W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Okay, if Mary and Anna are cuddling, then the relation is a lesbian one with no “sex” IMO. I don’t cuddle with any of my female friends-it would feel completely awkward to me. Boyfriend, yes, female friend, no.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
No, I don’t know it’s sexual.Two adults “cuddling” has an element of sexuality. A parent and a child can “cuddle” and anyone of any age can “cuddle” a pet. But two adults embracing and staying in a cuddle…Yes, you know it’s sexual.
If just one of these women wants things to get sexual and the other doesn’t, it’s time to put up some boundaries or things will start to happen.
Um, you know the Bible says we should greet each other with a holy kiss right? By a kiss it means on the lips not the cheeks!Okay, if Mary and Anna are cuddling, then the relation is a lesbian one with no “sex” IMO. I don’t cuddle with any of my female friends-it would feel completely awkward to me. Boyfriend, yes, female friend, no.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
A greeting is different. That is a cultural way of saying hello even now in some places. However, two people wrapped up in each others arms, holding hands, etc. are clearly romantically involved.No, I don’t know it’s sexual.
Um, you know the Bible says we should greet each other with a holy kiss right? By a kiss it means on the lips not the cheeks!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
That’s culturally dependentA greeting is different. That is a cultural way of saying hello even now in some places. However, two people wrapped up in each others arms, holding hands, etc. are clearly romantically involved.
C
CatholicNinja
Guest
I think part of the question is, how do you define sexual behavior? Usually, sexual behavior is defined by intent (until you get explicit). Tickling, for example, can be completely non-sexual as we all know, but if done with sexual intent, it can be a precursor or foreplay to sex.
The issue with Mary and Anna is, they do not have this sexual intent. I asked Mary point blank and she said neither of them have a desire to do anything that involves removing clothing. And, they still love each other in what could be described as a romantic way, desire to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to hug/cuddle/share touch primarily with each other.
I come back to: does the absence of sexual intention remove any moral issues with this situation? If not, what, in clear terms, are the moral issues?
The issue with Mary and Anna is, they do not have this sexual intent. I asked Mary point blank and she said neither of them have a desire to do anything that involves removing clothing. And, they still love each other in what could be described as a romantic way, desire to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to hug/cuddle/share touch primarily with each other.
I come back to: does the absence of sexual intention remove any moral issues with this situation? If not, what, in clear terms, are the moral issues?
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Yes, the lack of intent effectively removes any moral issues on their sideI think part of the question is, how do you define sexual behavior? Usually, sexual behavior is defined by intent (until you get explicit). Tickling, for example, can be completely non-sexual as we all know, but if done with sexual intent, it can be a precursor or foreplay to sex.
The issue with Mary and Anna is, they do not have this sexual intent. I asked Mary point blank and she said neither of them have a desire to do anything that involves removing clothing. And, they still love each other in what could be described as a romantic way, desire to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to hug/cuddle/share touch primarily with each other.
I come back to: does the absence of sexual intention remove any moral issues with this situation? If not, what, in clear terms, are the moral issues?
M
manualman
Guest
It’s just not cut and dried anymore. From this side of the screen there is NO way to tell if these people crave physical intimacy and are in denial about how deep that goes or if it’s a harmless or even a helpful aspect of their deep friendship.
I’ve had guy friends and I can tell you for sure that I’ve never had any inclination at all to cuddle any of them. I can’t relate to this at all. Maybe women are wired different, you’d have to ask them. But physical intimacy is certainly in a different class than platonic intimacy. The fact that she has zero interest in heterosexual relationships might be a dashboard red light that the desire for female cuddling is perhaps something to worry about.
The claim to be ‘asexual’ alone is, IMO, a reason to be talking to somebody trained about emotional problems.
I’ve had guy friends and I can tell you for sure that I’ve never had any inclination at all to cuddle any of them. I can’t relate to this at all. Maybe women are wired different, you’d have to ask them. But physical intimacy is certainly in a different class than platonic intimacy. The fact that she has zero interest in heterosexual relationships might be a dashboard red light that the desire for female cuddling is perhaps something to worry about.
The claim to be ‘asexual’ alone is, IMO, a reason to be talking to somebody trained about emotional problems.
G
Ghosty
Guest
By not dating men, and living together, they are causing scandal by making others think they are a lesbian couple.Technically: according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly
They are doing nothing immoral according to Catholic theology.
I’m being sarcastic, of course, but it is the same logic that leads people to condemn opposite-sex housemates, and it’s also just as weak.
Everyone should remember that in modern society, this relationship being described has the exact same “scandal” rating as the opposite sex housemates would. Some perspective is needed.
Peace and God bless!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Agreed, people these days are just looking for scandal and gossip everywhereBy not dating men, and living together, they are causing scandal by making others think they are a lesbian couple.
