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

[chevalier]

But watching them together, their closeness, their romance—their obvious being “in love”—this is the thought that came to me: If they continue as an exclusive couple, I wouldn’t lay odds on that pledge lasting a year, let alone 18 months.

If they want to maintain abstinence until marriage, they need to either quit seeing each other exclusively, or get married. By pairing off as a couple, they put themselves in more danger than if they were only casually dating.

So they should instead throw kisses away to vent? Do they same they do but with multiple people? Using polygamy to save chastity. It’s like letting people do a little non-mortal fighting so they wouldn’t kill each other. Exclusive relationship is something good and looking at something even better. Polyamory is already crippled.

I have never had sex with anyone and I have never had a non-exclusive dating romance. I have sworn abstinence over and over in countless ceremonies. I would refuse to be kissed as a part of any non-exclusive romantic affair, even if I wouldn’t refuse a friendly kiss looking the same on the surface. Want to bet how long my word is going to last?

 

[chevalier]

As for non-exclusive dating, here’s some view that I can accept:
external:

For instance, if a critical mass of students in any school, or on any campus, decided to boycott the current rules of serial exclusivity, they could change the culture of that school. But it would have to be a critical mass — enough girls in enough different cliques to simply say, to every boy, “We’re not going to go steady with anybody”; enough boys willing to have real friendships with a number of girls at the same time, rather than one semi-marriage with one girl at a time.
The alternative norm is this: Exclusive, one-on-one unstructured dating should be viewed as preliminary to a proposal of marriage. And until a couple is contemplating marriage, the model for male-female relationships should be fraternal friendship. There’s no need for exclusive, one-on-one dating, “going steady,” unless and until a couple is contemplating marriage. Which means that for high school and college, the model to follow should be non-exclusive, non-pairing off, non-sexual. Girls and boys should not be trying to attract one another; they should instead be developing deep friendships with each other.

From Catholic Culture: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4169

“Until a couple is contemplating marriage, the model for male-female relationships should be fraternal friendship.”

Is romance, even “chate”, something you do with brothers and sisters? I’m sure no Christian person in his or her right mind could arrive at such an idea.

If non-exclusive dating means what the gentleman quoted said, I’m all for non-exclusive dating. If non-exclusive dating is allowed to be in fact a multilateral parallel romance, with fuzzy feelings, nookie nookie and wink wink nudge nudge kind of stuff, then I’m all against it. Have many friends, court one of them when you’re ready. Nothing in between, no sweet nookie, no indulging. This is what children should be taught.

 

[chevalier]

NOTE: Casual dating is NOT the same as being promiscuous. Casual dating has no entanglements, no promises of sexual behavior or committment. It is merely a socializing between a girl and a boy. To the movies, get a milk shake, get to know each other, go home, Innocent (Read that: INNOCENT) goodnight kiss maybe/maybe not. Period.

Merely socialising between a girl and a boy? If that were true, it should be allowed for married people to do and for priests. A mouth kiss is not innocent. Show me a priest doing it with married ladies.

To clarify what I said: My argument was that my girls who went to high school in the 80’s thought they had to “go steady” and that casual dating was wrong. My objection to that is I think that being exclusively involved in relationships is dead-wrong and dangerous for high schoolers in particular.

Errr… so courting is now wrong? From multiromance to mariage? Great preparation. Now show me where it says that romantic love should not be exclusive. I will agree that concubinage is wrong, but chaste love is still exclusive if it’s of the eros kind and not of the agape kind. In short, if you love the person in a different way than you love your brother and you kiss the person in a different way than you kiss your brother, it has to be exclusive.

Lust is always wrong, even in marriage. Marriage is more exclusive than anything. Therefore, marriage should be banned per your definition.

Does “dead wrong” mean a grave sin or some such?

To the movies, get a milk shake, get to know each other, go home, Innocent (Read that: INNOCENT) goodnight kiss maybe/maybe not. Period.

If it’s any kind of kiss that a brother wouldn’t get, or differs anyhow from a kiss that a brother gets, it clearly exceeds fraternal or friendly boundaries and therefore belongs in courting, not in getting to know people.

