Why simple fornication cant be a mortal sin

[loro]

Hi all,

someperson555 - I used to view these things exactly like you, in the past - that God is legalistic and bureaucratic and set up some rules for us for whatever reason. But the truth is they’re there so that we could live our lives in harmony with each other - not hurting yourself, and one another. And sex before marriage is also hurting each other.

Let’s try this: could you explain your views on what marriage is, what a relationship between a man and a woman is? what the role of sex is in a relationship? and why you would like (as I assume) to have sex before getting married?

I think after having talked about those things, the answer to your question will become evident to you.

 

[slotty]

this is tricky, i wouldnt say it “degrades” the act, since there are other reasons to have sex than merely “trying him/her out”. imagine if you wait untill marriage and then afterwards your partner turns out to be sexually unsatisfying, or frigid, or has deformities, etc.

This is a disgusting & horrible justification for pre-marital sex! It’s selfishness at its purest form & justifying a terrible thought process as doing something for the greater good of the relationship.

You are saying that:

“I’m willing to wait until marriage but to protect my own interests in the event that you some how don’t meet my criteria I want the chance to back out before I am stuck with a dud model”

You have reduced the physical expression of marriage vows (because that’s what sex actually is) into a transactional relationship about what you can get from it. Don’t get married/have sex because if you can’t love the person in spite of their brokenness then you’re not worth that persons love and that person deserves a lot more than being reduced to a checklist

 

[AdamP88]

This is a disgusting & horrible justification for pre-marital sex! It’s selfishness at its purest form & justifying a terrible thought process as doing something for the greater good of the relationship.

You are saying that:

“I’m willing to wait until marriage but to protect my own interests in the event that you some how don’t meet my criteria I want the chance to back out before I am stuck with a dud model”

You have reduced the physical expression of marriage vows (because that’s what sex actually is) into a transactional relationship about what you can get from it. Don’t get married/have sex because if you can’t love the person in spite of their brokenness then you’re not worth that persons love and that person deserves a lot more than being reduced to a checklist

Well Said

 

[someperson555]

Way to try and frame/load the question. People may have quoted the catechism, but they have also offered sound logic to back it up. So, in short, they have done both of those things. But I have yet to see anyone here rely exclusively on the Catechism for an answer.

umm, like 90% of the people who replied to me simply replied with quotes from catechism or scripture. so in essence they said: “see its wrong because the catechism says so”, but very few of them have actually tried to explain WHY it is a sin. which actually was the second part of the question i posed.
look i realise that some things we just cant explain and is a matter of faith (although i dont think fornication falls into this category)
but if you are unable to respond to my points then just be honest and say that you dont know why its a sin. because frankly i dont care what the catechism says, since i need to know the REASON something is a sin.

It is becoming more and more obvious that you and someperson are not even interested in honest conversation. If all you’re going to do is ignore the points everyone else is making and throw out deceptive diversions like this, there’s really no point in having a discourse at all.

Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate with the rest of us, it seems you two are more interested in affirming what you already think and mocking everyone else.

wow, really? so far it has only been me minkymurph, irishgal, and a few others who actually came up with real logical and philosophical points, m,ost others here were just quoting from the catechism or scripture.

oh, and on a side not, i know jesus spoke out against fornication, but it is possible that he meant it a different way than most people interpret it. jesus could have just meant casual sex, and there are disputes about the translation of the term “fornication” in the bible, which is sometimes translated as whoredom or sexual immorality.

 

[someperson555]

Hi all,

someperson555 - I used to view these things exactly like you, in the past - that God is legalistic and bureaucratic and set up some rules for us for whatever reason. But the truth is they’re there so that we could live our lives in harmony with each other - not hurting yourself, and one another. And sex before marriage is also hurting each other.

Let’s try this: could you explain your views on what marriage is, what a relationship between a man and a woman is? what the role of sex is in a relationship? and why you would like (as I assume) to have sex before getting married?

