Question about sex and dating

[ltbpoe43]

to original poster nate

People have been dating for centuries in a pure and chaste way and have fallen in love as a result of developing a relationship with those they are dating. Think of your grandparents - they courted, visited, held hands, maybe a peck on the cheek as in a kiss goodnight. All is proper and normal - why? - self control and respect for each other. It is not impossible.

The relationship matures because you learn that persons heart and interests and they learn yours and compatibility results. It is not necessary to know how good a kisser they are, how “far” they are willing to go on X date, etc. Or “test drive”. That part of the relationship, though important, is small compared to personal compatibility, respect, shared interest, genuine concern, common faiths and ideas. Don’t hold back on dating as a result of not wanting to get too physically intimate. You are right - you shouldn’t.

But exploring a deep relationship with another is a beautiful soul connecting process and does not necessarily involve the physical.

We are not animals, we can control ourselves, and we can and must respect each other enough to create a relationship and understand each other in a pure and chaste way. This is true even if persons are married - the spouse is not a sex object but a person to be respected in marital chastity - caring and giving of each other.

Good luck on your dating. When you meet the right person who feels the same way - you will be blessed and hope springs eternal. God Bless.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Hello. I first wanted to thank you for your helpful comments. I’ve been struggling a lot recently with many of the issues that you’ve discussed. My question is this: is lust, in and of itself, truly a sin?

First of all, welcome to the forums and thank you for commenting on the post, I am glad it has given you some insight. This forum has done that for me as well, hope you enjoy the time here. It is a great resource, have fun!

Now, having said that I am not sure that I understand how lust could not be a sin? It is clear through the bible and even the Catechism about lust and the effects that it has upon you and your view of sex. Let me make the following example to drive this point home.

Let’s say that you are engaged to be married and you have been watching porn for several years. Through all this time you have avoided having sexual relations with your fiance (for the sake of arguement) and you are excited about finally having sexual intercourse with her after you are married. However, you view of sexual intercourse has become flawed because having watched all that pornography, you think that this is how sexual relations really is. You think that your wife is an object for your pleasure and you completely miss the true meaning of the marital embrace. You wife is not a toy for your pleasure. Sex is not simply given to you by God for you to enjoy. It is for the creation of new life and to unite husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows.

My understanding is that feelings of desire such as lust are considered to be concupiscence (disordered emotions, especially of lust). I thought the church teaching was that involuntary desire is not a sin. I understand if we willingly desire someone or succumb to temptations it is a sin, but I don’t understand why desire itself is a sin.

You have to be careful here as this is a fine line to walk. Again, let’s use an example. Say you are on the beach and your fantasy girl walks by. You look at here and you thank God for her beauty. You notice that she is an attractive woman. Is there anything wrong with that? No. However, if you think about every sexual position that you can have her in or what she would look like naked you have committed the sin of lust. To desire her in a sexual way, to see her naked, to use her, to use her for your own self gratification is sinful.

Feelings of desire can’t be avoided altogether in my opinion.

They cannot be avoided, but they can be controlled. Sexual thoughts and temptations are going to be there, it is what we choose to do with those thoughts that can make them sinful.

We can avoid things that would disorder our emotions such as pornography, masturbation, or even the allowance of sexual thoughts to continue in our mind; but it is impossible, in my experience, to eliminate desire entirely. No matter what I do I will have several sexual thoughts arise involuntarily each day. I immediately push these thoughts away, but I don’t think that I can control them from arising on their own. If it is impossible to eliminate desire altogether, how can it be a sin? Your thoughts?

Again, sexual thoughts and temptations are not the sin, what we do with those thoughts are. Fr. Larry Richards once asked an older priest, “Father, when do we stop having sexual thoughts and temptations?” To which the elder priest replied, “I don’t know Larry, ask me tomorrow because it did not stop today.”

 

[adamlsp]

I’ve read the two postings concerning my comment and find myself unfulfilled. The first response gave no rhyme nor reason but merelyinsisted on abstaining from 2nd base. The second response presumed all of the bases to be near occasions for sin which as a state of being is completely subjective and cannot be made universal as the poster tried to do. I understand lust and near occasion for sin are wrong but I’m saying that 1st and 2nd base need not be inseparable from lust and near occasion of sin but rather that there exists no necessary connection between them.

