Is flirting between two unmarried and marriagable people a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
Ok, I know that this might seem like a silly question, but for all my life I have never thought of flirting as a sin. Now, by flirting, I mean innocent flirting, such as winking, looking at the person in a certain way, gently touching the person on the shoulder as you pass him or her, smiling, speaking in a funny way, etc. What I don’t mean by flirting is touching the other person’s private parts or making obscene sexual gestures. Basically, by flirting I simply mean showing the other person signals by which they can understand that you like him or her.

This past weekend I attended my first FSSP (Fraternal Society of Saint Peter) Tridentine Mass. The Mass was an Indult Mass allowed by my local bishop in communion with the pope. While I thought the Mass itself was interesting, and that the people were well-dressed and reverent, I had difficulty connecting with the moral theology as demanded by the priest in his sermon, which, incidentally, had nothing to do with the Gospel reading, nor with the epistle reading. The FSSP priest condemned, among other things, coed swimming (for which I can somewhat understand his concern), women wearing pants and young people flirting with one another. The latter two completely baffle me. He said that pants are men’s clothing, and that women who wear them are sinful, since they go against the Scriptural command not to wear the clothing of the opposite sex. But in any case, it seemed like he was a rigorist, like Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, and the many others who condemned anything that had to do or would even lead to sex, even if it was chastely done in marriage, which incidentally many of these early Chrisitans condemned, such as the Encratites (Tatian) and the Montanists (Tertullian).

I’m just trying to maintain sanity here, too. I know that I should not lust around trying to seduce women. But is it wrong even to engage in romantic activity with a person of the opposite sex? Is it sinful to lovingly kiss him or her? Is it sinful to hug a girl? That’s what this priest seemed to suggest: that young men and women should stay as far apart from each other as possible 😦

Has the Church ever taught this universally, or is this FSSP priest just a little too rigorist and psychotic?
 
Madaglan,

Before I try to answer your question about flirting, here are some links to Church documents dealing with the topics the priest raised:

Women wearing pants

Pope Pius XII on standards in modesty

As for the priests concern with co-ed swimming . . . I completely share it! I’m a 20 yr old college student, and I can definitely see his concern. I wrote a paper last year for my English class on the relationship between the rise of co-ed swimming and the rise of eating disorders in Western culture. It was very interesting doing the research. I learned that the fashion industry, starting in the 1920s or so, began a campaign to deliberately “undress” women in public. Sounds silly? You can look up the documents directly from the leading fashion companies of the time-- most of them European. They do not hide the fact. They said their goal was to remove the stigma associated with being nude in public; they planned to achieve this with ever-more-revealing swimsuits. I’d say they got their wish.

I also found that co-ed swimming was unheard of (aside from small children, of course) before the 1940s-1950s. In fact, I work at a country club that was built in 1920 . . . now, of course, they have one large pool. But you know what still stands, now as a “pond” for ducks? The old pool for women! That’s right: they used to have a pool for men and a pool for women. And they’re separated by a golf course!

So, in short, I agree with the priest. Co-ed swimming is a modern practice that should be condemned. There’s just certain things you can’t do with the opposite sex once you’re older than, say, 7. Would you still take baths with your sister or brother? Change clothes in the parking lot? Well, then neither should we walk around mostly-naked with members of the opposite sex if we’re older than 7. And if people are completely honest, there’s no way to deny that going to a pool or beach these days is a major occasion for sin. How can it not be? Bikinis are nothing more than water-proof bra and underwear. Even one-pieces don’t leave much to the imagination.

Ok, sorry. I had to address the swimming thing. Now about the flirting:

There are no Church documents that I know of which address flirting or courting. That said, I’ll give you my opinion, which is hopefully informed by Catholic morals (for what it’s worth):

Let’s define flirting for the purpose of this post:
Flirting is some sort of behavior, either words or actions, that lets a member of the opposite sex know that you are interested in dating him or her.

That said, I don’t see how flirting in itself is bad. If it involves smiling at the person, laughing at their jokes even when theyre not at all funny, a small side-hug or holding hands . . . I see no problem. But I do see a problem with kissing and rubbing shoulders.

Here’s what we Christian young men must keep in mind: a girl is not ours to touch. If she’s single, she’s married to God. Would you rub the shoulders of a married woman? I know I sure wouldnt! Kiss a married woman? Hope the answer’s no.
Also, she’s the future wife of someone. Maybe you, but you can’t be sure. Therefore, don’t steal from her future husband. Kissing is stealing. Touching is stealing.

