Is passionate kissing wrong for unmarried people?

[GraceDK]

I disagree most fervently with number 2, at least when put as an absolute. My point is it may not be. It would depend on the couple involved and the circumstances. It probably is most of the time, but not in every case.

Because it is ridiculous. And you missed the point of my analogy (which I believe I stated explicitly): the desire to be joined isn’t the same as the desire to have sex, even though sex is a joining action…

…

Brother you got it going for you man! good reasoning!
Maybe you can send this over to pureloveclub

 

[elts1956]

No, a kiss is just a kiss. It should be watched so if it escalates, there is a stopping level (often hormones are hard to control). There is nothing wrong with deep, passionate kissing in itself.

The problem is that once the hormones are activating at this level, one sometimes can’t turn them off. Passionate kissing is an occasion of sin. Sorry New Ulm, I went to school when the sisters said we couldn’t wear patent leather shoes and if we sat on a boy’s lap, we should put a newspaperr on his lap before we sit down. Things have changed in the secular world, but not much has changed in the religious or spiritual world.

 

[elts1956]

No, a kiss is just a kiss. It should be watched so if it escalates, there is a stopping level (often hormones are hard to control). There is nothing wrong with deep, passionate kissing in itself.

Nothing wrong with Kissing of the lips of any kind.

You sure have got that wrong.

 

[elts1956]

For me, passionate kissing, such as french kissing, would be a sin before marriage. I wouldn’t do it. However, I am not a moral judge on this matter and therefore, I can’t give a definitive ruling of what is moral and what is not. If I were you, I’d purchase a copy of the Pure Love booklet and read it.

catholic.com/chastity/pure_love.asp

Don’t fall into the relativist trap. Say it like you mean it. It’s wrong.

 

[elts1956]

For me, passionate kissing, such as french kissing, would be a sin before marriage. I wouldn’t do it. However, I am not a moral judge on this matter and therefore, I can’t give a definitive ruling of what is moral and what is not. If I were you, I’d purchase a copy of the Pure Love booklet and read it.

catholic.com/chastity/pure_love.asp

Yeah it’s bad you’ll get COOTIES

But seriously it depends, I wouldn’t see anything wrong with kissing on the lips in itself (as it used to be a compulsory part of Mass to kiss everyone round you on the lips (the shaking hands/hugging is a major tone down), though it would be excessive if done for too long, and I’d question why anyone would stick their tongue down someone’s throat if they’re not married to them. Whether the latter’s sinful I don’t know, depends on the context but would still find it hard to justify, but then again I’m a little squeamish about tongues so not sure.

If you’re not married to the person passionate kissing, like in the movies these days, (get the picture?) is wrong.

 

[elts1956]

People were not living 2000 years ago in the middle east. the culture is completly different this needs to be taken into account.

people back then got married at 12 sometimes.

alittle kissing is not a big deal people.

Most people living in the Middle East two thousand years ago and even today don’t “just kiss” if they aren’t married. If they do and are caught, they are dead, ESPECIALLY the women. Read the newspapers.

 

[elts1956]

People were not living 2000 years ago in the middle east. the culture is completly different this needs to be taken into account.

people back then got married at 12 sometimes.

alittle kissing is not a big deal people.

It is if you know it causes you to sin and you do it anyway.

If you ae passionately kissing someone for the purposes of arousal outside of the marital embrace, that is a clear sin. I don’t think it’s at all appropiate outside of marriage.

Good for you.

 

[elts1956]

This can’t be a good test for morality. I would be embarrased if someone accidentally opened the door of a public toilet that I was using.

I’m sure there is nothing sinfull about going to the toilet.

So you equate passionate kissing outside of marriage with going to the toilet? That just about sums it up.

 

[elts1956]

This can’t be a good test for morality. I would be embarrased if someone accidentally opened the door of a public toilet that I was using.

I’m sure there is nothing sinfull about going to the toilet.

Not so. It is an expression of the desire, not the act of unification itself (ie sex). Two people who are in love have this desire; that’s what “being in love” means. What you are saying, therefore, is “I would like to become one with you right now.” As long as this doesn’t cross the line into “Maybe we should become one right now,” it’s just telling the truth.

Do you remain thinking this clearly when you engage in passionate kissing? And which line are you talking about? There are many. Unfortuantely, although many of the younger generation would like to believe otherwise, occasions of sin remain occasions of sin and sin also remains sin.

 

[thomfra]

Ha! LOL This post is priceless!

Nothing bad about it at all. It’s normal, healthy, fun and people should do it as much as they want.

I should probably kiss my wife more often come to think of it.

Mind you, I don’t kiss much in front of other friends/familie members. It’s kind of rude and excluding. But if I am out on the street and it’s just strangers walking buy I wouldn’t worry too much. Most people just think it’s nice and heartwarming when people are in love.

