Is kissing a sin?

[jimmy]

Who cares? The whole idea that marriage is primarily about transient, fleeting passions is exactly what’s given us the present epidemic of divorce and broken homes. It isn’t about those things: it’s about commitment, duty, and obligation. You can commit to someone you’re not attracted to. You can even commit to someone you don’t even like.
marry. Because, again, marriage is (in part) a remedy for concupiscence – i.e., a desire for sex is a valid reason to decide t

This is insane. You have reduced sexual deesire to an evil. Marriage has nothing to do with sexual desire except in as much as marriage is a safe guard against sin. Marriage iis all about commitment, duty, and obligation. I have all that without marriage. Ultimately the marriage becomes meaningless : it has no positive value (atleast as you explain it).

 

[twoangels]

This is insane. You have reduced sexual deesire to an evil. Marriage has nothing to do with sexual desire except in as much as marriage is a safe guard against sin. Marriage iis all about commitment, duty, and obligation. I have all that without marriage. Ultimately the marriage becomes meaningless : it has no positive value (atleast as you explain it).

I remember hearing someone talk about an exercise someone gave some students. They were given a heresy to refute. They were then to write their refutation of the heresy. Their refutation only created another heresy. Most heresy is like that.

 

[sw85]

Rubbing two sensitive parts of the body causes pleasure regardless of whether or not the manner in which we rub them together is a part of their intended “design” or not. Both nipple and lips are sensitive. This could indicate that the design is to encourage bonding between a nursing mother and her infant. The nipple is sensitive which helps the woman bond with her child, and the lips are sensitive which would encourage the infant bonding with her mother.

Are these two mutually exclusive? You’re saying “but it’s for babies!” Well, babies come from sex. That’s the point of sex. So of course the things that are linked to motherhood are also linked to sex.

Kissing does not occur in animals and any behavior that stimulates erogenous zones can be used to prepare the body for sex. This does not mean that all sexual behavior is erotic behavior. A husband giving his wife a back rub can be a part of foreplay, and yet there is nothing immoral or erotic (unless illicit) if she hired a masseuse to give her a professional massage.

Notice what I objected to earlier is particularly passionate kissing, i.e., tonguing, necking, groping, etc. You are right to say that not all kissing is erotic – anyone who is aroused by kissing Aunt Bernice on the cheek has a problem that goes beyond morals. But then I’m not objecting to all kissing. I’m objecting to erotic kissing in contexts where eroticism is inappropriate, i.e., outside of marriage. Hence, unmarried couples should kiss chastely, keeping their tongues firmly in their respective mouths and their hands where everyone can see them.

Likewise, rubbing my girlfriend’s back is one thing, breaking out the massage oils and telling her to take her clothes off is quite another. The former is an affectionate and tender gesture, the latter an explicitly erotic one. The former one doesn’t offend against chastity and need not necessarily be avoided, the latter does and should.

This is insane. You have reduced sexual deesire to an evil. Marriage has nothing to do with sexual desire except in as much as marriage is a safe guard against sin. Marriage iis all about commitment, duty, and obligation. I have all that without marriage. Ultimately the marriage becomes meaningless : it has no positive value (atleast as you explain it).

Have you not read anything I’ve written in this thread? I’ve said repeatedly that sexual desire unto itself is not a sin. It cannot possibly be a sin, being a mere emotion or passion. It becomes sinful to act out one’s desires outside their proper context, i.e., marriage. Hence I’ve also said repeatedly that lust (a sin) is not just sexual desire, it is sexual desire paired with a lack of chastity. To lust is not merely “to desire,” it is to act on desire in a disordered fashion. Sex belongs to marriage because it’s naturally ordered toward the creation and raising of new life, which requires a stable and permanent commitment between the parties.

How you get the idea that marriage being primarily about commitment, duty, and obligation makes marriage meaningless because you can get these things elsewhere, I have no idea. The value of a thing does not rely in its exclusivity but in its particularity. Marriage structures how we act out certain goods, therefore it’s good in itself. Priesthood is another, mutually exclusive way of structuring and acting out certain goods. It hardly follows either of these things are therefore meaningless.

A man’s wife is, ideally, a good friend, a lover, and a mother to his children. But lots of women could be good friends, lovers, and mothers as well. Does it follow his wife is worthless, or that his choice of wife is arbitrary?

What, exactly, do you think marriage is about if not sex, commitment, and obligation?

 

[jimmy]

Have you not read anything I’ve written in this thread? I’ve said repeatedly that sexual desire unto itself is not a sin. It cannot possibly be a sin, being a mere emotion or passion. It becomes sinful to act out one’s desires outside their proper context, i.e., marriage. Hence I’ve also said repeatedly that lust (a sin) is not just sexual desire, it is sexual desire paired with a lack of chastity. To lust is not merely “to desire,” it is to act on desire in a disordered fashion. Sex belongs to marriage because it’s naturally ordered toward the creation and raising of new life, which requires a stable and permanent commitment between the parties.

