S
superamazingman
Guest
Yes, thank you very much. I know many who did.
- Status
T
TrueLight
Guest
Anyone who denies that tongue kissing, more often than not, turns you on and makes you want to do more, is either in denial or is a robot/cold fish. 
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
Not that I am calling you a liar because that would be impolite…but I very much doubt your sincerity. Peace.
S
sw85
Guest
Well, those people are wrong. Maybe you should be taking your cues on what the Church teaches from what the Church actually teaches instead of random ignorant strangers on the Internet, in an age in which the Church is pretty badly bungling catechesis.
Marriage is permitted as a remedy for concupiscence. i.e., you’re allowed to marry because you want sex. No less an authority than St. Paul said as much.
No. The key word here is “inordinate,” i.e., “not properly ordered.” If it were properly ordered, it’d be marital, i.e., chaste.
I said before that lust is unchaste and instrumentalizing sexual desire. The problem with lust is not the sexual desire part but the unchaste part.
You can have sex with your wife simply because she’s hot and you want to have sex with her. That’s A-OK. You’re allowed to rejoice in natural pleasures in their proper context. Where it gets to be a problem, it’s only because the circumstances make it imprudent for you to be having sex at that moment. Which means, again, that sex outside of marriage is problematic in principle, sex inside of it is problematic only situationally.
“Lust” is a sin, after all, no? And sin requires consent of the will. How can mere desire be sinful when it is pre-volitional?
Believe it or not, there’s a whole world outside the narrow confines of atheist, utilitarian, androgynist academia.
Bingo. I sometimes get the impression that leftists have unusually low libidos.Anyone who denies that tongue kissing, more often than not, turns you on and makes you want to do more, is either in denial or is a robot/cold fish.
B
BListon
Guest
No… kissing is not a sin… it’s a sign of affection for two people who love each other. Except for Judas… his was a sign of betrayal.
T
twoangels
Guest
No, you are right. I do not think the lips were designed to kiss. I think the lips simply are very sensitive organs and that the impulse to kiss may stem from our nursing impulse as infants.
Even that being the case, however, I do not think objectively it is sinful. However, if you are kissing someone you barely know because you feel attracted to that person, I would say focus on getting to know that person socially first, and try not to turn dating into a sort of marriage like reality. That said, its very easy to overthink these issues.
S
sw85
Guest
If they weren’t designed for kissing, then kissing would be a fruitless endeavor and no one would do it. It would be no more enjoyable than, say, rubbing elbows together.
The fact that people kiss, and enjoy kissing, and derive pleasure from kissing, and that kissing prepares our bodies for sex, and that it’s fairly universal, is a good sign that maybe kissing is one thing God had in mind when He designed us.
That said, it’s just not a natural law issue at all. Again, natural law is concerned with the proper use of the human faculty. “Lips” isn’t a faculty, it’s just an organ. And natural law defines that as evil which is contrary to the proper use of our faculties – with what “proper use” of the lips does kissing interfere?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
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?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
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).
C
Crescentinus
Guest
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
And for the most part that is so sad.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
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
AngryAtheist8
Guest
That’s one of the main reasons I have always had a problem taking Lust (and the other Seven Deadly Sins) seriously.
S
superamazingman
Guest
What are you talking about? So you asked your question with the intention of calling those who disagreed with you liars? Not really a question then, was it?
I do indeed know many who saved any sort of kissing for marriage, and I intend to as well. Of course, that being said, I’m quite traditional, as are the people in my circle of friends.
S
sw85
Guest
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.
He acknowledges that celibacy is the highest vocation – which it is. Christ Himself was celibate, so duh. He also acknowledges it’s not for everyone (some people being more Christ-like by nature than others), and that if you cannot manage celibacy, you should marry. Because, again, marriage is (in part) a remedy for concupiscence – i.e., a desire for sex is a valid reason to decide to marry. That’s verse 9, the one you for some reason decided to ignore.
The exact passage you cited is what I had in mind when I said that St. Paul endorsed marriage as a remedy for concupiscence. Nothing in it contradicts what I’ve been saying. Don’t presume to lecture me on Scripture.
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.
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
I intended no offense and as I cleary stated I have no assumption that you are a liar. You state that you are quite traditional. I would state that another way as that you are quite exceptional. I was born into a conservative extended family - almost all practicing Catholics. In over 50 years I have never heard of couples not sharing a kiss prior to marriage. In all honesty how do you or anyone in your cirlce of friends demonstrate any type of physical (or even emoytional) attraction to anyone? Do you hold hands? Do you hug each other? Do you initiate any type of physical contact? Peace.
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
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.
S
sw85
Guest
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
I expect that we have different perspectives of what constitutes a ‘narrow confine’. Peace.
T
twoangels
Guest
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.
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.
- Status