I think after having talked about those things, the answer to your question will become evident to you.

hello loro,
first may i ask why you think that sex before marriage is “hurting one another” (maybe im doing it wrong )
lol
but seriously why do you think that? i agree that it does hurt people in a loveless relationship. but thats not even what my question was. i agree that in the case of people merely seeking pleasure with no commitment fornication is always a mortal sin.
what im saying is that two people who are affectionate for eachother and are prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with sex perhaps arent commiting a mortal sin when they engage in pre-marital intercourse.
i just dont think the issue is that clear cut as ive previously stated.

im going to be perfectly honest with my views on sexuality.
i believe marriage is when two people decide that they want to be together forever. they are no longer searching for their perfect partner therefore they engage in a lifelong contract. to me a relationship between a man and a women is sexual, psychological, and spiritual. but to be honest im not really sure what you meant by that part.
to me the role of sex is to provide pleasure and at one point children. it is also a physical expression of love from one partner to the other.

and the reason i want to have sex before marriage is because it adds to the spice and excitement of life. its so romantic to be able to go with your girlfriend on a holiday and know that you can have sex if you are in the mood.
i can tell that many people who replied to me are under the impression that im just some disgusting sex pervert who only cares about sex , but that couldnt be further from the truth. for me its about freedom.

 

[prodigalson2011]

umm, like 90% of the people who replied to me simply replied with quotes from catechism or scripture. so in essence they said: “see its wrong because the catechism says so”, but very few of them have actually tried to explain WHY it is a sin. which actually was the second part of the question i posed.
look i realise that some things we just cant explain and is a matter of faith (although i dont think fornication falls into this category)
but if you are unable to respond to my points then just be honest and say that you dont know why its a sin. because frankly i dont care what the catechism says, since i need to know the REASON something is a sin.

I have seen numerous people, myself included, elaborate on the point.

wow, really? so far it has only been me minkymurph, irishgal, and a few others who actually came up with real logical and philosophical points, m,ost others here were just quoting from the catechism or scripture.

Hold it right there. I myself have given you numerous logical, "philosophical"points to consider and have not referred to the Catechism AT ALL.

I have read numerous, NUMEROUS thoughtful replies from others as well.

I think what you mean to say is that minkymurph and Irishgal are the only ones who agree with you. Sounds to me like a classic case of confirmation bias.

oh, and on a side not, i know jesus spoke out against fornication, but it is possible that he meant it a different way than most people interpret it. jesus could have just meant casual sex, and there are disputes about the translation of the term “fornication” in the bible, which is sometimes translated as whoredom or sexual immorality.

Which is why, in that very same Bible, it is stated that interpretation of Scripture is not for we as individuals to undertake; the authority to make definitive interpretations is left to the Church. Not you, me or Protestant theologians who “dispute” it. And the Church, since its foundation 2000 years ago, has taught the same thing.

You still haven’t answered my previous question: if you believe in Jesus, then why don’t you believe the promise He made to never lead His Church into error? A promise evidenced by the fact that the Church has yielded no ground to moral revisionists like yourself for nearly 2000 years?

 

[thewanderer]

hello loro,
first may i ask why you think that sex before marriage is “hurting one another” (maybe im doing it wrong )
lol
but seriously why do you think that? i agree that it does hurt people in a loveless relationship. but thats not even what my question was. i agree that in the case of people merely seeking pleasure with no commitment fornication is always a mortal sin.
what im saying is that two people who are affectionate for eachother and are prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with sex perhaps arent commiting a mortal sin when they engage in pre-marital intercourse.
i just dont think the issue is that clear cut as ive previously stated.

im going to be perfectly honest with my views on sexuality.
i believe marriage is when two people decide that they want to be together forever. they are no longer searching for their perfect partner therefore they engage in a lifelong contract. to me a relationship between a man and a women is sexual, psychological, and spiritual. but to be honest im not really sure what you meant by that part.
to me the role of sex is to provide pleasure and at one point children. it is also a physical expression of love from one partner to the other.

and the reason i want to have sex before marriage is because it adds to the spice and excitement of life. its so romantic to be able to go with your girlfriend on a holiday and know that you can have sex if you are in the mood.
i can tell that many people who replied to me are under the impression that im just some disgusting sex pervert who only cares about sex , but that couldnt be further from the truth. for me its about freedom.

Can I just ask you one question. Do you view sex within a lifelong commitment as being exactly the same as sex outside of a lifelong comitment? I think this is where the problem is coming in.

