Making out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tradcat89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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…)
 
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.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes (that is some things can be said to be correct others not… but I have no wish to get into some long casuistic discussion --as can easily happen in a thread like this ----see the following post for a good overview of the principles to apply)
Click to expand...
**
Did you read me in the details? **

My catholic position:

Before the wedding, between the boyfriend and the girlfriend, or between the fiancé and the fiancée,** by nature, by essence and by principle:**

the fact of kissing the cheeks of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the forehead of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the ears of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the arms of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the eyes of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the neck of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the shoulders of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the back of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the chin of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the lips of mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of practicing the french kiss is not sinful;
the fact of holding the waist of the other is not sinful;
the fact of holding hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the legs of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the knees of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the other in swimsuit is not sinful;
the fact of touching the thigh of the other with the hands is not sinful;
the fact of dancing together is not sinful: the Rock and Roll, the Valse, the Slow…etc.

The fact of saying the contrary is very odd, my humble opinion. Here, only** the wrong intention can be sinful and /or only the wrong effects (the breaking of the red line). That is the question, how to define the red line???
**

Materially speaking, the fact of going further, as in a married couple.** In the facts, the fact of trying the first steps of marital act (sexed and sexual touchings, per se, for keep going, for arousing and for exciting), i mean the sexual intimate parts and the breasts.** : it is wrong.
**
Intentionally speaking, for arousing and for exciting the body of the other; the difference between a simple expression of love and of tenderness, even before marriage, and the will of going further for preparing the union of bodies.**

By nature, the acts of my list are not sinful. **Only the intentions of each person and the circumstances can render them sinful.The near occasions of sin is very relative because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances.
**
 
jimmy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I still disagree. For one, I’m not comparing making out to sex, and of course, sexual arousal is natural, but that doesn’t mean anything goes only up to the point of genital contact. I think you are taking it to the extreme in your example, as I’m sure you can see the difference in oogling a woman for pleasure (which you don’t have to) and actually touching or kissing someone passionately, which in most cases leads somewhere. What purpose is a make out session if not for exciting yourself and the other person?

As a side note, you stated, “For safety’s sake, women should wear a fat suit or a burka”. Now I know you aren’t serious, and are attempting to make a point. My response is: Safety in what respect? So she doesn’t get raped? That is akin to blaming a victim of rape because “the poor guy saw what she was wearing and couldn’t exercise restraint.” Most guys are not like that thankfully so it’s a moot point to this discussion. A woman is not responsible for a stranger’s sins, but it is another thing entirely if she was kissing him all over. And please! I see the dating scene as a “foreplay” to marriage not in the sense you mentioned, but as in a courtship to discover whether this is the spouse God intends for you to have. I don’t see how your claim of it (making out) being a necessary means for development. I suggest that you check out Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body talks.
 
fpt said:
By nature, the acts of my list are not sinful. Only the intentions of each person and the circumstances can render them sinful.

The near occasion of sin is very relative because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances.

The moral speech has to be honest otherwise it is wrong. This doctrinal speech and the praxis have to be in link with the nature of act (morally neutral and only morally wrong under special conditions – intentions and circumstances), or by nature very immoral, by itself, of itself, from itself, in itself.

Catholicism is not in favor of simplistic speech even for avoiding the temptation of the others. A such intellectual approach is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
Click to expand...
And in all due respect…Just because people happen to disagree with you does not make their viewpoints “odd”. I’m not against a lot of behavior that you had listed, merely a few. One can only take a glance at society and see where stroking a person’s thighs and passionate French-kissing leads to. I’m just being realistic.
 
fpt said:
**
D **
Click to expand...
I refer you to the link…It will be helpful …I do not wish to get into a long casuistic discussion
Bookcat said:
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…)
Click to expand...
Note too that when it says: “Is this then sinful?” such is referring there to the “Indirectly Stimulating Actions”
 
Evania said:
I’m sorry, but I still disagree. For one, I’m not comparing making out to sex, and of course, sexual arousal is natural, but that doesn’t mean anything goes only up to the point of genital contact. I think you are taking it to the extreme in your example, as I’m sure you can see the difference in oogling a woman for pleasure (which you don’t have to) and actually touching or kissing someone passionately, which in most cases leads somewhere. What purpose is a make out session if not for exciting yourself and the other person?

