French kissing

[jnewaz]

I refer you to my posts above. I do not see French kissing as something one who is unmarried is to do…

Yes God has a very optimistic view of sexuality…as does of course the Church. The problem is with the results of the fall…via concupscience (which brought a great weakness in area that needs be countered by virtue) and also personal and cultural sin…which is a grave distortion of the that optimistic view.

I do not say…nor does the Church teach that kissing is prohibited outside of marriage…though of course one still needs to approach it with serious evaluation.

Chaste kissing can be good (taking into consideration what is outlined in the first link I posted from the theology dept at EWTN)

But we are not here speaking of the “kissing of affection” of the unmarried.

French kissing is kissing with the tongue…it is more suited to foreplay of the marital act (if engaged in at all) …

Here is by the way the response of one of the Catholic Answers Apologists:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37374&highlight=french+kissing

As for the other links I gave you to the addresses of the Pope at WTD…take one a week…or one a day…they are not too long and they are great…do not wait

Hmm. Well I will take the time to give that stuff a peek. Maybe I’ll get back to you. Personally, I have already stated my beliefs. One thing does strike me as curious though, which I overlooked. Were you suggesting I was 60 or 70? Am I really that wise to you?

 

[Bookcat]

Hmm. Well I will take the time to give that stuff a peek. Maybe I’ll get back to you. Personally, I have already stated my beliefs. One thing does strike me as curious though, which I overlooked. Were you suggesting I was 60 or 70? Am I really that wise to you?

The great stuff I was referring to is not on topic per se it is the addresses of Pope Benedict XVI at the world Youth Days…hence my saying it was good for every age…even 60 or 70 (or somewhat lesser in my case)…they are for your spiritual and theological edification in general. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/youth/index_en.htm

On the topic of the French Kissing…that was the links from EWTN and the one from the Catholic Answers Apologist…

Again as to that latter topic…it is really not something for prior to marriage (readers can see posts above)

 

[Debora123]

Grandma kiss = little peck

As opposed to what, a big peck?

French kiss= tongues (called tongue kissing or soul kissing in the past…)

So in your opinion kissing with mouth open is ok as long as no tongues are involved??



I still don’t see how there can be anything between a closed mouth kiss or an open mouth kiss.

A closed mouth kiss is always a peck, and I don’t see how you can kiss someone with a mouth open but not touch tongues.

 

[Windfish]

I think I have already reached a conclusion on this. We ought to avoid near occasions of sin, and for non-married couples, that means avoiding actions and states of affairs that may tempt one or both parties to fornication. However, as has been already said, “since people are different, different things can be for them near occasions of sin.” That means determining what those things are is a matter of reason and prudential judgment. To that end, french kissing per se is not intrinsically evil or immoral, and so it is simply wrong to simplistically condemn it, Bookcat. That it involves tongue-to-tongue contact is simply an arbitrary distinction - what matters is if it tempts one beyond a kiss to fornication. And that is relative to several different factors. I think that is why your EWTN article chose the words that it did, “prolonged and passionate kissing” as opposed to singling out “french kissing.” The article would have certainly singled out french kissing otherwise.

At this point, I think it is obvious that french kissing per se is not condemned, and it becomes a matter of reason to decide if it tempts one to fornication.

 

[TrueLight]

Post this question in this forum, get one answer. Post it in the Trad forum, get another.

 

[Debora123]

Post this question in this forum, get one answer. Post it in the Trad forum, get another.

Haha, I know right? Some people think you shouldn’t kiss at all until you’re married.

While I do respect a couple’s decision to do that, I wouldn’t appreciate it if someone came out and told me that doing so is wrong and that I’ve sinned. That’s the type of stuff that makes me mad.

 

[Bookcat]

I think I have already reached a conclusion on this. We ought to avoid near occasions of sin, and for non-married couples, that means avoiding actions and states of affairs that may tempt one or both parties to fornication. However, as has been already said, “since people are different, different things can be for them near occasions of sin.” That means determining what those things are is a matter of reason and prudential judgment. To that end, french kissing per se is not intrinsically evil or immoral, and so it is simply wrong to simplistically condemn it, Bookcat. That it involves tongue-to-tongue contact is simply an arbitrary distinction - what matters is if it tempts one beyond a kiss to fornication. And that is relative to several different factors. I think that is why your EWTN article chose the words that it did, “prolonged and passionate kissing” as opposed to singling out “french kissing.” The article would have certainly singled out french kissing otherwise.

