NotreDame Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 What about romantic love makes it inherently sexual? I've not heard an explanation that doesn't wind up being circular. Not a big deal or course just curious if you have an explanation :bounce: Good post. My initial thought is that this is a very subjective topic, where labels are given to things not because they were derived from logic or truth, but simply to facilitate discussion. Am I wrong there or right? In that case, it wouldn't surprise me if romantic love was inherently sexual in motivation, if only by definition, and that would be why all the logic tying the two together would be circular. Obviously, as you imply, real "love" does not have sexual motives even though it can exist in a sexual relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 This might help clarify some a little. An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are. There is considerable diversity among the asexual community; each asexual person experiences things like relationships, attraction, and arousal somewhat differently. Asexuality does not make our lives any worse or any better, we just face a different set of challenges than most sexual people. Asexuality is distinct from celibacy or sexual abstinence, which are behaviours, while asexuality is generally considered to be a sexual orientation. Some asexuals do participate in sex, for a variety of reasons. A person who is romantically attracted to a member of the same sex or gender. Homoromantic asexuals seek romantic relationships for a variety of reasons, including companionship, affection, and intimacy, but they are not necessarily sexually attracted to their romantic partners. The sexual counterpart to homoromantic is homosexual. Most homosexuals are also homoromantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 First quote is from: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexuality Second is from: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Homoromantic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 My life would be so much easier if I were an asexual. Where can I sign up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Est Veritas? Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis actually deals with this question using different terminology. He defines erotic love as something different from the intense love that is "philia" or friendship. In fact he classes philia as a higher kind of love than erotic, which (he says) tends to have less pure motives. A same-sex friendship where the other person is your soul-mate is a really beautiful thing. I'm not sure how sex would even enter into a relationship like that. It all kind of hinges on your definition of romantic. Does it mean flowers/candy/gazing into each other's eyes? Or does it mean spending every waking hour together/knowing everything about the other person/doing anything for the other person? The first one would be unusual in our current social context. The second one is the same as what everyone with a "best friend" has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 You know what... this ^^^ is funny and normally I'd have a comeback, but I just went gym shopping in San Francisco yesterday and it was a very traumatic experience that sapped me of my ability to make any gay related jokes for a bit, even of the self deprecating variety. This review is from someone else, but it does encapsulate my experience (warning, describes sexual acts): http://www.yelp.com/biz/fitness-sf-san-francisco?hrid=Ic0uac1SPjwK2X0J1k3zJQ I will say that I will make a conscious effort never, ever to look at a women when she walks into a gym ever, ever again. Having every single guy staring you down (looking you right in the eye) is not a comfortable experience, especially when they are all wearing tank tops and on cycles of dianabol. I've been to gay bars before and I've shopped in some gay areas (some great clothes, good prices) but I've never been to a gay gym. This wasn't in a gay area, so I wasn't expecting it. Let me just say that it was a very different experience from the gay environments I'd been in before. I really hope that's not how women feel walking into a gym full of straight guys. The worst is that everybody here in the city is super passive aggressive (yes, from SF to seattle the whole northwest is really passive agressive and actually quite prudish outside of gay areas and red light districts) so I couldn't even make jokes about it afterward, which is generally how I decompress and cope. "My searches took me to a forum consisting of 'asexual gay men'" - said nobody ever. Which review? There are a million of them and I never saw the one you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Which review? There are a million of them and I never saw the one you described. Hmm... normally a hard link to yelp should put that review on top, but I went through them as well and it looks like that review got deleted... But start by checking out the negative comments: http://www.yelp.com/biz/fitness-sf-san-francisco?sort_by=rating_asc Basically the locker room got turned into a gay bath-house. I got a kick out of this one too: http://www.yelp.com/biz/fitness-sf-san-francisco#hrid:444eYHKnsQIrbfh662MFqg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Sulmonte Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I absolutely agree with Ice Nine. I believe, also , that our culture has limited the free expression of these types of friendships/relationships due to it's over sexualization. The world expects friends of the opposite sex to have sex. Why? If we look at the history of many famous saint "couples", they were very close but never crossed over from fraternal friendship into a sexual relationship. It was purely platonic. But it provided their spiritual relationship the advantage of experiencing God through the heart and mind of the opposite sex. Souls come male and female. Therefore we have a lot to learn through the relationships of saints like St. Francis de Sales and St. Jean de Chantel, St. Benedict and St. Scholastica, St. Francis and St. Clare, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. Of course, human nature in it's fallen state, does make it more difficult to maintain a chaste friendship, especially