As a side note, you stated, “For safety’s sake, women should wear a fat suit or a burka”. Now I know you aren’t serious, and are attempting to make a point. My response is: Safety in what respect? So she doesn’t get raped? That is akin to blaming a victim of rape because “the poor guy saw what she was wearing and couldn’t exercise restraint.” Most guys are not like that thankfully so it’s a moot point to this discussion. A woman is not responsible for a stranger’s sins, but it is another thing entirely if she was kissing him all over. And please! I see the dating scene as a “foreplay” to marriage not in the sense you mentioned, but as in a courtship to discover whether this is the spouse God intends for you to have. I don’t see how your claim of it (making out) being a necessary means for development. I suggest that you check out Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body talks.
Click to expand...
Rape has nothing to do with this conversation. “for safety’s sake” refers to if you don’t want men being arroused by you. So (if you are a woman) you should wear a burka with a fat suit underneath. That way no man will look twice. Supposedly Rose of Lima rubbed Lyme or something all over her face to prevent men from lusting over her, so you would have some precedent.
 
fpt said:
**
D **
Click to expand...
I refer you to the link…It will be helpful …I do not wish to get into a long casuistic discussion
Bookcat said:
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…)
Click to expand...
Note too that when it says: “Is this then sinful?” such is referring there to the “Indirectly Stimulating Actions”
 
Bookcat said:
I refer you to the link…It will be helpful …I do not wish to get into a long casuistic discussion

Note too that when it says: “Is this then sinful?” such is referring there to the “Indirectly Stimulating Actions”
Click to expand...
After reading your link, i think that we are on the same line concerning the general principles (circumstances, intentions, nature of acts, and the moral situation of each one and the moral temptations of each one).

My speech is almost the same, in my humble opinion. The writter of this page is on the same moral intellectual approach than me.

May be, the barrier of language is an issue for my understanding.
 
fpt said:
After reading your link, i think that we are on the same line concerning the general principles (circumstances, intentions, nature of acts, and the moral situation of each one and the moral temptations of each one).

My speech is almost the same, in my humble opinion. The writter of this page is on the same moral intellectual approach than me.

May be, the barrier of language is an issue for my understanding.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the language barrier is involved. The link (with my notes above) can be helpful to all. Again I do not wish to get into a casuistic discussion here but I think that the author there will disagree with some of the “actions” listed and could put them in the “directly stimulating” category that should not be really engaged in by those who are not married.
 
This topic isn’t about me or women in general. In fact your reference to burkas, fat suits and oogling men have nothing to do with this particular thread, or about ANY woman setting a standard. But if you want to go into incidents where a precident had been set by saints, you may recall St. Francis of Assisi rolling in thorns as a mortification against lust, and St. Thomas Aquinas chasing a naked woman, sent to tempt him by his family, out of his cell with a hot poker. :getholy:
 
Evania said:
This topic isn’t about me or women in general. In fact your reference to burkas, fat suits and oogling men have nothing to do with this particular thread, or about ANY woman setting a standard. But if you want to go into incidents where a precident had been set by saints, you may recall St. Francis of Assisi rolling in thorns as a mortification against lust, and St. Thomas Aquinas chasing a naked woman, sent to tempt him by his family, out of his cell with a hot poker. :getholy:
Click to expand...
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.

I think you actually mean st. Benedict rather than francis, unless Francis immitated Benedict on this.
 
Yes, St. Francis did as well. If St. Benedict did too, that’s great because it just provides another godly male example. I’m not being sarcastic at all when I say this, but can you HONESTLY not see the difference in the two scenarios??? In one scenario, you have a female, poorly dressed or not, being stared at by a leering man. In the second one, you have two individuals slobbering over eachother. Sexual arousal, like we both agreed upon is not the issue, as it is natural. What is sinful is how it is conjured up.
 
2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II
 
Evania said:
Yes, St. Francis did as well. If St. Benedict did too, that’s great because it just provides another godly male example. I’m not being sarcastic at all when I say this, but can you HONESTLY not see the difference in the two scenarios??? In one scenario, you have a female, poorly dressed or not, being stared at by a leering man. In the second one, you have two individuals slobbering over eachother. Sexual arousal, like we both agreed upon is not the issue, as it is natural. What is sinful is how it is conjured up.
Click to expand...
And what is the proper method of sexual arousal? Intellectual discussion?
 
To me, Evania and Bookcat have the correct responses to this. Look lets face it, following in Christ footsteps isn’t easy, nor did he ever claim that it would be. I heard Fr. Wade Menezes say that far too many Catholics have bought into fully the secular-progressive world view of things and to me at least, judging from some of the responses I’ve seen to this and many other such topics… He’s spot-on!
 
So are you suggesting that it’s okay to deliberately engage in activities where the sole aim is sexual arousal prior to marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top