martial sex

[ahs]

So, here we are several pages of posts later, and we still see the following:

-Ahs has provided an authentic and approved Catholic definition of sodomy to support his position.

-Mickey, Nom the Wise, Portrait have provided ZERO Catholic source to support their definition of sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

Since the permissive revolution of the Sixties we have witnessed the moral deterioration of Western society and, sadly, many contemporary Catholics have not remained impervious to the wide-spread moral decay that has engulfed us. Alas, dear friend, multitudes have embraced the spirit of the age to such an extent that they are hardly distinguishable from their pagan neighbours. There is this half-hearted ‘Catholicism Lite’ approach to relgion, which allows men to rationalize activities which our forefathers would have recoiled in disgust from, such as manual and oral stimulation of the genetalia by spouses. Unfortunately, there are those who will take refuge in the fact that Holy Mother Church has not declared her mind explicitly on certain matters pertaining to morality; their slogan is, dublis libertas (where doubt exists freedom should be granted), which sounds jolly plausible but is in fact very flawed reasoning because it completely disregards the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning what is morally permissible and acceptable. The result is a relativisic mindset where an everybody is right and nobody is wrong mentality prevails, especially upon matters where the Church has not issued some official magisterial pronouncement. This is a very sad state of affairs and hardly good for the Church’s credibility in the eyes of the watching world.

God bless and goodbye to you, dear friend, and all other contributors to this current thread. Have a very pleasant day.

Hello my good friend. Glory to Jesus Christ!

I cannot agree with you more regarding what you have written here. It saddens me beyond words. I think that there is not much more to say. I will join you in leaving this thread. Until we meet again…

Peace and prayers,
Mickey

 

[fpt]

I find it fascinating that so many Catholic attempt to support sodomy within the confines of the marital embrace. We have seen for almost two thousand years that no such teaching exsists. On the contrary, we have quotes from the fathers which are very strict. They would never have supported such a philosophy. And yet so many people are so quick to cling to one man’s (Jone) revisionist theology from the 1920’s!

We see quotes such as:

We Christians marry only to produce children" - Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) .

or

“If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.” - Clement of Alexandria

and

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" - Saint Augustine, 354 – 430 (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26).

or perhaps

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” (St Jerome)

Can you imagine the Holy Father’s horror if they would have read the revisionist theology of Jone, which seems to condone anal penetration (sodomy) within the confines of marriage?!? I am certain that he would have been deposed!

Lord have mercy!

" If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will." - Clement of Alexandria

This Pope is wrong. He made a mistake. This theology is not a true catholic theology. You can not respect his point of view.

**
“We Christians marry only to produce children” - Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) .**

It is not true, It is a mistake.

 

[fpt]

" If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will." - Clement of Alexandria

This Pope is wrong. He made a mistake. This theology is not a true catholic theology. You can not respect his point of view.

**
“We Christians marry only to produce children” - Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) .**

It is not true, It is a mistake.

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" -

Only an opinion, not the catholic teaching. It is absurd. No comment. He made a mistake.

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” (St Jerome)
**
The same; It is a poor theology**

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

There are no Church documents approving of computers either.
Does that make computers themselves morally suspect?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Val Pal,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

That manual/oral stimulation may render a woman more responsive to coitus is wholly irrelevant since that cannot rationalize sexually deviant and unnatural vice. Sorry, dear friend, but that is nothing less than an ends justifies the means line of argumentation.

Pax

Catholics (lay or otherwise) expressing opinions like this really promote the idea that the Church thinks people (especially women) should not enjoy sex.

That sex is ONLY for procreation.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear ahs,

Codial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Kissing your wife’s hand, dear friend, would never be construed by any reasonable man as an unnatural and disordered act, no more than kissing your child goodnight would be. However, manual or oral stimulation of the reproductive organs is both deviant and unnatural, since it is using those organs for sexual arousal in a way for which they were clearly not intended.

Forgive me, dear friend, but it is somewhat surprising that you ask me to explain how the stimulation of a reproductive organ is contrary to its purpose. Biology itself surely teaches us that the vagina is intended to accommodate the male sexual organ, thus any stimulation occurs most naturally and exclusively during carnal copulation. Manual stimulation is an abuse of the reproductive organs since they are being used in an irregular manner, hence the Church’s veto on auto-eroticism (CCC, para. 2352). The Catechism states that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, for it is using the sexual faculty in an unnatural and deviant manner and this applies equally within and without the marriage union. An abuse of the reproductive organs will never cease to be an abuse of the reproductive organs, notwithststanding that the end of such activity will result in full carnal copulation.