Why do I say small side-hugs and holding hands is ok, while I say no touching? When I say touching, I mean anything that would bring about sexual desires in either person. As men, we’re stimulated by looks. But women are stimulated by touch. Therefore, we must be extremely careful about arousing any impure desire in a girl we’re merely dating. We don’t have the right to arouse any sexual desire in her-- she’s not ours! No doubt that rubbing a hand on the shoulders would do so. And of course kissing does!

I could be wrong, but I don’t see it possible for side-hugs and holding hands to do so. If I find out otherwise, I promise you I will cease those practices immediately. I’m currently dating a great Christian girl, and I’ve found myself eliminating one “practice” after another as I become more serious about following God. For example, we gave up kissing. It used to be that we would only give each other “pecks” but we realized even that brought about impure desires. So no kissing is the rule now. Basically, we’re best friends who hold hands sometimes. And it’s great! Because we realize that, although we’re courting each other to see if marriage is in our future, we’re certainly not married right now. And we don’t have any gaurantee that we will be married. That’s up to God.

Sorry for my insanely long reply. I just feel very strongly about preserving our Christian sisters’ innocence. Keep this image in your mind, and you’ll be fine:

Whenever you see an attractive girl and you’re tempted to “flirt” with her by touching her or other inappropriate sexual moves, just picture “PROPERTY OF JESUS” written all over her! It sounds funny, but it’s true. She ain’t yours. She ain’t mine. She’s God’s, and only He can determine if and to whom she gets married. Until she’s married to you-- hands off!

God bless.
 
Dear friend

It’s all in the intent.

I think to preach across the board that to innocently flirt with the opposite sex is sinful is a grave misinterpretation of people and their intent. It lowers perfectly acceptable behaviour to nothing better than gutter smut. It says to Christians, you cannot be trusted to act appropriately; you are all going to sin awfully because you cannot resist any temptation whatsoever and as such you had better just keep away from each other. How ridiculous!!

That is not what happens between people of the opposite sex who engage in a little flirting as a way to show interest in the other person.

There will be people who have a smutty intent and the content of their flirting shows their intent, it debases the converse to sexual innuendo and is purely lustful and therefore a sin. However someone who flirts a little in an innocent and non-smutty way is not entertaining sinful thoughts nor committing a sin.

A woman who wears appropriately fitting trousers is not sinning. I have never heard such a double standard! Men wear trousers and their bodies are just as defined in them as women’s are! St Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing, in a misguided attempt to condemn her they accused her because of this, how archaic and how misguided, she is a great Sainmt of the Church now.

But then I suppose we could all push a pole up our backs, not trust in our ability to discern appropriate behaviour and not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the conscience! In that case we had better sit at home and not mix with people, male and female for fear of falling into sin! Better still have all the women clothed head to foot and keep them out of social mixing, make them hide themselves away because all men will be corrupted because of them and all women will be so weak as to not defend their own honour!

Really sometimes all I can do is sigh when I read about such things.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Has the Church ever taught this universally, or is this FSSP priest just a little too rigorist and psychotic?
Click to expand...
Based only on what you said it sounds as though he may have exceeded church teaching, although he is surely entitled to his opinion. The fact that you are confused by his homily shows that the line between church teaching and personal opinion was not clearly defined.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Ok, I know that this might seem like a silly question, but for all my life I have never thought of flirting as a sin. Now, by flirting, I mean innocent flirting, such as winking, looking at the person in a certain way, gently touching the person on the shoulder as you pass him or her, smiling, speaking in a funny way, etc. What I don’t mean by flirting is touching the other person’s private parts or making obscene sexual gestures. Basically, by flirting I simply mean showing the other person signals by which they can understand that you like him or her.

This past weekend I attended my first FSSP (Fraternal Society of Saint Peter) Tridentine Mass. The Mass was an Indult Mass allowed by my local bishop in communion with the pope. While I thought the Mass itself was interesting, and that the people were well-dressed and reverent, I had difficulty connecting with the moral theology as demanded by the priest in his sermon, which, incidentally, had nothing to do with the Gospel reading, nor with the epistle reading. The FSSP priest condemned, among other things, coed swimming (for which I can somewhat understand his concern), women wearing pants and young people flirting with one another. The latter two completely baffle me. He said that pants are men’s clothing, and that women who wear them are sinful, since they go against the Scriptural command not to wear the clothing of the opposite sex. But in any case, it seemed like he was a rigorist, like Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, and the many others who condemned anything that had to do or would even lead to sex, even if it was chastely done in marriage, which incidentally many of these early Chrisitans condemned, such as the Encratites (Tatian) and the Montanists (Tertullian).