Yeh, I get that but sexual desire has no positive value in what you have said. As you said above if two people get married and then find out they aren’t sexually attracted to eachother who cares? Sexual attraction isn’t part of marriage. Marriage is about duty, commitment, and obligation. The only way that it comes into marriage is because marriage is a permited form of satisfaction of the desire. In other words; since people are bound to have sex and lust, sex should be allowed in marriage to control this desire. The inference is that sexual desire is an evil to be controled. Sexual desire has no positive value, it can only be negative.

How you get the idea that marriage being primarily about commitment, duty, and obligation makes marriage meaningless because you can get these things elsewhere, I have no idea. The value of a thing does not rely in its exclusivity but in its particularity. Marriage structures how we act out certain goods, therefore it’s good in itself. Priesthood is another, mutually exclusive way of structuring and acting out certain goods. It hardly follows either of these things are therefore meaningless.

A man’s wife is, ideally, a good friend, a lover, and a mother to his children. But lots of women could be good friends, lovers, and mothers as well. Does it follow his wife is worthless, or that his choice of wife is arbitrary?

I have women who are friends, and you could say I love them as friends. You have already said that eros or the erotic aspect is irrelevant or unneccesary to marriage. Therefore the friendship and lover aspect are the same thing essentially; it consists of philia or the love of friendship. And I wonder how she is going to be a good mother if there is no sexual desire between the two of you, considering that sexual desire is necessary to have kids. You end up with good friends who have the potential to possibly maybe have sex.

What, exactly, do you think marriage is about if not sex, commitment, and obligation?

In the other post you said duty, commitment, and obligation. Now you change duty to sex. Are they equivalent to you? Maybe that is what you meant by duty; you have a duty to be the safegaurd against sin by being there sexually for the other person.

 

[jimmy]

I remember hearing someone talk about an exercise someone gave some students. They were given a heresy to refute. They were then to write their refutation of the heresy. Their refutation only created another heresy. Most heresy is like that.

Yeah, that is the truth. If you read the history of doctrine you can see that most heresies are an extreme reaction to another heresy. Nestorianism was a reaction to Apolinarianism; monophysitism was a response to nestorianism. It is how most heresies are; they are extremes. They seem to think that virtue is found in the extreme, but in reality virtue is usually the mean between the two extremes.

 

[sw85]

Yeh, I get that but sexual desire has no positive value in what you have said. As you said above if two people get married and then find out they aren’t sexually attracted to eachother who cares? Sexual attraction isn’t part of marriage. Marriage is about duty, commitment, and obligation. The only way that it comes into marriage is because marriage is a permited form of satisfaction of the desire. In other words; since people are bound to have sex and lust, sex should be allowed in marriage to control this desire. The inference is that sexual desire is an evil to be controled. Sexual desire has no positive value, it can only be negative.

I have women who are friends, and you could say I love them as friends. You have already said that eros or the erotic aspect is irrelevant or unneccesary to marriage. Therefore the friendship and lover aspect are the same thing essentially; it consists of philia or the love of friendship. And I wonder how she is going to be a good mother if there is no sexual desire between the two of you, considering that sexual desire is necessary to have kids. You end up with good friends who have the potential to possibly maybe have sex.

In the other post you said duty, commitment, and obligation. Now you change duty to sex. Are they equivalent to you? Maybe that is what you meant by duty; you have a duty to be the safegaurd against sin by being there sexually for the other person.

Do you actually believe that I believe any of the things you’re attributing to me here? I was attacking the implication that chastity is a bad thing because you might wind up stuck with someone you’re unattracted to (because, apparently in leftist sexual fantasyland, you don’t know whether or not you’re sexually attracted to someone until after you’ve had sex with them). That idea has given us the present epidemic of divorce and broken homes. It’s a dumb idea. Take it out into the woods and tell it about the rabbits.

No, sexual desire is not essential to marriage. For that matter, neither is positive sentiment. You don’t need it going into one, you don’t need it to sustain one, and it’s pretty far down the list of criticals. Most marriages historically made do without either being established firmly beforehand. Marriage doesn’t end when you get fat, you know. If you don’t find your wife desirable when you marry her, that may be a problem; but if your wife hates children and thinks contraception is the bees’ knees, that’s a dealbreaker. So clearly there are more important things to consider about marriage than whether a woman’s breasts feel just so in your hands.

I didn’t “change” duty to sex. I neglected to mention it. (Which stands to reason: duty and obligation are synonyms). Want to play more etymological word games? Maybe you can pop my posts into spell check too and let me know if anything comes up.