**The repoductive organs are aroused prior to full carnal copulation, dear friend, by other means, including passionate kissing and embracing and the very closeness of the spouses to each other within the marital bed. Clearly, they will already be physically attracted to one another and the very anticipation of carnal relations will be enough to excite them sexually, without having to resort to any deviant or unclean acts. **

Our Church, dear friend, is not required to officially pronounce upon every single detail relating to morality, but expects the faithful to employ their prudential judgement based upon a properly formed conscience to guide them. However, a problem arises, as I have said previously, when men have a radically defective conscience that results from conformity to the godless standards of the world. In this instance, they are very likely to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgement on a whole range of issues upon which Holy Mother Church is silent, which is precisely what is happening in contemporary Catholicism, especially, though by no means exclusively, among the youth.

Essentially, dear friend, this mindset is acutated by a desire to make our most holy religion less demanding and allowing it to co-exist with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice. Rather than asking what else can sacrificed to aid the pursuit of personal sanctity, it grudingly asks how much can one still cling on to without falling foul of official Church teaching. This is not the spirit of Catholicism, which does not legalistically insist on explicit standing Church teaching for every conceivable moral issue. An authentic Catholicism repairs to the moral sense of the faithful throughout the ages, not just in recent decades, it looks to the Christian consciousness to inform and enlighten prudential judgement and it looks to natural law reasoning, as in the topic currently under review, to decide whether or not something is morally permissible. Therefore, it does not unduly concern men that the Church has not declared her mind upon this matter of manual/oral stimulation of the reproductive organs. What I actually think speaks more loudly is that she has never in any authoritative magisterial teaching said that these unnatural and depraved acts are morally permissible within the marriage bed. This is hardly surprising, given that they are just that, unnatural and depraved acts, which should not be even once named among those that becometh saints.

Finally, dear friend, if men did entertain any lingering doubts about this manual/oral stimulation of private parts, then they need only consider for a moment that in the case of oral stimulation it is most unhygenic to place the mouth in close proximity to a region that harbours much bacteria. This per se ought to flash up the warning cones as regards the unnatural nature of such a gross act of indecency - our mouths should obviously not be in that area of the body.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

In other words, you consider forepaly immoral, and those who practice it deviant.

 

[fpt]

The great catholic theologians are not the official doctrine. The doctors of Church are not the official doctrine.

Only the official doctrine is the rule: not more and not less.

 

[ahs]

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" -

Only an opinion, not the catholic teaching. It is absurd. No comment. He made a mistake.

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” (St Jerome)
**
The same; It is a poor theology**

Fpt, your posts are very insightful. Yes, you are correct…and a simple search will turn up the likes of Augustine (to a degree), Gregory I, Aquinas, and Francis de Sales who have strongly opposing views of what Mickey provided. Ultimately, we must base our understanding on the teachings of the Church, using the Fathers to support those teachings that the Church has put into place…not to make up new teachings of our own. You and I agree on this, and much more.

It seems that the ones I was debating have stated their case and the debate is over. So I will leave as well…maybe check in later on. My final word on that matter can be found about 8 posts up (#258).

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yeah. I do not accept that explanation.

You cannot perform an unnatural sex act (sodomy)…which is immoral and intrinsically disordered…and then call it okay because it is completed with an act of natural marital relations.

One does not justify the other.

For clarification would you provide your definition/understanding of “copulation”.

Thank you,
Mark

 

[fpt]

Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings.

A hearty Amen to the above remarks, my dear chap.

Certainly the Catholic Church declares universally valid teachings, not admitting any exceptions, but she also expects the faithful to use some jolly good old fashioned sanctified common sense as regards their decision making upon matters upon which she has chosen, for whatever reason, to remain silent. The present topic is a case in point and we must therefore use our prudential judgement to aid us in arriving at the truth on this matter. However, if our conscience is radically defective then our decisions will necessarily be wide of the mark, for how could it be otherwise. There is, dear friend, nothing uncharitable in making such a comment, it is simply stating an obvious and undeniable fact, especially given the Laodicean times in which our lot is now cast. Worldly conformity is an immense problem, not only within Catholicism, but also within the other mainline Christian churches as well. Christians of all people ought to refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world and who’s outlook is consequently circumscribed by that which is transient, but this is not what is happening in modern Christendom, unfortunately. However. that is another topic for another day.