 

[elts1956]

It seems there are lots of opinions on whether or not Passionate Kissing is sinful or not, I am not sure where I stand on this subject because I have no room to talk, although all of us might do something that might be ethical or non ethical, whatever the case if it is true that it is sinful and should wait until marriage then more then half the country is guilty even me , does it require we confess such a thing if were and if it wrong if that is what the facts are?

YUP.:yup: :yup: :yup:

 

[Alterum]

I disagree most fervently with number 2, at least when put as an absolute. My point is it may not be. It would depend on the couple involved and the circumstances. It probably is most of the time, but not in every case.

Shall we say, then, that in a romantic relationship, under normal circumstances, passionate kissing is libidinous? More, that it is meant to be libidinous, that one of the primary reasons to engage in the activity (even in a healthy married relationship) is to produce sexual excitement? Incidentally, I’d like you to tell me how an extended period of saliva exchange says “I love you” in a safe, chaste (i.e., non-libidinous), and respectful way.

So sex does bring about an ontological change, in both cases: if properly set up, it unites the couple (the sex itself is what binds the couple together indivisibly), and if not, it harms them spiritually.

Um, no – that’s primarily a psychological change, unless you admit anything that changes a person in any way whatsoever as an “ontological change”. When I used the term, I meant something that permanently changes the nature of existence of the two people involved.

No, you’ve forgotten what you asked and misread my answer: you asked for a single reason to think it might be ok, and I gave one reason.

You’ve left out the key word – I asked for a good reason to say that it is (not that it *might *conceivably be under some rare and abnormal set of conditions) morally acceptable.

Passionate kissing, however, isn’t joining (though it may be “emotionally unitive” if we take the terms in a merely colloquial sense).

Passionate kissing is emulative of sex, as I’ve already pointed out. It often involves one person entering the other’s body in an erogenous zone. Granted, it doesn’t involve genitals, but that should hardly be the criterion we’re working with here.

1. Depending on the people involved and the circumstances of their relationship and emotional state, passionate kissing may or may not be sexually stimulating. Obviously, it is stimulating in some way, but this may or may not be sexual.

You haven’t disagreed; you haven’t addressed the point. You’ve merely asserted that passionate kissing many not be sexually stimulating. Now, do you agree that, in order to deem it morally permissible, you must “know with relative certainty that… passionate kissing [in your circumstance] is not and will not be sexually stimulating”?

1. Depending on the people involved and the circumstances of their relationship and emotional state, passionate kissing may or may not tempt them into further acts which would be sinful.

Same problem here – empty assertion. Again, do you agree that, in order to deem it morally permissible in a specific situation, you must “*Know with relative certainty *that passionate kissing…is not an occasion of sin, which is to say, it’s not an instance where the participants needlessly place themselves in such a state in which if they fail to exercise sufficient self-control they will fall into sin.”

1. Passionate kissing communicates, reinforces, reassures, symbolizes, and expresses the love that the couple has for each other. These are all good things.

You’ve taken not the slightest step towards doing what I contended was morally necessary in order to deem passionate kissing morally permissible: in short, to clearly draw the line somewhere, and to give reasons. Again, “Delineate clearly for what reasons and under which circumstances, objectively-speaking, passionate kissing is morally acceptable, because clearly it’s unacceptable under most circumstances. To be clear, I do not think this delineation should include any references to yourself, or to emotions, because emotions can never justify that which is immoral in their absence*.”*

It’s a “Probably Isn’t OK For Most People Most of the Time, but Might Sometimes Be An Acceptable Way of Expressing Your Love If You’re Really Honestly Sure That It’s Not Going to Lead to Things That Aren’t” warning.

I take this to mean that you actually agree with me under most circumstances. I would argue that if there are circumstances where the couple is unsure of whether or not passionate kissing will lead to sexual excitement, they have a moral duty to refrain from it – at the very least, because it would constitute an occasion of sin. Then I would argue that every reasonable instance of passionate kissing between two people romantically involved falls at least into this last category; that is to say, the reasonable expectation of anyone engaging in passionate kissing under normal circumstances should be that he will in all probability become sexually excited. Can you give me a clear counter-example, instead of just saying “well, there may be some cases where that’s not true; don’t use absolutes”?

I think I’ve made a strong case that we should advise faithful Catholics not to engage in passionate kissing outside of marriage.

 

[BlaineTog]

Shall we say, then, that in a romantic relationship, under normal circumstances, passionate kissing is libidinous?

I can’t make that judgment. Passionate kissing is probably misused more of then than not, but you have to take it in a case-by-case basis regardless of the statistics anyway, so the statistics aren’t particularly relevant.

The moral licitness of the act is highly dependent on the inner thoughts and feelings of the people involved. As such, it becomes virtually impossible to make a judgment on this issue for someone else, much less a definite judgement, and it’s largely absurd to try.

