One of the most important lessons in my life is that sexual fulfilment doesn't need to be genital; there is a vast amount to found in entirely appropriate touch - and it's not just as a poor substitute, but is worthwhile in itself. I had this lesson made most clearly to me some years ago when one of YFs choose to allow me to sit cuddled up to him on the settee whilst watching TV together. He was 23 or so at the time, and aware of my past, yet despite that he allowed that degree of physical intimacy; he has subsequently gone on to get engaged to be married this summer. I would want to argue that the interaction that evening was in some sense sexual, but in no way inappropriate for a Christian to participate in. And I would argue that form of interaction is one which our overly sexualised culture has made very hard to achieve, with the result that genital sex is the only form available, to the detriment of all those who are not in relationships.

To bring this round to the original post; I would want to argue therefore that the events of the day are in practice sexual - the Christian perspective is to argue that genital interaction however is to be restricted to marriage. This is because it creates 'one flesh' between the participants, and if this is not in the context of marriage, it is ultimately damaging to them. Note that this separates out the issues of gay relationships and BL relationships. The arguments for and against the former are argued at great length elsewhere on the internet (e.g. www.bridges-across.org). The issue of a BL/YF sexual relationship is the problem of lack of permanence; it is unrealistic to expect a boy to commit to a permanent relationship....

Does that make sense to other people?