If your GF or BF wanted to save kissing for marriage

[Xantippe]

Why would she marry me if she was not interested? Sure when she doesn’t want sex than she is uninterested too, or what.

It is not uncommon to find that a spouse is quite uninterested in physical intimacy.

For instance, in the case of women from certain hyper-conservative Protestant groups (as discussed in the Duggar thread), marriage represents a young woman’s only way out of her paternal home. The young women are not supposed to live on their own–they pass immediately from the paternal to the marital home. Hence, it would not be surprising under those circumstances for a young woman to grab the first chance at marriage that came her way, whether or not she had any attraction to her fiance.

That’s just one example. There are many, many other reasons why a man or woman might desire marriage but not marital relations and a refusal to kiss might signify the absence of a desire for future marital relations.

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe, I agree that there is a difference between chastity and disinterest. However, it seems that most of the pro-kissing posters here, are tending to really presume that a person who holds a no-kissing stance MUST be acting out of disinterest, not chastity. That’s the assumption that I find questionable.

**No, but it is definitely a strong possibility. **

(It just reminds me a similar topic in a non-Catholic Christian forum, which I won’t name as it certainly does not fit Catholic sexual morality standards. This was about a couple that DID kiss and hug and otherwise engage in non-sexual physical intimacy, but the woman was concerned that the man had never, to her knowledge, been physically aroused during those activities; many posters suggested she dump the man immediately because he surely must be either a closet homosexual or afflicted with an abnormally low sex drive, and that if they married, she was dooming herself to a sexless marriage at best.)

A fiance’s failure to ever experience arousal would be a matter of concern if a woman is hot-blooded herself.

If both fiances have room-temperature libidos, it might not be a problem.

The problem is caused by the presence of a mismatch.

 

[Xantippe]

EXACTLY that is what i find so odd…

If one can’t tell the difference between whether a sweetheart is disinterested or just values his or her chastity, it’s safer to choose a sweetheart who can offer passion and chastity instead.
(Assuming that one is oneself hot-blooded.)

 

[12345678]

Xantippe, I agree that there is a difference between chastity and disinterest. However, it seems that most of the pro-kissing posters here, are tending to really presume that a person who holds a no-kissing stance MUST be acting out of disinterest, not chastity. That’s the assumption that I find questionable.

I agree with this! Gosh…

1. Passionate Kissing can be a mortal sin
2. Kissing is not morally required prior to marriage

Why on earth do people keep implying that lack of wanting to kiss means the person is not marriage material? There are plenty of people that kiss, heck, go all the way, and then say they were never really in love, they are gay blah blah… in fact sharing an unhealthy level of intimacy (and I am not just about sex… enjoying sexual pleasure in making out is also an unhealthy thing) can confuse people to think they care about the person when they don’t.

For the record, I would find it odd for someone to be against pecks, but I definitely do not think it is necessary, or even good, to make out with someone to know if they are marriage material.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

A fiance’s failure to ever experience arousal would be a matter of concern if a woman is hot-blooded herself.

If both fiances have room-temperature libidos, it might not be a problem.

The problem is caused by the presence of a mismatch.

I agree with you, but that was NOT the tone of many posters in that particular discussion, as far as I recall the OP didn’t even bring her own libido up for discussion. The tone was “if you’re not having to slap his hand away every ten minutes, he’s not a real man, there must be something wrong with him, he must be gay or something!”

There also seemed to be the assumption among those Christians, that the woman is solely responsible for being a sexual gate-keeper, that a man is allowed to be as randy as he wants (except perhaps when it comes to actual intercourse) and he’s not guilty of any sin unless he deliberately crosses a boundary set by the woman (but that, of course, would be a “sin” even for many secular people!)

Also, some of your comments make me wonder; do you personally believe that sex before marriage is universally sinful? Or do you think sexual morality is relative, and that as long as partners are in agreement about boundaries and are “matched” well, it doesn’t really matter what the actual boundaries are?

 

[BHL_20]

What if it turns out that you get married and a) she isn’t really that into you or b) isn’t interested in physical intimacy or c) isn’t interested in physical intimacy with persons of your sex?

That would be kind of a bummer.

It’s important to be able to differentiate between chastity and disinterest.

In the case of (a), why on Earth would she have married you??!!
Same for (b) and (c), plus asexuality or homosexuality would probably provide good grounds for annulment, especially if they were hidden before marriage.

Actually, I would find this cool that my GF wants to be better than not sinning.

I know right, wouldn’t we all like to marry a saint? By the way does your name come from Andre 3000? Great rapper.

 

[BHL_20]

Well, the difference between the poll results and what people are willing to post, continues to be very interesting. At the time I’m typing this, the “continue the relationship and respect the person’s boundaries” option has 27 votes, while the “end the relationship” option has 26 votes. Pretty much a tie. .