 

[minkymurph]

I think what you mean to say is that minkymurph and Irishgal are the only ones who agree with you. Sounds to me like a classic case of confirmation bias.

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you would leave my name out of your responses to others. This is becoming way too personal for me.

That said, as I’ve reluctantly been pulled into your dispute with someperson against my will through including my name in your post, I’m obliged to respond.

Where did you get the idea I agreed with someperson, and in relation to what? This is the second time you have made an allegation based on an inaccurate assumption. You also stated I was mocking everyone on this thread which is simply untrue. A reading of other posts I have made will confirm someperson and I do not agree with on everything.

Let me make my position clear. Describing sexual activity outside marriage on every occasion and under every circumstance is disproportionate to views of other sins that can properly be described as ‘evil’ that exist. If you disagree with this, fine, your entitled to. If you want to discuss this in a rational, logical way, fine. If you don’t, then don’t. But I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from unsavory comments of a personal nature.

 

[minkymurph]

wow, really? so far it has only been me minkymurph, irishgal, and a few others who actually came up with real logical and philosophical points, m,ost others here were just quoting from the catechism or scripture.

I appreciate you saying my responses contained real logical and philosophical points, but it’s probably best not to refer to specifically, but rather what they say, as it may leave them open to criticism, all be it unintentionally intended.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you would leave my name out of your responses to others. This is becoming way too personal for me.

Your name was included in my post because I was replying to someperson’s post in which he asserted that you, Irishgal and he were the only ones making any logical points while everyone else was mindlessly regurgitating the Catechism. So you should be taking this up with him. I didn’t bring you into it, I responded to a post that had already pulled you into it, though my response, I now realize, was erroneous.

That said, as I’ve reluctantly been pulled into your dispute with someperson against my will through including my name in your post, I’m obliged to respond.

Well, seeing as this entire thread has been a debate, I would argue that you pulled yourself into the dispute by participating. It’s the nature of a debate that sides are formed. I don’t intend any animosity towards anyone here; debates are like jousting… it can get a little rough, but that doesn’t mean you should take it personally.

Where did you get the idea I agreed with someperson, and in relation to what? This is the second time you have made an allegation based on an inaccurate assumption. You also stated I was mocking everyone on this thread which is simply untrue. A reading of other posts I have made will confirm someperson and I do not agree with on everything.

After going back through the thread to find the posts I was thinking of, I must apologize. I was remembering incorrectly. I thought some posts by another user were from you. So my sincerest apologies. An inexcusable oversight, I know.

The remark I made about you mocking everyone on the thread was in reference to a specific post which you subsequently stated was intended to be humorous whereas I took it to be a biting, sarcastic retort. My apologies again. You know how the internet can be; context gets lost in translation. I hope you’ll forgive my rashness.

Let me make my position clear. Describing sexual activity outside marriage on every occasion and under every circumstance is disproportionate to views of other sins that can properly be described as ‘evil’ that exist. If you disagree with this, fine, your entitled to. If you want to discuss this in a rational, logical way, fine. If you don’t, then don’t. But I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from unsavory comments of a personal nature.

Well, all sins are evil. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be sins! The act itself remains evil regardless of the degree of culpability of the perpetrator. Again, though, after reviewing the thread, I was really in the wrong in my interactions with you and I do apologize.

 

[loro]

Sure.

Sorry if I was a bit patronizing. Perhaps I am not a right person to help on this question, since I am not married yet either, and perhaps a person with more experience would help better - but they way I see it now is this:

I totally agree that marriage is when two people decide that they want to be together forever. But surely there’s more to it. Marriage is first of all a Sacrament, and it’s an oath before God - that they will be together forever, also when they grow older and this first, most romantic period of love is gone, they will still do their best to keep the fire burning. And once I heard some priest saying that sex is a body-language way of giving this oath. Of course this is not from the Bible. But this is:

(Mark 10)
*6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” *

In marriage you give yourself totally to your wife. In sex you also physically give yourself totally to your partner. So here is a similarity. We are made to be monogamic - and give ourselves totally only to one person. To form a family with her, to raise children together with her. I absolutely agree, that sex adds to the spice and excitement of life. But it’s first of all about giving, and then about taking. If you give yourself to many girls before getting married, what kind of physical expression of love will be so special, that you could give to your wife only, as she’s the most exceptional of all these girls?

