Romantic involvement with multiple people - how can it be anything else than wrong?

[pnewton]

chevalier:

Having more than one romance going, even platonic or restricted to closed-mouth kissing and holding hands, is promiscuity. Lust is not only sexual - such romancing kissing, even if not sexual (which is hard to believe) is like gluttony. I’m not talking about people who kiss friends on the lips, because they would do that even when married. I’m talking about romantic kissing even if it’s closed-mouth.

.

Lust and gluttony are taught as sin by the Church. They both are defined in th CCC as such. Where did you get the idea that having more than one romance (even hand-holding) is promiscuous? Can you point to any church document that defines it as such? If not then it is allowed and is not sinful. You saying it over and over will not make it so. Where is your ecclesial authority?

I suspected earlier that Feanaro’s Wife was right on with her post. Now I am convinced. I do not think this has anything to do with the ten commandments or church teaching. One might make an arguement on the basis of prudence, bu not based on sin.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

On the one hand… I think people are way too quick these days to get very deeply into exclusive relationships - people are dating for barely a month, and they are seeing each other every day and doing each other’s laundry. I don’t think it’s bad to wait a bit, keep the options open, figure out who shares values similar to yours and who is actually a good prospect for marriage before moving into a more exclusive relationship.

On the other hand, if you are going to be doing that for a while to get to know people better - I don’t think kissing (in a romantic way) with the different people is such a good idea. It doesn’t teach you anything you really need to know for deciding if someone is a good prospect for a more serious relationship. And I think that it sends the wrong message if you are doing it with more than one person at a time. I think it’s best saved until you and one other person are considering marriage to each other as a definite possibility. Not that you’ve already made your final decision, but that the initial signs thus far are positive. Even then, be careful with the kissing and stuff, lest you get caught up in the romance, and ignore some signs that Mr. Wonderful isn’t really quite all that he seems to be.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

What you can do with friends when you are married, you surely can do before you are married, as well. Such things shouldn’t be exclusive, ever, for anyone. That would be wrong. But building multiple relationships is wrong. Performing romantic actions without romantic involvement is wrong. Romantic involvement with multiple people is wrong. Feelings are morally neutral, but acting on them isn’t. Romantic kisses are acts, not feelings. Loose woman is one that acts romantically or sexually with more than one man at a time, and/or without romantic feelings (i.e. without at least thinking she has some).

Unless a woman would continue kissing her friends on the mouth after marriage and kisses on the mouth out of friendship and nothing romantic, it’s slutty. I have known women who have kissed friends on the mouth. But it was different from girls who exchanged romantic kisses with guys on non-exclusive basis. The latter is slutty, the former isn’t.

Man, oh, man. So pretty much if a woman kisses you, she has to break up with you before she kisses anybody else? If she says “I love you”, that makes her morally bound to you until she’s dropped you? If she gives you a pink paper heart, you are in a quasi-marital state? Please do tell women very early in your dating that you feel this way, because the vast majority of women do not think men equate romance with sex. Even if the woman herself, in practical terms, feels exactly that way, there are mighty few that think that the weight of Mother Church is behind the sentiment. They just feel jealous, and they don’t like it.

Now mind you, I think that someone who has been to the point of kissing you should tell you before she goes on a date with anyone else… although if you sort of drop out of sight and don’t return her calls, she is also right to consider herself “dropped.” At that point, you are within your rights to tell her how you feel about fraternizing with potential rivals, and she is bound to respect your wishes and either agree to your terms or not.

But that is because she is wise and kindhearted to learn and respect your feelings about your relationship with her, not because different rules are immoral, per se. She is not morally bound to prevent you from feeling jealous any more than a person is morally bound to avoid any words that any other party might find offensive. You do what you can, but sometimes it really is the other person’s problem.

Romance is not a business venture. It is not just in the head, nor is it some sort of mutually monogamous lust. It sometimes turns on and off without warning and without apparent reason. It is almost always a little more strong on one side than the other. It is rife with uncertainty in emotion, uncertainty in reciprocity, uncertainty even in the meaning of the enterprise. This is why you don’t base a marriage on romance, don’t legislate romance.

If you are so judgemental that you would call a girl who kissed you and then found herself kissing someone else a slut, you ought to be ashamed of yourself… unless you’re prepared to hold off on kissing until you’re ready to propose. A person who finds herself in the middle of a love triangle should hardly be called a slut. I know the term used to be thrown around with some frequency, but it is such a verbal slap to the face that I would have a hard time flinging it into the vicinity of a prostitute.

