Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[One_point]

Because you are communicating to them that, due to the potential feelings of the new partner, it would be unwise to be as romantic as previously?

Also, I don’t think you realize the level of communication in a romantic friendship.

What potential feelings, smgs? Remember we are talking about the intimate inner life of a person over which you really haven’t any right. Imagine me telling my friends, I have to let you know I have decided to make a new friend and it is unwise for us to be as close as we were before because of the potential feelings of my new friend. Huh? The level of communication…of what…feelings? What is this you are communicating that will be jeopardized if this person communicates it with another without your prior knowledge???

 

[SMGS127]

What potential feelings, smgs? Remember we are talking about the intimate inner life of a person over which you really haven’t any right. Imagine me telling my friends, I have to let you know I have decided to make a new friend and it is unwise for us to be as close as we were before because of the potential feelings of my new friend. Huh? The level of communication…of what…feelings? What is this you are communicating that will be jeopardized if this person communicates it with another without your prior knowledge???

Make a new friend? I thought we were talking about someone leaving an exclusive romantic friendship in order to pursue a marital relationship . I’m pretty sure the feelings of the person they’re pursuing for a marital relationship need to be communicated.

But either way, it’s clear you don’t understand what an exclusive romantic friendship could possibly look like, so I’ll stop bothering explaining. No offense, one point, but it now sounds like you’re trying to catch me in a spiritual trap, ala the Pharisees, than actually understand me. I’m not really up for that, sorry.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat - I believe everyone agrees that there is no sin in the inclination itself, and I believe everyone also agrees with the following statement from the Catechism:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered…etc.The above is printed in the Catechism plainly - so, I am unsure what needed to be clarified (as per your opening comment above). Can you explain - is there some clarification beyond what I’ve just quoted from the Catechism??

I add that part about “no sin” in the simply existence of a disordered inclination - to make sure no new readers misunderstand the rest. I am being circumspect as I often am for I do not write only for those who are discussing matters - but for those too who read it now or later.

As to the second part - yes there was a clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not the Catechism.

It is not only the acts but inclination itself. It is in itself “disordered”. The inclination within the person.

“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)

And as such it is not to be acted upon in interior or exterior acts.

Just as any other disordered inclination of other sorts (which we all have…). Both those common to fallen human nature as well as that which may be specific to a person.

And just as with any disordered inclination in a person - such is yes disordered -but not yet sinful. One must act upon it as noted interiorly or exteriorly or both.

(we ALL have disorder inclinations within us -such does not make us who we are just cause they are there).

 

[One_point]

Make a new friend? I thought we were talking about someone leaving an exclusive romantic friendship in order to pursue a marital relationship . I’m pretty sure the feelings of the person they’re pursuing for a marital relationship need to be communicated.

But either way, it’s clear you don’t understand what an exclusive romantic friendship could possibly look like, so I’ll stop bothering explaining. No offense, one point, but it now sounds like you’re trying to catch me in a spiritual trap, ala the Pharisees, than actually understand me. I’m not really up for that, sorry.

I have no intention of trapping you. And if I did, a spiritual trap? Am I a demon?

That article said there’s nothing exclusive about romantic friendships. I am saying that is probably because there is no right for such in the first place. Hence your description does not fit (exclusivity) and it also sounds that it is possessive as exclusivity is inherent in what it is ((whatever IT is). You say it is not eros, but this sounds exactly like eros and not agape.

Also, you complain severally that people are not giving you arguments to show you why your idea is wrong but the moment you sense one you accuse others of ill motives and bow out.

 

[SMGS127]

I add that part about “no sin” in the simply existence of a disordered inclination - to make sure no new readers misunderstand the rest. I am being circumspect as I often am for I do not write only for those who are discussing matters - but for those too who read it now or later.

As to the second part - yes there was a clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not the Catechism.

It is not only the acts but inclination itself. It is in itself “disordered”. The inclination within the person.

“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)

And as such it is not to be acted upon in interior or exterior acts.

