Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[One_point]

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.

kamaduck, romantic attraction is a sexual attraction as far as the church’s definition of sexuality which is not just sex. the attraction between the sexes is sexual, even though it doesn’t involve necessarily erotic acts or desires. are you confused by terminology? I am using the church’s definition of human sexuality when I say “sexual attraction” I am not using the common meaning of the term as attraction to stimulating erotic/conjugal feelings.

 

[Rau]

kamaduck, romantic attraction is a sexual attraction as far as the church’s definition of sexuality which is not just sex. the attraction between the sexes is sexual, even though it doesn’t involve necessarily erotic acts or desires. are you confused by terminology? I am using the church’s definition of human sexuality when I say “sexual attraction” I am not using the common meaning of the term as attraction to stimulating erotic/conjugal feelings.

Then a verbal joust between the sexes is sexual?

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Actually yes it serves to bring more light on the matter. The CCC is not some document that supersedes all earlier documents -rather it is a splendid work that gives a great deal but not everything. One must still go to the other sources too for more light at times.

And when some return to “an overly benign interpretation” of the “homosexual condition itself” or implicitly go “so far as to call it neutral or even good.” Such is important to recall.

For within the new surrounding culture–such seems to be taking place again-even unconsciously by well intentioned persons.

 

[Kamaduck]

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.

Why?

kamaduck, romantic attraction is a sexual attraction as far as the church’s definition of sexuality which is not just sex. the attraction between the sexes is sexual, even though it doesn’t involve necessarily erotic acts or desires. are you confused by terminology? I am using the church’s definition of human sexuality when I say “sexual attraction” I am not using the common meaning of the term as attraction to stimulating erotic/conjugal feelings.

Well then of course it’s sexual. By that definition, any form of attraction towards someone of the opposite sex is sexual. Even what we call “platonic attraction” (generally described as the desire to be friends with someone) would count as sexual if a female felt it for a male, or vice versa.

It would also mean that sexual desire towards persons of the same sex isn’t sexual, in the sense that it doesn’t take place between the sexes. A person could experience precisely the same feeling towards a male and a female, but only interest in the opposite sex would be “sexual”.

I just don’t understand the point of that distinction. It seems to be an argument about language, not an argument about what people experience.

 

[One_point]

Then a verbal joust between the sexes is sexual?

Does that statement make any sense to you? Where I come from, we do not consider attraction to be the same as jousting. Plus I find this comment as disingenuous as the strange silly argument you started yesterday by taking things out of context to mock what is a standard understanding of catholic chaste dating. I explained what I meant in the first post. You did not even bother responding to that meaning of sexuality. Now you are charicaturizing my points and this is your idea of arguing. It’s becoming tiresome.

 

[One_point]

Why?

Well then of course it’s sexual. By that definition, any form of attraction towards someone of the opposite sex is sexual. Even what we call “platonic attraction” (generally described as the desire to be friends with someone) would count as sexual if a female felt it for a male, or vice versa.

It would also mean that sexual desire towards persons of the same sex isn’t sexual, in the sense that it doesn’t take place between the sexes. A person could experience precisely the same feeling towards a male and a female, but only interest in the opposite sex would be “sexual”.

I just don’t understand the point of that distinction. It seems to be an argument about language, not an argument about what people experience.

Kamaduck, please read the first post on this thread and the first response I made to Gary on the first mage. Sexual; does not mean anything between the sexes, it means an attraction bringing the sexes together precisely as male and female, the complementarity is key and it is different from other attractions. It is what that theologian smgs quoted earlier called eros.

 

[Kamaduck]

Kamaduck, please read the first post on this thread and the first response I made to Gary on the first mage. Sexual; does not mean anything between the sexes, it means an attraction being the sexes together precisely as male and female, the complementarity is key and it is different from other attractions. It is what that theologian smgs quoted earlier called eros.

OK, so you’re saying that an attraction is sexual if it is based on the complementary nature of males and females. If the attraction is dependent on this, then the attraction is “sexual”. Is that right?

But we acknowledge that similar feelings can exist between people of the same sex, so no form of attraction can be sexual all the time.

So, I guess any form of attraction that some people experience towards persons of only one sex is “sexual attraction”. In that case, of course romantic attraction is sexual, as are crushes, since most people experience them towards only one gender. Again, though, I don’t understand how that information is useful.

