Making out

[Evania]

No, I didn’t confuse the 2 of you.

I am just confused because at one point you were agreeing with Wander’s post, and saying you think the issue of morality when it comes to deep kissing depends on the circumstances… but then you said “amen” to one of bookcat’s post, which contradicts what I thought your opinions to be. So I have no idea.

I just thought it was a little weird.

I replied, “Excellent post” to Wander’s post because it helped me understand the viewpoints of Jimmy, you and others. It was presented in a more logical and meaningful manner than using “fat suits and burkas” to explain a point. And some of the points I can honestly see. My personal views are detailed above, which I consider are in line with Pope John Paul’s teachings. I’m pretty sure I laid them out several times, so it would be redundant of me to lay them out yet again.

If I had to sum my opinion up in one sentence it would be, “Do not lead others into temptation, even if you aren’t being tempted yourself.”

Nothing weird about that

 

[Debora123]

Kissing can be “indirect” and may potentially be chaste and acceptable.

But the kissing under discussion – tends to enflame the passions etc.

Bookcat, this thread itself is about deep kissing specifically.

When I say “kissing” and don’t particularly specify it as “deep kissing,” it is safe to conclude that I still mean exactly what we are talking about… deep kissing. Just because I don’t make the specification every single time I type out the word, please know that it is safe to conclude that I am sticking to the topic at hand.

So, now that we got that taken care of, your post still does not clear anything up for me. Can you please explain to us why you would categorize deep kissing as direct stimulation?

I know you said it may very often lead to arousal. But as I have already pointed out, other things can also lead to arousal… such as saying hello to your significant other at the front door.

So if they both have the potential to cause involuntary arousal, then how do you differentiate the 2? Please explain.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, this thread itself is about deep kissing specifically.

When I say kissing, instead of specify it as “deep kissing,” it is safe to conclude that I still mean exactly what we are talking about… deep kissing.

Now, can you please explain to us why you would categorize deep kissing as direct stimulation?

I know you said it may very often lead to arousal. But as I have already pointed out, other things can also lead to arousal… such as saying hello to your significant other as the front door.

So if they both have the potential to cause involuntary arousal, then how do you differentiate the 2? Please explain.

Yes of course --but it was stated “kissing” so I needed to distinguish.

What you describe can be a good example of a reasonable “indirect arousal”.

As I noted just now:

To quote from the Catholic Answers Apologist:

“…this type of kissing, which prepares the body for sexual relations, is inappropriate to the chastity expected of single people and could possibly constitute grave matter.”

 

[Monica4316]

Got a quick question -
Is passionate kissing before marriage a sin? French kissing and necking? I have heard a lot of different opinions about this and it seems like the Church leaves it to the people involved. Is there a black and white line?

Actually, I’ve heard a talk by a priest who said that a Pope said that its definitely a mortal sin (grave matter) and condemning the view that it’s only venial. So I’d say - yes, it is. It can present a temptation, and putting ourselves into temptation knowingly is a sin. I think passionate kissing/etc is something kept for marriage. I know that’s counterculutural especially as all the movies, etc, show it, but they also show premarital sex soo… I don’t think we should follow our culture

 

[jimmy]

I replied, “Excellent post” to Wander’s post because it helped me understand the viewpoints of Jimmy, you and others. It was presented in a more logical and meaningful manner than using “fat suits and burkas” to explain a point. And some of the points I can honestly see. My personal views are detailed above, which I consider are in line with Pope John Paul’s teachings. I’m pretty sure I laid them out several times, so it would be redundant of me to lay them out yet again.

If I had to sum my opinion up in one sentence it would be, “Do not lead others into temptation, even if you aren’t being tempted yourself.”

Nothing weird about that

I prefer terse, earthy, and illogical. I used to try the logical approach, but I found that people are illogical. I figure if I give people a view of crazy, I might trick them into a more reasonable approach.