Just as any other disordered inclination of other sorts (which we all have…). Both those common to fallen human nature as well as that which may be specific to a person.

Let’s look at Catholic sourcing, shall we.

catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Benchmark/Cherishing-Life-2004/%28language%29/eng-GB

**In so far as the homosexual orientation can lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life and the essential sexual complementarity of man and woman, it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered. **However, it must be quite clear that a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself.

Bolding mine.

 

[Kamaduck]

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 goal

I’ve never experienced anything akin to “love at first sight”, no. I won’t say that physical form is absolutely not a component, but the attraction isn’t based on it.

And the french making out happens how? Wait, thats the other book, the romance book or the love-lust dilemma?

Nope, making out doesn’t happen. I’m describing something that is similar to “romance” in terms of emotions, but it isn’t a particularly physical attraction. I’m not saying I can make out with people without it being sexual, I’m saying that I can like someone romantically without wanting to make out with them. In fact, it’s my normal state.

This is actually really funny, because my first (and only, so far) boyfriend broke up with me precisely because I showed no interest in kissing him or… Well, touching him at all. I didn’t exactly refuse, as he never really asked, but he could tell that it didn’t interest me. There was no draw. And to him, that meant I thought of him as a friend, so he decided we should go back to being “just friends”.

And yet, I tell you that I was romantically attracted to him. I felt differently about him than I did about my other friends. It just didn’t make me want to kiss him.

Indeed! Lets get back to the discussion: Is romantic attraction sexual in nature?

I say, yes! It is the attraction to others for the purposes of mating.

So… Does that mean that what I described earlier is not, in fact, romantic attraction? Or is it just romantic attraction without a purpose?

 

[SMGS127]

I have no intention of trapping you. And if I did, a spiritual trap? Am I a demon?

Woah! No. I was discussing a spiritual trap like the English posed to Joan of Arc where they asked her if she was in God’s grace, and no matter if she said “yes” or “no,” she’d incriminate herself.

That article said there’s nothing exclusive about romantic friendships. I am saying that is probably because there is no right for such in the first place. Hence your description does not fit (exclusivity) and it also sounds that it is possessive as exclusivity is inherent in what it is ((whatever IT is). You say it is not eros, but this sounds exactly like eros and not agape.

Also, you complain severally that people are not giving you arguments to show you why your idea is wrong but the moment you sense one you accuse others of ill motives and bow out.

That is not true at all. I only got irritated when your tone changed. If you’re actually interested in learning about a romantic friendship and how it can licitly be entered into by a Catholic, I am more than happy to provide information. If you’re interested in proving me wrong at all costs, then what’s the point of debating?

 

[SMGS127]

So… Does that mean that what I described earlier is not, in fact, romantic attraction? Or is it just romantic attraction without a purpose?

Interesting, Kamaduck. You seem to be asexual, not aromantic, and yet uninterested in performing any physical acts, even if done in a romantic nature. Can you expand on why that is? You can’t see making out or even kissing as a romantic gesture?

 

[One_point]

kamaduck, what you described before appeared to me like a crush. I am not sure what it is you are experiencing but that stuff you described happens to me when I get a crush on someone. It’s involuntary, at least for me. But I never get it for members of my sex, so I gather it is part of the sexual attraction. If I get it for people for whom I cant be with say if they are dating someone else seriously or worse married, I do not encourage it all. It can also become obsessive real fast for me.

 

[Rau]

I add that part about “no sin” in the simply existence of a disordered inclination - to make sure no new readers misunderstand the rest. I am being circumspect as I often am for I do not write only for those who are discussing matters - but for those too who read it now or later.

As to the second part - yes there was a clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not the Catechism.

It is not only the acts but inclination itself. It is in itself “disordered”. The inclination within the person.

“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)

And as such it is not to be acted upon in interior or exterior acts.

Just as any other disordered inclination of other sorts (which we all have…). Both those common to fallen human nature as well as that which may be specific to a person.