He has his own issues to deal with, and I will pray that he can come to terms in God’s Grace with them and perhaps someday have a wife and family of his own.

Thank you for care and for prayers, but I don’t see what I’m saying as issues. I believe it takes serious issues to accept the possibility of anything more than fraternal friendship but less than marriage which isn’t looking at marriage. The romantic themes are absolutely unnecessary in fraternal friendship and so is mouth kissing, which is a romantic expression in the context of dating. It’s only innocent if the boy or girl is one and the hope for him to be the right one (translates as the one eventually to marry) sincere and love between both involved. Only then is a romantic kiss innocent and right, no matter if there is any immediate sexual value in it or not. When it’s boy #1 on Monday, boy #2 on Tuesday, boy #1 on Wednesday and boy #2 on Thursday, it’s not innocent. It’s toying with feelings and a setup for promiscuity. It defies the monogamous model of marital love into which the romantic love is supposed to evolve.

What is not an occasion of sin for Marilyn or her children may well be an occasion of sin for Chevalier.

Even if it isn’t an occasion to a sexual sin, it’s still wrong for the fact that it’s romantic (eros instead of agape, amor and not caritas) and not exclusive or looking at marriage. As for me, I’m actually of the “less easily stimulated” kind. Marital vows include romantic love as well as sex. Romantic exclusivity is a part of conjugal love. Whatever love is there between a man and a woman and one different from fraternal, needs to be conjugal love seeking marriage or at least romantic love on the way to evolving into conjugal love. By definition, exclusive.

 

[JimG]

Originally Posted by external:
For instance, if a critical mass of students in any school, or on any campus, decided to boycott the current rules of serial exclusivity, they could change the culture of that school. But it would have to be a critical mass — enough girls in enough different cliques to simply say, to every boy, “We’re not going to go steady with anybody”; enough boys willing to have real friendships with a number of girls at the same time, rather than one semi-marriage with one girl at a time. Well, that pretty much describes the 1950’s and 60’s. And it was a far safer environment for teens.

Chevalier, it seems to me that your position pretty much comes down to:
No dating, period. At least until you’re ready for marriage.

And that’s fine with me. But if teens are allowed to date, it seems to me that the 1950’s non-exclusive model is far safer for their souls than the exclusive pairing off–long before they are ready to handle it–which is the current model.

 

[chevalier]

Read again Marilyn’s post #51. There is nothing sinful in what she describes. Not mortal. Not venial. Not even an occasion of sin. Nothing.

The dating pattern she describes is far less hazardous to the morals of our youth than the current pattern of exclusive pairing off.

Non-exclusive romance is already something real, not a hazard. Romantic love is indivisible and exclusive.

He may be doing well by his soul to avoid dating anyone for the time being.

I intend to keep friendship friendship and love love without any intermingling. It’s not licit to have anything more than friendship which is not looking at marriage. This comes from papal teaching and has always been the norm in the Church. Multiple romance is not a subjective occasion for sexual sin for me. I could do that without thinking of sex. The sin which is in it is toying with feelings and splitting indivisible love between many people. Either this or using symbols and external appearances of love without the substance of it. Either way, objectively wrong.

The priests he has been talking to know him better than we do.

The priests clearly said the idea was opposed to papal teaching and the whole eaching of the Church. They said romantic love was indivisible and getting to know people gave no entitlements to romantic kissing which belongs only in a relationship looking at marriage. They said even holding hands was wrong if the motive was romantic and it wasn’t one girl at a time. The priest yesterday specifically said it was not a sin to pursue an exclusive romantic interest in good faith, looking at marriage or at least hoping for it, but it was a sin to have a non-exclusive one. Engaging in romantic plays without a relationship was also sinful. That’s what the priests specifically said. That was no “Father, what should I do with my life?” kind of talk. It was specifically about teaching children that romance is okay but exclusive is bad, or romantic acts without romantic love. He said teaching such things was wrong and the one before him said the same. Both stated friendship was the absolute border for anything non-exclusive and romance exceeded friendship, no matter how “light”, “chaste” or “early stage”. Also, they affirmed that the kind of teaching that it’s OK to have even slightly romantic dates with more than one person at a time was not Catholic. That hardly sounds like chev’s own problem with scrupolosity and his weakness.

