Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Friday, February 03, 2012

How Far Can We Go?

In my days as a young unmarried Catholic, I often suffered through chastity talks or had dating manuals pressed on me. The Protestant dating manuals (or, more accurately, not-dating, since apparently dating is right out in those circles, to be replaced by the nebulous concept of "courtship") were painfully earnest in their descriptions of hypothetical couples who were keeping their relationships 99.44% pure by following strict rules of behavior. Chastity talks were even more painful because you had to be there in person, squirming in your folding chair and wishing the floor would swallow you as the speaker hemmed and hawed, or, even worse, was wildly enthusiastic for Purity! There seemed to be no happy medium between  either rigid guidelines that seemed designed to minimize contact between a couple, or hazy exhortations to purity that gave one no practical guidance in the matter of a relationship rooted in reality.

After the discussion following this post about the proper level of physical interaction before marriage, Darwin ordered a book on the subject by Brett Salkeld, a fellow blogger and acquaintance. Brett and his co-author Leah Perrault know this sad scene all too well, and they have written a refreshing remedy and valuable resource, How Far Can We Go? A Catholic Guide to Sex and Dating.
Here are two famous answers to the question "How far can we go?"
  • Keep both feet on the floor.
  • Asking "How far can we go?" is like taking your girlfriend or boyfriend in your arms, walking to the edge of a cliff, and asking, "How close can I get to the edge?"
We had to write this book because we think both these answers are unsatisfactory. We think we can do better. The first answer is very practical, but anyone with a little imagination can get around it. In trying to set out an easy-to-follow guideline for Catholic couples, it ignores the question of Christian formation. It says that physical intimacy is only about how you act, and has no connection to the kind of person you are called to become.  
The second answer is much more dangerous. The foundation of the metaphor it uses is that sex is roughly equivalent to suicide! In other words, sex is dangerous and sinful. Any advance in physical intimacy is just getting you closer and closer to the edge of the cliff. When we give answers like this it is no wonder the world thinks the Church is down on sex! 
...One of the reasons that Christian books on sex and dating have given a misleading view about sexuality is that they ignore the essential communicative aspect of sexuality. Sexual sin is presented as crossing some vague boundary partway up an imaginary list of increasingly intimate physical acts. But, in the context of physical intimacy, sin isn't crossing an arbitrary line. Sexual sin is about using your body to lie to your partner (and probably yourself) about the nature of your relationship. There need to be one or two clear lines about what is appropriate for unmarried people, but those lines are not drawn to keep people from acts that impure in and of themselves. They are drawn to keep people from lying with the language of their bodies. This book, then, is not primarily about which acts are and are not permissible. This book is about learning to speak the truth with your body.
One thing I really appreciate here is that Salkeld and Perrault have a respect for their young audience, and don't treat the question "How far can we go?" as an attempt to find out how much whoopie one can get away with, but an honest query about what is right and appropriate at any point in a relationship. (I snickered out loud at their description of a youth group leader who answers this question from a young couple by saying, "I'll let you in on a little secret. Your relationship will do much better if, instead, you ask yourselves how pure you can be." If you haven't heard twaddle like that, you haven't been around the Authentically Catholic! youth scene much.) They emphasize from the start that their model of dating "presumes that those who use it are sincerely trying to live holy lives. If you're hoping to find loopholes so you can get away with as much as possible and still say you're following Catholic rules, this model isn't for you."

Just what is this model? It relies on honestly answering the question "How much of myself does God want me to give to this other person?"
Sex is not a shortcut to intimacy! If you want to have sex but don't want to get married, you need to look at your reason for not getting married. If it's not a very good reason [the financial demands of a big wedding being an earlier example], work through it and then get married. If it's a good reason, it's probably a good reason not to have sex. Sex speaks a profound language of the body that is both a sign and a source of the kidn of unity that married people share. If you're not ready for marriage, then you're simply not ready for the demands of a relationship that includes sex.  
If you understand our explanation of the Church's teaching on premarital sex, you should be able to follow our dating model. It works on exactly the same principle; physical gifts of self ought to reflect our self-giving in other areas of a relationship.
The dating model the authors set forth is firmly rooted in responsibility and free will: not a "one-size-fits-all" set of rules (because every person and every relationship is unique), but guidelines for discerning at each step of a relationship the appropriate levels of not just physical intimacy, but spiritual, intellectual, social, and emotional intimacy All of these are often bound up with one another because humans are bodies and souls -- what effects one must effect the other. One of the most common-sense statements in the book is that intimacy needs to grow gradually over time, and the authors provide examples of couples at different stages of life and relationship -- high school students, couples in college, working college graduates, and high-powered career men and women -- to show how this discernment can play out in various ways. There's a fun set of graphs that examine how all forms of intimacy progress over the course of the journey from perfect strangers to spouses. The authors aren't shy about expressing the Church's teachings against common sexual pitfalls such as pornography and masturbation, and clearly explain the reasons for these teachings. They are unequivocal on the Church's teaching against premarital sex and activities that try to mimic the effects of sex, and devote the last chapters of the book to marriage and NFP.