Also I think if you have sex with many girls, you’re more prone to comparing which one was better in bed etc. and more prone to thinking of sex outside of marriage, once you get married. And this might be very bad for the relationship with your wife, especially when the romantic period of love is gone. Myself I wouldn’t want to risk after e.g. 10 years of marriage, having thoughts like: “ok I’m with my wife, but I just got to know a cute Girl A, younger, and she totally reminds me of Girl B who I have slept with long time ago and it was sooo good…” - I never want to do anything now, that could possibly spoil the way I would think about my wife in the future. This would hurt me, my future wife, or perhaps the girl I would sleep with, and her future husband, etc.

I also totally agree that the role of sex is to provide pleasure and at one point children. But the bit about children is also very important. Every child should have a mother and a father, living in marriage, and loving each other. That’s the only way of providing the child everything he needs, to be brought up properly. If you have sex before marriage - you’re also can hurt your potential child - if she gets pregnant - your child needs to be brought up in a family. So what would you do? Quickly get married? What if this girl is not the right person? Then this marriage could become a nightmare to you sooner or later. And if that happens you get hurt, your wife gets hurt, but also your child gets hurt.

Here’s a nice video for you also: youtube.com/watch?v=UOKlBs9Tdjc when I watched him some time ago, I finally understood for the 1st time what the sense of it all is.

But as I say I’m not married yet - it would be great if someone more experienced could also comment on my points.

Bless!

 

[minkymurph]

The remark I made about you mocking everyone on the thread was in reference to a specific post which you subsequently stated was intended to be humorous whereas I took it to be a biting, sarcastic retort. My apologies again. You know how the internet can be; context gets lost in translation. I hope you’ll forgive my rashness.

As you say on the internet context can be lost and sometimes people do take things I say in jest out of context. I’ll openly admit my sense of humor can offend people. It doesn’t offend people who know me, but I should be more careful on the internet. I’ve no problem with people disagreeing with me or telling me they think I’m wrong. I don’t expect everyone to just agree with me and tell me they think I’m right. What I don’t like is people who make remarks - not saying you did this - such as; 'you are this or that, your not this or that, you trying to do/think this or that and their posts are loaded with emotion.

That said, why don’t we just forget the whole thing and start again. :grouphug:

Well, all sins are evil. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be sins! The act itself remains evil regardless of the degree of culpability of the perpetrator. Again, though, after reviewing the thread, I was really in the wrong in my interactions with you and I do apologize.

One could categorize all sins as ‘evil.’ This what I’m not convinced of. I feel it’s an ‘umbrella’ term and that one glove doesn’t fit all. There are acts are certainly more evil than others, and it seems unjust to me to categorize everything that constitutes a sin as an ‘evil’ act. I prefer to define sin as an act that falls short of loving in the way God loves, rather than just an ‘evil’ act. Defining sin as such also focuses on the positive rather than the negative, which is what the term ‘evil’ does, and is a greater aid to understanding why something is a sin. Sex outside marriage falls short of the fullness of carnal love expressed in the Divine sense, which is what makes it sin.

I also feel there is a disproportionate response to sexual sin. To explain that, one could justify the act of unintentionally killing someone who breaks into your home for the purpose of killing or causing serious bodily harm to you family, but still categorize the actual act as an ‘evil’ act. However, the reality is we by and large don’t really think it is an ‘evil’ act. If we did, we would define shooting and killing someone who enters someone’s home with a criminal intention as a crime. In some parts of the world they don’t, because killing someone in self-defense is not considered an ‘evil’ act. Some countries do define this as a crime, but it’s not always considered an ‘evil’ act. Take the case of Tony Martin for instance in the UK. You may not be familiar with this case, and I’ll explain it if you wish, but suffice to say for now there was a public outcry when he was convicted of murder, and people did not think what he did was ‘evil.’

Applying a similar principle to sexual activity outside marriage, and considering proportionality, time circumstances etc. can King David’s act of keeping concubines properly be described as ‘evil?’