As long as he does not extrapolate his experience to be universally applicable to all others (which is the bone I have had to pick with him),

The priests specifically said it was not personal and not even cultural but universal in Catholicism.

or judge others based on his own known weakness

Ekhm. No reply to that.

he can make his trial into a witness. That isn’t a bad thing.

It’s not my trial. It’s my concern for young Catholics being taught wrong things under the guise of the teaching of John Paul II.

 

[chevalier]

JimG:

Chevalier, it seems to me that your position pretty much comes down to:
No dating, period. At least until you’re ready for marriage.

And that’s fine with me. But if teens are allowed to date, it seems to me that the 1950’s non-exclusive model is far safer for their souls than the exclusive pairing off–long before they are ready to handle it–which is the current model.

JimG, I agree to a large extent. Furthermore, I will even concede that it’s possible to kiss a family member or friend on the mouth without it being romantic or that it’s possible to kiss romantically without it being sexual. But the fact it’s not sexual doesn’t mean that it’s right for it to be romantic. Marriage isn’t about sex, romance is part of the teaching too. Romance also needs to be tied with marriage closely. The model you describe – the fifties and sixties, which was a novelty at that time – includes behaviour exceeding the boundaries of fraternal friendship. Romance does. One could kiss a brother or sister romantically on the surface but it would cease to be romantic even if it looked so. The romantic kiss is distinct from that. It’s not a fraternal expression, it’s a part of the dating process. It’s tied to building a relationship. One not looking at marriage but still drawing from the pool and, indeed, in the field. It doesn’t need to be sexual to be intrinsically wrong.

Cut anything romantic out of dating, as well as anything sexual, and it may well be non-exclusive. Add romance and it has to be courting. By the American terms, at least. Something looking at marriage, at any rate.

I too consider pairing off to carry risks. But doing the same stuff without pairing off first is wrong. It’s also wrong if it isn’t open to marriage. I don’t have a problem with the fact that someone kisses someone without calling him/her an exclusive partner if there is a hope of it. But any kind of pre-agreement to limited non-exclusive romance is deeply wrong. Something one couldn’t do with anyone other than spouse after marriage should only be done with one sincere and serious bona fide love interest before marriage, if at all allowed.

 

[MarilynIN]

Well, Chev, I think we are discussing several different things here, we aren’t even on the same page with what our concepts are, as I re-read through the whole of this.

I still think that kids need to learn how to relate to the opposite sex. They can do that in non-sexual dating situations. I do not believe that most teenagers, or even beyond, people in their early-to-mid-twenties in this day and age, are ready to get involved in a relationship, even if marriage is the main goal. They aren’t emotionally equipped or mature enough to handle it. There are exceptions, of course. I am 100% against the dangers of excluvisity for a 16 or 17 year old, for example. They are way too young for the most part to be “going steady” and seeing only one individual–it could easily lead to sexual intimacy before marriage. I would dare say that there are many college kids and people in early adulthood who aren’t ready for exlusively dating as well. For these people, non-exclusive, non-sexual dating is the best option.

As for kisses, not every kiss is sexual in overtone. You also are comparing apples to oranges. To state that if it is right for someone to have an innocent kiss, then it is right for a priest to kiss someone reminds me of the trap that the Pharisees tried to set for Jesus when they asked him if the people should pay taxes. Let’s not even go there with this one because no way can you compare the two examples of kissing.

Last thing, then I am done with it. I will agree to disagree. For you, dating must have a mission: find a mate. For most people, eventually, that is true; however, just to go out and enjoy the company of another person is not wrong, and that isn’t a sin, and it isn’t undesirable to learn about other people and have male or female friends before settling down. I also highly doubt that hell or even purgatory are filled with people who have had a good-night kiss of brief duration when their dates have left them off at the front door.