 

[One_point]

OK, so you’re saying that an attraction is sexual if it is based on the complementary nature of males and females. If the attraction is dependent on this, then the attraction is “sexual”. Is that right?

But we acknowledge that similar feelings can exist between people of the same sex, so no form of attraction can be sexual all the time.

So, I guess any form of attraction that some people experience towards persons of only one sex is “sexual attraction”. In that case, of course romantic attraction is sexual, as are crushes, since most people experience them towards only one gender. Again, though, I don’t understand how that information is useful.

This is the significance: sexual attraction is something that is geared towards a male-female pairing and its ultimate expression is the conjugal union of marriage. The argument is that this attraction when it arises between couples who are not sexually compatible either they are not male-female (like a gay couple) or are too closely related like siblings, that it is well-ordered and ok to be nurtured. I obviously disagree. If it is designed for male-female to bring them together to form the fruitful love of marriage, then its arising in other pairings is disordered or an anomaly. From my perspective, it would be contrary to principles of natural law to encourage and nurture it in sexually-incompatible couples. This debate is whether it exists for its own sake or whether it exists to serve the purpose of bringing males and females together for mating purposes, in a nutshell.

 

[Kamaduck]

This is the significance: sexual attraction is something that is geared towards a male-female pairing and its ultimate expression is the conjugal union of marriage. The argument is that this attraction when it arises between couples who are not sexually compatible either they are not male-female (like a gay couple) or are too closely related like siblings, that it is well-ordered and ok to be nurtured. I obviously disagree. If it is designed for male-female to bring them together to form the fruitful love of marriage, then its arising in other pairings is disordered or an anomaly. From my perspective, it would be contrary to principles of natural law to encourage and nurture it in sexually-incompatible couples. This debate is whether it exists for its own sake or whether it exists to serve the purpose of bringing males and females together for mating purposes, in a nutshell.

OK, question- if any attraction that some people experience towards only one sex is “sexual”, then would that mean that people with SSA couldn’t engage in them with people of the same sex?

For instance, say that some people only want to cuddle if it’s with someone of the opposite sex. Does that make that attraction sexual? Does that mean that nobody is allowed to cuddle with people of the same sex?

 

[One_point]

OK, question- if any attraction that some people experience towards only one sex is “sexual”, then would that mean that people with SSA couldn’t engage in them with people of the same sex?

For instance, say that some people only want to cuddle if it’s with someone of the opposite sex. Does that make that attraction sexual? Does that mean that nobody is allowed to cuddle with people of the same sex?

It is not about acts. It is about the attraction behind the acts that gives them certain meanings. what is it that informs a gay person that he is gay? It is the fact they experience this attraction for their own sex rather than the opposite sex. That does not mean that this attraction is not by design an attraction for male-female just because it is experienced by some people for the wrong sex. it only means it is disordered in gay people because it does not follow the design God has given it in nature. If its objective purpose is to draw the sexes together as male and female or wha the church calls physical and emotional complementarity and to be fruitfuil, it is not well-ordered when it arises between people of the same sex. This is involuntary of course. but it would make it problematic to deliberately nurture it in those circumstances.

 

[Bookcat]

OK, question- if any attraction that some people experience towards only one sex is “sexual”, then would that mean that people with SSA couldn’t engage in them with people of the same sex?

For instance, say that some people only want to cuddle if it’s with someone of the opposite sex. Does that make that attraction sexual? Does that mean that nobody is allowed to cuddle with people of the same sex?

Right. “Cuddling” is an example of something not really to be engaged in by those of the same -sex (but one would have to define “cuddling” I suppose for family can be said to cuddle in a way). For such would be acting according to a disordered inclination towards the same sex.

Excepting family relationships - like father and a young son (if such could be called “cuddling”) or a mother and her daughter…that sort of thing.

 

[SMGS127]

Right. “Cuddling” is an example of something not really to be engaged in by those of the same -sex (but one would have to define “cuddling” I suppose for family can be said to cuddle in a way). For such would be acting according to a disordered inclination towards the same sex.

Excepting family relationships - like father and a young son (if such could be called “cuddling”) or a mother and her daughter…that sort of thing.

Oh now CUDDLING is sexual .

Gosh, I better contact my college roommate. Man, I guess she just never knew she was a lesbian! Or maybe the cuddling “turned” her? Who knows!