Is there a reason, an argument from Church doctrine or from reason why a committed couple on the road to marriage should abstain from 1st and 2nd base before marriage?

Adam

 

[nd2009]

I feel we’re saying the same thing; I’m just not explaining myself well. My interpretation of your earlier post led me to think that you meant that even a sexual thought can be a sin. Would you agree that an involuntary sexual thought is not a sin but a voluntary thought would be? I guess this question is my greater point and what I wanted to clarify.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I feel we’re saying the same thing; I’m just not explaining myself well. My interpretation of your earlier post led me to think that you meant that even a sexual thought can be a sin. Would you agree that an involuntary sexual thought is not a sin but a voluntary thought would be? I guess this question is my greater point and what I wanted to clarify.

I guess it would depend upon the situation. If a married person is to think of his wife sexually as it is nothing more than a thought, is it sinful? If a single person were to think of someone sexually, would it be sinful? If they were doing so voluntarily that is when they are falling into lust. Now the same can be said for a married person, a lot lies in the intent of the thought. If a married couple knows that they are going to be intimate that night, part of that anticipation could be thinking about the other and the love that they would share in that act. However if it becomes a thought of objectifying that is when it becomes sinful.

I agree that I think we are on the same page here.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I’ve read the two postings concerning my comment and find myself unfulfilled. The first response gave no rhyme nor reason but merelyinsisted on abstaining from 2nd base. The second response presumed all of the bases to be near occasions for sin which as a state of being is completely subjective and cannot be made universal as the poster tried to do. I understand lust and near occasion for sin are wrong but I’m saying that 1st and 2nd base need not be inseparable from lust and near occasion of sin but rather that there exists no necessary connection between them.

Is there a reason, an argument from Church doctrine or from reason why a committed couple on the road to marriage should abstain from 1st and 2nd base before marriage?

Adam

What is the purpose of “going to second base?”

 

[adamlsp]

I don’t exactly know the purpose of these things but I can give you my impression.

All of it is done to express your love for the other person. Kissing is done to this end but also I find kissing associated with peace. So kissing a loved one should impart a peace to them and make them feel safe with you. It’s also about trust. A kiss gives one a greater familiarity with the one you kiss but also requires you to trust that they kiss you not just because it’s an action commonly done to express love but because they are genuine. And deeper, more passionate kissing should impart this all the more.

I would imagine cuddling is similar. You cuddle with someone to express your love and affection for them. Physical contact such as touching or caressing or nuzzling is obviously a way to express affection. The whole point of any intimate physical actions is to bring two people closer together and link them in some way. Thus holding hands links, and hugging, kissing and cuddling all bring two bodies closer to being one. So I would imagine all of these acts to be mini imitations of the marital act. Small physical unions between persons.

2nd base should be no different (in theory). You are essentially cuddling with the person and caressing them and touching them in a more intimate fashion. You do this in such a way not normative to non-romantic relationships. Much like deep, passionate, open-mouthed, French kissing is not normative to non-romantic relationships. Both however are not directly sexual but possibly indirectly sexual. They both express affection and deep romantic love. I cannot imagine sex without either of these but I can imagine either of these without sex. 2nd base is a deeper form of cuddling with one another to express romantic love.

This familiarity is not given to even close friends or family members but only the one you are in a romantic relationship with. By allowing someone this amount of closeness you are essentially giving them your trust. You are trusting that they will not leave you even though you yet not be married. Much like an engagement ring. You give it away in hope that it will be returned to you in the form of your future spouse. Because these acts should be for a future spouse alone by doing them before marriage you lay out a heavy line of trust to your potential spouse. You are trusting before the fact that you will stay together until marriage.

I think this is what I think.

Adam

 

[Liberanosamalo]

2nd base should be no different (in theory). You are essentially cuddling with the person and caressing them and touching them in a more intimate fashion. You do this in such a way not normative to non-romantic relationships. Much like deep, passionate, open-mouthed, French kissing is not normative to non-romantic relationships. Both however are not directly sexual but possibly indirectly sexual. They both express affection and deep romantic love. I cannot imagine sex without either of these but I can imagine either of these without sex. 2nd base is a deeper form of cuddling with one another to express romantic love.