 

[chevalier]

A prostitute doesn’t have to be a slut. Maybe she’s collecting money for her sick mother’s surgery and no one would give her a job?

You can be not yet ready to propose for various reasons, age, economic, whatever. Let’s say, you’re 18 but going to university and your parents’ house has only one little room for you, which works great when you’re single but won’t give you a house. Your girl may be your future wife or may not. But you at least sincerely hope that she is. Therefore, you build the relationship with her, hoping she’s your Mrs Right, and you kiss.

You can’t have such a hope about five different women, so when you are in doubt as to which one is the most likely one, or which one you like the most, or which one you really love, you keep it friends only with each one of them. You kiss friends on the lips? Fine. But this means you would be kissing them on the mouth if you were married already. Would you? I know people who would. If they kiss friends out of friendship on the mouth, that’s all right.

But if the kiss is intended to be romantic, then even cheek may be wrong. Reason and purpose counts. Who cares about the moment of passion? If I can control it, it’s controllable. It doesn’t happen against people’s will. There are people who say sex can’t be controlled. One doesn’t find himself in a love triangle: one enters into a love triangle. Unless one is not the person who has two lovers (lovers not implying having sex, but being romantic lovers). It’s morally neutral to love two people or more romantically, the same way it’s morally neutral to be homosexual. To act on it is a problem.

I’ve just talked to a priest. He said that romantic gesture belonged to romantic love, that romantic love was intended to lead to marriage and that the idea that romantic love isn’t exclusive was not Catholic and defied the essence of the Catholic teaching on marriage.

@pnewton: Hand-holding, hugging, embracing and even mouth kissing can be done without a romantic motive and out of friendship. Or even love but friendly love (i.e. the friends who are such great friends that you don’t simply like them but actually love them). Romantic love is aimed at marriage. As marriage is exclusive, romantic love is exclusive. As romantic gesture belongs to romantic love only, it’s also exclusive. ERGO: EITHER keep it friends (preferable) OR keep it exclusive. Tertium non datur.

I don’t necessarily see a sin in every failure (there’s a lot of mitigating circumstances), but I believe it’s wrong to make a model out of non-exclusivity of romantic love, to divorce romantic gesture from romantic love, to divorce romantic love (and romantic gesture) from at least hoping to be able to marry the person at some point.

 

[Didi]

The purpose of dating is to find your lifelong partner – husband/wife. If you are dating someone you have no intention of ever marrying, then why would you continue dating them?

Our society has made dating a “social” activity. In the past, a boy wouldn’t even ask a girl to a dance without asking the father first, then they would be “courting” and would always be chaperoned.

I agree that our kids are trying to “play adult” and have totally gotten away from the whole purpose of dating.

I also believe that dating multiple people at one time is just setting yourself up for infidelity down the road.

I suggest visiting the “Pure Love” forum on Catholic Answers, and reading Jason Evert’s book of the same name. You might also want to read “Beyond the Birds and the Bees,” by Gregory Popcak to get a Catholic perspective on dating. Better yet, read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

But I believe teaching children they should act romantically without romantic commitment, have multiple romantic partners to find out what it tastes like and should kiss five boys rather than one, is wrong. To me, it’s a mortal sin. I really hope no one in this forum is doing this.

It is imprudent to pursue multiple romantic interests at the same time, except at a level that is still very near to being platonic… I mean “friendly” behaviors only.
It is at the very least unkind and self-centered to seriously pursue multiple romantic interests at the same time.
It is treacherous to pursue multiple romantic partners at the same time without the knowledge and consent of all involved.

Under normal circumstances, however, as long as we are talking about romantic and not sexual involvement, these are not mortal sins.

Kissing five different boys (or five different girls) can lead to all sorts of trouble, but it is a mistake to drive that home to the extent that exclusive non-marital arrangements are somehow glorified or that inappropriate pre-marital activities are forgiven because they are within a “serious committed relationship”. There are pitfalls in both directions. It is a mistake to demonize the possible sins in one direction at the expense of recognizing the very real dangers–including real mortal sin–in the other.

