Romantic involvement with multiple people - how can it be anything else than wrong?

[chevalier]

As the topic says. If I get it right, some people are saying it’s morally permissible if not actually proper. Not even platonic involvement, but building actual relationships (of which all except one are to be interrupted if the person is to marry and all of them if the person is going to become religious), including physical things like mouth kissing.

I disagree. I claim it violates the VIIth commandment (in practice, probably often also V, VI, VIII) and the natural law and is thus incompatible with Christianity. It belongs to polygamous societies, not to a Christian one.

The idea that such behaviour is not loose and in fact befitting a Catholic, is absurd to me and I feel offended in my love for my faith, along with its moral and social teaching. I’m asking for more explanation.

Personally, I would never let myself develop anything romantic with a woman believing romantic involvement isn’t exclusive. I haven’t done anything like that myself, either. I have gone to places with many different women, including even those who had a relationship with someone else, but romantic things have only ever been with one girl at a time. Most priests, Catholic catechists and serious believers, as well non-Catholic equivalents I know, agree with me on this one.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

I agree with you too. In society today it’s generally assumed that unless a couple are officially “together”, they are free to date other people, but I would never do so. I think it would be okay to have one-on-one activities with more than one person at a time if you are still trying to see if there is a romantic interest worth pursuing, but once it moved into that romantic phase (kissing, even holding hands), I think it would move into a realm where doing the same things with anyone else could be deeply hurtful.

 

[selvaraj]

I agree with you too,

In Christ,
selvaraj

 

[BLB_Oregon]

If you are saying that a woman should not allow herself to be courted by more than one suitor, I can’t go quite so far as that. If two fellows profess love for you, you don’t have to choose just one of them to date… nor do you have to choose the first one who manages to steal a kiss. You do have to be honest that there* is* someone else and that you are not yet able to decide. One of the three, however, should have it in them to keep this from going on too long.

And what if they don’t express any interest in a long-term relationship, but still want to hold your hands while out walking? I don’t think that in itself is reason to call off anyone else expressing an interest. Again, you have to be honest with all concerned that you are “seeing” others. Whatever you do, one suitor who sees you with another should not be surprised at what he sees!

Should one wait until engagement to kiss? That is a little strong. And if a woman is not asked, how can she gauge how close or far a fellow is to popping the question? Hmmmm. But honesty is the key. A woman who is “involved” with one guy who has not asked her to marry is perfectly within her rights to inform him that she has been asked out by someone else and has taken him up on his offer.

Dating “exclusively” is by mutual agreement. As long as you are honest, you’re not bound to get permission or give your first suitor the unequivocal boot before you branch out again. That is my opinion… I think honesty requires you let any fellow that you date seriously to know what your opinion is, up front. Ground rules aren’t societal any more. You have to make yourself clear and allow him to make himself clear, too, and give each other room for a change of heart… because hearts do change, with experience.

When I was in high school, couples who were dating would do so exclusively almost immediately. I think this was a mistake… even though romance and romantic words have a way of flying very easily when the inexperienced first try courtship. So there is a middle ground to be taken. The problem is, it is so infrequently taken these days that may be expected to be seen as a lack of interest.

Courtship has its hazards. If you won’t be hurt, you’re either going to have to get very lucky or be so careful that you may miss all the boats. But that is one choice. After all, you only have to find one. The less “history” you have racked up, the easier that one will go.

 

[chevalier]

Holding hands is something good people do. Married ladies would lean on friends’ arms when walking before WW2. I’m also aware that some people kiss friends on the lips instead of the cheek when saying hello or bye. But they are special cases. How about a standard Catholic girl kissing with many guys? Let’s say she keeps rewarding her suitors with mouth kisses. I believe it’s loose. I would never court a woman who had done that unless she regretted. I would probably not be able to see her as a good wife material anyway, I think, and we be quite unable to get over it.

 

[st_felicity]

In our society, everything–and I mean EVERYTHING–pushes people toward their baser sexual lusts. Watch TV for a while–it’s id candy. Comercials, cartoons, news stories, music videos, and Holy Wa! Prime time! And it’s been going on so long it seems “normal”. Remeber “Three’s Company”? Sexual inuendo was the FORMULA! And the children who have grown up in this environment (many are parents of teens now) don’t KNOW that it’s wrong and that it has a detrimental effect on their self-worth and the society as a whole. We are bombarded by sex everywhere, and by far MOST of it is unmarried and uncommitted and if it “feels right” GO FOR IT!