I absolutely recommend this book -- I really think it's one of the best resources I've encountered for an honest and balanced treatment of what it means to be a faithful Catholic moving toward marriage. For what it's worth, I find the authors' discussion of sexuality and intimacy in relationships to be very true to Darwin's and my experience of having a real and intense and Catholic unmarried relationship while trying to steer a good course between prudery and prurience. This is the book I'll give to my own children to read when they're old enough for such discussions, and I can give no higher praise than that.

UPDATE: You can hear more about Brett and Leah's approach and speaking work at their website: http://www.howfarcanwego.com

FURTHER UPDATE: Here's a video of Brett Salkeld and Leah Perrault discussing "How Far Can We Go?"

29 comments:

bearing said...

Thanks for writing this detailed review -- it sounds like a good book to have in the library. I could probably have used it once upon a time...

Foxfier said...

Huh, must be the season of love-- Mr. Wright posted a similarly themed quote from a book. (Both Catholic-on-love things, one using poetry, yours using straight talk.)

FaithfulCatechist said...

Color me skeptical: Paulist Press has a poor track record of fidelity to the Church's teachings, to put it mildly.

MrsDarwin said...

FaithfulCatechist, I can't speak to Paulist's catalog because I don't know it, but I read this book myself, Thursday night, and I found it to be faithful to Church teaching. I wouldn't favorably review a book that I thought was silly or riddled with errors or out of line with Church teaching, regardless of whether it was published by Paulist or Ignatius or Daughters of St. Paul or Tan.

(It also carries a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, if you find that consoling.)

Simcha Fisher said...

Thanks so much for this review! I'm going to order the book right now, for when my kids are older. My whole entire training in sexual purity as a teen was, "If you do things with a boy, it will be like inviting that boy into your someday marital bed, and won't that be awkward with your husband?" Since I fully intended to marry my boyfriend someday, this was not persuasive.

Brett Salkeld said...

Faithful,
You can also check out Don DeMarco's review at the National Catholic Register. There is a blurb from it on the back of the book. I don't have it handy, but it says something like "never departs from Catholic orthodoxy." Perhaps Mrs. Darwin could share it here in the comments?

Foxfier said...

Simcha Fisher-
sounds like the priest that drove my mom out of teaching CCD. (Back when she was just a "cool" shop teacher, not a wife or mom.)

She was teaching the Church's stuff on sex, and the priest walked in and told a bunch of high school kids that anything was OK, as long as "you really love who you're doing it with."
Yeah. What good-hearted kid DOESN'T think they really love someone they want to...er... be intimate with? (Short form: she objected, he insisted, she refused to be involved in teaching any such thing.)

Claire said...

Is this book mainly more appropriate for teenagers, or would you say it is also good for those in their late twenties that are dating?

MrsDarwin said...

Here's the back-cover review from Dr. Donald DeMarco (from National Catholic Register):

"The authors are keenly aware of the omnipresence of the secular world and the powerful influence it has on young people. They know that Christianity is countercultural. Therefore, they approach controversial issues such as abstaining from intercourse prior to marriage, masturbation, and the use of contraception very gently and with great sensitivity. Nowhere, however, do they depart from Catholic orthodoxy."

"Very gently and with great sensitivity", in my reading, meant that the problems with these issues were spelled out clearly and unequivocally, but without condemnation and brimstone for those who may have fallen into those errors.

MrsDarwin said...