 

[Bookcat]

Oh now CUDDLING is sexual .

Gosh, I better contact my college roommate. Man, I guess she just never knew she was a lesbian! Or maybe the cuddling “turned” her? Who knows!

Actions do not have to be “sexual” in the sense the term often gets used to be not the way for two persons to act.

And the fact that someone who does not struggle with SSA engaged in a something that is usually something done by boyfriend and girlfiend - does not make it ok for two persons with SSA to engage in. Romantic relationships are not an option. Friends do not “cuddle” as boy friends and girl friends do (unless of course they are boy friends and girl friends or similar).

Again much can turn on what is meant by “cuddle” as I noted above. But generally what I note here is the case. I am not going to cuddle with my guy friend from University. But such can be a different story with my wife.

(but I suppose girls have some different approaches than guys perhaps at times–again depends on what is meant and the context of the act)

 

[SMGS127]

The fact that someone who does not struggle with SSA engaged in a something that is usually something done by boyfriend and girlfiend - does not make it ok for two persons with SSA to engage in. Romantic relationships are not an option. Friends do not “cuddle” as boy friends and girl friends do (unless of course they are boy friends and girl friends or similar).

Again much can turn on what is meant by “cuddle” as I noted above. But generally what I note here is the case. I am not going to cuddle with my guy friend from University. But such can be a different story with my wife.

(but I suppose girls have some different approaches than guys perhaps at times–again depends on what is meant and the context of the act)

I’m sorry, but this just further demonstrates why CAF stands for “Conservative American Forum.” This is literally one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on this forum, and it is incredibly Puritan in nature. It has literally zero basis in Catholicism.

Cuddling is not sexual…at all. Between anyone. I could see why people had reservations about making out, but seriously Bookcat, how can you not call yourself a Puritan when you’re going as far as cuddling and holding hands?

 

[Kamaduck]

"One Point:

It is not about acts. It is about the attraction behind the acts that gives them certain meanings. what is it that informs a gay person that he is gay? It is the fact they experience this attraction for their own sex rather than the opposite sex. That does not mean that this attraction is not by design an attraction for male-female just because it is experienced by some people for the wrong sex. it only means it is disordered in gay people because it does not follow the design God has given it in nature. If its objective purpose is to draw the sexes together as male and female or wha the church calls physical and emotional complementarity and to be fruitfuil, it is not well-ordered when it arises between people of the same sex. This is involuntary of course. but it would make it problematic to deliberately nurture it in those circumstances.

But how do you tell which desires are sexual?

What I’m saying is that your earlier reasoning appears to be that because you only experience romantic attraction towards persons of the opposite sex, the attraction must be sexual in nature, and it is therefore inappropriate for any person to act on a similar attraction towards someone of the same sex.

But if we use that reasoning, we have to extend it to every attraction that some people feel only towards the opposite sex. So if some people only experience the desire to cuddle with the opposite sex, then that would be evidence that it is sexual, and that persons of the same sex should not engage in it. The same would be true of anything else that some people want to do only with members of the opposite sex.

If we reject this reasoning when it comes to a desire to cuddle, then why would we accept it with regard to other things?

It seems to me that “I’m straight, and I only want to do a particular activity with people of the opposite sex” isn’t sufficient evidence that the activity requires the complimentary natures of men and women. Cuddling doesn’t require maleness or femaleness. And I think it’s possible that some of the things we think of as “romantic” don’t, either.

Right. “Cuddling” is an example of something an activity not really to be engaged in by those of the same -sex. For such would be acting according to a disordered inclination towards the same sex.

Excepting family relationships - like father and a young son (if such could be called “cuddling”) or a mother and her daughter…that sort of thing.

I know lots of straight girls who like to cuddle with each other. For some people, it’s a normal thing to do with friends. For other people, it’s a romantic activity. It just depends.

Friends do not “cuddle” as boy friends and girl friends do.

Yes, they absolutely do. I have no idea what you consider cuddling to be, if you don’t think girls would engage in it with their friends.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m sorry, but this just further demonstrates why CAF stands for “Conservative American Forum.” This is literally one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on this forum, and it is incredibly Puritan in nature. It has literally zero basis in Catholicism.

Cuddling is not sexual…at all. Between anyone.