More, that it is meant to be libidinous, that one of the primary reasons to engage in the activity (even in a healthy married relationship) is to produce sexual excitement?

It can be. It may not be. It depends on information an outsider can’t generally be privy to.

Incidentally, I’d like you to tell me how an extended period of saliva exchange says “I love you” in a safe, chaste (i.e., non-libidinous), and respectful way.

In more-or-less the same way that a brief period of saliva exchange does, only more so. It’s focus.

Um, no – that’s primarily a psychological change, unless you admit anything that changes a person in any way whatsoever as an “ontological change”. When I used the term, I meant something that permanently changes the nature of existence of the two people involved.

According to the Catechism, sex does just that. You’re free to disagree, of course, but then this changes to a comparative religions discussion and can’t really be resolved.

You’ve left out the key word – I asked for a good reason to say that it is (not that it *might *conceivably be under some rare and abnormal set of conditions) morally acceptable.

If it communicates love, it is good.

Passionate kissing is emulative of sex, as I’ve already pointed out. It often involves one person entering the other’s body in an erogenous zone.

In that case, so are a number of medical exams.

And emulative or not, it’s not sex. The distinction between them is huge.

You haven’t disagreed; you haven’t addressed the point. You’ve merely asserted that passionate kissing many not be sexually stimulating. Now, do you agree that, in order to deem it morally permissible, you must "know with relative certainty that… passionate kissing [in your circumstance] is not and will not be sexually stimulating"?

Pretty much. A certain low degree of sexual stimulation may be ok, depending on the relationship, as long as the couple can be darn sure it’s not going to go further than that. This is just speculative, though, as it seems reasonable to me for fiancees to desire each other a certain amount, for people who have been dating for a long while to desire each other a certain amount, and for people who have only been dating a short while to desire each other. After all, were licit desire not a spectrum, then either the couple should never desire each other, or they should miraculously go from absolutely nothing to full the exact moment the priest pronounces them man and wife. Given the way humans function, I think the latter option is much more probably.

Same problem here – empty assertion.

We’re both making assertions. Yours is merely an absolute, which means it can be disproven by a single counterexample. Of course, the issue there is I can’t provide a counterexample which you are bound to agree with without somehow caused said example to be you yourself.

*Again, do you agree that, in order to deem it morally permissible in a specific situation, you must “*Know with relative certainty **that passionate kissing…is not an occasion of sin, which is to say, it’s not an instance where the participants needlessly place themselves in such a state in which if they fail to exercise sufficient self-control they will fall into sin.”

More or less, but not to the letter. If there’s a real concern that they could sin, then they shouldn’t do it. The way you’ve phrased it, though, makes it such that if there is any level of temptation at all, they shouldn’t do it. However, I might find myself tempted by my boss’s secretary, for example, a temptation that comes entirely unbidden, yet I don’t have to quit my job. We’re supposed to avoid temptation, not stay away at all costs, in no small part because avoiding it isn’t always reasonable, or possible.

I take this to mean that you actually agree with me under most circumstances.

Kindasorta, to an extent.

I would argue that if there are circumstances where the couple is unsure of whether or not passionate kissing will lead to sexual excitement, they have a moral duty to refrain from it – at the very least, because it would constitute an occasion of sin. Then I would argue that every reasonable instance of passionate kissing between two people romantically involved falls at least into this last category; that is to say, the reasonable expectation of anyone engaging in passionate kissing under normal circumstances should be that he will in all probability become sexually excited. Can you give me a clear counter-example, instead of just saying “well, there may be some cases where that’s not true; don’t use absolutes”?

Sure. I have been in instances in which passionate kissing did not equate to sexual arousal. Problem is, you have no reason to believe me, since you’ve already defined your beliefs; I can’t give any examples other than of myself since the example requires interior information; and the subject is uncomfortable to discuss for a number of reasons irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

[GraceDK]

BlaineTog

LOL great post!
I too have been passionately kissing without being tempted to have sex or even being aroused the least.
Some people can do this… others can’t…
For me it was what you say, an expression of love and desire for the other person but not in a for-play kind of way.

 

[elts1956]

I can’t make that judgment. Passionate kissing is probably misused more of then than not, but you have to take it in a case-by-case basis regardless of the statistics anyway, so the statistics aren’t particularly relevant.

The moral licitness of the act is highly dependent on the inner thoughts and feelings of the people involved. As such, it becomes virtually impossible to make a judgment on this issue for someone else, much less a definite judgement, and it’s largely absurd to try.

It can be. It may not be. It depends on information an outsider can’t generally be privy to.

In more-or-less the same way that a brief period of saliva exchange does, only more so. It’s focus.

According to the Catechism, sex does just that. You’re free to disagree, of course, but then this changes to a comparative religions discussion and can’t really be resolved.

If it communicates love, it is good.