Since the permissive revolution of the Sixties we have witnessed the moral deterioration of Western society and, sadly, many contemporary Catholics have not remained impervious to the wide-spread moral decay that has engulfed us. Alas, dear friend, multitudes have embraced the spirit of the age to such an extent that they are hardly distinguishable from their pagan neighbours. There is this half-hearted ‘Catholicism Lite’ approach to relgion, which allows men to rationalize activities which our forefathers would have recoiled in disgust from, such as manual and oral stimulation of the genetalia by spouses. Unfortunately, there are those who will take refuge in the fact that Holy Mother Church has not declared her mind explicitly on certain matters pertaining to morality; their slogan is, dublis libertas (where doubt exists freedom should be granted), which sounds jolly plausible but is in fact very flawed reasoning because it completely disregards the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning what is morally permissible and acceptable. The result is a relativisic mindset where an everybody is right and nobody is wrong mentality prevails, especially upon matters where the Church has not issued some official magisterial pronouncement. This is a very sad state of affairs and hardly good for the Church’s credibility in the eyes of the watching world.

God bless and goodbye to you, dear friend, and all other contributors to this current thread. Have a very pleasant day.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

**Honestly, I would like to know what is morally okay, according to your personal opinion, to do on the body of the other, in the context of marital act?

In fact nothing, or almost.!!! Could you give me your black list and your white list?**

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear A TeutonicKnight,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

We should bring to the notice of those browsing this thread, dear friend, that the instructions of H.H. PJPII in Theology of the Body, clearly do not condone the deviant practices currently under review.

As regards Mr. West, men should be aware that he is not held in universal esteem and, in any case, citing him is simply and appeal to authority. There is no official magisterial teaching that authoritatively declares that manual or oral stimulation of the private parts within the context of marriage is morally permissible. In the absence of such authoritative teaching, the faithful must use their prudential judgement to aid them in their decision making. Now this is all well and good, dear friend, provided that they do not have a radically defective conscience, as a consequence of being imbued with the debased standards of the world. In that case, their prudential judgment will be anything but prudential but will, in all probability, be very wide of the mark. This is not only applicable to our present topic but will apply to any number of issues on which Holy Mother Church has not specifically declared her mind (e.g. the use of profanity, listening to debased sensory material, such as rock/pop music, and even the requirements of modest attire for women).

However, as regards fellatio/cunnilingus these are manifestly not procreative and are therefore aberrant and unclean acts of depravity and should accordingly be avoided by the faithful. That they occur within the marriage bed, dear friend, is wholly irrelevant since that does not render them any less deviant or intrinsically disordered. An unnatural and deviant action cannot be rationalized upon the basis that is a prelude to natural licit coitus. That is not consistent with the thinking that one normally associated with an authentic Catholic mind.

Those who demand explicit Church teaching condemning such vile practices are approaching this whole issue from very legalistic standpoint and need to read and mark what St. Paul, for example, says about impurity and uncleaness as regards sexual morality. This I have referenced in a previous post today. Purity necessarily involves the control and direction of sexual powers and impulses in accordance with the natural law and purpose of God. It is, dear friend, manifiestly incongruous for those who profess Christ’s holy religion to condone or indulge in filthy and deviant sexual practices. Moreover, that they occur within the context of the marriage bed, is wholly immaterial.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Kissing isn’t strictly procreative either.

According to your logic during sex there should only be the necessary genital/physical contact for vaginal penetration to occur and then the couple should pull away from each other once their done

Frankly, in my opinion this type of thinking degrades sexuality more than all but the worst pornography (treating it like something that needs to be restricted and reined in as much as possible).

 

[fpt]

Do you know that a catholic saint can make a mistake in theology? Do you know? Are you okay? Do you think that the Pope is the ultimate Doctor when he speaks with authority? (see Vatican I)

 

[MarkInOregon]

No…that’s not correct. You were talking about the definition of sodomy. Oral and anal sexual activity is considered to be sodomy…I have never heard alternate definitions.