So when a child see this NON-STOP, and their friends are all getting into “relationships” or whatever, it is no longer–“courting”. it becomes playing at being adult–and they have a skewed notion of what being “adult” means. It is a recipe for disaster. Lots of parents are just happy their kid isn’t pregnant. The parents need to un-skew their vision of nrmal to!

Sorry for the rant. And sorry if I strayed from the topic a bit…

 

[puzzleannie]

in my day it was called being a slut

 

[chevalier]

One correction to the opening post: “I claim it violates the VIIth commandment (in practice, probably often also V, VI, VIII)” should be “I claim it violates the VIth commandment (in practice, probably often also V, VII, VIII)”.

 

[Island_Oak]

puzzleannie:

in my day it was called being a slut

Annie-PLEASE stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think!!

 

[pnewton]

Depending on how you define romantic behavior, I have no problem with it. I see nothing in the 10 commandments that forbid romance, per se, when lying, lust and promiscuity are not involved.

 

[st_felicity]

pnewton:

Depending on how you define romantic behavior, I have no problem with it. I see nothing in the 10 commandments that forbid romance, per se, when lying, lust and promiscuity are not involved.

But if you’re “romantic” with more than one person at a time and your intention is for your own pleasure rather than with an aim toward a more permanant vocation…well…puzzleannie can tell you what THAT is…

 

[JimG]

In my day it was just called “playing the field.”
“Going steady” for teens was frowned upon.

 

[pnewton]

st_felicity:

But if you’re “romantic” with more than one person at a time and your intention is for your own pleasure rather than with an aim toward a more permanant vocation…well…puzzleannie can tell you what THAT is…

If You are romantic with one person at a time with the intention being towards your own pleasure, then that’s okay?

Like I said, it depends on what you meant by romantic. When I dated multiple people as a teen, it was just the hand-holding and enjoying whatever the entertainment venue was for the evening. I thougth it was romantic and non-sinful.

 

[JimG]

If a boy wants to take a girl to see the new Star Wars movie this weekend, surely it doesn’t require a serious commitment, and a promise not to take some other girl the second, third, and fourth times he sees it. (After all, the first girl might get bored.)

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Chevalier, from all of your passionate posts on this issue I think this may be something you need to deal with. Most of your ideas make a whole lot of sense… but you seem to assume that anyone promoting their child having multiple “dates” as opposed to letting them become heaviliy involved with one person is doing a grave wrong.

Who in your life do you view as a “loose woman”? Can this possibly be affecting your perspective? It just seems like you are a little over the top on this issue and not really hearing what the others are saying.

Not everyone who disagrees with your view is promoting loose behavior. What most are saying (here and on the previous thread) is that they prefer their child not be romantically involved at all. They seem to promote going on “dates” with different people and not becoming heavily involved with anyone.

You take this to mean that we all promote slutty behavior (how did you put it? Nookie?). Most of us don’t. Like JimG pointed out in his above post, a date does not require a serious commitment. He does not advocate groping in the movie theater, just seeing a movie.

You seem to equate date with romantic involvement (open mouth kissing, groping etc) where most of us just consider a date to be an outing of two people who are potentially looking for someone to become romantically involved with. If they are not then it is just plain old friendship.

If and when I have children (male or female) I will be placing emphasis on their family, schooling, and relationship with God. “Dating” will be a social activity where he or she can go out with a member of the opposite sex and enjoy themselves (at an as yet to be determined appropriate age). Maybe it’s a concert or a movie. Maybe it’s dinner with the parents. Either way it is not promoting loose behavior. I will instill in them that being romantically involved with one single person is reserved for finding a spouse. And certain behaviors are to be reserved for one who is romantically involved.

Neither of us wants our future daughter to run around being the town slut.

Malia

 

[st_felicity]

pnewton:

If You are romantic with one person at a time with the intention being towards your own pleasure, then that’s okay?