Can trial members not vote in polls?

As for the “should Catholics be making out” debate, I think that in order to have such a debate, we must clarify what “making out” means. Some just mean “passionate kissing”, some mean “kissing with tongue”, some mean “kissing with some caressing of non-intimate parts”, some mean “kissing with stimulation of breasts or genitals”, some interpret it as “everything except actual intercourse”.

I think many people would find the first three definitions to be acceptable behavior for “chaste” dating, while most would find the last two definitions to be unacceptable.

Kissing with the tongue is way too sexual, I don’t see how it could not lead to lust in a normal man. God will not allow us to be tempted above what we have the power to resist. But if we choose to bring such a temptation on ourselves that’s our own fault. As for passionate kissing, I still think one should be careful and if must be do it only if inspired by love and not by sexual passion.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree with you, but that was NOT the tone of many posters in that particular discussion, as far as I recall the OP didn’t even bring her own libido up for discussion. The tone was “if you’re not having to slap his hand away every ten minutes, he’s not a real man, there must be something wrong with him, he must be gay or something!”

Eh, I read all those posts, and nobody said that or anything close to that.

There also seemed to be the assumption among those Christians, that the woman is solely responsible for being a sexual gate-keeper, that a man is allowed to be as randy as he wants (except perhaps when it comes to actual intercourse) and he’s not guilty of any sin unless he deliberately crosses a boundary set by the woman (but that, of course, would be a “sin” even for many secular people!)

**You must be thinking of some other thread–I think you would have a lot of difficulty coming up with quotes from this thread to support that.

I’m a woman, by the way. **

Also, some of your comments make me wonder; do you personally believe that sex before marriage is universally sinful? Or do you think sexual morality is relative, and that as long as partners are in agreement about boundaries and are “matched” well, it doesn’t really matter what the actual boundaries are?

I’m orthodox and firmly anti-rigorist.

I think a serious boyfriend and girlfriend or fiances need to be in agreement about boundaries, whatever they are. In fact, if you look at the boundaries thread, I’m there arguing strongly for that idea. That’s an entirely separate question from what the boundaries ought to be. (Similarly, a husband and wife must be in agreement about finances or how to raise the children. But their particular financial or childrearing plan may be good or bad.)

 

[Xantippe]

In the case of (a), why on Earth would she have married you??!!
Same for (b) and (c), plus asexuality or homosexuality would probably provide good grounds for annulment, especially if they were hidden before marriage.

**How about we skip the failed “marriage,” the wasted years, the sadness, the divorce, the confused children, the annulment and fast forward to the part where the person marries somebody that is actually sexually interested in them?

Anybody who says to himself or herself, “Well, if this doesn’t work out, I can get an annulment!” probably does deserve an annulment for lacking an understanding of the gravity of marriage. **

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Xantippe, I thought I made it quite clear that I was referring to a completely different topic on a completely different forum with my example. Okay, I’ll clarify it further, it was on the Marriage Bed forums that VeritasLuxMea mentioned in the “Practical Sexual Advice” topic.

Now, the people there DO definitely oppose sex before marriage and also oppose porn, but they also think that single people masturbating as a way to explore their sexual responses is a great idea, that having sex in public places to “spice up” your sex life is normal, and that (more disturbingly), that the rights of a higher-libido partner always trump those of a lower-libido one, but that a spouse is obligated not simply to have sex, but to agree to ANY sexual practice requested by the other spouse, including anal sex and other practices that many people find offensive, degrading, or even a turn-off.

Of course, they don’t hold to the Catholic POV on contraception, either. I also recall one post in which someone supported the idea of 15 year olds marrying because it was “unrealistic” to expect them to abstain longer than that after reaching puberty.

Anyway, you seem to think that the majority of those who hold a no-kissing stance are motivated NOT by a sincere commitment to chastity, but by some personal neurosis, and that most of them do not have a healthy understanding of sexuality, or just lack a sex drive.

Now, I certainly agree that a lack of ANY physical affection is concerning, certainly if one partner really finds physical affection to be a core “love language” and the other doesn’t, this could bode for problems. As I have stated before, I don’t agree with the Duggar approach that forbids not only kissing, but even more innocuous behaviors such as holding hands or “frontal” hugging, and I find lack of any privacy during courtship to be even more problematic.

I just think the idea that “if she doesn’t want to kiss you, she doesn’t want to have sex with you either” is way too much significance to attach to the specific act of kissing. As I mentioned before, there are cultures that do not have any traditional concept of kissing as a way to express romantic affection, but that doesn’t mean they lacked a sex drive before they found out about the practice from other cultures.

It would be nice to hear from anyone reading this who DID have their first kiss at the marriage altar, and DOESN’T have a miserable sexless marriage, though!