when the relationship enters into the depths of mutual love. Perhaps that is why St. Francis locked himself away from St. Clare. Our Lady, pure of heart, pray for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I had a friend who told me they were asexual, but they were unsure if they were romantic or not. They come to the conclusion they weren't romantic - no sex, no kissing, or anything like that. They just wanted platonic friends to share stuff with (or a specific friend) to share things with, like a companion, brother/sister, or 'best friend'. I guess that may or may not involve hugs or affection. My friend said they weren't that bothered whether it was a man or woman, young or old. Just that they got along and had the same interests. My thought, at the time, was that would make it a lot easier for a person (on the celibacy front) to enter religious life, if the person had the calling! Anyway, I was a bit suspicious and actually thought there must be something else going on here. So I did some reading and all the definition terms can get a bit complicated, and it's not helped that some people use the label and definitions to mean different things (and some switch or use asexual as a mid point or cover when resolving, or not wanting to deal with, other issues. I know this isn't always the case, but these issues are problems in the mix. There would also be some challenges, potentially, if the couple had a religious marriage (without sex or children). I guess it would be grounds for an annulment, if ever desired. But would declaring this situation be a bar in the first place? There are also problems if the couple would only consider artificial insemination, or similar methods, to have children. The problem of same sex couples marrying (or unions) to simply pass on goods and financial security is another issue. In terms of the romantic asexual, I guess it depends what they define as 'romantic'. It also has to be asked whether they'd always seek to date only other asexuals or whether they'd also date those who'd expect sex as part of a relationship (even if they themselves don't have an interest in sex). I guess the root issue is whether they intend to set up as a family unit, or not, and what boundaries and actions they intend to do alongside that intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Benedictus, I believe that for heterosexual couples wishing to be married in the church, declaring your intent to never have sex is in fact a canonical bar to marriage, as it indicates your intent to prevent your spouse from having children and your intent to not consummate your marriage, thus making it non-sacramental. A couple who intended to have sex one time to fulfill the letter of the law could get around this I suppose, but a good pastor would need to counsel them to reconsider marriage, as without sexuality there is no family and in that case there is no need for marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Arfink - I assumed as much, thanks for the clarification. :like2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 No reason for a church marriage, but: Married filing jointly anyone? Medical benefits? Hospital visitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 No reason for a church marriage, but: Married filing jointly anyone? Medical benefits? Hospital visitation? In terms of hospital visitation and medical benefits - in my country this isn't an issue because everyone gets state healtcare access and the patient decides who can visit them in hospital. If there is a restriction on visitor numbers (2 or 3 niminated people only) then the patient gets to decide who they are. Friends, as well as family, can be next of kin or the patient can make an advance directive on these things (in case of future incapacity). In terms of private medical insurance, my understanding is you can have single, joint or group plans. You can add on or remove people in the plan. So a covent could have a plan covering all the women there, and so on. The relationship context of those in the terms doesn't concern the company. The only considerations the company has are the number of people, their ages, and their medical history. Some people may have a secular marriage primarily to share tax burdens or to acquire other secondary benefits. I can see why they may want to do this, but this reason alone isn't something to be encouraged or a reason to get married in my opinion. It would probably make more sense if there was a possibility to form a legal contract, or nomination procedure, aside from marriage, or anything alike, to deal with these elements. However, these shouldn't undermine or disrupt the benefits the state may want to give to those within a marriage, as part of a portfolio of considerations for a family unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) No reason for a church marriage, but: Married filing jointly anyone? Medical benefits? Hospital visitation? Unfortunately the Church can't recognize same sex unions even if they're asexual and even if they're for financial reasons only, because if it's not a man and a woman and not sexual it's not a valid sacramental marriage and saying otherwise corrupts the meaning of the term, does scandal to the faithful, and erodes the proper place marriage should have in society. As far as I know though, the Church does not oppose revisions to medical insurance, tax law, or hospital visitation to allow for same sex couples to receive fair treatment. Edited April 4, 2014 by arfink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Benedictus, I believe that for heterosexual couples wishing to be married in the church, declaring your intent to never have sex is in fact a canonical bar to marriage, as it indicates your intent to prevent your spouse from having children and your intent to not consummate your marriage, thus making it non-sacramental. A couple who intended to have sex one time to fulfill the letter of the law could get around this I suppose, but a good pastor would need to counsel them to reconsider marriage, as without sexuality there is no family and in that case there is no need for marriage. ever heard of a jospehite marriage? I think it's been discussed here before very briefly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now