It is wrong for teens and beyond in some cases, to get involved in monogomous “going steady” type of relationships. They just aren’t equipped to handle it.

But, you can disagree. This is opinion, after all, and mine that I believe as firmly as you believe yours.

OH, and one last thing: Yes, dating is a relatively recent invention. If it’s not for you, there are still matchmakers who can help you find the perfect mate, and you can skip the whole dating process.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Since no one really responded to this question except for Chevalier, I shall ask it again, as I think it is quite pertinent.

If you were married, would it be ok to give an innocent, romantic (but not sexual) kiss to someone who was not your spouse?
Why or why not?

I am much more interested in your reasons than in whether you say “yes” or “no”.

 

[Prometheum_x]

It seems that in modern society there are several different classes male-female relationships. There is friendship, there is dating, there is engagement, and there is marriage. That list may not be exhaustive, but it will do as a start.

In the context of this discussion, the nature of engagement and marriage are fairly clear. Marriage is Scripturally defined as exclusive and engagement demands exclusivity naturally by virtue of its relationship to marriage.

However, the nature of friendship and dating are not so clear, particularly in regards to making a distinction between friendship and dating. It would appear that there is something about the nature of dating that makes it distinct from a regular friendship, but what is it? Can anyone identify the essential element of dating that allows us to classify it as something other than a friendship?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Prometheum_x:

If you were married, would it be ok to give an innocent, romantic (but not sexual) kiss to someone who was not your spouse?
Why or why not?

I am much more interested in your reasons than in whether you say “yes” or “no”.

No. Even if it is possible for romance to not be sexual, prudence dictates that it ought to be able to go in that direction. Romance should be restricted to someone you would consider as a spouse, and that is available to consider you. To do otherwise isn’t necessarily a sin, but it certainly could be. Besides, life is hard enough, without going out looking for heartache.

You should do nothing that might hurt your spouse or make them feel you might have betrayed them. Your spouse, once they are your spouse, should never have to see you give anyone anything that could be described as a romantic kiss.

To do something that makes someone feel jealous isn’t in itself a sin. If your ex-fiance is at your wedding, they’re likely to feel a pang of jealousy, whether you ever let them do so much as hold your hand. Sometimes these things can’t be avoided. But when they can be, they should be.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Lest I be unfair and only ask questions, never stating my own opinions, I will do so now.

I for one cannot comprehend how romance can possibly be non-exclusive. To me, authentic romance says, “I desire you. I want to be devoted to you. I want to love you. . . I give my heart to you, if you will receive it.”

A romantic kiss proclaims that message. If it does not, what is the purpose of a kiss?

And what is this notion of a non-sexual romantic kiss? All romance is sexual. It may not be explicitly so, but it is still sexual. If it were not, why do we not have romantic relationships with people of the same sex? Why don’t we give romantic kisses to friends of the same sex? Because there is something inherent in romance that points to the complementarity and mutual attraction between male and female.

What is the purpose of romance? What is its effect? This eros desire, both sensual and emotional, serves to lead those possessing it deeper into love with each other.

I would contend that romance can never be a casual thing, though it may be treated casually. It is a very serious thing. It is the meeting of two hearts (for what romance can ever have 3 at once?), hearts who begin to dance with each other.

Now, I have never kissed anyone. I have never officially dated anyone, courted anyone, or any other such thing. So perhaps one might think I am simply being much to idealistic.

If that is the case, blame John Paul II. He planted the ideas in my mind.

 

[Fashina86]

You are not an idealist. In fact, I wish that more people had those ideas. A romantic kiss proclaims that message. If it does not, what is the purpose of a kiss?

It seems to me that the value of a kiss is loosing its meaning. It says “I love you” and not that “I want to be physical”. Too many teens are using it as a way to get a “good feeling” and not as a renewal of a commitment to each other. That is discouraging

 

[chevalier]

Prometheum_x, I agree with you on whatever you said above. I also agree with Fashina – I wish more people could share your ideas. Which are also my ideas. And which is, I believe, what John Paul II of beloved memory has also taught – and not the ideas of “non-exclusive chaste romance” as his Theology of the Body is being mispresented by even chastity sites and chastity speakers.

