L
LongingSoul
Guest
I asked my 20 year old daughter what ‘make out’ means to kids nowadays. It means the same now as back in my day. It’s a romantic act. She said none of her friends ever ‘make out’ as an act of friendship.
- Status
S
SMGS127
Guest
That’s because it’s so eroticized now. But it doesn’t have to be. There are multitudes of examples of LGB Christians in celibate relationships in the modern age. It is a symptom of our emotionally repressed Puritan culture that so many things are seen as erotic. And again, public perception of it is irrelevant as making out is not an action that is done outdoors anyway, for both politeness and scandal purposes.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I fit under your 1st example. I have a sex drive (and it can be really high, depending on where I am in my cycle), but making out does not engage it at all. What engages it is knowing I’m going to have sex (unless it’s super-high, in which case it’s constant and severely annoying). Making out is not an indicator as to whether I will have sex. I am much more likely to have my sex drive engaged from a knowing look from my girlfriend than from a make-out session. Hearing responses, I suppose I am super-weird or something
.
O
One_point
Guest
SMGS, good day to you. You knw, I have been thinking about this discussion and the “clash of analogies” we had and I think I have found an analogy that suits us both. However, I will first explain why I still think that the analogies I proposed earlier apply and why the one you proposed does not:
-You rejected the analogies of married and religious/celibate who are attracted to other people because they involve a prior commitment. I still think they are appropriate because both they and same sex affairs involve an out of bounds relationship. The reason for why they are out-of-bound really are immaterial, and antecedent to the fact that they indeed ARE out-of-bounds; the one due to a prior voluntary commitment the other due to an unnatural pairing. However, for both, the common denominator that allows their similar treatment is tht there is no freedom to pursue the relationship in question or to put it differently, the soul or will of that priest/married man/monk/lesbian is not “open” to that other particular person desired in a romantic manner hence the same rules should logically apply.
-Therefore, the scenario (and analogy) you propose of both single lesbians being “free” and unattached is therefore flawed. They are only free and unattached as regards single MEN but not as regards fellow women.That is, their orientation not withstanding, ALL women are closed off from such affairs with their fellow women by nature.
-So it seems single lesbians are MUCH MORE closed off, much less “single” if you will, wrt each other than even a married man or a priest or monk can ever be. If as clear from your own analogies “single” means that freedom to commit to others in an exclusive fashion that priests and married men willingly give up when they make their vows, then Single lesbians are indeed not “single” to other lesbians or other women AT ALL. Lesbians do not even have that freedom to give up in the first place that married and priests had!
So I agree with you that they are not attached with a prior commitment and are free as long as they are single, but they are free to do precisely what everyone else is free to do, which is to pursue a romantic relationship with single MEN. But their can be no freedom to pursue it through avenues that are not even open to begin with, shut off by God himself by simply NOT providing that door in his design.
Think about it, a priest could potentially leave his ministry and marry licitly. A married man might not be validly married. Or his wife might die. Both these men are not absolutely restricted from a relationship with women in the same way a same sex couple is to each other.
-Having said all this, I propose analogy that avoids the “prior commitment” issue. How about a single brother and his single sister? Can they “make out”?
-You rejected the analogies of married and religious/celibate who are attracted to other people because they involve a prior commitment. I still think they are appropriate because both they and same sex affairs involve an out of bounds relationship. The reason for why they are out-of-bound really are immaterial, and antecedent to the fact that they indeed ARE out-of-bounds; the one due to a prior voluntary commitment the other due to an unnatural pairing. However, for both, the common denominator that allows their similar treatment is tht there is no freedom to pursue the relationship in question or to put it differently, the soul or will of that priest/married man/monk/lesbian is not “open” to that other particular person desired in a romantic manner hence the same rules should logically apply.
-Therefore, the scenario (and analogy) you propose of both single lesbians being “free” and unattached is therefore flawed. They are only free and unattached as regards single MEN but not as regards fellow women.That is, their orientation not withstanding, ALL women are closed off from such affairs with their fellow women by nature.
-So it seems single lesbians are MUCH MORE closed off, much less “single” if you will, wrt each other than even a married man or a priest or monk can ever be. If as clear from your own analogies “single” means that freedom to commit to others in an exclusive fashion that priests and married men willingly give up when they make their vows, then Single lesbians are indeed not “single” to other lesbians or other women AT ALL. Lesbians do not even have that freedom to give up in the first place that married and priests had!
So I agree with you that they are not attached with a prior commitment and are free as long as they are single, but they are free to do precisely what everyone else is free to do, which is to pursue a romantic relationship with single MEN. But their can be no freedom to pursue it through avenues that are not even open to begin with, shut off by God himself by simply NOT providing that door in his design.
Think about it, a priest could potentially leave his ministry and marry licitly. A married man might not be validly married. Or his wife might die. Both these men are not absolutely restricted from a relationship with women in the same way a same sex couple is to each other.
-Having said all this, I propose analogy that avoids the “prior commitment” issue. How about a single brother and his single sister? Can they “make out”?
S
SMGS127
Guest
Good day to you as well. This was brought up by Rau in a different thread actually, and the conclusion was that, yes, in fact, it would be licit if done for non-erotic reasons. Although most people would not do it due to a mixture of cultural and psychological reasons. Rin actually described the phenomenon of sibling physical repulsion much better than I ever could, so perhaps she could repeat herself here if she is reading this thread.
As for it being “out-of-bounds,” I am afraid I will have to disagree with you again. Relationships with marital aims are out of bounds for gays and lesbians with members of the same sex, but not relationships without marital aims. A relationship without marital aim has, by definition, no sexual aim, and thus can only truly be described as a friendship, no matter what non-sexual physical intimacy is involved in the relationship. It would only be called a “romance” due to a societal definition of romance to mean “commitment between two partners,” vs. the Catholic definition as “relationship aimed at procreation in a marital union.” So it would satisfy a friendship in the Catholic sense and a romance in the colloquial sense. Hence the term, “romantic friendship.” But this emotional commitment cannot be undertaken by a married or religious, although it certainly could by any two single people.