And just as with any disordered inclination in a person - such is yes disordered -but not yet sinful. One must act upon it as noted interiorly or exteriorly or both.

(we ALL have disorder inclinations within us -such does not make us who we are just cause they are there).

Can you please provide a link to the clarification document, for I am yet to see what the clarification is!! The catechism already says the inclination is objectively disordered. (Adding the word “itself” has no impact on meaning that I can discern, other than merely to emphasise the “inclination” as opposed to the acts toward which one might be inclined. But I don’t see how anyone could have missed that in what is written in the catechism.)

 

[Kamaduck]

Interesting, Kamaduck. You seem to be asexual, not aromantic, and yet uninterested in performing any physical acts, even if done in a romantic nature. Can you expand on why that is? You can’t see making out or even kissing as a romantic gesture?

I actually can see kissing as a romantic gesture. Like, if I’m watching a good romance movie and it ends with a kiss, I’ll get warm fuzzies with everyone else. But there’s sort of a disconnect between that and actively wanting to kiss someone. Hm. I guess I see kissing as sort of a symbolic gesture? A wordless way of saying “I really really care about you”? So I’d be happy to receive such a gesture if I thought that it was genuine, but it’s not how I’d automatically express that (although I COULD express it that way, if it got the message across).

In the asexual community, people talk about different kinds of attraction. So I guess I’d say that I experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction, and that I experience little to no “sensual” attraction (which is the heading that kissing and cuddling are usually listed under). So I really like people, but I wouldn’t actively desire to express it physically. It’s not that I actively dislike it (provided I’m already close to the person), I’m just not drawn to it, if that makes sense.

kamaduck, what you described before appeared to me like a crush. I am not sure what it is you are experiencing but that stuff you described happens to me when I am get a crush on someone. It’s involuntary, at least for me. But I never get it for members of my sex, so I gather it is part of the sexual attraction. If I get it for people for whom I cant be say if they are dating seriously or worse married, I do not encourage it all. It can also become obsessive real fast for me.

OK, but isn’t a crush related to romantic attraction? I don’t understand what the distinction is.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve only gotten these crushes on members of the opposite sex. However, they aren’t very physical, and I’m wondering if you would say that makes them non-romantic.

 

[SMGS127]

I actually can see kissing as a romantic gesture. Like, if I’m watching a good romance movie and it ends with a kiss, I’ll get warm fuzzies with everyone else. But there’s sort of a disconnect between that and actively wanting to kiss someone. Hm. I guess I see kissing as sort of a symbolic gesture? A wordless way of saying “I really really care about you”? So I’d be happy to receive such a gesture if I thought that it was genuine, but it’s not how I’d automatically express that (although I COULD express it that way, if it got the message across).

In the asexual community, people talk about different kinds of attraction. So I guess I’d say that I experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction, and that I experience little to no “sensual” attraction (which is the heading that kissing and cuddling are usually listed under). So I really like people, but I wouldn’t actively desire to express it physically. It’s not that I actively dislike it (provided I’m already close to the person), I’m just not drawn to it, if that makes sense.

So are “sensual” attractions separated from “sexual” attractions in the asexual community then?

 

[One_point]

kamaduck, a crush is more psychological than sexual. It is triggered by simple qualities in others that trigger something in us unconsciously. I think what you are describing is a crush. Depending on your maturity, it may quickly lead to sexual fantasies but it need not. the fantasies are usually not at all sexual. but you literally notice every last thing about the person. nothing is trivial. and when you are away from them, you are still thinking about them.

 

[Bookcat]

Can you please provide a link to the clarification document, for I am yet to see what the clarification is!! The catechism already says the inclination is objectively disordered. (Adding the word “itself” has no impact on meaning that I can discern, other than merely to emphasise the “inclination” as opposed to the acts toward which one might be inclined. But I don’t see how anyone could have missed that in what is written in the catechism.)

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html or the Vatican site at www.vatican.va

It is not that such was missed in the CCC - it was about the discussion that took place among some way prior to that. It clarified that it was the “inclination itself” that is also disordered not only acts (but again that the inclination itself is not sin- I add for new readers).