Mickey,

The definition you provided used the word “copulation” --not sexual activity–which seems much more broad?

Could you clarify?

Thank you,
Mark

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for all of your sanctified common sense posts on this current thread. It is always refreshing to read your incisive (name removed by moderator)ut -keep up the good work, old chap.

Any sexual activity that occurs prior to carnal copulation will necessarily be intrinsically disordered and that certainly includes manual and oral stimulation of the genitalia, for these are incontrovertably deviant and unclean acts. This remains the case, dear friend, even if these deviant acts (deviant because the reproductive organs are being used contrary to the purpose for which they were intended) form a part of ‘loving stimulation’ preceding normal coitus. Irrespective of the marital context they are still aberrant and immoral sexual acts that cannot be indulged in by those who profess godliness.

As Christians, dear friend, we must needs be sharply distinguished from the moral corruption with which we are daily surrounded and that entails not indulging in the degrading practices of the heathen, who is at the whim of unbridled sexual desire, including deviant acts of gross indecency. What our debased world euphemistically terms ‘beatiful expressions of romantic love’ are in reality depraved and unnatural acts of sexual gratification. ** St. Paul exhorts the Ephesians: “But immorality and all impurity** or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints” (5: 3, added emphasis mine). A properly formed conscience should inform us that we have an obligation to cherish a higher standard of moral conduct than the ungodly. Moreover, St. Paul’s words here, “as is fitting among saints”, brings out the peculiar unfittness of even the slightest approach to impurity on the part of those who profess to be related to the God of holiness - “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour, not in the passion of lust like heathens who do not know God…For God has not called us for uncleaness, but holiness” (I Thess. 4: 3-5, 7, added emphasis mine). We are, as the people of God, supposed to be progessively being renewed and transformed into Christ’s likeness (cf. I Cor. 3: 18) and this will necessarily involve a separation from all impure and morally polluting acts, such as manual and moral stimulation of the genitalia. It is, dear friend, not only deeply saddening that many cannot grasp this, but it is also sure evidence of the extent to which the gravely immoral vices of non-Christians have been embraced by many contemporary Catholics. One can understand, although not condone, the lusts to which the heathen in their ignorance of God do descend, but surely there can be no greater inconsistency than for those who know God to follow the very same shameful course of conduct.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Saint Paul wanted everyone to be celibate like him.
So he’s hardly a good source on how to properly have sex.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Kissing isn’t strictly procreative either.

According to your logic during sex there should only be the necessary genital/physical contact for vaginal penetration to occur and then the couple should pull away from each other once their done

Frankly, in my opinion this type of thinking degrades sexuality more than all but the worst pornography (treating it like something that needs to be restricted and reined in as much as possible).

It strikes me as a very convenient way to use a woman. “I’m going to use your body to get off, but I won’t be touching or kissing you in hopes of making you feel good too.”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Ron Conte,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Your remarks above are bang on target and the article by Alice von Hildebrand evinces most clearly how to think with an authentic Catholic mind. Every viewer of this thread ought to read and ponder it jolly carefully.

The Church, dear friend, is not necessarily required to officially pronounce upon an act which is so obviously contrary to the natural law and right reason. To demand some magisterial declaration upon a matter such as oral stimulation of the genitals is, quite frankly, jolly absurd and bizzare and evidence of a want of spiritual immaturity that cannot discriminate between what is good and what is wrong and, in this case, manifestly unnatural. A properly formed conscience ought to enable a man to make a correct prudential judgment respecting such a matter, especially when the unnaturalness of the said vice is taken into account and carefully weighed.

Regardless of whether a man holds to the authority of Sacred Scripture or the Church, dear friend, he does have a basic ethical intuition that certain conduct is wrong because it is unnatural. Thus he perceives that the natural sex companion of a human being is another human being and not an animal, he does not need an official pronouncement by the Church to tell him this. By parity of reasoning the same applies to cunnilingus/fellatio, which are downright perverted and vile acts, which ought to make a pious Catholic recoil in disgust.