No…by your definition of “romantic” it sounds like it was a first or second date kind of thing–looking for the one you may want to get to know better with the intention of eventually finding THE one. I don’t find that a problem or sinful…

But I think the point is, if the “dating” is repetative, with several (or even two) people at the same time and there are demonstrations of affection like kissing with these several people, with the sole intention of “having a good time” and no actual concern for discovering the qualities the girl would like in a future mate, then the girl is “using” the boys—and it is NEVER right to use another human being. She is using them for fun, for stimulation, to massage her ego, to get a free lunch, to feel important, to feel desireable. That is what is wrong with it–it’s using another for your own self-gratification. That’s not right.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

JimG:

In my day it was just called “playing the field.”
“Going steady” for teens was frowned upon.

I think this is wise. Playing the field gives a person an idea of what sort of people are out there. “Going steady” between people too young to marry, OTOH, makes it extremely difficult to keep the behavior appropriate. There is more than one road leading to a broken heart!

On the practical side, exclusive interest tends not to be something that can easily be enforced. Trying to enforce it often backfires.

Better that the policy on “romantic behavior” is
“Well, go steady if you must, but the rules apply even if you’re in Love .”
rather than “Being in Love is the moral ideal.”

 

[pnewton]

st_felicity:

is using them for fun, for stimulation, to massage her ego, to get a free lunch, to feel important, to feel desireable. That is what is wrong with it–it’s using another for your own self-gratification. That’s not right.

Gotcha. So your point of using someone is not just for physical pleasure, but ego boosting, free lunch, etc., basically misleading more than one person on as to intentions. You are right, then.

Yes, I was refering more to the one or two date situation, although sometimes this type of friendship dating can go a lot longer. I had one girl I dated a dozen times over three years, while dating others. I never lied about the circumstance and everything was above board. Yet whe was a friend first. Sometimes, especially if one is years from being a marrying age, this is the safest way to date. It lessens the pressure toward physical affection.

 

[chevalier]

pnewton:

Depending on how you define romantic behavior, I have no problem with it. I see nothing in the 10 commandments that forbid romance, per se, when lying, lust and promiscuity are not involved.

Having more than one romance going, even platonic or restricted to closed-mouth kissing and holding hands, is promiscuity. Lust is not only sexual - such romancing kissing, even if not sexual (which is hard to believe) is like gluttony. I’m not talking about people who kiss friends on the lips, because they would do that even when married. I’m talking about romantic kissing even if it’s closed-mouth.

st_felicity:

But if you’re “romantic” with more than one person at a time and your intention is for your own pleasure rather than with an aim toward a more permanant vocation…well…puzzleannie can tell you what THAT is…

Well said. Now, if Lord Jesus had a sister, how many boys would she keep kissing at one time? Would Blessed Virgin Mary do that before marrying Joseph? How about first Christians? It’s slutty all the way. One doesn’t have to sleep with people to be a slut.

Adding to what st_felicity said, I would still insist there is a violation of the VIth in such slutty behaviour.

JimG:

In my day it was just called “playing the field.”
“Going steady” for teens was frowned upon.

Kissing half the town wasn’t?

I would strongly advise against “getting steady”, but if you want to kiss etc, kiss one. If you can’t commit to one person, stop kissing, embracing, writing sweet letters and all, dammit. Can’t both have the cake and eat it.

pnewton:

Like I said, it depends on what you meant by romantic. When I dated multiple people as a teen, it was just the hand-holding and enjoying whatever the entertainment venue was for the evening. I thougth it was romantic and non-sinful.

Whatever is romantic and non-exclusive is at best objectively disordered with potentially extenuated culpability (we’re talking teens), at worst sinful. Extenuated culpability works for teens who do something ignorantly but doesn’t work for their parents and teachers because the ignorance doesn’t apply to them.

Seeing many people and keeping crushes from taking over one’s brain is a great idea. It didn’t take me too long to realise that the whole getting a girlfriend thing was pointless when I was way too young to marry. Next realisation was what would I need one for? Friendship can have anyway, sex etc can’t have anyway, so why bother? And I stopped looking for gfs, even if I did “fall in love” a couple of times, at the time sincerely hoping for the girl to be the one. I agree with the idea that non-romantic seeing people shouldn’t be exclusive. Dammit, can’t priests or married people see their friends of the opposite gender? Making that sort of thing exclusive sounds like a very sick idea – and teenagers often see exclusivity this way. But I repeat once again: all the pinky romantic stuff, drawing hearts, sending love poems and Valentine cards, kissing (even closed mouth) etc, should be exclusive. It’s best avoided, I agree. But it needs to be exclusive. Come on, it takes a slut to send Valentine cards with hearts and love poems to multiple people. It’s slutty to date five boys, hold hands and kiss each of them on the mouth. Teaching kids it’s proper should be called Harlotry for Beginners. Introduction to one night stands.

