Making out

[jimmy]

Who said the sole aim is sexual arousal? Even if the sole aim is sexual arousal it isn’t wrong. If I look at a woman who is pretty, and is in shape, i’m not looking because i want to have an intellectual discussion with her. And didnt just arbitrarily decide to look; i looked because she was beautiful. The way she looks arouses your desire. So, if I were to follow your worldview I would be forced to walk around with my eyes on the ground so that I would avoid arousal.

 

[jimmy]

The attitude proposed on this thread by some of the more conservative folks sounds like nothing but repression of sexual desire. Pretend that you don’t have any desire for any woman ( or man if you are a woman). If you do that you are somehow virtuous. It is somehow a virtue to pretend that you are not a man/woman. You are pure spirit.

 

[Evania]

The attitude proposed on this thread by some of the more conservative folks sounds like nothing but repression of sexual desire. Pretend that you don’t have any desire for any woman ( or man if you are a woman). If you do that you are somehow virtuous. It is somehow a virtue to pretend that you are not a man/woman. You are pure spirit.

What a dumb assumption. You’re not speaking on my behalf, as you don’t know me. I never said there was anything wrong with looking, unless you’re one of those creepy guys who justify their leering by faulting a woman’s clothes and insisting she wear a burka to protect herself from your gaze… You are the one who derailed the conversation off topic from making out with someone before marriage into blaming women for “tempting” men, whether that’s their intention or not. I never once said that it is wrong to admire a person’s body, and then you incoherently respond as if I did. Are you familiar with Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body? He says there is nothing disordered about admiring the beauty of the opposite sex. He was the Pope who ordered that the genital coverings of the paintings by Michaelangelo be uncovered in the Sistine Chapel. What makes looking at another person sinful is whether you objectify her/him in a lustful manner. My opposition lies in deliberately commiting acts of temptation with the sole purpose of exciting a person who you are not married to.

 

[Kamaduck]

Of course it does. It was stated above that making out with your girlfriend is wrong because it will arouse the genitals. So, it is part of the discussion, and a refusal to discuss it is a refusal to discuss the topic at hand. If kissing is wrong because it might arouse the genitals, then it is wrong for a woman to wear anything but a burka with a fat suit underneath.

Who said the sole aim is sexual arousal? Even if the sole aim is sexual arousal it isn’t wrong. If I look at a woman who is pretty, and is in shape, i’m not looking because i want to have an intellectual discussion with her. And didnt just arbitrarily decide to look; i looked because she was beautiful. The way she looks arouses your desire. So, if I were to follow your worldview I would be forced to walk around with my eyes on the ground so that I would avoid arousal.

All right, I know exactly nothing about kissing and romance and whatnot, but I do know that there are not just two distinctly different options labelled “seek sexual arousal” and “avoid arousal at all costs”. Believe it or not, most women do not wear non-burka clothing with the sole aim of arousing men. Not wearing a ton of bulky clothing is helpful for mobility, playing sports, and keeping cool in summer. Sometimes it may cross over into immodesty, but that certainly doesn’t mean that women have to wear things that can’t possibly be appealing in order to be modest. They have reasons other than arousing people. Arousing people, when you didn’t even intend to, is not a sin.

“Passionate” kissing would be different, assuming it was done with the intention to become aroused. I won’t say any more, as I don’t know about it. I just know that there are other reasons to do things, and not everything in the world is directly linked to lusting after people.

 

[jimmy]

You’re the one that thinks it is wrong for a man to look, so you are the one who should be supporting burkas. I think sexual desire is a natural, and good thing, so I have no problem with women dressing as they want, or with looking if she is attractive.

I haven’t derailed the discussion. You just refuse to discuss the nature of the subject. The question is whether sexual arousal is sinful or if it is ok. It has been asserted that making out with your girlfriend/boyfriend is sinful because it arouses desire. If anything is dumb, it is that assertion. You’re not even human if you don’t have any sexual desire to arouse. If your girlfriend/boyfriend never arouses your desire you’re not human.

Sure you say it is alright to look, but in the context of the rest of what you say you would think she was just a beautiful piece of art. She belongs on a pedestal in an art gallery. If a man looks at his girlfriend with any form of sexual desire, he is gonna burn in hell. She’s not really treated like a person, she’s a piece of art to be worshiped.