 

[someperson555]

I appreciate you saying my responses contained real logical and philosophical points, but it’s probably best not to refer to specifically, but rather what they say, as it may leave them open to criticism, all be it unintentionally intended.

yes.
but isnt is funny that you and i dont even agree lol. yet prodigalson still thinks we are “in league”, how ridiculous.
sorry i didnt elaborate in that thread, i meant to mention other users who disagreed with me yet posted thoughtful and insighful comments, its just that i forgot their names and i didnt want to go back and search.
but what you guys said really did make me think, it didnt fall on deaf ears. im considering what you and others have replied to me.

 

[someperson555]

I have seen numerous people, myself included, elaborate on the point.

Hold it right there. I myself have given you numerous logical, "philosophical"points to consider and have not referred to the Catechism AT ALL.

I have read numerous, NUMEROUS thoughtful replies from others as well.

I think what you mean to say is that minkymurph and Irishgal are the only ones who agree with you. Sounds to me like a classic case of confirmation bias.

Which is why, in that very same Bible, it is stated that interpretation of Scripture is not for we as individuals to undertake; the authority to make definitive interpretations is left to the Church. Not you, me or Protestant theologians who “dispute” it. And the Church, since its foundation 2000 years ago, has taught the same thing.

You still haven’t answered my previous question: if you believe in Jesus, then why don’t you believe the promise He made to never lead His Church into error? A promise evidenced by the fact that the Church has yielded no ground to moral revisionists like yourself for nearly 2000 years?

well the church has commited errors in the past. did you know there used to be a forbidden book index? did you know early in the church they used to change some dogmas even! (granted this was very early)
but about sexual morality, isnt it possible that the laws the church instituted for that time were specific for that time? because back then it was understandable that having a child out of wedlock can cause serious harm since at that time there was no social welfare and basically the only stable thing a child could rely on was his parents.

but my main point which in my opinion you have misunderstood, is not about allowing “free sex” which i am against myself (i used to be for it, but then i saw that it is wrong). i am merely saying that not all acts of fornication are mortal sins. im saying if two people are already in a commited relationship and just cant wait untill marrage, so they have sex, i dont believe thats a mortal sin in thats scenario, there are also many other scenarios where fornication would not be a mortal sin, for example if the parents of the two do not want them to be together and their marriage would cause some sort of scandal, or if they cant find a catholic priest.
i dont think fornication would be a mortal sin in these cases… (ofcourse the people involved should still confess the acts as soon as they get the chance) but i dont think that if they died right afterwards God would send them into unimaginable torments for simply expressing physical intimacy before marriage.

 

[someperson555]

Sure.

Sorry if I was a bit patronizing. Perhaps I am not a right person to help on this question, since I am not married yet either, and perhaps a person with more experience would help better - but they way I see it now is this:

I totally agree that marriage is when two people decide that they want to be together forever. But surely there’s more to it. Marriage is first of all a Sacrament, and it’s an oath before God - that they will be together forever, also when they grow older and this first, most romantic period of love is gone, they will still do their best to keep the fire burning. And once I heard some priest saying that sex is a body-language way of giving this oath. Of course this is not from the Bible. But this is:

(Mark 10)
*6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” *

In marriage you give yourself totally to your wife. In sex you also physically give yourself totally to your partner. So here is a similarity. We are made to be monogamic - and give ourselves totally only to one person. To form a family with her, to raise children together with her. I absolutely agree, that sex adds to the spice and excitement of life. But it’s first of all about giving, and then about taking. If you give yourself to many girls before getting married, what kind of physical expression of love will be so special, that you could give to your wife only, as she’s the most exceptional of all these girls?

Also I think if you have sex with many girls, you’re more prone to comparing which one was better in bed etc. and more prone to thinking of sex outside of marriage, once you get married. And this might be very bad for the relationship with your wife, especially when the romantic period of love is gone. Myself I wouldn’t want to risk after e.g. 10 years of marriage, having thoughts like: “ok I’m with my wife, but I just got to know a cute Girl A, younger, and she totally reminds me of Girl B who I have slept with long time ago and it was sooo good…” - I never want to do anything now, that could possibly spoil the way I would think about my wife in the future. This would hurt me, my future wife, or perhaps the girl I would sleep with, and her future husband, etc.