 

[kozlosap]

Kissing before marriage has nothing to do with chastity, absolutely nothing. If you are so controlled by either your parents or scrupulosity, then you have no business getting married.

 

[12345678]

Kissing before marriage has nothing to do with chastity, absolutely nothing.

Says… you? This is absolutely not true, it has very much to do… chastity is not simply no sex. There is much more to chastity. (Let me add, there are chaste and unchaste ways to kiss before marriage, I am not saying that all kisses are unchaste, but there certainly are unchaste kisses).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37374
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=901822

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe, I thought I made it quite clear that I was referring to a completely different topic on a completely different forum with my example. Okay, I’ll clarify it further, it was on the Marriage Bed forums that VeritasLuxMea mentioned in the “Practical Sexual Advice” topic.

Now, the people there DO definitely oppose sex before marriage and also oppose porn, but they also think that single people masturbating as a way to explore their sexual responses is a great idea, that having sex in public places to “spice up” your sex life is normal, and that (more disturbingly), that the rights of a higher-libido partner always trump those of a lower-libido one, but that a spouse is obligated not simply to have sex, but to agree to ANY sexual practice requested by the other spouse, including anal sex and other practices that many people find offensive, degrading, or even a turn-off.

Ewww.

Of course, they don’t hold to the Catholic POV on contraception, either. I also recall one post in which someone supported the idea of 15 year olds marrying because it was “unrealistic” to expect them to abstain longer than that after reaching puberty.

Anyway, you seem to think that the majority of those who hold a no-kissing stance are motivated NOT by a sincere commitment to chastity, but by some personal neurosis, and that most of them do not have a healthy understanding of sexuality, or just lack a sex drive.

**I didn’t make any claims as to percentages.

In Russian roulette, the risk of encountering a bullet is at worst something like 1 in 6, and yet it’s not a risk that I would encourage anyone to take. **

I just think the idea that “if she doesn’t want to kiss you, she doesn’t want to have sex with you either” is way too much significance to attach to the specific act of kissing. As I mentioned before, there are cultures that do not have any traditional concept of kissing as a way to express romantic affection, but that doesn’t mean they lacked a sex drive before they found out about the practice from other cultures.

**How about, “In a culture where kissing is the paradigmatic mode of licit physical affection between unmarried people who are serious about each other, it is worrisome if a fiance(e) or serious girlfriend or boyfriend does not avail himself or herself of a licit way of expressing affection.”

It’s like if your boyfriend or girlfriend or fiance(e) has a cell phone and a computer and but never calls you or emails you, or if they never introduce you to their friends or family. They might have a good reason, but it’s not a good sign. **

It would be nice to hear from anyone reading this who DID have their first kiss at the marriage altar, and DOESN’T have a miserable sexless marriage, though!

Yes, wouldn’t it.

I think it’s interesting that there haven’t been a lot of posts like that. I think the reason is that the no-kissing position is a theological novelty that would make our devout great-great-grandmothers shake their heads.

Who, before the last few years had heard about anybody having a no-kissing-before-marriage rule? I had never heard of it until just recently. (Except maybe Orthodox Jews, but that’s a distinct cultural practice.)

 

[Cariethra]

I think the key comes down to communication. While IMO the Duggars go to far with the only side hug thing, I do see where they are going. I think, when done correctly, the extreme chastity can build a relationship. For example, in the sense of NFP, I don’t need to constantly have sex with my husband for him to know I love him, the times of abstinence instead bring us closer as husband and wife. I can see the same being true of kissing.

I think if the expectations are laid out clearly at the beginning of the relationship, the couple will find a way to express their love in a different manner. When we learn to show our love in multiple facets it leads to a healthier relationship.

 

[CesarAugustus]

In various examinations of conscience, making out, or passionate kissing, is included:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/

Did I engage in acts such as “petting,” “necking,” passionate kisses, or prolonged embraces?

From St Alphonsus (Doctor of Moral Theology):

…] every time someone with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will delights in carnal or sensual pleasure associated with to whom he is not married he commits a mortal sin. This is not only true with kisses but also with respect to other touches performed for carnal pleasure. The reason is that any delight taken in carnal pleasure, that is to say any delight taken in stirring up the appetites which surround the creative power, is a movement towards the martial act …]

From the Denzinger catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php:

1140 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.

That is one of the erroneous propositions in moral matters that are condemned.

From EWTN:

Directly Stimulating Actions

The first is the action that is, by its very nature, so closely related to the sexual desires that they serve no other purpose except to stimulate and arouse the persons involved. Some examples of these would be: prolonged and passionate kissing, impure embracing or petting, and sexual intercourse.

These actions are always gravely wrong between unmarried people, and no “good intention” can ever make them right. If the action is committed intentionally and with sufficient reflection, then it is a mortal sin.

God bless you!