Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy

[Rau]

I don’t know how a distorted reflection of marriage leads one to holiness.

“Distorted reflection” is perhaps unduly negative. Arguably, it is a subset though. It is absent any use of the sexual faculty, which would be unambiguously immoral. That there can only be a single relationship of the kind contemplated does sound rather “pseudo-marriage”. How many elements of marriage need to be peeled away before the relationship is “OK”? And why?

It is not evident to me that what is contemplated need lead anywhere unholy - though I have reservations.

 

[mommamaree]

Just a totally uneducated and uninformed opinion to share…

But I think even if a woman is a lesbian, she still has a very natural and normal need for human affection. With certain safe people who could be trusted to respect her boundaries for the sake of chastity, giving and receiving affection could be a very good thing. I am thinking specifically of sister-friendship; those friends who become so close that we think of them like sisters. In such friendships, sitting close while watching a movie, giving hugs and kissing cheeks, putting an arm around each other for comfort or camaraderie, are all normal occurrences. I am not sure how possible such a friendship would be if the two women also experienced sexual attraction toward each other. That likely would not be a safe person for a nonsexual, physically intimate friendship. But a sisterly relationship that includes affection and emotional intimacy can be a very good thing.

Anyway, like I said, I am totally uninformed about this, but I am very sympathetic to the human needs of intimacy in relationships, which is sorely lacking in most modern relationships. Also, some people’s “love language” is touch, and their needs for physical contact is greater, no matter if they experience SSA or are heterosexual, married or single.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just a totally uneducated and uninformed opinion to share…

But I think even if a woman is a lesbian, she still has a very natural and normal need for human affection. With certain safe people who could be trusted to respect her boundaries for the sake of chastity, giving and receiving affection could be a very good thing. I am thinking specifically of sister-friendship; those friends who become so close that we think of them like sisters. In such friendships, sitting close while watching a movie, giving hugs and kissing cheeks, putting an arm around each other for comfort or camaraderie, are all normal occurrences. I am not sure how possible such a friendship would be if the two women also experienced sexual attraction toward each other. That likely would not be a safe person for a nonsexual, physically intimate friendship. But a sisterly relationship that includes affection and emotional intimacy can be a very good thing.

Anyway, like I said, I am totally uninformed about this, but I am very sympathetic to the human needs of intimacy in relationships, which is sorely lacking in most modern relationships. Also, some people’s “love language” is touch, and their needs for physical contact is greater, no matter if they experience SSA or are heterosexual, married or single.

I agree, and this is what makes the situation so dicey – that real needs are involved.

A blog post on this sort of topic that might be helpful: spiritualfriendship.org/2014/06/21/here-is-your-answer-but-you-cant-have-it/

Also, I want to say that people with SSA ***absolutely ***need physical intimacy with people of the same sex. There are only two questions about this intimacy: (1) To what extent should it be with other people with SSA? and (2) What principles do we have to provide boundaries for appropriate touch or appropriate language in such friendships?

Sadly, the Church hasn’t offered much guidance on these issues.

 

[Tigg]

Which is why I am asking where sin starts, not mortal sin.

The Church teaches that [sexual] sins are almost always mortal in nature.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-sixth.shtml

 

[Kamaduck]

This is going to sound weird, but the whole idea of “sensuality” without sex is something I’ve heard discussed fairly frequently on asexual blogs and forums, where people will divide up attractions into different categories. So wanting to hug or cuddle with someone is “sensual” attraction. “Making out” is generally the point where people disagree about whether the action is sensual or inherently sexual- some people insist that it’s not sexual, while others insist that it has to be. In any case, SMGS, I can say with confidence that you’re not the only person in the world who sees that kind of kissing as not necessarily related to sex. I can also say that that doesn’t seem to be the case for very many people, at least as far as I’ve seen.

Anyway, I read the thread, and I’ve been thinking of the parallels to the relationships that romantic asexuals share. In their case, of course, there might be no temptation at all to let things “escalate”. I’ve been thinking about it lately, and the more I think about it, the less I understand what the difference between “romantic relationship” and “platonic friendship” even is, when the possibility of marriage and sex is taken out of the equation.