Claire, in some places the tone of the writing seemed aimed at a teenaged audience, but I think that the relationship model is very sound and generally applicable at any age. There are also several relationship studies provided of couples who are in their twenties or thirties -- at a story level, I really enjoyed the example given of the widowed 34-year-old lawyer who meets the 36-year old doctor and hits it off right away. It would make a great novel premise... :)

But perhaps Brett might weigh in again and talk about his target audience?

Brett Salkeld said...

Actually, we worked really hard to write something that would be easily readable for teenagers but that wouldn't feel like teen-lit to a young adult, or even someone in their late 20s or 30s.
The feedback we've received indicates we've succeeded. I'd recommend it to anyone.
One of our main hopes is that the book will be used in high schools, but we suspect it will be just as helpful for young teachers as for students!

Anonymous said...

Neither guy or gal no matter how pure they would like to be can win the game of “how far can you go: You cannot fool mother nature ….the answer has always been that boy and girl just cannot be trusted to be left alone before marriage no matter what …..so let us return to the serious use of chaperones. Before marriage there is no absolute reason that a couple have to be left completely alone. After marriage they can be alone together forever until the kids come along. If someone would write a book on the ingenious use of chaperones, it would help more that a 1000 books on “how far can you go”

Foxfier said...

My marriage came about in part because the Navy had the same theory, Anon-- that young men and women aren't to be trusted. Their solution of requiring "liberty buddies" in groups of three or more meant that I always ended up checking out with the same group of folks, including the guy I (thank You!) married.

Encouraging group activities is a great idea, but trying to enforce chaperoned activities just backfires. Heck, given the option, I would've spent most of my time alone or jumping between groups....

Darwin said...

Anonymous, I respectfully but strongly disagree. It's just not serious to claim that a couple should never be left alone before marriage. For one thing, there just aren't enough chaperones in the world to supervise every single couple. More seriously, not every couple is at the same state of their relationship. Perhaps teenagers need to date in groups, though I wouldn't state that as an absolute. Privacy is essential to developing a relationship, especially one growing toward marriage that is based in exclusivity.

Your comment seems to indicate that you didn't read the post any farther than the title, and that really isn't conducive to serious discussion.

MrsDarwin said...

Sigh.. the above comment is me, signed in as Darwin again.

Anonymous said...

The rationale behind this book sounds beautiful. I appreciate when the meaning of the gift of self is expressed in discussions about chastity. But I always wonder, in the many efforts that I've heard/read to answer the question, "How far is too far" why the very simple answer is hardly ever said. It's a classical moral theology answer but pretty much answers it all: very simply, any act done to purposely cause sexual arousal outside of marriage is gravely sinful. It may be a hard principle to live by, but if you do, you'll instantly know when your seeking self gratification vs. self donation.

MrsDarwin said...

Anon, I'm generally leery of answers to human interaction that are presented as being "very simple". You're absolutely right that "any act done purposefully to cause sexual arousal outside of marriage is gravely sinful", and two of the most deliberate examples of that are covered in the Catechism: masturbation and the viewing of pornography. Prostitution is also forbidden. But in a relationship, sexual attraction (which is not the same thing as deliberate sexual arousal) is a good and natural response to a member of the opposite sex, per John Paul II in Love and Responsibility. There are good ways of expressing love and affection in a relationship that will cause sexual arousal -- even something as innocuous as holding hands. That's why it's so important for a couple to keep evaluating their level of physical intimacy, to make sure that it's in balance with and not outpacing other intimacies: intellectual, emotional, spiritual.

I do agree that if one is holding hands with (or kissing or what have you) someone else simply to experience the thrill of arousal, regardless of any relationship with the other person, then that's clearly using the other person and is wrong. Most relationships don't work that way, however -- I think that most people do have a desire to get to know the other person and to give tangible signs of affection. This is not just a matter of lust (a "disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure" [CCC 2351], which indicates that there can be ordered desires and ordinate enjoyment, depending on one's state in life), but a matter of honestly responding in love to another person.

Foxfier said...

There are good ways of expressing love and affection in a relationship that will cause sexual arousal

"Good morning, dear" comes to mind as one that sometime works for me; also "sleep, honey, I've got the kids." ;^)

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that How far can i go ... is best applied to a catholic married couple with 3 kids and using natural family planning. If dating is a temptation how about a married couple next to each other in bed without much clothe on, trying to make love without intercourse. I wager that mortal sins are going to happen especially with the man one way or the other.