The Clarification was not of the CCC (predates such) but addressed those who took “an overly benign interpretation” of the “homosexual condition itself” earlier. Indeed “some going so far as to call it neutral or even good.”

Which with the influence of the current surrounding culture seems to be taking place again…

 

[Kamaduck]

So are “sensual” attractions separated from “sexual” attractions in the asexual community then?

Yeah. There are a lot of asexuals who experience sensual attraction without sexual attraction, or who only experience sensual attraction up to a certain level (ie, they want to cuddle, but don’t care about kissing and don’t want to go past a kiss).

People don’t usually use sensual attraction as a label (you don’t see people calling themselves “asensual” so much), but they do talk about it a fair amount.

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s look at Catholic sourcing, shall we.

catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Benchmark/Cherishing-Life-2004/%28language%29/eng-GB

Bolding mine.

Right such is the disorder within the person- not that the “person” is disordered or that the inclination is itself sinful. But the inclination itself is disordered. Some thought the Church thought persons where disordered or that the inclination is sinful in itself. Which is not the case. Indeed the Christian person with SSA who lives the Christian life is indeed a Child of God - indeed “in Christ” - living in true life.

 

[Bookcat]

Can you please provide a link to the clarification document, for I am yet to see what the clarification is!! The catechism already says the inclination is objectively disordered. (Adding the word “itself” has no impact on meaning that I can discern, other than merely to emphasise the “inclination” as opposed to the acts toward which one might be inclined. But I don’t see how anyone could have missed that in what is written in the catechism.)

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html or the Vatican site at www.vatican.va

It is not that such was missed in the CCC - it was about the discussion that took place among some way prior to that. It clarified that it was the “inclination itself” that is also disordered not only acts (but again that the inclination itself is not sin- I add for new readers…).

The Clarification was not of the CCC (predates such) but addressed those who took “an overly benign interpretation” of the “homosexual condition itself” earlier. Indeed “some going so far as to call it neutral or even good.”

Which with the influence of the current surrounding culture seems to be taking place again…

 

[Kamaduck]

kamaduck, a crush is more psychological than sexual. It is triggered by simple qualities in others that trigger something in us unconsciously. I think what you are describing is a crush. Depending on your maturity, it may quickly lead to sexual fantasies but it need not. the fantasies are usually not at all sexual. but you literally notice every last thing about the person. nothing is trivial. and when you are away from them, you are still thinking about them.

I am totally lost now. I know that crushes are psychological. I know that they’re not necessarily sexual. That’s what I mean when I say that romantic and sexual attraction are distinct- I thought that romantic attraction was, essentially, very similar to a crush.

I don’t understand why we would use both “romantic attraction” and “sexual attraction” to refer to sexual attraction. We only need one term for it.

 

[Rau]

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema

It is not that such was missed in the CCC - it was about the discussion that took place among some way prior to that. It clarified that it was the inclination itself that is also disordered not only acts (but again that the inclination itself is not sin- I add for new readers).

The Clarification was not of the CCC (predates such) but addressed those who took “an overly benign interpretation” of the “homosexual condition itself” earlier. Indeed “some going so far as to call it neutral or even good.”

Which with the influence of the current surrounding culture seems to be taking place again…

OK fine, then that letter serves to clarify debate prior to the CCC, not the content of the CCC which post-dates the letter anyway. So,if we are reading the CCC, I don’t believe the letter to which you refer (written in 1986) changes anything.

 

[Rau]

I am totally lost now. I know that crushes are psychological. I know that they’re not necessarily sexual. That’s what I mean when I say that romantic and sexual attraction are distinct- I thought that romantic attraction was, essentially, very similar to a crush.

I don’t understand why we would use both “romantic attraction” and “sexual attraction” to refer to sexual attraction. We only need one term for it.

If the person to whom you felt the crush or romantic link was female (as are you), there is no doubt many would label it sexual attraction.