Rau:

How many elements of marriage need to be peeled away before the relationship is “OK”? And why?

That’s a good question. It seems like there are things that are present in marriage that aren’t exclusive to it, and other things that should be reserved for marriage and not experienced outside it. But we’re not sure what exactly is in the latter category, apart from sex.

Tigg:

The Church teaches that [sexual] sins are almost always mortal in nature.

Yeah, but we don’t know whether what SMGS is describing is sexual at all. I think the idea is that it’s a relationship with romantic elements that is decidedly not sexual.

 

[Bookcat]

Should a person with SSA be a “couple” with a person of the same gender? No.

Should they “date” them? No.

Hold hands with them? No.

Should they be “romantic” with them? No.

Many and varied *friendships *are key.

In friendship - good well ordered friendships - is life. And a way of holiness.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12121063&postcount=38

 

[Tigg]

**I find it interesting that you keep referring to making out as if that action is somehow not a sexual action ** Two women cannot become one flesh – Kissing may not lead to completion, as it were, but it certainly is part of sexual intimacy in the relationship. One of my girlfriends confessed to me that she had spent some time kissing another woman while we were dating. I was furious and deeply hurt. Why? Because making out is reserved for an intimate and exclusive relationship.

I have been brought back to sanity with this comment. I will depart this thread now because it has taken me into the Twilight Zone where everything is murky and when clarity is spoken, for instance in what the Church actually teaches to Catholics, methinks that is not really the intention of this thread. Best to go to one’s confessor while pouring the heart out…there would be redemption and true understanding.

 

[Kamaduck]

Should a person with SSA be a “couple” with a person of the same gender? No.

Should they “date” them? No.

Hold hands with them? No.

Should they be “romantic” with them? No.

Many and varied *friendships *are key.

In friendship - good well ordered friendships - is life. And a way of holiness.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12121063&postcount=38

But what’s the difference between those two things? Take holding hands, for instance. It’s coded as romantic in some cases, but is there any reason why is should have to be? I’m pretty sure holding hands while walking is something that freinds do in plenty of contexts (at least where I’m from? Maybe I’m weird?)- so why would it be off limits, especially of it doesn’t present a near occasion of sin?

And going on a “date” presents the same issue. If we describe the things that are generally involved in a date (going somewhere to an activity, talking, eating togather, enjoying each other’s company), there’s no reason any of that can’t take place in a close friendship.

So even if we were to accept that same-sex relationships should be limited to friendship, not romance, how would we tell where the line is between those things?

 

[mommamaree]

Should a person with SSA be a “couple” with a person of the same gender? No.

Should they “date” them? No.

Hold hands with them? No.

Should they be “romantic” with them? No.

Many and varied *friendships *are key.

In friendship - good well ordered friendships - is life. And a way of holiness.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12121063&postcount=38

I agree with most of what you say except for the part about holding hands. Holding hands is a gesture of affection that can have many different meanings, based upon context. If hand-holding is used to communicate sexual attraction and exclusivity of relationship, then yes, that would be wrong. If it were being used to communicate solidarity in suffering, friendly affection to someone feeling lonely, or consolation in grief, just to mention a few examples, would be very appropriate between two people of the same sex, even if they experience SSA.

I think kissing is similar. Kissing used to communicate attraction and a desire to possess the other and be possessed by them and an exclusivity of relationship would be wrong for people who are sexually attracted toward each other but not married. Even betrothed heterosexual couples are counseled that “making out” prior to marriage is sinful. But kissing in culturally appropriate fashion to communicate a sisterly affection and when greeting or saying goodbye would not be sinful.

I think for physical affection, context matters a lot.

 

[mommamaree]

But what’s the difference between those two things? Take holding hands, for instance. It’s coded as romantic in some cases, but is there any reason why is should have to be? I’m pretty sure holding hands while walking is something that freinds do in plenty of contexts (at least where I’m from? Maybe I’m weird?)- so why would it be off limits, especially of it doesn’t present a near occasion of sin?

And going on a “date” presents the same issue. If we describe the things that are generally involved in a date (going somewhere to an activity, talking, eating togather, enjoying each other’s company), there’s no reason any of that can’t take place in a close friendship.