 

[otm]

Didi:

The purpose of dating is to find your lifelong partner – husband/wife. If you are dating someone you have no intention of ever marrying, then why would you continue dating them?{/QUOTE] Many would disagree with your definition of the purpose of dating. Dating can also be a means of socializing with others in groups, without any necessary roamntic fellings between the couple; they can be deep friends who have no intention of marriage, but enjoy doing things together; and there can be many variations based on true and deep friendship. If your choice is to not go to a function because you would be alone there, a “date” may be the deciding factor. Or it may be that you prefer to do certain activities - hiking, going to a concert, etc, with someone and would prefer to do that with someone of the opposite sex as opposed to the same sex.

I suppose that if you limit dating to finding a partner, then the other things would not be considered a date; either that or you are suggesting that one who wishes to engage in activities but is not looking for a marriage partner be restricted to either same sex friends sharing these activities, or going it alone.

Didi:

Our society has made dating a “social” activity. In the past, a boy wouldn’t even ask a girl to a dance without asking the father first, then they would be “courting” and would always be chaperoned.

that was also a time where most people married much younger; they were mostly not attending college of any sort, and a high school degree was being fairly well educated.

Circumstances have radically changed since then as to requirements of the work force vis a vis education and the general delay to marriage by the greater majority of first time newly weds.

Further, your example presumes that there would be no “date” unless the guy came courting. You show a lack of understanding of the activities of youth, who might not go out to a movie together, or the dance together, but most definitely showed up at the dance (often with their parents) and had an unofficial date under the noses of their parents. Well, I suppose the parents weren’t entirely naieve. Let’s say under their parents eyes.

and I won’t even go into “bundlling” (where’ spell check?).

 

[chevalier]

BLB_Oregon:

Kissing five different boys (or five different girls) can lead to all sorts of trouble, but it is a mistake to drive that home to the extent that exclusive non-marital arrangements are somehow glorified or that inappropriate pre-marital activities are forgiven because they are within a “serious committed relationship”. There are pitfalls in both directions. It is a mistake to demonize the possible sins in one direction at the expense of recognizing the very real dangers–including real mortal sin–in the other.

Agreed. But I believe we aren’t talking about two equally proper directions. I believe we’re talking about two directions of pitfalls. The increased risk of sex happening in a serious relationship, and the risk of licentious behaviour when having multiple open-ended friendships. Let me point out again that I have a problem with non-passionate mouth kissing as well. To me, the “non-passionate” excuse sounds like the “serious committed relationship” excuse. Whatever you would need to discontinue after courting started, shouldn’t be non-exclusive before courting starts. Seeing other people one on one isn’t exclusive even in marriage. Romantic gesture like mouth kissing needs to exclusive. As for holding hands, it can be done out of a friendly motive (not like mouth kissing can’t), but romantic motive is something we are presupposing. My idea is: the motive counts.

BLB_Oregon:

It is imprudent to pursue multiple romantic interests at the same time, except at a level that is still very near to being platonic… I mean “friendly” behaviors only.

Strictly speaking, platonic is still romantic. It has the wink wink nudge nudge feeling but no physical indulging. Friendly behaviours don’t normally include mouth kissing unless for people who would kiss friends on the mouth even after getting married. I know people who would but most wouldn’t.

When multiple romantic feelings collide (because they collide, they can’t coexist), only one should be acted on, and preferably none of them, until it clears up and one is chosen. Anything else is indulging.

 

[Didi]

Here are a couple excerpts from Jason Evert’s “Pure Love” booklet:

“Treat your body as a priceless treasure to be guarded jealously, a treasure that can be given only with a wedding ring and the lifelong commitment of true love that comes with it. We always hear about ‘experimenting’ with our sexuality, but you just don’t ‘experiment’ with something so priceless. When we experiment with our hearts and the gift of our bodies, we begin to value them less and less.” p. 8

“If you’re going to get married one day, perhaps someone right now is dating the person you’ll eventually marry. How far is too far for them? Practice the purity you would hope your future spouse would have, and treat your dates with the respect that you hope your future spouse would be given. Or, consider how you’d expect a guy to treat your daughter one day. By listening to your conscience, you’ll know where to draw the line. When we ignore that voice in our heart that tells us right from wrong and give in for the sake of excitement, we end up feeling empty afterward.” p. 12-13

