Making out

[Debora123]

Someone could say that engaging in other actions …even up to fornication is simply an expression of commitment and affection.

Obviously, someone would have to be pretty stupid to say that touching each other’s genitalia is simply an expression of commitment/affection and not an intent to arouse or sexually pleasure the other person.

Kissing is completely different.

 

[Debora123]

Amen.

Evania, I am quite confused as to where you stand on this.

 

[thewanderer]

The reasoning is that the nature of such kissing is well – highly ordered to sexual arousal. Hence the term “passionate” inferring the enflaming of the passions…

Before you made it sound as though there was a black and white line direct vs indirect. Now you are saying that the distinction is based on a gradation being “highly ordered to sexual arousal”. To be honest, I am having a hard time understanding exactly what you believe makes this act wrong, or rather, I am having a hard time understanding what principle it is that you are applying to determine that open-mouthed and passionate kissing is wrong. Is it a clear line (such as direct/idirect actions) or is it a matter of gradation (these actions are more ordered to sexual arousal)? And if it is more of a gradation, how do you determine when the “more” is enough to make it sinful?

And I have to interject here regarding “tongue kissing” or “deep kissing” – how is such really a form of “affection” outside of marriage? It rather can be said to be by nature ordered to stirring up the sexual passions. Not to showing chaste affection outside of marriage.

I am not specifically talking about tongue kissing, but I would say that again, here you are simply making an assertion that it is not a form of affection outside marriage and that. I think this is something that we just disagree on, and is probably where our disagreement in this thread actually stems from.

Hence one finds these responses to the question when it is asked:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10415261&postcount=135

Yes that is of highest importance.

 

[Debora123]

Bookcat,

Debora123;10415443:

I think the problem here is that you’re making this universal claim that the automatic intent behind deep kissing is to sexually arouse yourself and the other person.

Actually I am not.

…I am having a hard time understanding HOW you can first claim that deep kissing is a direct arousal, and then respond with “Actually I am not” to my post above, and then claim again that it is direct and therefore it is intrinsically sinful.

I am at a loss here.

 

[Debora123]

Before you made it sound as though there was a black and white line direct vs indirect. Now you are saying that the distinction is because on a gradation being “highly ordered to sexual arousal”.** To be honest, I am having a hard time understanding exactly what you believe makes this act wrong, or rather, I am having a hard time understanding what principle it is that you are applying to determine that open-mouthed and passionate kissing is wrong.** Is it a clear line (such as direct/idirect actions) or is it a matter of gradation (these actions are more ordered to sexual arousal)? And if it is more of a gradation, how do you determine when the “more” is enough to make it sinful?

Bolded… mine.

Yes. Same here!

 

[Evania]

Debora,

I thought I presented my opinion clearly. Could you possibly have confused my responses with Einna’s?

At a glance, both our names do look similar.

 

[thewanderer]

Obviously, someone would have to be pretty stupid to say that touching each other’s genitalia is simply an expression of commitment/affection and not an intent to arouse or sexually pleasure the other person.

Kissing is completely different.

Honestly thats why I like the direct/indirect way of explaining it. Actions that directly stimulate someone, even if they are **also **being used as an expression of affection and commitment since the very action itself is directly stimulating the stimulation is hardly an unintended side effect, rather it becomes the intended means for showing that affection. I just disagree with Bookcat on which acts are direct and which are indirect, honestly, like I said previously, mostly because I don’t understand what principle Bookcat is using to distinguish direct from indirect.

 

[Debora123]

Debora,

I thought I presented my opinion clearly. Could you possibly have confused my responses with Einna’s?

At a glance, both our names do look similar.

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.

 

[jimmy]

Just when I thought I heard every unbelievable question, someone surprises me. I have never heard any of the things you listed as being a sin if it doesn’t lead to sex. It is no wonder people are having problems with the Church. These kinds of answers really make me think I should convert.

Hahaha, welcome to CAF einna, where everything will earn you a seat in hell. They’re practically givin em away.

 

[Debora123]

Honestly thats why I like the direct/indirect way of explaining it. Actions that directly stimulate someone, even if one is **also **being used as an expression of affection and commitment since the very action itself is directly stimulating the stimulation is hardly an unintended side effect, rather it becomes the intended means for showing that affection. I just disagree with Bookcat on which acts are direct and which are indirect, honestly, like I said previously, mostly because I don’t understand what principle Bookcat is using to distinguish direct from indirect.

Exactly!

I don’t see how bookcat can say that deep kissing is always direct, and then turn around and say that he doesn’t think the arousal in deep kissing is always intentional.