 

[Debora123]

I replied, “Excellent post” to Wander’s post because it helped me understand the viewpoints of Jimmy, you and others. It was presented in a more logical and meaningful manner than using “fat suits and burkas” to explain a point. And some of the points I can honestly see. My personal views are detailed above, which I consider are in line with Pope John Paul’s teachings. I’m pretty sure I laid them out several times, so it would be redundant of me to lay them out yet again.

If I had to sum my opinion up in one sentence it would be, "Do not lead others into temptation, even if you aren’t being tempted yourself."

Nothing weird about that

Thanks for clearing it up.

Seems we agree with each other. It depends on the couple… both parties involved… not just one, but both of them have to be ok with it.

 

[einna]

There is a line between showing affection that is appropriate to a relationship leading to marriage, and doing something together because it is physically gratifying and feels good. Our hearts can trick us a lot, even the book of Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jesus taught that the place we fall into sin is going to be in our hearts and minds. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb37.htm

I asked this question here about a month ago, and since ordered two FANTASTIC Catholic resources that cover it. You can read excerpts online at googlebooks.com

1. Good News for Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching by Christopher West
   shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70
2. Christian Courtship in an Oversexed World. By Fr. T. G. Morrow
   amazon.com/Christian-Courtship-Oversexed-World-Catholics/dp/1931709564

Do you know how many activities people can do together that fall under the statement physically gratifying and feels good? Lets see, there is dancing, playing sports, swimming in the ocean, eating a incredible tasting dessert to mention just a few. Really people, I feel like we are back in the 70s and 80s when Baptist preachers were scolding dancing like in the move “Footloose”.

 

[Debora123]

I prefer terse, earthy, and illogical. I used to try the logical approach, but I found that people are illogical. I figure if I give people a view of crazy, I might trick them into a more reasonable approach.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, this thread itself is about deep kissing specifically.

When I say kissing, instead of specify it as “deep kissing,” it is safe to conclude that I still mean exactly what we are talking about… deep kissing.

Now, can you please explain to us why you would categorize deep kissing as direct stimulation?

I know you said it may very often lead to arousal. But as I have already pointed out, other things can also lead to arousal… such as saying hello to your significant other as the front door.

So if they both have the potential to cause involuntary arousal, then how do you differentiate the 2? Please explain.

Yes of course --but the post simply said “kissing” so I needed to distinguish.

What you describe can be a good example of a reasonable “indirect arousal”.

The reason why it can be said that “passionate kissing” and “french kissing” belongs only to marriage is that such acts are rather ordered to enflaming sexual arousal. Such can be called part of “foreplay” for the marital act.

As I noted just now:

To quote from the Catholic Answers Apologist -regarding so called “French Kissing”:

“…this type of kissing, which prepares the body for sexual relations, is inappropriate to the chastity expected of single people and could possibly constitute grave matter.”

 

[Evania]

Jimmy, this is a debate. Feel free to add something to the discussion if you wish, but try to fight the temptation to take it to the personal level when you disagree with a viewpoint. No one wears bonnets and long dresses. The men don’t wear top hats. We’re all adults here, so let’s keep it civil and classy. Thanks.

 

[einna]

Making out isn’t sex, and to conflate it with sex because it can arouse a person is irresponsible thinking. It could be argued that the whole dating experience is foreplay for marriage. You build up the passion and emotion slowly. So, maybe you could claim that making out is foreplay, but that doesn’t disqualify it or make it wrong. In fact I would say that in most cases, making out is part of the development of the relationship, and is consequently necessary.

If a man wants to keep his genitals from ever being aroused, then all women are going to have to start whering burkas. Full covering, everything but the eyes. Maybe for safety sake you should where a fat suit underneath as well, because men are attracted to the shape of women. Are the women on here prepared for that? don’t give the bs that it is all his responsibility either. If you think he shouldn’t be aroused by you then you should dress accordingly, because sexual arousal is a natural thing. It isn’t an arbitrary decision a man makes.