In that case, so are a number of medical exams.

And emulative or not, it’s not sex. The distinction between them is huge.

Pretty much. A certain low degree of sexual stimulation may be ok, depending on the relationship, as long as the couple can be darn sure it’s not going to go further than that. This is just speculative, though, as it seems reasonable to me for fiancees to desire each other a certain amount, for people who have been dating for a long while to desire each other a certain amount, and for people who have only been dating a short while to desire each other. After all, were licit desire not a spectrum, then either the couple should never desire each other, or they should miraculously go from absolutely nothing to full the exact moment the priest pronounces them man and wife. Given the way humans function, I think the latter option is much more probably.

We’re both making assertions. Yours is merely an absolute, which means it can be disproven by a single counterexample. Of course, the issue there is I can’t provide a counterexample which you are bound to agree with without somehow caused said example to be you yourself.

More or less, but not to the letter. If there’s a real concern that they could sin, then they shouldn’t do it. The way you’ve phrased it, though, makes it such that if there is any level of temptation at all, they shouldn’t do it. However, I might find myself tempted by my boss’s secretary, for example, a temptation that comes entirely unbidden, yet I don’t have to quit my job. We’re supposed to avoid temptation, not stay away at all costs, in no small part because avoiding it isn’t always reasonable, or possible.

Kindasorta, to an extent.

Sure. I have been in instances in which passionate kissing did not equate to sexual arousal. Problem is, you have no reason to believe me, since you’ve already defined your beliefs; I can’t give any examples other than of myself since the example requires interior information; and the subject is uncomfortable to discuss for a number of reasons irrelevant to the current discussion.

Hello there. The problem with your explanations is that they are relativistic. Cannot judge. Can’t say it’s wrong for another etc. etc. etc. I was taught by the Catholic Church that placing oneself in a situation of an occasion of sin is always placing oneself there. To do this is to take the risk of impairing the Grace of another’s soul and your own. And a sin is always a sin for whomever acts on it. You need to find some absolutes kiddo.

 

[BlaineTog]

Hello there. The problem with your explanations is that they are relativistic.

No, just contingent on information we can’t have. It’s an epistemological problem, nothing more. Whether or not it’s a sin for a given couple in a given situation at a given time is certainly one way or the other, but crucial variables are unknown by everyone except the people involved and God.

 

[elts1956]

No, just contingent on information we can’t have. It’s an epistemological problem, nothing more. Whether or not it’s a sin for a given couple in a given situation at a given time is certainly one way or the other, but crucial variables are unknown by everyone except the people involved and God.

Still you spout relativism. A sin is a sin and an occasion of sin is an occasion of sin. I think you are getting “judge not lest you be judged” with what is a sin and what is not.

 

[yellowbird]

Most people living in the Middle East two thousand years ago and even today don’t “just kiss” if they aren’t married. If they do and are caught, they are dead, ESPECIALLY the women. Read the newspapers.

I don’t give a flip how people in the Middle East live today. The very fact that kissing is a death sentence tells me those people are wacked.

I am amused by this thead and glad I didn’t date any of you. I think passionate kissing is WONDERFUL and I did it ALOT prior to marriage. I’m glad about that too - because after being married for almost 20 years, with a house full of kids & jobs & a busy life in general, it’s not like we’re spending alot of time making out in the backseat of a car…

Oh to be young again…

 

[elts1956]

I don’t give a flip how people in the Middle East live today. The very fact that kissing is a death sentence tells me those people are wacked.

I am amused by this thead and glad I didn’t date any of you. I think passionate kissing is WONDERFUL and I did it ALOT prior to marriage. I’m glad about that too - because after being married for almost 20 years, with a house full of kids & jobs & a busy life in general, it’s not like we’re spending alot of time making out in the backseat of a car…

Oh to be young again…

Dear Yellowbird. I was answering this post by:

SoulRebel777: People were not living 2000 years ago in the middle east. the culture is completly different this needs to be taken into account.
people back then got married at 12 sometimes.
alittle kissing is not a big deal people.

Whether you give a flip about it, or not isn’t really pertinent at this point. Even though many people have a different sense of what is right or wrong this doesn’t lessen, or increase the morallity of the act performed. What is wrong is wrong. What is right is right. Of course it was fun. Why do you think you got married? And what, now that you can do so with church approval, no passionate kissing?
And yes, if I were young again I would have just as much difficulty not “enjoying myself” by indulging in passionate kissing. Can’t say I am a Saint, but it was wrong back then and it is wrong now.

 

[yellowbird]

Can’t say I am a Saint, but it was wrong back then and it is wrong now.

IF it’s wrong, it’s wrong like eating chocolate cake for breakfast is wrong. It’s sooooo not wrong like swearing at your mother is wrong.

There are ALOT of things I hope my children never do. Kissing before marriage - even passionatly is so not one of them.