It is, dear friend, quite correct for us to make an appeal to the natural order of things to aid us in our decision making upon diverse moral issues. Thus if we consider the mouth we can plainly see that it is not designed for the purpose of oral stimulation of the sex organs, no more than the anus, for example, is designed to accomodate the male organ of copulation. This is why sodomy is wrong, even from natural law reasoning, because it is impossible for such an aberrant act, contrary to nature, to fulfill the purpose ‘written’ into man’s physical form. Now the very same thing can be said as regards oral stimulation of the sex organs, even if it is a prelude to full carnal copulation. The point is that it is, as you quite rightly say, an unnatural sexual act, regardless of whether natural coitus occurs before or after such a perverted practice; it is, notwithstanding, to turn aside from the proper use of our sexual organs.

Incontrovertably, dear friend, cunnilingus/fellatio are shameful acts against nature and should never be indulged in by those who profess the holy religion of Christ. The moral act is always one which is consonant with right reason, being directed to its proper end in a fitting manner. Now in the case of the venereal act the proper end is procreation and the only fitting act is natural heterosexual copulation, to the exclusion of any other sort of perverted venereal pleasure, euphemistically termed ‘foreplay’ by our sexually saturated Western culture.

Unfortunately, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics have become imbued with the moral degeneracy of our age and have gradually adopted some of the debased practices of the ungodly with whom they are surrounded, practices which are objectively unnatural and cannot reasonably be regarded otherwise. Moreover, no amount of specious argumentation will ever make objectively unnatural practices normal and acceptable, even within the marriage bed.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

But why should we think that the viewpoint your promoting consists of right reason Portrait?

Frankly the support you have shown towards Ron Conte’s ideas in the past, which if implemented would reduce women to servitude (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm) makes me suspect otherwise.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Kissing isn’t strictly procreative either.

According to your logic during sex there should only be the necessary genital/physical contact for vaginal penetration to occur and then the couple should pull away from each other once their done

Frankly, in my opinion this type of thinking degrades sexuality more than all but the worst pornography (treating it like something that needs to be restricted and reined in as much as possible).

It strikes me as a very convenient way to use a woman. “I’m going to use your body to get off, but I won’t be touching or kissing you in hopes of making you feel good too.”

True enough.
Its Common Knowledge that women are harder to arouse and satisfy (on average) than men, so this does seem like an excuse to adopt the traditional attitude (i.e. indifference or active hostility) towards women’s pleasure in the bedroom:shrug:

 

[thewanderer]

I’ll answer for you. They were very strict…even regarding normal relations between husband and wife. There is no way that they would subscribe to some of the odd theological sodomitical abominations that have been set forth from the likes of Jone and West.

lol, I’m sorry it looked like I waas ignoring you. It turns out even I have duties outside of CAF I need to attend to now and again. And sometimes I don’t log out before attending to them. Trust me, it takes a whole lot more than bringing up the Church Fathers to scare me away from a discussion like this once I sink my teeth in it.

As to the Fathers, I am well aware that they seem to portray things differently. I understand that and that in itself is not going to change my understanding of this. If you are interested in discussing any quote in particular feel free to bring it up and I will discuss it with you. However, as I mentioned earlier in one of my posts, just bringing up different theologians opinions on various things isn’t going to do enough to solve this question, we need to get at the fundamental principles behind these differing opinions so that wwe can more fully understand all the implications, and make it easier to figure out why different people hold these different views. Don’t get me wrong, I give the thoughts and writings of those in authority due weight, however, as Aristotle says, the argument from authority is the weakest argument. In other words, since I have other reasons inclining me to the opinion that I have, simply bringing up the thoughts of someone who is to be respected and listened to with great care is not going to be sufficient to change my mind, especially people of whose opinions I am already aware.

 

[MarkInOregon]

.

is plainly illogical.

Kissing on the mouth, dear friend, is hardly identical with oral stimulation of a reproductive organ, but it is quite true that the mouth also harbours germs. Moreover, the moral sense of the faithful has always seen passionate kissing as an acceptable expression of love between spouses, it has not held this to be the case with cunnilingus and fellatio. Thus it is surely important to distinguish between things which essentially differ.

/quote]

I have to ask is the mouth designed for kissing? I think it was designed to allow us to take in nourishment – was it not. I think you could make a strong case that kissing is an unhealthy and disgusting abuse of the mouth.

Peace,
Mark