This familiarity is not given to even close friends or family members but only the one you are in a romantic relationship with. By allowing someone this amount of closeness you are essentially giving them your trust. You are trusting that they will not leave you even though you yet not be married. Much like an engagement ring. You give it away in hope that it will be returned to you in the form of your future spouse. Because these acts should be for a future spouse alone by doing them before marriage you lay out a heavy line of trust to your potential spouse. You are trusting before the fact that you will stay together until marriage.

Okay, you’re halfway there. You know 2nd base expresses deep romantic love. And this familiarity is not given to even your closest family members (Gosh, we HOPE not!) You are giving the woman your trust and showing you trust they will not leave you even though you are not yet married. You are treating it like an engagement ring, you say. But that implies a commitment of sorts. More likely, you say you are using it as the bait to reel in a future spouse?

But what if the line snaps and the fish gets away? Engagements are broken for valid reasons. That is why an engagement is not a marriage. That is why engaged people cannot have sexual intercourse.

Instead, look upon your “beloved’s body” like a precious gift. Her clothing is the wrapping paper. Do you peel back the tape of your present under the tree and tear back the wrapping to see what’s in there long before Christmas morning? Or do you wait until it is actually given to you on the day it is supposed to be given to you to open and marvel at?

If you truly love her and are worthy of HER, you will not seek to do those things that are appropriate only for the man who loves her enough to marry her. What if your relationship ends? What if she finds someone who does marry her? You have taken liberties with her that only belong to him. You have opened the wrapping and looked at HIS present. That is an injustice to him. No matter how much you thought you wanted that gift, it was not yours to look at. And yes, feeling a woman’s breasts is directly sexual. If you doubt that, try it to a stranger on the subway and see where that gets you.

And if you are using second base to form a premature bond of trust and obligation to future marriage with a girl, that is an act of dishonesty. It may lead her to ignore other things that may not be suitable about you because you have reeled her in with premature intimacies. This is an injustice to her and to her future spouse.

How do you know you can do these things? When you have made a lifetime commitment to her. Then you can have a relationshop where all the actions that go with trust can be communicated. Not before.

How many women do you plan to date and do these things with? When you are finished with them, or it ends, do you think about the fact you have taken what belongs to someone else? Think about it…

 

[adamlsp]

I don’t think you should use 2nd base to “reel in” a mate as if she were a prize fish. You are laying your heart out on the line and she can choose to fill it with her love or break it. You give it to her in good hope and faith that she will fill it with her love and return it to you. It requires a mutual sacrifice of self. She has the freedom to break it though, and that might be fun but you trust she won’t because you believe in her and know you are that close; closer than friends but not as close as spouses.

Though engagements are broken it seems as though they are quite serious and are in fact preparing you for marriage. Not to go to 2nd base before marriage is safe in case the engagement is broken but it is not in fact very trusting of your future spouse. You are keeping yourself all your own but after marriage (a contract before God and man) you freely give of yourself because it is now much safer. Granted spousal problems exist but for us Catholics marriage can never really be broken and so the complete and total sacrifice (sex) of yourself is safe to give. The partial sacrifice (2nd base) before marriage when one is in a long standing relationship or engaged seems worthy of the seriousness of that state of romantic involvement.

To break an engagement is bad. If you have a good reason then you should do it. But to break an engagement is a bad thing to do. It is already serious enough that these acts seem in someway appropriate to that seriousness. People should not be going through multiple engagements anymore than they should be going through multiple 2nd base partners. Out of fear and to minimize the potential damage of a broken engagement one may abstain from 2nd base but breaking the engagement is just as bad and just as serious as 2nd base. Sexual intercourse is more serious than engagement but just as serious as marriage and 2nd base’s seriousness is similar to engagement.