 

[sw85]

I remember hearing someone talk about an exercise someone gave some students. They were given a heresy to refute. They were then to write their refutation of the heresy. Their refutation only created another heresy. Most heresy is like that.

Thanks for the uncharitable attribution of reactive heresy.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Don’t be so sure.
There are all sorts of strange (and in many cases abhorrent) little communities and/or subcultures in the United States (and the rest of the West for that matter). Something I can personally attest to thanks to my own experiences with a cult as a child.

And of course, many of these communities and subcultures get really wierd when it comes to sex (I am probably lucky that my family left the cult before I hit puberty).

Call me naive but I cannot imagine, at least in the U.S., any type of even remotely mainstream culture/environment with those practices. Peace.

Their not mainstream.
That’s kind of the point.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
One factor that never seems to get mentioned is:
When the marriage is arranged/heavily influenced by the parents and/or the people getting married are adhering to some sort of platonic ideal (as many in this thread appear to) what happens when it turns out that the bride and groom simply aren’t attracted to each other in a sexual sense?

Who cares? The whole idea that marriage is primarily about transient, fleeting passions is exactly what’s given us the present epidemic of divorce and broken homes. It isn’t about those things: it’s about commitment, duty, and obligation. You can commit to someone you’re not attracted to. You can even commit to someone you don’t even like.

At any rate, have sex with anyone who isn’t a total monster 5-6 times and nature will provide the rest. Why do you think there are so many situations involving women who refuse to leave their useless, drunkard, abusive boyfriends? Hint: it’s not because they’re wonderful, kind providers and good fathers.

.

What (if anything) are you basing this on?

Natural procreative sex cannot occur unless the man experiences sexual desire.
If a man is married to a woman that he finds sexually unattractive (even if he likes her as a person) that is a problem.

Women might be able to fake desire (or even sleep through sex), but the man *has to be *interested in his lover in a sensual sense.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You are having a “hard time” taking it seriously because you insist on talking about “lust” as mere desire – i.e., because you continue to study Catholicism using the language of an incompatible philosophy (i.e., liberalism), one that seeks to reduce everything to passions and desires.** I’m telling you it isn’t mere desire**, any more than “love” is mere affection. Lust, like every other sin, it is an act of the will.
The man who wants sex but keeps himself under control isn’t sinning, i.e., he is not lusting. The man who wants sex and googles porn, or roofies a chick in a bar, or goes out and sleeps with his secretary, is sinning, because he is lusting. It’s not hard.

What you are saying simply isn’t true.

Even Jesus admits that Lust is an emotion/thought (not an action) in this Biblical passage:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

-Matthew 5

P.S. What is being described here is Thought Crime.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Do you actually believe that I believe any of the things you’re attributing to me here? I was attacking the implication that chastity is a bad thing because you might wind up stuck with someone you’re unattracted to (because, apparently in leftist sexual fantasyland, you don’t know whether or not you’re sexually attracted to someone until after you’ve had sex with them). That idea has given us the present epidemic of divorce and broken homes. It’s a dumb idea. Take it out into the woods and tell it about the rabbits.

No, sexual desire is not essential to marriage. For that matter, neither is positive sentiment. You don’t need it going into one, you don’t need it to sustain one, and it’s pretty far down the list of criticals. Most marriages historically made do without either being established firmly beforehand. Marriage doesn’t end when you get fat, you know. If you don’t find your wife desirable when you marry her, that may be a problem; but if your wife hates children and thinks contraception is the bees’ knees, that’s a dealbreaker. So clearly there are more important things to consider about marriage than whether a woman’s breasts feel just so in your hands.

I didn’t “change” duty to sex. I neglected to mention it. (Which stands to reason: duty and obligation are synonyms). Want to play more etymological word games? Maybe you can pop my posts into spell check too and let me know if anything comes up.

I agree with Jimmy.
Your conception of marriage sounds very unattractive.

 

[cynic]

Actually Saint Paul said:

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

-1 Corinthians 7

Notice the lines I highlighted.
Frankly Saint Paul seems to talk about sex and marriage more like necessary evils than actual goods. And he certainly exalts unmarried celibacy at the expense of marriage and sex.

A better take on it is that Saint Paul, due in part to his own passion or ‘zeal’, would prefer his listeners to sacrifice the temporary good (marriage) for a greater good as he has, remaining single in a sacrificial lifestyle focused on preaching the Gospel. That’s quite a different thing than implying marriage is a necessary evil.

 

[sw85]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
One factor that never seems to get mentioned is:
When the marriage is arranged/heavily influenced by the parents and/or the people getting married are adhering to some sort of platonic ideal (as many in this thread appear to) what happens when it turns out that the bride and groom simply aren’t attracted to each other in a sexual sense?

What (if anything) are you basing this on?