So even if we were to accept that same-sex relationships should be limited to friendship, not romance, how would we tell where the line is between those things?

Yes, I am a happily married woman, yet I still love my “dates” with my girlfriends. We seek out each other’s company and it has many of the same components of a date, but is lacking any romantic component. That kind of friendship is important. But where Bookcat hits a home run is saying that many and varied friendships are key. Any exclusive intimate relationship between two unmarried people (or those who are chastely discerning marriage to each other) is not appropriate. If a woman would be jealous of her friend doing the same type of activity with another female, then either the attitude or action being taken is disordered, I think. I hope I am making sense. This is the first time I have attempted to articulate my thoughts on these matters.

 

[Bookcat]

But what’s the difference between those two things? Take holding hands, for instance. It’s coded as romantic in some cases, but is there any reason why is should have to be? I’m pretty sure holding hands while walking is something that freinds do in plenty of contexts (at least where I’m from? Maybe I’m weird?)- so why would it be off limits, especially of it doesn’t present a near occasion of sin?

And going on a “date” presents the same issue. If we describe the things that are generally involved in a date (going somewhere to an activity, talking, eating togather, enjoying each other’s company), there’s no reason any of that can’t take place in a close friendship.

So even if we were to accept that same-sex relationships should be limited to friendship, not romance, how would we tell where the line is between those things?

Cultural expressions of Friends (non-romantic to use that word) is going to vary. One must though too take into account near occasions etc

As to “date” - one can know the difference between a date that includes say dinner or some good activity -and the same activity that is not a “date”.

I agree with most of what you say except for the part about holding hands. Holding hands is a gesture of affection that can have many different meanings, based upon context.

See above.

I know my wife would not be holding hands with any other woman. And I am not going to be holding hands with any man (or any woman – my wife would agree I ought not -unless it is say helping an old woman across the street or something like that).

 

[Kamaduck]

Yes, I am a happily married woman, yet I still love my “dates” with my girlfriends. We seek out each other’s company and it has many of the same components of a date, but is lacking any romantic component. That kind of friendship is important. But where Bookcat hits a home run is saying that many and varied friendships are key. Any exclusive intimate relationship between two unmarried people (or those who are chastely discerning marriage to each other) is not appropriate. If a woman would be jealous of her friend doing the same type of activity with another female, then either the attitude or action being taken is disordered, I think. I hope I am making sense. This is the first time I have attempted to articulate my thoughts on these matters.

Exclusivity makes sense as one of the things that separates platonic friendships from romantic relationships. I could see that as a useful distinction, that someone should not feel that a person is “mine and only mine” in any sense, unless they are married to that person (or, on a lesser level, if they’re discerning marriage).

But on the other hand, I also think it’s fine to have activities that you only do with a particular person, as long as neither would feel jealous if it stopped being that way. Like, if you only have one friend who likes to analyze movies with you, or who you feel comfortable getting a kiss on the cheek from, that’s different than agreed-upon exclusivity.

Bookcat:

Cultural expressions of Friends (non-romantic to use that word) is going to vary. One must though too take into account near occasions etc

As to “date” - one can know the difference between a date that includes say dinner or some good activity -and the same activity that is not a “date”.

I know my wife would not be holding hands with any other woman. And I am not going to be holding hands with any man (or any woman – my wife would agree I ought not -unless it is say helping an old woman across the street or something like that).

I may be alone in this, but when marriage, sex, exclusivity, and maybe kissing are taken out of the equation, I really do not see a difference between close friendship and a romantic relationship. Nor do I see any particular difference between a “just for fun” movie date with a guy, and going to a movie with my best friend. Neither is going to involve much physical touch, neither implies exclusivity, and both are enjoyable in their own right.

As for holding hands, maybe it’s a regional or generational thing. If two young men held hands while walking, I think people would start gossiping about them, but young women do it all the time. It’s normal here.

 

[Bookcat]

I may be alone in this, but when marriage, sex, exclusivity, and maybe kissing are taken out of the equation, I really do not see a difference between close friendship and a romantic relationship. Nor do I see any particular difference between a “just for fun” movie date with a guy, and going to a movie with my best friend. Neither is going to involve much physical touch, neither implies exclusivity, and both are enjoyable in their own right.