At this point, I think it is obvious that french kissing per se is not condemned, and it becomes a matter of reason to decide if it tempts one to fornication.

It is not just a matter of a near occasion of sin.

Nor is it only a matter of what tempts on to fornication. The direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage is grave matter for mortal sin…in any what that it is sought.

And some actions are simply that and can not be done for any good reason…they are not like chaste kissing or holding of the hands…but are really to be reserved for marriage. To engage in them otherwise is to engage in and act of lust.

(of course if one consents to it what it was not initially sought in some otherwise good action…that too is grave)

It would seem to me that French kissing …seems to be more of that sort of act.

Also see Catholic Answers Apologist: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37374&highlight=french+kissing

I have not* simplistically* condemned it…I have articulated various times how it is not for those who are not married and why.

As to the article …they noted they were only giving examples…they could have listed a whole boatload of things…but that was not their goal. Not finding the words there does not mean they did not have such also in mind.

French kissing is not something really that is a ‘sign of affection’ for the unmarried. There is no reason for people to be putting their tongues in each others mouths…this is an act that if engaged in at all is fitted to the married …

 

[Windfish]

You are simply wrong here, Bookcat, because you are speaking out of your purview. As has been clearly demonstrated, this is a matter of reason and prudential judgment. I agree that the “the direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage is grave matter for mortal sin,” but as I have said numerous times, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it is always and for everyone the case with french kissing per se. There are many factors that I have alluded to that mitigate the notion that french kissing “prepares the body for sexual relations,” to use Michelle Arnold’s words. For that, it is simply ridiculous to unilaterally condemn french kissing.

 

[Bookcat]

You are simply wrong here, Bookcat, because you are speaking out of your purview. As has been clearly demonstrated, this is a matter of reason and prudential judgment. I agree that the “the direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage is grave matter for mortal sin,” but as I have said numerous times, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it is always and for everyone the case with french kissing per se. There are many factors that I have alluded to that mitigate the notion that french kissing “prepares the body for sexual relations,” to use Michelle Arnold’s words. For that, it is simply ridiculous to unilaterally condemn french kissing.

And you are speaking out of your purview.

I should note too that one must read my above posts in toto

(and as I noted so is consenting to sexual pleasure outside of marriage…that too is grave)

It really is not something that should be engaged in by the unmarried…what on earth would one be sticking ones tongues into each others mouths for?

Perhaps they have some food stuck there that they can’t get themselves…but in that case I suggest a dentist.

 

[Windfish]

And you are speaking out of your purview.

I do not think so. You cannot unilaterally condemn something unless that something is intrinsically immoral or evil - needless to say, french kissing is not intrinsically immoral or evil, nor is french kissing per se necessarily a “direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage is grave matter for mortal sin.” That simply is not the case all the time nor for all people because french kissing is not of its very nature related to intercourse.

 

[Bookcat]

That simply is not the case all the time nor for all people because french kissing is not of its very nature related to intercourse.

It does not have to be related to intercourse…

I was not saying per se that it had to be…but rather of it is nature it is directed toward direct sexual stimulation.

 

[Debora123]

And you are speaking out of your purview.

I should note too that one must read my above posts in toto

(and as I noted so is consenting to sexual pleasure outside of marriage…that too is grave)

French kissing does not give sexual pleasure. It does not involve direct stimulation to the sexual organs.

I’m pretty sure my husband and I didn’t have orgasms from our premarital kissing sessions.

It can definitely be arousing, but then again, so can hugging and, as you call it, “chaste kissing.”

 

[Bookcat]

French kissing does not give sexual pleasure. It does not involve direct stimulation to the sexual organs.

I’m pretty sure my husband and I didn’t have orgasms from our premarital kissing sessions.

It can definitely be arousing, but then again, so can hugging and, as you call it, “chaste kissing.”

Actually it does…one need not have a climax to have sexual pleasure. But the word used often is direct stimulation.

And yes if sexual pleasure should happen in other less direct ways…such as chaste kissing or a reasonable hug…such would be indirect and one should not consent to it.

 

[Bookcat]

I do not think so. You cannot unilaterally condemn something unless that something is intrinsically immoral or evil - needless to say, french kissing is not intrinsically immoral or evil, nor is french kissing per se necessarily a “direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage is grave matter for mortal sin.” That simply is not the case all the time nor for all people because french kissing is not of its very nature related to intercourse.