The wrapping analogy is cute but may not be applicable here. And if it is it would seem the more appropriate item for gift is your spouses virginity not whatever parts of her body her clothing normally covers. And after marriage her virginity will be given to you. Saving other things as extra gifts for her spouse is nice but unnecessary. Also it seems appropriate that the gifts be spread out with increasing gravity rather than like many American and other families do which is to open every gift all at once. Though this method is not wrong it is only one method of celebration and not necessarily the best.

There is a danger that the engagement may break but that’s the very danger of getting engaged. If you are prepared to get engaged you can also be prepared to allow 2nd base. If an engagement is broken and she later gets married to someone else , her spouse should be just as disappointed with the previous engagement as with her going to 2nd base. They are equal in gravity. If you disagree I ask you to look again at the gravity of engagement.

Feeling breasts is not directly sexual. Your subway example only proves it to be inappropriate not sexual in any way. If I kissed her with just a peck on the lips or if I said she looked stupid I might also get slapped. Feeling breasts is obviously more serious than these but not necessarily directly sexual. Indirectly sexual, sure. Directly, definitely not.

You do not use 2nd base to form a “premature bond of trust” but rather it is a testimony to the level of trust that should already be present in a serious relationship most especially an engagement which I do believe is being taken to lightly.

There are varying levels of commitment and physical commitment is no different. Sex is the form of physical commitment that is reserved for marriage. The other lesser degrees of physical commitment such as hand holding, hugging, kissing, cuddling are done between friends and family members or those just beginning to consider marriage between one another (the early stages of dating or courtship). Serious romantic relationships and engagement being between these stages seem to merit their own level of physical intimacy and potential sacrifice.

One should plan on going to 1st and 2nd base with one’s future spouse alone. These bases should not be taken lightly and neither should latter steps of romantic involvement such as engagement. One should plan on doing these with a believed future mate alone. Breaks in engagement are tragic and so engagement should not be taken without serious consideration. If someone is serious enough to engage another person they should be aware of all the consequences of this serious decision. And one of them is that physical intimacy that is not sex. To exclude physical intimacy from your engagement decision may not be wise. But reserving it for marriage simplifies the equation if nothing else.

I hope this all was clear.

Adam

 

[OSUbride0708]

Just wanted to say that I dont think “making out” leads to temptation for everyone. i “made out” with guys i dated before and never ONCE felt like i wanted to have sex with any of them. as soon as i realized they werent the guy i wanted to marry i moved on.

also i want to say, you dont have to get “hot and heavy” to show your love. you can do more than a peck without making it seem like you want to go to bed with them. is long as you arent on top of them going crazy and getting out of control i dont see a problem with a nice, longer kiss. there are certain kisses that arent trying to “go there”. i suppose it’s hard to explain but if you really love the girl you’ll know what i’,m talking about.

 

[Greg27]

Speaking from direct experience, relationships based purely on sex/lust lead nowhere and can in fact lead you into a dark hell of lonliness, emptiness, meaninglessness and depression. Marriage is so much more beautiful (though I’m not married) because you really love that person like you love yourself, while if you just ‘have sex’ with someone, you are using them for your own sexual pleasure (as they are using you for their own pleasure). Real loving communion with another person is infinitely better than this. Masturbation is also similarly pointless and frustrating; a few seconds of physical ecstacy, and that is all. It doesn’t fill the emptiness inside with meaning and the pleasure is always transient, so it has be filled with another pleasure; as Pascal said, humans are always restless and wracked with anxiety, looking for one thing to another to distract them and given them meaning. But masturbation is even more pointless than sex because it is in effect having sex with yourself, which of course is fairly grotesque in itself as well as closing yourself off from the possible love and intimacy with another person.

We are social and not just individual creatures, and we live in a community, and true happiness is not just found in our own flourishing but also sharing it with other people free of egoism as much as possible; this is what you could say in a way, is why the church teaches masturbation and non-marital sex are wrong morally.

Be patient, learn to control yourself sexually, and wait for the right person and save your virginity for marriage. It is so much better than giving it to someone in a ‘casual’ relationship which ends only a few weeks or months later when the novelty of the sex and lust wears off, and you ‘see’ the person for what they really are, warts and all, and not just through the distorted lenses of lustful desire.