hypocrisy of purely spiritual romantic attraction

I recently posted a lengthy entry exploring my current viewpoint on the practicalities of combating lust, especially but certainly not exclusively by the unmarried. Part of my view is that unmarried Christians who encounter marriage candidates don't need to lust, because the stirrings of a normal yet resisted sex drive are enough for the purpose. Neither of them must obey or examine these promptings in order to prove their existence, and their very existence is what's relevant in selection for (potential) marriage.

A valid follow-up concern to the role played by this "carnal" component is how much emphasis to place on it. Is it "more Christian" for the unmarried to downgrade its importance? As spiritual beings linked by appreciation for each other's souls and virtue, and individuals looking for suitable lifelong partners whose inner qualities shall never diminish with age, is it irredeemably coarse to care about the degree of excitement provoked by the other's temporal form?

No.

Don't misunderstand. The condition and compatibility of the other's spirit is vital. A couple who have no respect are attempting to build their future on a rickety foundation. It's foolish to consider someone whose character is repugnant. It's quite self-destructive to pair up with a person who's controlled by sin (we all sin but the spiritually reborn person shouldn't be controlled by sin). Two who differ in their beliefs about the Lord of their lives are setting up a painful conflict. It's not enough to find merely someone who makes you laugh, and who is a good conversationalist. A marriage is to the "whole" person, with all the strengths and weaknesses.

But since a marriage is to the whole person, it's still hypocritical to pretend that the person's body isn't involved. And frankly, I doubt that people truly want their bodies to be irrelevant in this kind of relationship: "Do you like to look at me?"  "Your looks don't matter." Full attraction that affirms people and meets their needs will contain a bodily element. Scolding either of the two Christians for not being perfectly disembodied in their affections is a step too far. The hypocrisy is doubled when the self-appointed judge is a happily married person who massages a spouse's shoulder during the sermon rather than taking notes. The hypocrisy is redoubled when the premarital "tsks" suddenly shift to "Why don't you have a child yet?" six months after the marriage ceremony finishes. Demonizing actual lust or inappropriate contact before marriage is excellent. Demonizing any hint of desire in two people who display an earnest interest in holy marriage is unfair, unrealistic, and incorrect.

So a romantic attraction that's "purely spiritual" is mythical, and the myth is a hypocritical burden to place on the unmarried, although they like all Christians have the duty to flee sexual sin in thought and deed. Acknowledgment of the carnal contribution raises another question. What is the right timing of it? How soon should it be felt? If it's the first motive that someone experiences, is that an awful way to start things out?

Once again, I think that the question turns on a false dichotomy. A successful outcome depends on more than the evaluation of physique. It also depends on more than admiration of integrity of character. Thus, I don't think that, in the long-run, the "base" motivations are a worse point of departure than the "elevated" motivations. No matter which is more predominant at the outset, the rest will develop later. Someone who asks or accepts a date in response to the one factor should expect the other factor eventually, before the marriage stage. "That person is loving toward all things great and small" is a more lofty sentiment than "That person tickles my fancy", but neither is sufficient on its own. Early on, participants can't be expected to desire each other mind, body, and soul. Disdaining initial love for the body is hypocritical. It can't be the full extent of the basis for marriage. However, it's a workable root for everything that follows. "You wanted to go on a first date because of shallow skin-deep fascination?"  "Sure. How can I learn to love your soul until we've had the chance to talk some more?"