There is no such thing as a totally non-sexual romance. There wouldn’t be romance if sex didn’t exist. Your paragraph about kisses with female and not with male friends has made me think about the custom of females kissing females on the cheek and between the genders too but not typically between two guys - as it most commonly looks for friends. It looks like a nice custom, more courteous and with a slight accent of chivalry than anything else, but it already says much about human nature. How so much more is a romantic mouth kiss then? Since about sixties or fifties, it’s been a way of getting physical. People feel it’s no big deal and it looks all right to them on the first date, even non-exclusive, or in a stage play or in first aid training (instead of getting a plastic model or same gender person).

BLB_Oregon:

You should do nothing that might hurt your spouse or make them feel you might have betrayed them. Your spouse, once they are your spouse, should never have to see you give anyone anything that could be described as a romantic kiss.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I take it further than the literal meaning of what you said and I insist that no one who has received such a kiss should see the person kissing another in such a way. This most of all means that most people who get it shouldn’t get it. I can’t fathom the idea of such kisses being swapped non-exclusively without sin, even if the sin is not an immediately sexual one (thus I’m probably building the construct of a non-sexual sin against erotic love).

 

[chevalier]

As for kisses, not every kiss is sexual in overtone. You also are comparing apples to oranges. To state that if it is right for someone to have an innocent kiss, then it is right for a priest to kiss someone reminds me of the trap that the Pharisees tried to set for Jesus when they asked him if the people should pay taxes. Let’s not even go there with this one because no way can you compare the two examples of kissing.

Last thing, then I am done with it. I will agree to disagree. For you, dating must have a mission: find a mate. For most people, eventually, that is true; however, just to go out and enjoy the company of another person is not wrong, and that isn’t a sin, and it isn’t undesirable to learn about other people and have male or female friends before settling down. I also highly doubt that hell or even purgatory are filled with people who have had a good-night kiss of brief duration when their dates have left them off at the front door.

So the question is, how far can you take it without taking it too far, right?

No, that’s not the right way of thinking. Also, to claim that dating is merely enjoying the other person’s company is a fallacy. If it were so, it would be allowed in marriage. And isn’t it infedility to date romantically and kiss romantically after you’re married? Just what is it you’d be seeking? One doesn’t need to have romance to enjoy the company of a person of the opposite sex. Where did you get the idea? Can’t people keep it just friends if they aren’t equipped to have it steady? If they aren’t equipped to have it steady, they aren’t equipped to have it at all. Marriage is a sacrament of permanence and stability, not of suddenly switching from polyamory to monogamy.

Women and men can have a conversation, for one. They can share sports activities, play some games like chess or cards, dance, whatever. They don’t have to romance each other to enjoy the company. This is also true for dates. Good knight kisses may be on the cheek and may be fraternal. Why insist on making them mouth, romantic etc?

There’s either friendship or love. And love is exclusive. Polyamory is wrong. There’s no such thing as a totally asexual romance and even if there were, it would still not be proper for married people, for example. Getting to know doesn’t include getting to know first-hand in romantic situations any more than it does to have foreplay with many people before deciding whom to pick for the permanent exclusive sexual partner. The concept is broken. I will not agree to disagree because in my opinion I would be committing a sin if I did. Polyamory simply cannot be reconciled with the Christian concept of permanent exclusive marriage and erotic love leading to it and serving it before the time of marriage. It’s unjustified consumption, for one. It creates vain hopes and disorder in heart. It’s doomed from the beginning because it can’t find fruition in the monogamous model of marriage – unless the multiple romances are all going to carry on after the person decides to marry and have sex with only one of his many lovers. And if they are not lovers, why do they insist on taking pleasures which are meant for lovers and for purpose other than pleasure itself?

It’s getting physical for the thrill of it. If not physically sexual, it’s sexual on the emotional level unless it’s fraternal. Yourself, you say it would be totally inappropriate for a priest. So what, would be appropriate for a married person who has sworn himself or herself to a single human person as much as the priest has sworn himself to God for chastity? If it would make cheating in marriage, how comes it’s supposed to be allowed with many people before marriage and with no connection to it?