I’m being sarcastic, of course, but it is the same logic that leads people to condemn opposite-sex housemates, and it’s also just as weak.
Everyone should remember that in modern society, this relationship being described has the exact same “scandal” rating as the opposite sex housemates would. Some perspective is needed.
Peace and God bless!
M
manualman
Guest
Who raised scandal as an issue? I’m not seeing it.
If you read the post, the OP is worried about a friend who claims to be “asexual” and craves physical intimacy with a fellow woman.
The real warning light here is actually the ‘asexual’ claim. There’s no ‘scandal’ issue. He’s just worried about his friend (and it may be nothing, we aren’t there).
If you read the post, the OP is worried about a friend who claims to be “asexual” and craves physical intimacy with a fellow woman.
The real warning light here is actually the ‘asexual’ claim. There’s no ‘scandal’ issue. He’s just worried about his friend (and it may be nothing, we aren’t there).
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
Well, there is actually such a thing as the sin of scandal, and the logic is not weak.By not dating men, and living together, they are causing scandal by making others think they are a lesbian couple.
I’m being sarcastic, of course, but it is the same logic that leads people to condemn opposite-sex housemates, and it’s also just as weak.
Everyone should remember that in modern society, this relationship being described has the exact same “scandal” rating as the opposite sex housemates would. Some perspective is needed.
Peace and God bless!
Opposite sex housemates is still the sin of scandal even though the -]pacific northwest/-] society these days is so progressive as not to recognize it.
And, I doubt anyone is truly ‘asexual’ anyways. Seems like a red flag of latent homsexuality.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Agreed.Who raised scandal as an issue? I’m not seeing it.
If you read the post, the OP is worried about a friend who claims to be “asexual” and craves physical intimacy with a fellow woman.
The real warning light here is actually the ‘asexual’ claim. There’s no ‘scandal’ issue. He’s just worried about his friend (and it may be nothing, we aren’t there).
From information given, the “friendship” seems borderline romantic.
I know you said earlier that you have no urge to cuddle with you guy friends. I’m a woman and have no urge to cuddle with my female friends either.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Y’know how some people have a higher sex drive? Asexuality is basically the opposite, it’s a really low sex driveWell, there is actually such a thing as the sin of scandal, and the logic is not weak.
Opposite sex housemates is still the sin of scandal even though the -]pacific northwest/-] society these days is so progressive as not to recognize it.
And, I doubt anyone is truly ‘asexual’ anyways. Seems like a red flag of latent homsexuality.
You know that friendship used to be a lot more physical right? Even amongst men!Agreed.
From information given, the “friendship” seems borderline romantic.
I know you said earlier that you have no urge to cuddle with you guy friends. I’m a woman and have no urge to cuddle with my female friends either.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
We aren’t there to know for sure, but their relationship is culturally odd.Y’know how some people have a higher sex drive? Asexuality is basically the opposite, it’s a really low sex drive
You know that friendship used to be a lot more physical right? Even amongst men!
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
In the context of post-Freud Western Culture it is indeed odd.We aren’t there to know for sure, but their relationship is culturally odd.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I never said that scandal isn’t a sin, but rather that people try to treat it as an objective value for all times and places when it’s actually based entirely on context. Igf a society will not judge a behavior in a sinful light, then that behavior doesn’t give scandal. So if a male and female living together does not imply sex in the eyes of society, then it’s not scandalous. Conversely, if two women living together does imply sex, then it is scandalous by definition.Well, there is actually such a thing as the sin of scandal, and the logic is not weak.
Opposite sex housemates is still the sin of scandal even though the -]pacific northwest/-] society these days is so progressive as not to recognize it.
And, I doubt anyone is truly ‘asexual’ anyways. Seems like a red flag of latent homsexuality.
The problem here is that people on this forum often write-off the actual perception of society in favor of what it “should be” and judge scandal from there.
Peace and God bless!
C
CatholicNinja
Guest
Hello again, I’m here with a follow up post.
Mary decided to have a serious discussion with Anna about these issues. Through the discussion, in which Mary talked about eliminating those behaviors that pinged her conscience, so to speak, Anna got incredibly upset and interpreted it as Mary saying that she no longer wanted to have anything to do with the connection they shared. Of course this was not true–Mary simply wanted to talk about the meaning of their behavior and the fact that she was uncomfortable, but Anna did not seem to understand that. Anna distanced herself from Mary at first, but seems now to be acclimating to being Mary’s friend without the behaviors that made Mary uncomfortable.