What your kissing your friends? If I kissed my friends like I kissed (in a chaste way but different than say Mom) past girl friends - my wife would have something to say about it (as would my conscience and confessor).​

As to a “kiss on the cheek” - I think one can know the difference between such cultural marks in some cultures and- the kiss on the cheek that a girl would give a guy she “liked” or dated…

---

Those in “relationship” called often - “dating” or “couple” is yes of a different “kind” and “motive” - a different “approach” etc. More of a looking “at each other” than just at things and life side by side as friends.

(One can tell often who is “dating” and who is “just friends” and has no interest in each other in that way.)

 

[mommamaree]

Hand-holding by two females and arms thrown over each other’s backs by males are common expressions of friendship and filial affection where I am from as well, Kamaduck, especially with regards to those of the generation just a bit younger than my own, and many of the generations that are older than my own. My own generation has the dubious distinction of being proclaimed the unsexiest, most angst-ridden, and hands-off generation ever to walk the planet. (I am a proud Gen Xer, but that particular quirk of my generation strikes me as both very odd and very true.) However, I often see expressions of affection between people of other generations that would cause a Gen Xer to get pilloried. And that does include females holding hands as friends and friends giving each other kisses. It is just different and obviously filial and not with romantic intentions. I think that is all very good and healthy, and dare I say it, necessary, for human emotional well-being. Our need for physical contact is so strong that as we have become less connected and less intimate in our friendships in the modern world, we have increasingly depended upon our pets to fill that void. I don’t think it is wrong to enjoy the pet friends we might have, but it cannot replace human relationship. Of course, all longing for contact and affection and love will one day be fulfilled in heaven when we finally see our Lord face-to-face. But until then, I think it would be heartless and cruel to deny the deep longing for human love and acceptance people experience. I am not saying that anyone here in this thread is doing that. Rather, it is just an attitude I have encountered often. This idea that an individual is truly autonomous and has no need of love and acceptance by others…well, I think it is just a convenient way to ignore the difficult problems others face in finding safe, intimate friendships in our world today. The Church must do better than that, which means Her members must do better than that.
Wow, sorry for all my rambling. I have just been giving a lot of thought to these matters in this past year or so and I suppose I had a lot of things I wanted to finally put into words. Thanks for reading. This is an interesting discussion!

 

[Kamaduck]

What your kissing your friends? If I kissed my friends like I kissed (in a chaste way but different than say Mom) past girl friends - my wife would have something to say about it (as would my conscience and confessor).

As to a “kiss on the cheek” - I think one can know the difference between such cultural marks in some cultures and- the kiss on the cheek that a girl would give a guy she “liked” or dated…

I’m not trying to be silly, and I did list kissing as a possible difference. I’m just considering possibilities. I think of kissing as a romantic gesture, but there are lots of different kinds of kisses, and they mean different things. Some are romantic, and some aren’t necessarily.

On a personal level, I’m saying that even if I do go on a “date” with a guy, it’s not going to involve kissing. Or hugging. I guess we can hold hands or something, but mostly it’ll involve movie analysis. And that’s what I do with my friends, so the difference isn’t immediately obvious to me.

I’m not a very physical person, but I do have straight female friends who hug and hold hands and sometimes even kiss each other (on the forehead or cheek or something), because they’re friends. So just because I think of things one way doesn’t mean that everyone else does, too.

Those in “relationship” called often - “dating” or “couple” is yes of a different “kind” and “motive” - a different “approach” etc. More of a looking “at each other” than just at things and life side by side as friends.

(One can tell often who is “dating” and who is “just friends” and has no interest in each other in that way.)

I think it’s evident that I don’t really “get” dating in the first place. I interact with people, and sometimes I want to be friends with them. Sometimes I really want to be friends with them, and think about doing things with them in the future. I cannot tell you where the line is between that and “romance”, unless physicality or possible marriage has entered the equation. And since I’m not really that interested in physicality… for all intents and purposes, I see no difference. I grilled my friends about it, and they eventually gave up and told me that romantic feelings are the same as platonic feelings, only stronger.