I agree with you. Temptation and sexual arousal is a normal part of human nature, it is how you deal with it that makes it a sin. Adam and Eve’s sin was not so much being tempted, but giving into that temptation. If 2 people want to make out and they never let it get out of hand then I don’t believe in any way it is a sin.

It is not a sin because of what might happen. It is a sin when people let it go to far and it leads to sex. For those who stop in time, it is just plain having a good time.

 

[Debora123]

What you describe can be a good example of a reasonable “indirect arousal”.

The reason why it can be said that “passionate kissing” and “french kissing” belongs only to marriage is that such acts are rather ordered to enflaming sexual arousal. Such can be called part of “foreplay” for the marital act.

What do you mean by “ordered to enflamming sexual arousal?”

Do you simply mean it is an act that may cause sexual arousal? How do you set this apart from other acts that cause sexual arousal that YOU would deem to be indirect?

As for the foreplay thing, well, it can be foreplay if it’s used as foreplay. If it happens in isolation, without intercourse as the result, then it is not foreplay. It’s just making out.

 

[thewanderer]

At least such as I noted above by nature “tends” toward such…

I do not claim per se that such kissing is “always” having the normal effect. There could for example I suppose be some couples who are on rather super un- sensitive and not find any “effect” in such. And in such a case they may very well take such as “simply gross” and not seek to engage in such anyhow.

Wait, so you are saying that there are situations where making out is not sinful? So I was wrong and you weren’t arguing based on the nature of the act? Now I am more confused than ever.

 

[Bookcat]

What do you mean by “ordered to enflamming sexual arousal?”

I mean just that. Though I do not know how to spell.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflame?s=t

 

[Bookcat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookcat
At least such as I noted above by nature “tends” toward such…

I do not claim per se that such kissing is “always” having the normal effect. There could for example I suppose be some couples who are on rather super un- sensitive and not find any “effect” in such. And in such a case they may very well take such as “simply gross” and not seek to engage in such anyhow.

Wait, so you are saying that there are situations where making out is not sinful? So I was wrong and you weren’t arguing based on the nature of the act? Now I am more confused than ever.

Well if the couple is as described --are in among the super -un-sensitive crowd – and like to do gross things for a pass time…

You could also perhaps play a spitting game with some non-toxic tobacco like substance (spitting into a spit-patoone)–might be more entertaining…

 

[einna]

I’m not sure whether it’s better or worse. I know that within the last six months there have been threads on rubbing your belly because it feels good, eating an icecream cone, kissing (not this one), drinking a beer, and several other nutty questions. All of these things were potential sins. I think all the women here wear bonnets, and ankle length blue dresses. And the men all wear black suites with top hats.

Seriously, I feel like I should run to confession first thing in the morning and every night before I go to bed. Then I go to work and many of the priest tell me how ludicrous some of the things that are said here are. They cannot believe some Catholics are so misguided.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, this is a debate. Feel free to add something to the discussion if you wish, but try to fight the temptation to take it to the personal level when you disagree with a viewpoint. No one wears bonnets and long dresses. The men don’t wear top hats. We’re all adults here, so let’s keep it civil and classy. Thanks.

Come on man. Are you being serious?

 

[Debora123]

I mean just that. Though I do not know how to spell.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflame?s=t

Ok, so it’s what I thought. Basically it just means to become aroused. In that case would you mind clearing up my other questions?

Here is my post again:

Do you simply mean it is an act that may cause sexual arousal? How do you set this apart from other acts that cause sexual arousal that YOU would deem to be indirect?

The answer to the first question, according the your dictionary link, is yes. What about the other one?

 

[Debora123]

Seriously, I feel like I should run to confession first thing in the morning and every night before I go to bed. Then I go to work and many of the priest tell me how ludicrous some of the things that are said here are. They cannot believe some Catholics are so misguided.

Same here sister.

 

[Evania]

Come on man. Are you being serious?

I take it that you do feel it is okay to inflame the other side by personal insults? That’s usually a sign that you have nothing more substantial to add to the debate.