JimG:

If a boy wants to take a girl to see the new Star Wars movie this weekend, surely it doesn’t require a serious commitment, and a promise not to take some other girl the second, third, and fourth times he sees it. (After all, the first girl might get bored.)

Yeah! Sounds reasonable. But that sort of thing you can do with a married friend being married yourself to someone else. And you can do that when you’re priest and the woman is a nun. Because it’s only friends. But I have a problem when it gets romantic. Sweet nothings, love poems, holding hands, kissing. This sort of thing.

Feanaro’s Wife:

Most of your ideas make a whole lot of sense… but you seem to assume that anyone promoting their child having multiple “dates” as opposed to letting them become heaviliy involved with one person is doing a grave wrong.

I believe that teaching children that they should keep seeing many people, shouldn’t act on crushes, shouldn’t get involved and had better wait till they can reasonably think of marriage is a very good, plausible and expedient thing.

 

[chevalier]

But I believe teaching children they should act romantically without romantic commitment, have multiple romantic partners to find out what it tastes like and should kiss five boys rather than one, is wrong. To me, it’s a mortal sin. I really hope no one in this forum is doing this.

Who in your life do you view as a “loose woman”? Can this possibly be affecting your perspective? It just seems like you are a little over the top on this issue and not really hearing what the others are saying.

I get the feeling others aren’t always listening and I even keep repeating things. What you can do with friends when you are married, you surely can do before you are married, as well. Such things shouldn’t be exclusive, ever, for anyone. That would be wrong. But building multiple relationships is wrong. Performing romantic actions without romantic involvement is wrong. Romantic involvement with multiple people is wrong. Feelings are morally neutral, but acting on them isn’t. Romantic kisses are acts, not feelings. Loose woman is one that acts romantically or sexually with more than one man at a time, and/or without romantic feelings (i.e. without at least thinking she has some).

You take this to mean that we all promote slutty behavior (how did you put it? Nookie?). Most of us don’t. Like JimG pointed out in his above post, a date does not require a serious commitment. He does not advocate groping in the movie theater, just seeing a movie.

You can see that movie with a priest or nun or a married person if it’s only friendship. But if it’s something you shouldn’t be doing if you were married, or if the other person were married, then it needs to be exclusive and aimed at marriage (because marriage is exclusive). Romantic kissing removed from exclusive romantic involvement geared towards and looking at marriage, is wrong.

You seem to equate date with romantic involvement (open mouth kissing, groping etc) where most of us just consider a date to be an outing of two people who are potentially looking for someone to become romantically involved with.

Here’s some logic:

1. If you are kissing romantically, it suggests you have found someone to get romantically involved with.
2. If you have found, you don’t need to look further.

Also, if you’re not involved, you shouldn’t be acting as if you were. Ergo: no kissing. No love letters. No Valentine cards. No sweet talk. No flirting.

If they are not then it is just plain old friendship.

Plain old friendship isn’t romantic and doesn’t include kissing and acting like loving doves.

I will instill in them that being romantically involved with one single person is reserved for finding a spouse. And certain behaviors are to be reserved for one who is romantically involved.

As will I. Mouth kissing belongs to the reserve behaviours, as do love poems, hearts, red roses, Valentines and the like. Anything which is romantic belongs only in romantic involvement.

Neither of us wants our future daughter to run around being the town slut.

Unless a woman would continue kissing her friends on the mouth after marriage and kisses on the mouth out of friendship and nothing romantic, it’s slutty. I have known women who have kissed friends on the mouth. But it was different from girls who exchanged romantic kisses with guys on non-exclusive basis. The latter is slutty, the former isn’t.

BLB_Oregon:

I think this is wise. Playing the field gives a person an idea of what sort of people are out there. “Going steady” between people too young to marry, OTOH, makes it extremely difficult to keep the behavior appropriate. There is more than one road leading to a broken heart!

Playing the field entitles you to get to know people, their personalities and interests. Not their bodies or their mouth or whatever. Without romantic affection, signs of romantic affection are improper. Also, romantic affection for many people is disordered and acting on it is wrong. Therefore, signs of romantic affection are only ever proper between one man and one woman at a time, if at all.