Mary said to me that she felt like she was split in two, or living in two worlds. On the one had she enjoyed being intimate with Anna, but on the other hand she felt that there was something intrinsically wrong with that intimacy. For a long time, she said, she just wanted it to be possible to live in two worlds–to experience this intimacy that she enjoyed and, in effect, ignore her moral discomfort, and then re-enter the world of her understanding of human sexuality.
FaithBuild18 made a very useful point about homsexuality: “To say that there is nothing sinful about the inclination itself, does not mean there is nothing wrong with following the inclination as long as you don’t have sex. It is a disordered inclination.”
Looking at Mary and Anna’s situation, understanding the endpoint is helpful in visualizing this. What do these behaviors lead to? Do they lead to an ordered reality, or a disordered reality? Spending one’s life in a sex-less romantic relationship with someone of the same gender is not an ordered reality. Romantic–not sexual, just romantic–attraction to someone of the same sex is disordered just as romantic, non-sexual attraction to one’s own brother or mother is disordered.
The question is not “is the act of following this romantic, nonsexual attraction harming the persons involved?” but “does the act of following this romantic, nonsexual attraction result in the fruition of the realities of human sexuality that God created?” That second question does not demand that the person with this romantic attraction enter into a heterosexual union in order to be fulfilled as a human being (similarly, God does not demand the person with homosexual attraction enter into a heterosexual union).
Rather, the second question merely asks what the meaning is of sexuality and romance. If the power to decide how these realities are defined is given to the individual person in the moment, then the person will never have just one meaning. Some days having sex with a person might mean “I’m lonely,” other days it might mean “I’m bored.” It may even mean “I love this person and want to be with them forever,” but the next week it might change to “I thought I loved this person but now I can’t stand the sight of them.”
Catholics believe that God created the world with the definitions of these realities displayed in the very appearance of both the human body and the natural world. Human beings find fulfillment in observing these realities through their actions. The conscience does not feel uncomfortable or wrong when we operate on the definitions of human sexuality created by God.
And so, Mary doesn’t feel that discomfort anymore. She feels the relief of not living in two worlds, because she could not fully be in either world. “No one can have two masters.”
Thank you for your replies.
Mary decided to have a serious discussion with Anna about these issues. Through the discussion, in which Mary talked about eliminating those behaviors that pinged her conscience, so to speak, Anna got incredibly upset and interpreted it as Mary saying that she no longer wanted to have anything to do with the connection they shared. Of course this was not true–Mary simply wanted to talk about the meaning of their behavior and the fact that she was uncomfortable, but Anna did not seem to understand that. Anna distanced herself from Mary at first, but seems now to be acclimating to being Mary’s friend without the behaviors that made Mary uncomfortable.
Mary said to me that she felt like she was split in two, or living in two worlds. On the one had she enjoyed being intimate with Anna, but on the other hand she felt that there was something intrinsically wrong with that intimacy. For a long time, she said, she just wanted it to be possible to live in two worlds–to experience this intimacy that she enjoyed and, in effect, ignore her moral discomfort, and then re-enter the world of her understanding of human sexuality.
FaithBuild18 made a very useful point about homsexuality: “To say that there is nothing sinful about the inclination itself, does not mean there is nothing wrong with following the inclination as long as you don’t have sex. It is a disordered inclination.”
Looking at Mary and Anna’s situation, understanding the endpoint is helpful in visualizing this. What do these behaviors lead to? Do they lead to an ordered reality, or a disordered reality? Spending one’s life in a sex-less romantic relationship with someone of the same gender is not an ordered reality. Romantic–not sexual, just romantic–attraction to someone of the same sex is disordered just as romantic, non-sexual attraction to one’s own brother or mother is disordered.
The question is not “is the act of following this romantic, nonsexual attraction harming the persons involved?” but “does the act of following this romantic, nonsexual attraction result in the fruition of the realities of human sexuality that God created?” That second question does not demand that the person with this romantic attraction enter into a heterosexual union in order to be fulfilled as a human being (similarly, God does not demand the person with homosexual attraction enter into a heterosexual union).
Rather, the second question merely asks what the meaning is of sexuality and romance. If the power to decide how these realities are defined is given to the individual person in the moment, then the person will never have just one meaning. Some days having sex with a person might mean “I’m lonely,” other days it might mean “I’m bored.” It may even mean “I love this person and want to be with them forever,” but the next week it might change to “I thought I loved this person but now I can’t stand the sight of them.”
Catholics believe that God created the world with the definitions of these realities displayed in the very appearance of both the human body and the natural world. Human beings find fulfillment in observing these realities through their actions. The conscience does not feel uncomfortable or wrong when we operate on the definitions of human sexuality created by God.
And so, Mary doesn’t feel that discomfort anymore. She feels the relief of not living in two worlds, because she could not fully be in either world. “No one can have two masters.”
Thank you for your replies.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.