I’m just trying to maintain sanity here, too. I know that I should not lust around trying to seduce women. But is it wrong even to engage in romantic activity with a person of the opposite sex? Is it sinful to lovingly kiss him or her? Is it sinful to hug a girl? That’s what this priest seemed to suggest: that young men and women should stay as far apart from each other as possible 😦

Has the Church ever taught this universally, or is this FSSP priest just a little too rigorist and psychotic?
Click to expand...
I agree with him on pants ans swimming. However, to innocently flirt (if you have an intent to marry, are not married and are not a priest, monk, etc) is not bad. However I disagree with what you mention here: “innocently touch the person as you pass them by.” No one should be hugging, touching etc without the other person’s consent even if on the shoulder. Hugging I never agreed with. Too much of it with the opposite sex leads in many cases to passionate emotions stirred. Many people have mentioned this.
However to smile deeply look into the eyes, etc. is not bad as long as they are two consenting ADULTS. And will not lead them to sin. As Don Bosco used to say: “anything but sin.”
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
Madaglan,

Before I try to answer your question about flirting, here are some links to Church documents dealing with the topics the priest raised:

Women wearing pants

.
Click to expand...
I do not know the definition of “church document.” But this was a letter by one archbishop, addressed to his leadership in 1960. Nothing in the letter was supported or documented from church teaching.

Does anyone know if pants are mentioned in the Catechism? That would be authoritative.
 
The articles cited on women wearing pants and Piux XII are very dated and do not necessarily apply today. Of note, there is no church doctrine or teaching on this issue, perhaps other than modesty. I would suggest that both sexes-men and women-dress modestly and appropriately for the occasion.
 
At mass do we not confess all our sin with the “Confession of SIN.” “I confess to all mighty God and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own faults, in my thoughts and in words, and what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” Now to answer the question. I beleive that flirting is should more be called a “vice”. It is a Vice that will eventually, if it becomes a habit, lead to Sin. The best way I can discribe innocent flirting is this way the way I use it in my classes with young adults. When you go to an art gallery and see a painting or a drawing of something that catches your eye you will stop and pay your complements, but you will not think about taking it home. What i mean by that is, if you see a good looking male or female, say something nice but do it with no lustfull desires. When we cloud our minds with lustfull desires it will only turn the vice (flirting) into Sin.
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
As men, we’re stimulated by looks. But women are stimulated by touch. Therefore, we must be extremely careful about arousing any impure desire in a girl we’re merely dating. We don’t have the right to arouse any sexual desire in her-- she’s not ours! No doubt that rubbing a hand on the shoulders would do so. And of course kissing does!
Click to expand...
Hello UKcatholicGuy,

I have heard before that men are stimulated by looks, but I have never heard that women are stimulated by touch. I don’t know why I never heard it before, but it makes a lot of sense, and I was wondering if you had any way to back that statement up?

Thanks!
 
40.png
ElizabethAnne:
Hello UKcatholicGuy,

I have heard before that men are stimulated by looks, but I have never heard that women are stimulated by touch. I don’t know why I never heard it before, but it makes a lot of sense, and I was wondering if you had any way to back that statement up?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I read it in Every Man’s Battle. I focused on touching for the purposes of this thread, but it’s part of an overall emotion-based need that women have. Men are satisfied by looks-- they desire their carnal “needs” be met, and say anything to the woman accomplish this. Women, on the other hand, are looking for their emotional needs to be met much more than carnal needs;[ever wonder why porn magazines are almost exclusively aimed at men? or why dirty romance novels are aimed at women?] thus, they quickly respond to romantic touching, such as running fingers through hair, rubbing shoulders, etc. The guy is doing these things just to get the woman to allow him “access” to what he wants. The woman usually falls for this bc the guy will lie to her and say every romantic thing she wants to hear, just to get what he wants: “i love you; i’ll never leave you; you’re so beautiful right now” etc.

It’s very twisted, but something that every couple who has ever engaged in sex outside marriage has done. All the more reason to remain sexually pure. It’s obvious how much men and women use each other when sex is not honored by following the Catholic teaching.
 
If one does so during mass I think it is wrong. If one does so so as to get the other into bed ASAP then it is wrong. As someone else says, most of it depends upon intent. Modesty is always the best policy. Let the opposite sex win you over with holiness and intelligence not with body parts.

Dan L
 
No co-ed swimming? Why would that be sinful? That’s almost like saying there shouldn’t be any co-ed sports playing in the gym/court. Humans aren’t that animal-like. I think this is linked to the modesty issue. Young ladies and women need to dress appropriately for the activity instead of taking it as an advantage to show as much skin as possible. I totally disagree that co-ed swimming should be condemned. It’s like just about any other activity (or situation), where the activity itself is not sinful until you, by your free will, take those inappropriate and sinful actions (or cause them to happen)!