The worst part of this is the anti passion aspect. We should all walk around with a stone face. Don’t express any emotion, or desire, because those are evil. Any desire That you do have should be pushed , down until you can’t feel it anymore.

 

[jimmy]

All right, I know exactly nothing about kissing and romance and whatnot, but I do know that there are not just two distinctly different options labelled “seek sexual arousal” and “avoid arousal at all costs”. Believe it or not, most women do not wear non-burka clothing with the sole aim of arousing men. Not wearing a ton of bulky clothing is helpful for mobility, playing sports, and keeping cool in summer. Sometimes it may cross over into immodesty, but that certainly doesn’t mean that women have to wear things that can’t possibly be appealing in order to be modest. They have reasons other than arousing people. Arousing people, when you didn’t even intend to, is not a sin.

“Passionate” kissing would be different, assuming it was done with the intention to become aroused. I won’t say any more, as I don’t know about it. I just know that there are other reasons to do things, and not everything in the world is directly linked to lusting after people.

I agree. I am not trying to assert that the only reason - or even the main reason - for women’s way of dressing is to attract the looks of men. I only said that men look because their desire is aroused. They are attracted to a beautiful woman. If someone is going to assert that all sexual arousal is wrong, then they should oppose the way women dress, regardless of the reason why they dress that way. Don’t blame a man because his desire is aroused, that is about the most natural thing there is. It can’t be changed. That isn’t to say that a man isn’t to blame for raping a woman or assaulting or harassing her.

To keep this on topic, making out can not be claimed to be bad because of sexual arousal. The only reason why any man has ever looked at a woman twice is because she can arouse his desire. To try avoiding all sexual arousal is simply repression of who and what you are.

 

[Evania]

Everything you said; that it’s not okay to look and that women should wear burkas are things I’ve never said. Keep saying I said it though… This thread is on what is considered sinful, correct? It is a sin to deliberately stir up arousal in someone you aren’t married to. Please feel free to point out a Scripture verse or a saint’s teaching that says otherwise.The key word is deliberately. If a woman wears an outfit that is revealing, is her sole purpose in stirring up sexual arousal? Maybe some do. However, just because some men can’t resist the urge to view her as an object, doesn’t mean she needs to wear a fat suit or burka. I thought this was Catholic Answers, am I wrong? I’m sorry that you feel Pope John Paul’s teachings are dumb. I’m just echoing his words…

 

[Bookcat]

Who said the sole aim is sexual arousal? Even if the sole aim is sexual arousal it isn’t wrong.

Yes it would be lust and yes wrong. To deliberately seek to be sexually aroused is only for within marriage.

One is to distinguish between lust and say noticing beauty in a modest and chaste way.

 

[Bookcat]

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

 

[Bookcat]

This will be of help:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN theology dept…it will be of great help!

(One note though on this reading…I would note that when they say “as soon as he begins to enjoy…” under “pure intent”… it would mean before knowing consent… and note too that when it says: “Is this then sinful?” such is referring there to the “Indirectly Stimulating Actions”)

 

[Kamaduck]

If someone is going to assert that all sexual arousal is wrong, then they should oppose the way women dress, regardless of the reason why they dress that way. Don’t blame a man because his desire is aroused, that is about the most natural thing there is.

Nobody is claiming all sexual arousal is wrong. They are claiming that seeking out that arousal is wrong outside of marriage. There is a difference.

To keep this on topic, making out can not be claimed to be bad because of sexual arousal. The only reason why any man has ever looked at a woman twice is because she can arouse his desire. To try avoiding all sexual arousal is simply repression of who and what you are.

Making out would be wrong if it had no other purpose. It’s entirely different than looking at people or wearing regular clothing, since there are other reasons for doing those things. I don’t know if making out is wrong, but if it is, it’s because it’s done with the intent to arouse and for no other reason.

 

[jimmy]

Yes it would be lust and yes wrong. To deliberately seek to be sexually aroused is only for within marriage.

One is to distinguish between lust and say noticing beauty in a modest and chaste way.

What is lust? What is a chaste way of looking? Often in these discussions I get the sense that it is impossible to actually look in a chaste way. Should I have the same feeling as if I look at a beautiful scenic view? A picture of megan fox should arouse the same feeling as a picture of Yellowstone?

 

[Bookcat]

What is lust?

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

What is a chaste way of looking? Often in these discussions I get the sense that it is impossible to actually look in a chaste way.