Sure, you can kiss on the mouth without feeling a genital sexual reaction. But what about the quite physical thrill, increased body pressure, fuzzy feeling in the tummy and the general sense of being a man or a woman and enjoying a piece of female or male body (respectively)?

Is it also allowed for homosexual couples now? Perhaps to learn about men, a man needs to romance them and kiss them romantically? Or a woman kiss women? I’m telling you: to get to know the opposite gender on a social level, one doesn’t need any more romance than for his own gender. Would you say I don’t know men because I don’t romance them? No. So does a girl need to romance and kiss many boys at the same time to know the gender? Obviously not. And getting to know someone doesn’t give any entitlement to consumption.

 

[JimG]

chevalier:

I will not agree to disagree because in my opinion I would be committing a sin if I did.

Is that the concept that leads to filibusters?

In any case, I think that this subject has probably been talked to death. Still, I can’t help but think that if you actually raise your future daughter in the way you have described, the consequences could be unfortunate. If you forbid her from dating at all, that could lead to rebellion. If you allow her to go steady with a boy whenever she thinks she is “in love,” that will put her into an exclusive relationship she is not ready to handle, and which could be hazardous to her chastity. But you will apparently allow no middle ground, including the model of non-exclusive, non-sexual dating that was customary in the 50’s.

Earlier, you said, “As for non-exclusive dating, here’s some view that I can accept” followed by a quote from external describing pretty much how dating was conducted in the 50’s and 60’s. This is precisely the view outlined by Marilyn, yet you apparently reject her view. You kept attributing evil motives or consequences to those innocent dates that she described which were never in fact there.

As for kissing, I don’t get hung up there. I don’t think that a good night kiss on a casual date is necessarily either romantic or sexual. In my day, kissing was legal, safe, and rare. Everything else was illegal. If it’s just the goodnight kiss that turns a “friends” date into a “romance” date, then fine, no kissing! It’s still just a date, nothing more.

 

[chevalier]

JimG:

Earlier, you said, “As for non-exclusive dating, here’s some view that I can accept” followed by a quote from external describing pretty much how dating was conducted in the 50’s and 60’s. This is precisely the view outlined by Marilyn, yet you apparently reject her view. You kept attributing evil motives or consequences to those innocent dates that she described which were never in fact there.

There’s a difference. The source I mentioned described the seeing of the opposite gender I see as proper and have even done, actually. Non-sexual, non-romantic. Concentrated on getting to know someone who appears interesting. The result would be friendship or romance, depending on how it went. Probably because my environment wasn’t so saturated with sex as to make everyone feel that no contact was worth it without snapping at least a little male-female fun and at least something “chaste”. That would be loose. Early pairing up was frowned upon, but doing anything romantic without pairing up was (rightfully) regarded as worse because loose. The former would clearly breed danger but the latter was already behind a certain line.

It’s a reasonable idea from the point of view of bringing up a child that a couple of misplaced kisses need a parental address more than a rod of iron, but this shouldn’t be turned upside down to create the impression that it’s not only permissible but even advised to seek multiple romance or to engage in romantic activity without romantic commitment (that’s the same kind of attitude on which premarital sex relies). Lack of commitment is no excuse - it only makes matters worse because it’s plain taking without paying.

Again, I must stress that the idea that a man and a woman who are not repulsive and aren’t blood relations can’t spend together any time worth having if they don’t get male-female style of physical is the product of a sex-saturated culture.

It’s not so much about specific acts (I’ve seen mouth-kisses happening out of friendship between ladies or between ladies and guys but never between two guys – which surely says something about the supposed total just-friendliness of it), as about the idea of a polygamous semi-sexual stage, something between getting physical without commitment and getting multiple non-exclusive lovers. I wouldn’t have a problem with a friendly kiss on the mouth for a friend, done the same way as it would be with a sister. But the dating kisses are far from fraternal (or sororal, for that matter) and they are a sexual experience in the broad sense. It’s always a male-female kind of thing. If it really were fraternal, it would be done between not blood-related girls (sometimes is) and guys (never seen that happen but mother says she saw it on one journey) and in the exact same way. Mouth kissing might even be done with an opposite gender sibling but it wouldn’t feel the same.