The huge number of women who don’t leave abusive boyfriends. What do you think’s going on there? They don’t wanna leave for the sake of the kids? Because he’s really a wonderful provider? He’s a sweet guy when he doesn’t drink? Or is it because nature has bonded her to him even though he’s a bastard – a bond that should’ve been reserved for her husband, not her prom date?

Also the bountiful social science research suggesting that sex => bonding => sexual desire, especially in women.

Natural procreative sex cannot occur unless the man experiences sexual desire.

So what? Your implication is that we must abandon chastity because a man might wind up bored with his wife. That’s a horrid, monstrous idea advanced by terrible people, primarily perverts who want to indulge their obscene lusts without consequence, at the expense of the women who foolishly trust them. Go peddle your **** among the pick-up artists.

If a man is married to a woman that he finds sexually unattractive (even if he likes her as a person) that is a problem.

Sure, but again, so what? Your implication is that we must abandon chastity to accommodate the narrow possibility that somehow the person we thought was hot turned out to be a dud in the sack. But, again, who cares? This “problem” does not justify evil and it is not even proportionate to the ruin this sentiment has purchased us, i.e., the present epidemic of divorce and broken homes. What’s worse: 60% divorce rates and 70%+ illegitimacy rates in some groups, or men feeling trapped when their wives get fat?

Where it is a problem, it’s one that must be worked out within the confines of marriage and the demands of chastity.

What you are saying simply isn’t true.

Even Jesus admits that Lust is an emotion/thought (not an action) in this Biblical passage:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

-Matthew 5

P.S. What is being described here is Thought Crime.

You have **zero **exegetical authority. You do not get to interpret the Bible; take that **** to a Protestant forum. The Church alone (which compiled the Bible) does. And the Church has always and everywhere held that lust is an act of the will, i.e., that “to desire” in a sinful way is to act unchastely in some sinful way.

Once again, you are approaching Catholicism in the language of an incompatible philosophy (liberalism). This is why you don’t understand us or anything we believe or why we believe it.

I agree with Jimmy.
Your conception of marriage sounds very unattractive.

My concept of marriage is the historically normative one: I recognize it as a means of structuring people’s duties, providing for the continuation of the human race, as a source of sacramental grace and a licit means of remedying concupiscence. Love, passion, etc., are nice, and they make these duties easier to bear – they enable us to rejoice in the performance of them. But they are not the whole entirety of marriage. Marriage does not consist primarily in them. It does not exist primarily for them. They facilitate the performance of our duties, but they are not the object of our duties. They make it easier to do God’s will; they are not, themselves, God’s will.

Your vision of marriage is one that has purchased us widespread divorce, broken homes, the feminization of poverty, and all other sorts of social ills. You think this is OK because you’re OK with the total wrecking of society in order to prioritize access to consequence-free sexual gratification 24/7 – in other words, because what “sounds attractive” to you is all that matters to you. There’s a word we have for people who act solely according to their own interests and desires at the expense of everyone else; hint: that words ends with “-path” for a reason.

 

[sw85]

It’s way time to reorient this thread, since it is getting off-topic.

The OP asked: “Is kissing a sin?” Presumably this was a facetious dig at natural law.

The answer is basically the answer to most other such questions: it depends.

Kissing is not an immoral object, but there are intentions and circumstances that can make it invalid. It’s not wrong to kiss your wife, even very passionately. It’s not wrong to kiss your mother (but it’s very wrong to kiss her very passionately). It’s definitely wrong to kiss either person if they don’t want you kissing them.

Insofar as certain forms of kissing (e.g., pecks on the cheek) suggest carry social connotations, it is A-OK to kiss in cases where that social connotation is appropriate: I can kiss my mother on the cheek in greeting, but not a stranger just introduced to me. I probably wouldn’t kiss a friend this way in greeting, unless my friend were European and that was the expectation.

Certain forms of kissing carry very sexual connotations, i.e., making out, necking, etc. And this is so by nature, rather than by convention. Such kissing arouses men not because society has agreed by consensus that it is arousing but because it just is arousing. So this sort of kissing should not be done where the sexual connotation isn’t appropriate, i.e., outside of marriage. That’s really all.

 

[superamazingman]

Insofar as certain forms of kissing (e.g., pecks on the cheek) suggest carry social connotations, it is A-OK to kiss in cases where that social connotation is appropriate: I can kiss my mother on the cheek in greeting, but not a stranger just introduced to me. I probably wouldn’t kiss a friend this way in greeting, unless my friend were European and that was the expectation.

Certain forms of kissing carry very sexual connotations, i.e., making out, necking, etc. And this is so by nature, rather than by convention. Such kissing arouses men not because society has agreed by consensus that it is arousing but because it just is arousing. So this sort of kissing should not be done where the sexual connotation isn’t appropriate, i.e., outside of marriage. That’s really all.

Bingo.