Chaste and modest.

CCC 2520…

• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#II

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Should I have the same feeling as if I look at a beautiful scenic view? A picture of megan fox should arouse the same feeling as a picture of Yellowstone?

No a beautiful scenic view is rather different – and can lead to contemplation not lust.

One needs to know oneself and practice a reasonable custodia occulorum (custody of the eyes)

Avoiding any immodest approach -and especially avoiding lust.

As Jesus taught that one who looks at a woman in order to lust has already committed adultery in his heart.

 

[Debora123]

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Chaste and modest.

CCC 2520…

• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#II

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

No a beautiful scenic view is rather different – and can lead to contemplation not lust.

One needs to know oneself and practice a reasonable custodia occulorum (custody of the eyes)

Avoiding any immodest approach -and especially avoiding lust.

As Jesus taught that one who looks at a woman in order to lust has already committed adultery in his heart.

Lol, honestly jimmy asks some good questions, and I think I pretty much get it… I think I have a good understanding in regards to the issues he brings up.

But my answers/understanding came from reading Mary Beth Bonacci/Christopher West, listening to chastity talks, long group discussions in my university’s Catholic Student association, personal experiences, etc etc…

My understanding did NOT come from reading these short lines on the CCC. I believe those are guidelines, but not good thorough explanations that one can read and know exactly how to apply to everyday life. It’s a much deeper and more complicated issue than just that.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes MUCH more can be said…one can take whole courses on sexual morality…

 

[thewanderer]

Who said the sole aim is sexual arousal? Even if the sole aim is sexual arousal it isn’t wrong. If I look at a woman who is pretty, and is in shape, i’m not looking because i want to have an intellectual discussion with her. And didnt just arbitrarily decide to look; i looked because she was beautiful. The way she looks arouses your desire. So, if I were to follow your worldview I would be forced to walk around with my eyes on the ground so that I would avoid arousal.

Ok, while I agree with you, Jimmy, that open-mouthed kissing outside of marriage is not inherently sinful, I have to disagree with you when you claim that it would not be sinful if the only aim was sexual arousal. The reason I agree with you that it is not always sinful is because I know that it is possible for the main aim to be something completely different than sexual arousal, that it is possible to not even have sexual arousal be an aim of such kissing at all. Instead the aim **can **simply be a mutual expression of affection and commitment. Yes, for many people this just isn’t going to be the case, but for some people it absolutely is. That is part of the reason so many people disagree on this. Some can’t believe that there could ever be a reason to french-kiss besides arousal and others recognize that there are other reasons. There is no official teaching on this, all we have are teachings on what sexuality is, what its purpose is, what lust is and what purity is. We then need to take our understanding of these things and prudently apply them to our own lives as best we can.

It is perfectly fine for people to disagree about things the Church has not officially spoken on, so long as they form their conscience based on what the church does teach officially, they form their opinion of what is and is not moral based on a sincere desire for the truth rather than simply accepting the point of view that they would prefer to be true, and so long as they would be willing to change their mind on it if the Church were to ever come out with an official teaching opposed to their current thoughts on the matter.

 

[thewanderer]

This is the answer that makes the most sense to me. It is different for everyone. The point is to stay as far away from lust as possible. With the girlfriends I’ve had, passionate kissing didn’t cause me to come anywhere near lust. It wasn’t foreplay for me. But I’m different, I had the benefit of parents and Catholic schools that did a good job of raising me to “get” that lust is inappropriate. Many of my friends didn’t have this benefit, which is why many of them would point out that I was “sheltered” and the girls I was interested in would point out that one of my strengths, one of the things they loved most about me, was my “conservative views on sex,” how I am rarely tempted by lust in comparison to most guys they’ve seen. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gotten lustful thoughts just looking at a girl (even when she is being completely lady-like and very appropriate). This happened a few times in the last few weeks alone. The rule that has always “worked” for me is that I didn’t engage in passionate kissing with a girl that aroused lustful thoughts in me. Instead, I always stayed away from getting romantically involved with girls that aroused lustful thoughts in me. Personally, what has always “done it for me” is a pretty girl with a pure heart, a good girl, a girl that likes me for who I am without any lustful thoughts involved, a pretty girl that I liked for who she was without any lustful thoughts involved. What has always worked for me is getting to know that girl, getting to be friends with her before we became girlfriend/boyfriend. The way I’ve alway been, passionate kissing just meant that we had decided to take our friendship to the next level, to be serious. It had nothing to do with having sex. But that’s because I’ve always been pretty good at staying away from lustful thoughts, at staying away from girls that are more prone than I am to lustful thoughts, and I’ve only been interested in pursuing things further with “good girls,” the girls that were like me, girls that innocently believed making out had nothing to do with sex or foreplay, that it just meant we were boyfriend/girlfriend, the girls that “got” that sex isn’t even close to what we should be thinking about until we were married, the girls that were raised similar to the way I was raised, girls that “got” it in the way I “got” it.