Women not wearing pants…what’s up with that?? Women can wear pants! God didn’t make an eleventh commandment saying so… Think about it. Back in Jesus’ day both men and women wore robes (and there’s still countries with people who still dress like that!). So that no-pants-for-women statement is kind of a flop. Now like I said before, if you take advantage of this to use it for sinful/inappropriate purposes (like cross dressing when it’s not Halloween…) then you have crossed the line.

And flirting. My question is this: How do sparks start without a little bit of flirting?

Well you can flirt without touching can’t ya? I know it’s possible. I’m not saying you have to carry a meter stick to tell how far away you need to stay, but it’s just you don’t have to touch unless it’s necessary. And there will be times when you may have to sit right next to a girl (like during a convention or a public pot luck). You’re not gonna scooch a half of a foot away from her (and onto the lap of the person next to you) just to keep your distance. The key is hands to yourself (unless your in a deeper relationship of possible marriage…but none of that inappropriate stuff of course!) If someone is going through a hard time, give them a hug or a pat on the shoulder. There’s nothing wrong with that. From my experience, I repel from guys who touch me all the time. I don’t stop talking to them…I just always seem to be taking a step back, if you know what I mean. (I’m probably too prudent, but it’s mostly benefited me and I don’t want to change!) That’s just another delicate situation. I’d rather hang out with guys who I can talk to all day and not worry if they’re going to try to get close. I’m not discouraging wanting to get to know a girl and courtship and stuff like that. It’s just such a delicate situation where you’d rather wait and be cool than to push things in the direction you didn’t want them to. Remember…Actual and real communication is the best thing for a relationship.

I didn’t think I was going to be this long…oh well…there’s my two bits for ya.
 
Interesting responses. I wonder, however, if I’m conveying the right mental picture of flirting. I mean, I know that most guys and girls nowadays who flirt often end up in some sexual situation; and I know that much of flirting is directed to some sexual act, as is so often shown in television.

I guess I have a personal interest in the question I originally posted, because I have met some girls in the past whom I really liked, not only because of their looks, although they were cute, but because they were really sweet, intelligent and holy (although for some reason I always end up liking the minister’s daughter.)

Although I’m shy, a lot of times I try to get their attention whenever I can, either through being funny or by being really nice around them. Are these actions sinful if one of the goals in doing so is a hoped-for romantic relationship (albeit platonic)? Like if I don’t think, “I just want to have sex with her,” but instead think, “I really like being around her as a person whom I’d like to spend the rest of my life with,” with perhaps the secondary thought of future chaste sex in marriage, although not dwelling on it, am I still doing something wrong?

And about the touching part I mentioned in my first post and which others have declared to be inappropriate: I now feel that I was not thinking completely when I wrote that. I guess I was trying to convey a sense of greater intimacy, although not too great as to be provocative. For example, being close to a person you like and trying to talk with him or her in private. Or, taking a close interest in something that the other person is doing. If the girl is reading a book, maybe sit down beside her and ask about what she is reading, or something like that. Being close but not touching or too close–that’s probably what I should have written.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
The FSSP priest condemned, among other things, coed swimming (for which I can somewhat understand his concern), women wearing pants and young people flirting with one another.
Click to expand...
Sounds like this Priest has a heavy puritan influence. Preaching that coed swimming is a sin is practically a sin itself; it’s frankly heretical. As to the modesty during swimming, or the lack thereof, that could potentially be sinful. Some bikinis and the way women show off their bodies to derive sexual attention is obviously not virtuous.

Flirting? I’d say it’s okay as long as it isn’t sexual (‘french kissing’ is definitely sexual).
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
…

Why do I say small side-hugs and holding hands is ok, while I say no touching? When I say touching, I mean anything that would bring about sexual desires in either person. As men, we’re stimulated by looks. But women are stimulated by touch… .
Click to expand...
Code: 
          Au  contrair...I have been known to give a guy a second look if I felt so inclined. 
                  ~ Kathy ~:whistle:
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
I read it in Every Man’s Battle. I focused on touching for the purposes of this thread, but it’s part of an overall emotion-based need that women have. Men are satisfied by looks-- they desire their carnal “needs” be met, and say anything to the woman accomplish this. Women, on the other hand, are looking for their emotional needs to be met much more than carnal needs;[ever wonder why porn magazines are almost exclusively aimed at men? or why dirty romance novels are aimed at women?] thus, they quickly respond to romantic touching, such as running fingers through hair, rubbing shoulders, etc. The guy is doing these things just to get the woman to allow him “access” to what he wants. The woman usually falls for this bc the guy will lie to her and say every romantic thing she wants to hear, just to get what he wants: “i love you; i’ll never leave you; you’re so beautiful right now” etc.

