Betrothed Sexuality

Note: Josh says that I tend to phrase things in scandalous ways. Or something like that. So for his sake I must tell you that nothing here is scandalous. All positive references to pre-marital sexual intimacy assume chastity. The same goes for marital and post-marital, now that I think of it. More precisely, the betrothed sexual intimacy which I advocate assumes continence of the Catholic, not Tantric sort. So don’t be scandalized, be happy. And don’t read this if you like everything to be neat and clean and non-sexual. This post talks about bodies, specifically mine.

The introduction to Catholic Sexual Ethics states that “for many Catholics nowadays, the clear light of the Church’s teaching is not brought to bear on the problems of sexual life. The only moral tempering of the sexual exploitation and hedonism of our culture is provided by the responsible-relational view, which can do little to articulate the real grandeur of sexuality or to protect it from the current onslaught.” That was certainly true of the chastity training which I encountered.

Behind all of the advice on “being pure” was the idea that sex is great in marriage and evil outside of marriage, so the further you stay from sex before marriage, the better. This may be helpful advice for high school students, but I desperately wanted to live a wholly integrated life, and the whole  includes sexuality.

I remember hearing the advice that instead of asking “where is the line, and how far can I go?” one should ask “how far can I stay from the line?” and I hated that advice because it was all about lines. I read the The Theology of the Body and took it very seriously. I did not want lines, I wanted life. I wanted every physical expression to be a sign of a greater reality. I wanted physical affection to be an indication of the love in a relationship rather than a dangerous path to sex. The chastity experts assert that “passionate kissing” (or even any kissing) and lying down on a bed together are inherently sexual and should be saved for marriage. I agree that they are sexual, but that does not mean that they are to be “saved.”

For some reason it is difficult for Catholics to admit that since we are sexual beings, cultivating intimacy in preparation for marriage must properly involve the cultivation of sexual intimacy. There is a great fear of sexual intimacy, because any sexual intimacy must risk the oh-so-slippery slope to sexual intercourse, right? Wrong. The catechism proclaims that “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” It should be obvious that we cannot simply box our sexuality up while the rest of us learns to love. There are those who insist that love is merely a choice; they may even suggest that the decision to marry should be made by those in authority over the couple rather than the couple themselves. But that is clearly not the Church’s teaching, so there is no need to even argue the issue.

If learning to love a future spouse means learning to love completely, it must mean learning to love sexually. This does not mean engaging in the act of sexual intercourse. Why not? Because sex itself is appropriate only as an act of complete self-giving, and that is not possible outside of marriage. But there is far more to sexual knowledge and love than simply the mere act of sexual intercourse, and if one reads what the Church teaches rather than that which is proclaimed by rule-loving laypeople, it is clear that the sexual restrictions placed on the engaged are rather slim.

The catechism simply states that “those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.” Please note that it does not say “they should reserve for marriage all expressions of affection which do not belong to siblings.¹” I know that I lost the rad-trads long ago, so I will risk quoting Vatican II: “the word of God regularly invites engaged and married couples to nourish and cherish their betrothal with chaste love and their marriage with undivided love”. There is something special about betrothed love. It must be chaste if it is to really be love, but it must also be sexual if it is to be both honest and complete.

I knew this when I was first dating Josh. I knew that I wanted every level of our relationship to have commitment (or lack thereof) perfectly matched with betrothed love (or lack thereof) with sexual intimacy (or lack thereof). But it was one thing to believe that sexual intimacy was appropriate, and quite another to force my more-puritanical-than-the-Puritans-self to actually become intimate with this man I so feared to lose. So while he was busy thinking of engagement, I was busy thinking that we should kiss less since it would soon be time to say goodbye.

Our actual engagement process is a story for another day, but suffice it to say that endometriosis was far stronger than my prudish self-protection. My wannabe fiancé found his opportunity the day he found me unable to drive home from daily mass. I not only let him drive my car (clearly a sign of increasing intimacy, yes?), I allowed him into my bedroom while I went to the bathroom to change into pajamas (after vomiting, of course). And he held me during the times when I settled into one position for more than a brief moment.

It sounds quite innocent becuase it was quite innocent. But lying on my bed with my oh-so-significant other pressing a hot water bottle into my pelvis was also sexually intimate. Why yes, it is possible to be both innocent and intimate. And a year later after he waited at the hospital during my laparoscopy, I apologized for not bringing him a baby at the end. Because what is the point of waiting for hours at the hospital if you don’t get a baby after? Of course Josh thought me quite silly and drugged because the “point” was to take care of me, and he knew that meant taking care of my fertility issues, even before we were married.

We had short talks about infertility (because he was not interested) and many hours spent lying on my bed together (always my bed because if I was feeling well enough to visit him I would feel well enough to do something other than lie down!). I do not think that our level of intimacy would be appropriate for every couple as each person has their own weaknesses, but I cannot help thinking that a lot of premarital purity advocates miss the mark with their advice because their focus is on “saving” sexual intimacy for marriage rather than directing expressions of sexual intimacy to accurately reflect the truest intimacy of the relationship.

We are all broken, and must account for that in various ways in our pursuit of pure intimacy. But achieving our goal of sexual purity must not come at the cost of the honest expression of our sexuality in betrothed love. My broken inclination is still to suppress my sexuality rather than to love fully. I can only imagine how bad it would be if my body had not conspired against my mind to force me to accept more intimacy than others would deem “holy.”

And so I thank God for the chance I received to live out my pre-marital sexuality. The transformation from the 17-year-old who did not even give guy friends side-hugs to the 21-year-old who shared a bed with the man she still hoped to marry was not a slippery slope, it was a work of grace. I sincerely wish that every engaged couple could share the same chaste sexual intimacy.

1. Although even that is problematic, yes? Oh how dangerous the Scriptures are for those who seek proof texts for romance!