If a person goes to a doctor and needs to undress for an exam…that is one thing.

if a person undresses for their date as part of their time together…that is another.

Undressing is not an intrinsically evil act.

But undressing for ones date is going to be sinful any which way you slice it…and is going to be in the area of things that never should be done.

Such an act is only for the married. Even though it is not intrinsically evil to undress always and everywhere…

The point about French Kissing …is that it is really something that of its nature is directed toward sexual pleasure…or “stimulation”

and just as there may be some odd person who would not be aroused by the removal of clothing …this does not mean that they should go ahead and get naked… same thing in regards to French kissing…just cause some particular person is less-sensitive to such…does not mean they should engage in it prior to marriage.

And again why would anyone want to put ones tongue in the mouth of ones date ??

It is really not a sign suited to the relationship.

Such is suited to some marriages…

 

[Windfish]

It does not have to be related to intercourse…

I was not saying per se that it had to be…but rather of it is nature it is directed toward direct sexual stimulation.

Actually, no, french kissing per se is not of its very nature directed toward that. That is the whole point. Whether or not it leads to “direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage” is by no means uniform for all people all of the time. For a lot of people, a simple tongue kiss has become the norm. When it gets more “passionate” or “prolonged,” as the EWTN article said, or when it “prepares the body for sexual relations,” as Arnold said, then we approach the near occasion of sin. What you are doing is asserting your subjective view of french kissing in thinking it the case for all people at all times.

 

[Debora123]

Actually it does…one need not have a climax to have sexual pleasure. But the word used often is direct stimulation.

And yes if sexual pleasure should happen in other less direct ways…such as chaste kissing or a reasonable hug…such would be indirect and one should not consent to it.

Well that’s all very strange because I know for a fact that I didn’t get sexual pleasure from french kissing. I’ve never heard that before. Kissing does not involve the sexual organs - whether there is tongue involved or not. A tongue is not a sexual organ and cannot be stimulated as such.

Perhaps you are confusing actual sexual pleasure with sexual arousal?

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, no, french kissing per se is not of its very nature directed toward that. That is the whole point. Whether or not it leads to “direct seeking of sexual pleasure outside of marriage” is by no means uniform for all people all of the time. For a lot of people, a simple tongue kiss has become the norm. When it gets more “passionate” or “prolonged,” as the EWTN article said, or when it “prepares the body for sexual relations,” as Arnold said, then we approach the near occasion of sin. What you are doing is asserting your subjective view of french kissing in thinking it the case for all people at all times.

Well we disagree. Your here…ummm…putting words in my mouth. Also it seems your not reading my posts but picking out a line to respond too while ignoring the rest…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well that’s all very strange because I know for a fact that I didn’t get sexual pleasure from french kissing. I’ve never heard that before. Kissing does not involve the sexual organs - whether there is tongue involved or not. A tongue is not a sexual organ and cannot be stimulated as such.

Perhaps you are confusing actual sexual pleasure with sexual arousal?

Debora, perhaps this is what Bookcat is talking about:

Different people have different tolerance levels when it comes to contact with the opposite sex. For a good many people, sexual arousal is brought about with French kissing. I’m not going to get more graphic than that. That would put a person who knows what his or her tolerance level is (if that applies to him or her), in a near occasion of sin, and to do so casually, irresponsibly, can be a serious matter.

I agree with the previous poster that it is a matter of prudential judgment, but for many people it’s not a “confusion” between sexual pleasure and sexual arousal, but rather a kinship between the two, as well as, for many, a serious temptation.

 

[Bookcat]

Well that’s all very strange because I know for a fact that I didn’t get sexual pleasure from french kissing. I’ve never heard that before. Kissing does not involve the sexual organs - whether there is tongue involved or not. A tongue is not a sexual organ and cannot be stimulated as such.

Perhaps you are confusing actual sexual pleasure with sexual arousal?

We are discussing Catholic Moral theology…and use the terms etc of that science.

The EWTN doc with be of some help here.

 

[Bookcat]

A person engaged in kissing…and fully consenting to the sexual pleasure involved (with full knowledge) is committing a mortal sin.

Even if the sexual organs are never touched externally or any culmination of sexual pleasure has occurred.

(again for fuller details see the link to the EWTN work I posted early on)