So I will agree that it’s innocent when it happens within some commitment (if only internal) more or less aimed at permanence or with a view to such commitment. Someone kissing his or her childhood love isn’t doing anything wrong. But someone using romance for fun or pleasure divorces it from the real purpose. Any kind of a broadly understood sexual significance has to be wrong in non-exclusive circumstances. Not like it can’t be wrong in exclusive ones, but in non-exclusive it is already.

 

[chevalier]

Sex is just an expression of erotic love. Love is fruitful, not sex per se. That love is indivisible and exclusive and marriage is all about it, not just about sex, sex drive and sex acts, but the totality of the erotic love. You can be mistaken and misplace it, but you can’t split it up. My pet non-exclusive dating fallacy is the serial monogamy thing if sex isn’t part of it. First, exclusive romance without sex acts is called monogamy, while it is insisted that non-exclusive can’t be called polygamy. Second, it’s ignored that those parallel relationships aren’t obviously permanent and are going to be restocked if necessary. Attachment is also there, or rather multiple attachments. What’s worse from the point of view of the future marriage – an ex the girl didn’t sleep with but thought she was the right one so she was his girlfriend, or a couple of romantic lovers of whom the now husband was the luckiest one? Just wait until something stops working in the marriage or the euphoria fades down a bit. Plus, all extramarital affairs start as a romance rather than a sex fling, anyway. Not like we want marriage to be a permanent and exclusive sex fling. We need romance for marriage.

Putting more girls or guys in the picture may well be a good solution at times, but not in a romantic character. If a date is expected to be romantic and include a kiss, asking a girl out is asking to kiss her. And, also parents who won’t let a girl on a date with the same person twice in a row, de facto force the girl to get romantic and kiss with guys she doesn’t want to do it with and if she has a strong sense of monogamy, she’s going to feel like a slut for doing it but will still do it to be able to see her chosen one. Not like a guy couldn’t feel the same. In general, requiring anything in the romantic area is one big misunderstanding. Forbidding may be necessary. But positively requiring some kind of romantic behaviour to be done? That’s almost like ordering a sexual service.

 

[chevalier]

For anyone still convinced that non-exclusive low-stage romance, i.e. kissing half the town interchangeably, is the traditional way of managing the courting process, or that non-venereal physical male-female interaction is a way of merely having fun and socialising, here’s a link to an article by Winfrid Herbst SDS:

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/kissing.htm

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

For anyone still convinced that non-exclusive low-stage romance, i.e. kissing half the town interchangeably, is the traditional way of managing the courting process, or that non-venereal physical male-female interaction is a way of merely having fun and socialising, here’s a link to an article by Winfrid Herbst SDS:

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/kissing.htm

I am not convinced and remain that way. Why are you so obsessed with winning everyone over? What is wrong with healthy disagreement on non-essential items?

He states"Passionate kissing, just because intense or passionate, stirs up venereal pleasure and is forbidden under pain of serious sin."

One in four of the type of kissing he claims as definitively sinful. I do not even know that I agree with the whole article. (I am free to disagree). We should look to the catechism. This is the sure norm of Christian teaching.

 

[chevalier]

The Catechism doesn’t say that children should have multiple romantic partners, does it? Don’t know where some Catholic chastity sites and speakers got the idea.

The matter is not non-essential if proper upbringing of children for future marriage is concerned. Marks of love should be exclusive or else it leads to polygamy, prostitution and all kinds of licentiousness in the long run.

To me, it’s not an agree to disagree kind of matter. It gives children the wrong idea and distorts the view of the faith along with moral doctrine. I see the possibility of mortal sin from scandal and corruption of little ones for publicly preaching that it’s good to have many romances or swap love marks with half the town for one’s own physical if not always genital enjoyment. Engaging in such actions looks at least venial with proper prior knowledge, especially when premeditated. So it’s not just differing views on how to bring up children.