It’s very twisted, but something that every couple who has ever engaged in sex outside marriage has done. All the more reason to remain sexually pure. It’s obvious how much men and women use each other when sex is not honored by following the Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I take it you believe that every form of touching is sexual in nature. and that touching should be used as a precurser to intercourse in marriage, and that’s all. No physical affection unless intercourse is the intention. I can’t think of a repsonse to your condemantion of kissing before marriage…other than…extreme sorry but …so what if it arouses some desire…are those desires lustful simply cause they exist? Sure it might lead to something but so could being alone togethor, getting to know each other, liking each other. I propose that every marriage should be arranged from birth, so that each partner may not meet each other until the day and thus have no opportunity to sin beforehand. Anyway if marriage is all Gods will, then knowing and liking that one person in particular shouldn’t matter a bit. I mean what are you indulging in by getting to know them before marriage anyway, infatuation? You should pray and remove all personal feelings you have for the other from the decision. Does that sound almost pious enough?..
 
There is a thread elsewhere in this forum about modesty, dress, and women wearing pants. It odes a fairly good job of showing that the bishop’s letter betrays a hugh lack of historical knowledge.

The bishop is entitled to his opinion, but the fact that he is a bishop and has an opinion does not make the opinion infallible, or even based on truth.

I have heard it said often that wht someone protests most vehemently often betrays their greates worry or concern. The priest sounds as if he has been sheltered to the extreme, and infuenced by some rather radical opinions based on Puritanism rather than Catholicism, at the very least.

At the root of what he is preaching about, there is truth; we are overly casual in our attitudes towards sexuality and morally wrong behavior. However, it sounds as if his sermon takes truly innocent activities and gives them a sexual contrent that simply isn’t there.

Are there problems with modesty in our world? Does night follow day?

The answer to the immodesty and sexual licentiousness however is not Puritanism, as that reduces everything good to evil incarnate. It sounds as if the priest has not read John Paul’s Theology of the Body; or if he has, he is so steeped in neo-Scholastic mindset that he simply cannot understand it.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Although I’m shy, a lot of times I try to get their attention whenever I can, either through being funny or by being really nice around them. Are these actions sinful if one of the goals in doing so is a hoped-for romantic relationship (albeit platonic)? Like if I don’t think, “I just want to have sex with her,” but instead think, “I really like being around her as a person whom I’d like to spend the rest of my life with,” with perhaps the secondary thought of future chaste sex in marriage, although not dwelling on it, am I still doing something wrong?

And about the touching part I mentioned in my first post and which others have declared to be inappropriate: I now feel that I was not thinking completely when I wrote that. I guess I was trying to convey a sense of greater intimacy, although not too great as to be provocative. For example, being close to a person you like and trying to talk with him or her in private. Or, taking a close interest in something that the other person is doing. If the girl is reading a book, maybe sit down beside her and ask about what she is reading, or something like that. Being close but not touching or too close–that’s probably what I should have written.
Click to expand...
I’d say you’re doing just fine! Sounds very Christ-centered and pure. God bless, friend.
 
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friend

It’s all in the intent.

I think to preach across the board that to innocently flirt with the opposite sex is sinful is a grave misinterpretation of people and their intent. It lowers perfectly acceptable behaviour to nothing better than gutter smut. It says to Christians, you cannot be trusted to act appropriately; you are all going to sin awfully because you cannot resist any temptation whatsoever and as such you had better just keep away from each other. How ridiculous!!

That is not what happens between people of the opposite sex who engage in a little flirting as a way to show interest in the other person.

There will be people who have a smutty intent and the content of their flirting shows their intent, it debases the converse to sexual innuendo and is purely lustful and therefore a sin. However someone who flirts a little in an innocent and non-smutty way is not entertaining sinful thoughts nor committing a sin.

…

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
Click to expand...
What she said. When Madonna (shut up) was on Johnny Carson’s show (I think it was back when Johnny still had his show) she responded to a question that she flirts with everyone- Grandmothers, babies…this has become a part of my definition of flirting. Flirting is innocent and should have an innocent outcome. Anything else is seduction.
 
Depends on how and what is done.

My question is, IF all unmarried folks do not flirt and marriages are no longer arranged, how does anyone propose to sustain the next generation of folks ?

How will anyone find out if they like each other or how does anyone express an interest in someone else ???

I guess folks will all have to hire agents or go-betweens like Cyrano de Burgerac (sp?) OR have to meet via the web (which is really awful way to meet folks -they almost always lie online).

wc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top