This is probably why I find myself hanging out on asexual/aromantic spectrum blogs sometimes.

Anyway, I’m mostly interested in SMGS’s suggestion that romance (or a form of “romantic friendship”?) can exist without a sexual element. I’ve heard discussions about it before, but never in a Christian setting, and I’m wondering what people’s thoughts are on it, morally speaking. I think a lot of it depends on how we define romance, which is notoriously difficult to pin down.

I really do not know the answer, but I’m happy that it’s being discussed.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not trying to be silly, and I did list kissing as a possible difference. I’m just considering possibilities. I think of kissing as a romantic gesture, but there are lots of different kinds of kisses, and they mean different things. Some are romantic, and some aren’t necessarily.

Sure. Yes.

And those with SSA need to though avoid any such “other” cultural kisses -being something or taken as something other. Near occasions, scandal etc.

Just as I ought to take care as a married person - and might not want to give a “cultural kiss” to say a particular girl…

 

[Bookcat]

On a personal level, I’m saying that even if I do go on a “date” with a guy, it’s not going to involve kissing. Or hugging. I guess we can hold hands or something, but mostly it’ll involve movie analysis. And that’s what I do with my friends, so the difference isn’t immediately obvious to me.

Sure…but there is still a different approach than if one of your female friends or your brother. Otherwise it would not be a date…

 

[Bookcat]

I think it’s evident that I don’t really “get” dating in the first place. I interact with people, and sometimes I want to be friends with them. Sometimes I really want to be friends with them, and think about doing things with them in the future. I cannot tell you where the line is between that and “romance”, unless physicality or possible marriage has entered the equation. And since I’m not really that interested in physicality… for all intents and purposes, I see no difference. I grilled my friends about it, and they eventually gave up and told me that romantic feelings are the same as platonic feelings, only stronger.

It is best really for a guys and girls to be “friends” anyhow! And even in a guy girl -“couple” - keep the friendship key. Though it is then “looking at each other” more than just “looking together at life”.

(I suggest reading “the Jewelers Shop” by St. Pope John Paul II - ignatius.com/Products/JSH-H/the-jewelers-shop.aspx --at least as you look towards marriage) (book not the dvd -that is very different)

 

[Bookcat]

Anyway, I’m mostly interested in SMGS’s suggestion that romance (or a form of “romantic friendship”?) can exist without a sexual element. I’ve heard discussions about it before, but never in a Christian setting, and I’m wondering what people’s thoughts are on it, morally speaking. I think a lot of it depends on how we define romance, which is notoriously difficult to pin down.

I really do not know the answer

Friendship between those of the same gender.

Not “romantic relationships” or “romance” or “being a couple” etc.

 

[Kamaduck]

Friendship between those of the same gender.

Not “romantic relationships” or “romance” or “being a couple” etc.

SMGS used the word “romantic” to describe what she’s talking about, and it reminded me of the relationships that some romantic asexuals share with each other. That’s why I’m using the word “romance”.

It’s easy to say that romance is off-limits, but unless we define romance, I don’t think that’s very helpful. For some people, the difference between friendship and romance isn’t intuitive. Some don’t find it hard to imagine a romantic relationship that is not sexual, while others find the very concept absurd. And everyone seems to mean something different by “romance”. I think that’s part of what makes this discussion so difficult.

If “romance” between people of the same gender is always wrong (and it may be that it is!), then I think we need to have a reason why. As of right now, I’ve only seen posts saying that posters have a gut feeling that it isn’t holy. While that is a legitimate reason to hesitate, I think it would be good if we could come up with an answer that doesn’t rely on gut feelings. And if it is wrong, then we also need to talk about what romance is, so that we can know exactly what (beyond sexual things) is off-limits.

And if there isn’t a reason for these things to be off-limits, then maybe what SMGS is describing isn’t actually wrong. I don’t know.

EDIT: Thank you for the book recommendation, by the way. I don’t know if I’ll have time to read it any time soon, but it looks interesting. I don’t know if there’s much point in my “looking towards marriage”, but reading it can’t hurt.