Church buddy

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that How far can i go ... is best applied to a catholic married couple with 3 kids and using natural family planning. If dating is a temptation how about a married couple next to each other in bed without much clothe on, trying to make love without intercourse. I wager that mortal sins are going to happen especially with the man one way or the other.

Church buddy

Foxfier said...

'cus God forbid you make love to your wife, or want to make love but refrain because you know it's not wise at this point... yeah, that's sinful.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church as always taught tha spilling the seed anywhere outside the womb is at least objectively a mortal sin.
Sorry for the bad news

Church Buddy

Anonymous said...

I like the idea of chaperones.
It has been used for centuries with great success. And even now couples madly in love and soon to be married can do a lot of things that simulate the same effect as that of a chaperone. I know of a case there the woman actually rented a room with older women. The age difference helped and there was really no place to evem think about making love.

I know the couple well and know that both were virgins when they married.

Church Buddy

Brandon said...

The Catholic Church as always taught tha spilling the seed anywhere outside the womb is at least objectively a mortal sin.

I suppose this would be a problem for married couples who knew so little about sex as to be unable to distinguish NFP from onanism.

I always find it interesting how these anachronistic and garbled factoids about what the Church supposedly teaches float around without any regard for things that the Church provably has taught, like the importance of disposition, deliberation, and intention, or the capacity of circumstances to qualify species of actions, and so forth.

Darwin said...

Church Buddy,

I don't believe you're delivering "bad news" that Foxfier is unaware of, so do please mind the tone. I can't have people taking liberties.

Indeed, for a man to intentionally achieve satisfaction outside the context of intercourse is a sin, in that it is an attempt to separate the pleasure of intercourse from its unitive and procreative aspects. However, at the same time, a NFP using couple certainly has the experience to know how they can and can't express their love and affection without getting themselves into trouble. Not to say that such things are easy, but I don't think they need winking hints. (Also, just as a quick anatomical point: "womb" is a term generally used for the uterus, which is a location that no man is going to directly reach with this "seed" spilling.)

I hesitate to criticize someone for something they find to work well in helping them maintain a chaste disposition -- however I'll admit the idea of calling chaperones upon oneself seems a little odd to me. Of course, my own experience is of my wife and I having both successfully waited until our wedding night despite having traveled alone together on a number of occasions during the years we were dating and engaged.

Bender said...

the priest walked in and told a bunch of high school kids that anything was OK, as long as "you really love who you're doing it with."
_______________

That is 100 percent absolutely true. And good Catholic doctrine.

As Augustine said, "Love, and then do what you will."

The real question is -- What is love?

The real problem that we have in our hyper-sexualized society is a gross misunderstanding of the concept and nature of love, as well as truth.

Sexual activity outside of marriage, whether with another person or yourself, is contrary to love and contrary to the truth of the human person. It is the objectification of the human person.

If you "really love who you're with," then you won't be jumping into the back seat for a joy ride with them. And if someone asks you to do so, it ain't love, it is treating the other as an object to be used. It is the antithesis of love, no matter how much he says, "oh, I really love you, babe," even if you've been going together for two or three years.

If we are ever to instill in people a proper understanding of the moral truths concerning human sexuality, we must first construct a foundation of learning about love.

Foxfier said...

What the priest may have been saying was not what the kids were hearing, is the point.

Bender said...

I'm not saying that this particular priest meant it in this way. Out of charity, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is possible that he was giving them sexual license.

In either event, the better response is not to just walk away, but to use the occasion to explain how tricky sexual morality can be; even if the priest did mean to convey the wrong thing, to use the occasion to twist his words back to the right thing.

Foxfier said...

In either event, the better response is not to just walk away, but to use the occasion to explain how tricky sexual morality can be; even if the priest did mean to convey the wrong thing, to use the occasion to twist his words back to the right thing.

You mean subverting the priest's words to what you want them to be?

No, she did the thing a good Catholic girl does when she thinks someone with authority she's required to respect seems to be mistaken-- she privately spoke to him about it. He stuck to his guns. She refused to subvert him, but refused to teach what she knew wasn't right.