I don’t understand how he is coming up with the conclusion that deep kissing is always direct stimulation.

Either way, I don’t agree that it’s direct, but I am trying to understand why he does.

 

[Debora123]

Hahaha, welcome to CAF einna, where everything will earn you a seat in hell. They’re practically givin em away.

Lol, honestly I feel like it’s improved a lot since I first joined almost 3 years ago.

I know the very first thread I read when I joined was one where the OP was saying it was a sin for women to wear pants lol. Scary thing is not a lot of people were disagreeing with him at the time.

 

[jimmy]

Lol, honestly I feel like it’s improved a lot since I first joined almost 3 years ago.

I know the very first thread I read when I joined was one where the OP was saying it was a sin for women to wear pants lol. Scary thing is not a lot of people were disagreeing with him at the time.

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.

 

[Bookcat]

Before you made it sound as though there was a black and white line direct vs indirect. Now you are saying that the distinction is based on a gradation being “highly ordered to sexual arousal”.

Your mixing posts.

I was there trying to explain why “passionate kissing” is a not something really for those outside of marriage.

Why one thus finds this question for the unmarried:

“Did I engage in acts such as…“necking,” passionate kisses, or prolonged embraces?”

In the Examination of Conscience in the Handbook of Prayers 2011 pg 285. Midwest Theological Forum Edited by Fr. Jim Socias

 

[thewanderer]

Exactly!

I don’t see how bookcat can say that deep kissing is always direct, and then turn around and say that he doesn’t think the arousal in deep kissing is always intentional.

I don’t understand how he is coming up with the conclusion that deep kissing is always direct stimulation.

Either way, I don’t agree that it’s direct, but I am trying to understand why he does.

I think you might be confusing a few things in what Bookcat is saying. When Bookcat talks about being directly stimulating, he isn’t talking about the intention of the people involved but is making a claim about the nature of the action itself, regardless of the circumstances and intent. So I think he is claiming that such kissing is always directly stimulating even though the intent of those involved is not always to stimulate. Does that make a little more sense? But I think we still need more clarity as to what principle he is using to determine where the line between direct and indirect actions lies, because that is ultimately where we disagree.

 

[Debora123]

So I think he is claiming that such kissing is always directly stimulating even though the intent of those involved is not always to stimulate. Does that make a little more sense? .

Yes, though I still don’t understand how he is coming up with the idea that it is direct stimulation.

But I think we still need more clarity as to what principle he is using to determine where the line between direct and indirect actions lies, because that is ultimately where we disagree

Yes.

I think kissing is indirect precisely because the intent does not always have to be arousal. It does not involve touching or stimulating the private parts of the body, and since it can be an “unintentional” arousal (where the arousal is a side effect), I don’t see how it differs from a cuddling or hugging… since those things can also cause arousal as a side effect.

 

[Bookcat]

I think you might be confusing a few things in what Bookcat is saying. When Bookcat talks about being directly stimulating, he isn’t talking about the intention of the people involved but is making a claim about the nature of the action itself, regardless of the circumstances and intent. So I think he is claiming that such kissing is always directly stimulating even though the intent of those involved is not always to stimulate. Does that make a little more sense? But I think we still need more clarity as to what principle he is using to determine where the line between direct and indirect actions lies, because that is ultimately where we disagree.

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.

 

[einna]

That’s because they are not. Regardless of what some anonymous people say on the internet, the Church has not deemed these acts intrinsically sinful when done outside of marriage.

Please don’t convert. If CAF is not healthy for you, seek guidance elsewhere… like from a priest/spiritual director. I don’t think this site is a good place for guidance.

I work at a Catholic high school so I discuss some of the things I read on this site quite often with our priests. This one they would find silly. Of course they would stress that you always have to be aware when things are getting to much to handle, but having fun is apart of life.

 

[Bookcat]

I think kissing is indirect precisely because the intent does not always have to be arousal. It does not involve touching or stimulating the private parts of the body, and since it can be an “unintentional” arousal (where the arousal is a side effect), I don’t see how it differs from a cuddling or hugging… since those things can also cause arousal as a side effect.

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

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

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.”

 

[Debora123]

I work at a Catholic high school so I discuss some of the things I read on this site quite often with our priests. This one they would find silly. Of course they would stress that you always have to be aware when things are getting to much to handle, but having fun is apart of life.

 

[Bookcat]

I think kissing is indirect precisely because the intent does not always have to be arousal. It does not involve touching or stimulating the private parts of the body, and since it can be an “unintentional” arousal (where the arousal is a side effect), I don’t see how it differs from a cuddling or hugging… since those things can also cause arousal as a side effect.

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

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

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.”