R
Rau
Guest
Your reasoning appears to assume as fact the thing you are seeking to conclude.
O
One_point
Guest
You are saying catholics on CAF concluded here that brothers and sisters can make out and this is just fine?
Someone call Pope Francis!! 
So would this mean that a brother and his sister (even a father and son, mother-daughter, mother-son, father-daughter…the works) are free to pursue a romantic relationship short of sexual acts? I understood you yesterday to categorically deny that blood sisters would make out in the manner you described?
O
One_point
Guest
You asked me to respond to these scenarios.
Scenario No 1) I simply find to be unrealistic. If this physical intimacies are so sex-neutral, nothing to do with sex, why are they reserved for those we are sexually attracted to?
scenario no2) that is classic occasion of scene territory. It is why even licit heterosexual but unmarried pairings are generally warned to avoid such things in certain degrees. So the question would be why someone for whom the final end of such things is not even possible would be placing themselves in that situation in the first place.
R
Rau
Guest
You appear to take as a given that a single woman is not free to take up a non-sexual relationship with a single woman (rather, only with a single man) yet that is the very question being debated. Have I misunderstood your post?
O
One_point
Guest
Here then is the main point of confusion: You yourself appear to take as a given that a romantic relationship is not a sexual relationship. What is it? I certainly take for granted that women are very free to pursue truly non-sexual relationships.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Romantic from a Catholic point of view? Absolutely not. From a societal point of view? I suppose so. We’re only repulsed by our family members due to a psychological phenomenon, which makes us not want to do ANYTHING physical, no matter what the meaning is behind it. I said sisters wouldn’t do it due to this physical repulsion. Have you never heard about straight girls who make out with each other (not in the presence of a male)? Are you suggesting they do this out of an erotic attraction to women?You are saying catholics on CAF concluded here that brothers and sisters can make out and this is just fine?
S
SMGS127
Guest
Sexual relationships have NEVER been romantic until recent times. For almost all of human history, marriages were contracts laid out to protect children and support procreation, with bonding happening afterwards just to maintain the commitment. Emotional (or as you call them, romantic) relationships were typically the territory of close friendships. Rousseau’s “love is necessary for and unique to marriage!!!” spheal mixed with the Puritan belief in “no pleasure at any time for any reason is okay” philosophy created our super-repressed modernist American culture.
O
One_point
Guest
This word romantic and what it means, this seems to be the whole crux of our disagreements. I am not sure there is a catholic romantic vs societal romantic (you can help with explanations, if is not too much trouble). But I mean as I said earlier that very special “attraction” to the opposite sex that hits as past puberty and we know it is very different from friendship that we have had always from pre-puberty. It’s a biological AND psychological phenomen, involving emotions and physical feelings and what John Paul explained as the Inner senses or something like that. When I say romantic, I mean all the thoughts, actions, and feelings that go with this attraction. That’s what I mean by saying ‘romantic.’
I don’t know what physical repulsion with family members you mean? I love hugging my mom! I love pecking her on the cheek! I have shared bed with siblings from childhood! The repulsion we feel towards our blood relations is repulsion to sexual contact, not physical contact.
R
Rau
Guest
Scenario(2) seems to be a non-starter to me for homosexuals because it betrays the true intent and nature of the relationship. For heterosexual couples, I guess you could say caution is warranted, but I can’t imagine a courting process conducted wholly at arms length!
Regarding (1), what you say makes sense for you and me, but SMGS might argue that the attraction is romantic and emotional, not sexual. She has said that making out for her is not with erotic intent and is not a prelude to sex.
O
One_point
Guest
She might say so, but so might a husband who does it with his secretary, for him its “non-sexual”. When everything is reduced to subjectivity, it simply serves as a tool to curtail all discussion on the matter, in the sense that it’s true for me so society cant say nothing to me about reality.
Secenario 1) a non-starter for gay people? I think I have not understood your point there.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Certainly.
Catholic definition is a relationship, aimed at marriage, which seeks to discern whether one’s partner is maritally acceptable. It has sexual intercourse as its end goal, in the context of a marital union, with the openness to the procreation of children as a necessary contingency.
The current societal definition of a relationship is any two people who commit themselves for life to taking care of each other. This can involve physical conduct, up to and including the Catholic definition, and can also include asexual relationships. This is the context through which Catholics are [badly] losing the marriage debate.
But that is due to societal influence. In a culture where making out was not eroticized, you would not have the same repulsion. You would still have the repulsion to sex though.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I’ve seriously never had any erotic gain from making out. It’s all emotional.
O
One_point
Guest
In John Paul II’s love and responsibility it it not clear that emotions are a significant part of the male-female sexual attraction? These emotions you feel, they may not be explicitly erotic, but non-sexual they are not. They are a part of the male-female attraction which is a sexual attraction. remove sex from their and it makes no sense.So from a catholic world view, what is the point or th design of these kinds of emotions? Are they meant for themselves or are they designed for something?
R
Rau
Guest
The separation of Romance and sex is asserted by SMGS as the reality for her. See her response to my question about the scenarios. So to the extent this is her personal experience, then yes I accept that as the premise.
I agree that what is or is not “sexual” is important. A parallel question is the one about the meaning of “disinterested” friends. The latter surely means friends that don’t engage in or seek the “intrinsically disordered” acts. [Is it more restrictive than that - I don’t know.]. The acts so described don’t include “making out” - they are homosexual acts, a closing of the sex act to life (etc, as per Catechism).
- Status