Here is another example of someone who sees it as possible to do this without engaging in lustful thoughts or desires.

 

[Debora123]

Who said the sole aim is sexual arousal? Even if the sole aim is sexual arousal it isn’t wrong. If I look at a woman who is pretty, and is in shape, i’m not looking because i want to have an intellectual discussion with her. And didnt just arbitrarily decide to look; i looked because she was beautiful. The way she looks arouses your desire. So, if I were to follow your worldview I would be forced to walk around with my eyes on the ground so that I would avoid arousal.

Hi.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by this, but this is how I’ve always understood it, and how I’ve always been taught:

If you are single, it is not a sin to look at an attractive person and appreciate their God given beauty. If a certain level of arousal/sexual attraction happens, that’s fine… it’s natural. Unless we’re committed to someone else, we are not required to purposely look away from beautiful people as to avoid feeling the arousal/attraction that might naturally come as en effect of that.

What CAN be a sin (even if you’re single), is what you choose to do with that arousal. Do you simply acknowledge it as being how God made you and then go about your normal day not dwelling on it? Or do you make the decision to actively start fantasizing about this attractive person in such a way as to purposely arouse yourself, and ultimately go home and masturbate?

The former is perfectly fine and perfectly natural. The latter is lust, and it is wrong. Do you think you agree with this Jimmy?

The priest from my university parish always told us that one of the most common mistakes good Christian people make, is confusing sexual attraction with lust. This whole concept of separating lust from attraction and understanding the differences was something that had to be drilled into me many many times until I finally got it.

 

[Debora123]

Here is another example of someone who sees it as possible to do this without engaging in lustful thoughts or desires.

Yes. My husband and I kissed a lot during our 4 years of dating before tying the knot.

We knew ourselves, we knew our limits, and we always knew we would wait until we were married to have sex.

Since we knew we could handle some intensive cuddling, laying in bed together, and deep kissing, we did.

To us, it became an expression of our commitment and affection for each other. Not some sort of invitation for sex.

But for those who can’t even imagine doing these things without immediately thinking about compulsive sex, I would suggest you stir clear!

 

[jimmy]

Hi.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by this, but this is how I’ve always understood it, and how I’ve always been taught:

If you are single, it is not a sin to look at an attractive person and appreciate their God given beauty. If a certain level of arousal/sexual attraction happens, that’s fine… it’s natural. Unless we’re committed to someone else, we are not required to purposely look away from beautiful people as to avoid feeling the arousal/attraction that might naturally come as en effect of that.

What CAN be a sin (even if you’re single), is what you choose to do with that arousal. Do you simply acknowledge it as being how God made you and then go about your normal day not dwelling on it? Or do you make the decision to actively start fantasizing about this attractive person in such a way as to purposely arouse yourself, and ultimately go home and masturbate?

The former is perfectly fine and perfectly natural. The latter is lust, and it is wrong. Do you think you agree with this Jimmy?

The priest from my university parish always told us that one of the most common mistakes good Christian people make, is confusing sexual attraction with lust. This whole concept of separating lust from attraction and understanding the differences was something that had to be drilled into me many many times until I finally got it.

I agree completely. My main issue is with any ideas that repress human expression, which naturally includes sexuality. Reading some posts, you begin to think emotion and passion are to be repressed. One poster on another thread said that he was trying to learn to treat all women exactly the same, whether they were attractive or not. This was on a thread about flirting. His approach to relationships with women was essentially to deny sexuality. It is inhuman.

I see it on this thread as well. Kissing is bad, essentially because it is an expression of sexuality. The genitals might possibly get aroused, so it is bad. Some of them probably think the only proper way to give someone a hug is if there is six inches of space between you, one of those awkward hugs.