I also totally agree that the role of sex is to provide pleasure and at one point children. But the bit about children is also very important. Every child should have a mother and a father, living in marriage, and loving each other. That’s the only way of providing the child everything he needs, to be brought up properly. If you have sex before marriage - you’re also can hurt your potential child - if she gets pregnant - your child needs to be brought up in a family. So what would you do? Quickly get married? What if this girl is not the right person? Then this marriage could become a nightmare to you sooner or later. And if that happens you get hurt, your wife gets hurt, but also your child gets hurt.

Here’s a nice video for you also: youtube.com/watch?v=UOKlBs9Tdjc when I watched him some time ago, I finally understood for the 1st time what the sense of it all is.

But as I say I’m not married yet - it would be great if someone more experienced could also comment on my points.

Bless!

interesting points, i will get back to you on the video. i just dont have time to reply to it right now.
and no you werent being patronizing at all. you came off as very polite actually.

 

[bethanysamuel]

Before you get too settled in this erroneus thinking, take the time to better educate yourself about Catholic teaching regarding sex. Sex is holy and sacred and should be treated in amanner that is holy and sacred.

If you were hungry for a snack, you wouldn’t pop open the Tabernacle and eat the Eucharist like potato chips. Similarly, we don’t misuse sex to satisfy a physical desire.

 

[Holly3278]

Something that is intrinsically evil is always a grave sin, not just some of the time. I say this because you said:

just think about it, if we need a license to engage in sex (marriage) then that would mean that sex is intrinsically evil.

If something is intrinsically evil then that means that it is always evil no matter what. If sex was intrinsically evil then it would be a sin regardless of whether or not a person was married. However, we know that sex is not intrinsically evil. It is a good thing when done in a marital and non-contraceptive and open-to-procreation context.

 

[Journey322]

In addition to some of the other explanations of the sacred nature of sexual relations between two spouses, it is important to know that when you have sex with someone, you “become one” with them. Your spirit and their spirit unite. You are spiritually bound with that other person for life. Nothing about sex is “casual”.

 

[Sister_Terese]

It’s just very simple. Sexual intercourse is reserved only for those who have consecrated themselves to each other in Holy Matrimony. Any kind of sexual activities outside of the marital bed is a grave sin. You can’t rationalize it or try to squeeze it into your comfort zone. Just as a turnip will never be a duck, so pre or extramarital sex will never be good. It is just a fact of life that so many people don’t want to hear. Why? Because it means not being able to gratify one’s self at one’s whim. And that’s that.

 

[thewanderer]

SomePerson,

You seem to be upset because you have presented an argument and people have ignored it. Would you mind re-presenting this argument? I have to admit that I am a little lost as to what exactly your argument was. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that you did not find anyone’s answers to be satisfying? If they were never able to understand what you argument actually was then they would not be able to answer it clearly. I know that I wrote quite passionately in some of my previous posts, but I am very capable of having a dispassionate, logical discussion. The point I was essentially trying to make earlier, removed from the emotional style of writing, is that whether one sees sex outside of marriage as ok or not is going to depend on what one thinks sex actually is. I can see an understanding of sex which would make it perfectly ok to have sex anytime anywhere, or an understanding which means that it ought to be reserved only for marriage, I find it very difficult to understand the view of sex which says it is to be reserved only for somewhat serious relationships, but which has no porblem with sex outside of marriage in a semi-serious relationship. In the first case, sex is simply viewed as something that is a natural and physically pleasurable function. It is viewed as something which is simply ordered towards pleasure. (Don’t worry, I understand that this is not the view that you hold) The view that says sex should be preserved for marriage views sex as a complete gift of self the very nature of which makes it fitting only within the context of a complete unconditional commitment between those involved. I can understand both of these positions, I think the first is based on a very false and superficial understanding of sex, but I can understand that point of view. I must admit, however, to still being confused as to your point of view. What do you see as being the nature of sex and how does that particular understanding of sex lead to the idea that it is suitable for semi-serious relationships? I assume that the argument you made earlier in this thread must be essentially this explanation but I honestly have not been able to understand it and would appreciate it if you tried to elaborate further.