical response.
Lets get this straight: You quoted me saying to Smg that if making out sexually aroused hetero dating catholic couples, their faith would demand them not to do it, and then you mocked this by saying by that standard you wouldn’t hold your girlfriend’s hands in the movies. (Now, never mind that throughout the other thread you kept saying S’s described making out would be fine precisely because she was not sexually aroused by it!
If you are saying that a teenage boy who cannot help but be sexually aroused by merely holding a girl’s hand would be able to sustain that arousal without indulging at least a few thoughts on its fulfilment, I again simply find that scenario simply unrealistic. But even without specific thoughts, intentionally allowing arousal to continue because you were afraid of hurting someone’s feelings is still impermissible. While the initial reaction is not your fault, say if you were walking down the streets and saw a half naked woman and your body was aroused, continuing to look at what is making you aroused makes you culpable after that because it is continuing with your consent and is no longer accidental. A person who knows he is sexually triggered by certain things should avoid it where he can, tht is simple catholic chastity wisdom.
O
One_point
Guest
rau, you are holding a girl’s hand and you get sexually excited, you find a way to put that excitement to sleep. Common sense. If you are saying that you were able to do that by simply ignoring it (and this worked for you) then this conversation has been a pointless distraction from the subject of this thread.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You are mistaken if you think that the ‘involuntary physical response’ is meaningless. Most affairs and sexual sin come about as a result of these responses and their enticing promise. Very few affairs come about from someones deliberate choice to cheat. Sexual arousal is more often than not a natural result of the chemistry that God ordained to the business of ‘mating’, physically and emotionally mating.See…that’s not the first thing that comes to mind when someone says sexual arousal, at least not for me. I think mental. Involuntary physical responses don’t mean anything. Your physical response doesn’t matter any more than a fear-induced physical response in women would.
But yeah, fyi in the future, don’t use “sexual arousal” if you mean “involuntary physical response”
O
One_point
Guest
Indeed! Lets get back to the discussion: Is romantic attraction sexual in nature?It seems the thread has strayed rather far from the question of whether romance is (or can be) independent of sexual attraction, and I was actually pretty interested in the thread’s original subject.
I say, yes! It is the attraction to others for the purposes of mating.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
True. Mating in both the literal sense of species regeneration and mating as in the union of male and female by which the mystical wholeness of heaven is represented to us.
- Status