Gee I wonder why girlfriend-boyfriends cuddle? I wonder why they do not cuddle before they date? I wonder why they do not cuddle when they are “just friends”? I wonder why the cuddling begins when the romantic relationship begins? I wonder why two men (without SSA) do not “cuddle” when they hang out?

(and please read my posts again I made distinctions there)

 

[Bookcat]

I know lots of straight girls who like to cuddle with each other. For some people, it’s a normal thing to do with friends. For other people, it’s a romantic activity. It just depends.

.

Your missing posts:

Again much can turn on what is meant by “cuddle” as I noted above. But generally what I note here is the case. I am not going to cuddle with my guy friend from University. But such can be a different story with my wife.

(but I suppose girls have some different approaches than guys perhaps at times–again depends on what is meant and the context of the act)

 

[One_point]

But how do you tell which desires are sexual?

What I’m saying is that your earlier reasoning appears to be that because you only experience romantic attraction towards persons of the opposite sex, the attraction must be sexual in nature, and it is therefore inappropriate for any person to act on a similar attraction towards someone of the same sex.

But if we use that reasoning, we have to extend it to every attraction that some people feel only towards the opposite sex. So if some people only experience the desire to cuddle with the opposite sex, then that would be evidence that it is sexual, and that persons of the same sex should not engage in it. The same would be true of anything else that some people want to do only with members of the opposite sex.

If we reject this reasoning when it comes to a desire to cuddle, then why would we accept it with regard to other things?

It seems to me that “I’m straight, and I only want to do a particular activity with people of the opposite sex” isn’t sufficient evidence that the activity requires the complimentary natures of men and women. Cuddling doesn’t require maleness or femaleness. And I think it’s possible that some of the things we think of as “romantic” don’t, either…

You misunderstood my reasoning. You asked me if what you experienced was romantic and I guessed that if it was in fact a crush as it seemed to be then yes. I am pretty certain it is not just “some” people who experience a crush as a primary attraction for the opposite sex but the vast majority. before I hit puberty would not have understood what a crush was if you had explained it a thousand times. So the standard you propose is in no way close to what I have described. It is not as “subjective” as you propose. It is the way things are between the sexes in general and objective discernible ways.

And the focus on cuddling is misplaced. Like I said to smgs earlier, you can kiss and touch in two different ways. The attraction behind each will determine the meaning of the act. We are not discussing whether cuddling or similar acts are sexual. they can be. I at least am discussing whether the attraction is sexual which is why I said it was not about the acts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see where it matters, intent is the thought by thought process which results in a goal or plan.

Anyone may claim their intentions are pure. But its unlikely an alcoholic who offers another alcoholic a drink has pure intentions. Which is to say someone who is already in this realm rationalizes the triggers, and not only is this problematic for them, but incredibly naive of others with like issues.

 

[Kamaduck]

You misunderstood my reasoning. You asked me if what you experienced was romantic and I guessed that if it was in fact a crush as it seemed to be then yes.

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I was speaking specifically of this statement:
One Point:

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.

I’m not sure that “I never get it for members of my sex” is sufficient evidence that a desire or feeling is always sexual.

I am pretty certain it is not just “some” people who experience a crush as a primary attraction for the opposite sex but the vast majority.

Yes, but just because something is the experience of the majority of persons doesn’t mean that any other experience is disordered. I don’t think majorities are particularly good evidence in this case.

before I hit puberty would not have understood what a crush was if you had explained it a thousand times. So the standard you propose is in no way close to what I have described. It is not as “subjective” as you propose. It is the way things are between the sexes in general and objective discernible ways.

In that case, we should not have to rely on majorities. We should be able to demonstrate, without relying on individual experiences, that “romantic” actions require the complementary natures of men and women. I don’t know how one would go about arguing that.

And the focus on cuddling is misplaced. Like I said to smgs earlier, you can kiss and touch in two different ways. The attraction behind each will determine the meaning of the act. We are not discussing whether cuddling or similar acts are sexual. they can be. I at least am discussing whether the attraction is sexual which is why I said it was not about the acts

Then the answer must be “it depends”, right? It would depend entirely on our intention, not the acts themselves. So if SMGS’s intention in making out with someone was to communicate or facilitate agape love, how could it be sexual?

I think we must acknowledge that the specific actions do matter, if anyone here is going to argue that making out between persons of the same sex is not permissible, regardless of intention.