“Some people say 'Saving sexual arousal for marriage is too extreme, old-fashioned and unrealistic. You need to hook up with at least a few people so you’ll have sexual experience. That way, you’ll be a greater gift for your spouse on your wedding night.” But that’s like thinking that if I chew on a piece of gum before I give it to you, you’d be more impressed by the gift because it was so experienced. Odds are that you’d prefer a fresh piece. It’s the same way with purity. Would you rather have a spouse who made out with thirty other people or a spouse who saved his or her first kiss for you? If you would treasure that gift of purity so much, why not begin to see yourself as a gift as well?" p. 13-14

“So abstinence isn’t just the absence of sex; it’s the expression of love. What was once seen as just ‘waiting’ becomes a time of formation that teaches you how to love. With chastity, even if you aren’t dating someone, you can prepare for your future spouse right now by training yourself in faithfulness” p. 14

 

[Didi]

Another observation.

Sometimes we hear the argument that expecting our teens to remain chaste is asking too much of them. Actually, by allowing them to act only on their animal instincts is not asking enough of them. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom – our conscience and our free will.

If we start telling our kids that they are worth waiting for, that they can remain chaste until they are married with the grace of God, what a gift we will give them!

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

Romantic love is aimed at marriage. As marriage is exclusive, romantic love is exclusive. As romantic gesture belongs to romantic love only, it’s also exclusive.

This is not a not a proper logical proof, if that is what you are striving for. To prove this I will substitute a couple of phrases and you will see how the logic fails to hold.

Example one:

“Romantic love is aimed at marriage. As marriage is permanent, romantic love is permanent. As romantic gesture belongs to romantic love only, it’s also permanent.”

Example two:

"Romantic love is aimed at marriage. As marriage is physically intimate, romantic love is physically intimate. As romantic gesture belongs to romantic love only, it’s also physically intimate."

Example three:

"Romantic love is aimed at marriage. As marriage is geared toward procreation, romantic love is geared toward procreation. As romantic gesture belongs to romantic love only, it’s also geared toward procreation."

So you see even if I take your first statement as true. It does not follow that it must be everything marriage is.

Does anyone know of any Church teaching that supports exclusive dating?

 

[JimG]

In Jason Evert quote, he says: “Practice the purity you would hope your future spouse would have, and treat your dates with the respect that you hope your future spouse would be given.”

Since he uses the plural for “dates,” I presume he is talking about dating more than one person?

Didi says in her post: “The purpose of dating is to find your lifelong partner – husband/wife. If you are dating someone you have no intention of ever marrying, then why would you continue dating them?”

Well, what if your teenage son would just like to take a girl to the Star Wars movie, or to the prom, and has no intention of marrying her?

Somehow I feel I have to defend a whole generation of us who spent our teenage years in the 50’s and 60’s: We “played the field,” didn’t “go steady,” and somehow did not seem to lead particularly licentious lives.

Our parents didn’t worry about their daughters getting pregnant. Our schools had a virtual zero percent teen pregnancy rate, at a time when contraceptives—and abortion—were unavailable. Adults advised their kids not to go steady because they were considered not mature enough for those kinds of relationships, and because going steady was more apt to lead to occasions of sin.

Yet they didn’t entirely forbid them from dating. It’s not a matter of being either just platonic, OR being just romantic. Taking a girl to the movie is different from taking your buddy, or your mother, or your sister. It doesn’t have to be either totally platonic, or purely romantic. Sometimes it can be, well—just a date! How can teens know how to deal with the opposite sex if they avoid them all? And I certainly wouldn’t tell a daughter, “Well, you can go to the movie with Matt, but only if he’s your permanent boyfriend, and not just today’s date.”

Eventually we did find someone who was to become our spouse, and then it did get exclusive, followed soon by engagement. Then we got married and stayed married.

And in those teenage dating relationships?—yes, we were encouraged to, and did try to follow the advice of Jason Evert quoted above, even though he was not yet born!

 

[pnewton]

JimG:

Somehow I feel I have to defend a whole generation of us who spent our teenage years in the 50’s and 60’s: We “played the field,” didn’t “go steady,” and somehow did not seem to lead particularly licentious lives.

Our parents didn’t worry about their daughters getting pregnant. Our schools had a virtual zero percent teen pregnancy rate, at a time when contraceptives—and abortion—were unavailable. Adults advised their kids not to go steady because they were considered not mature enough for those kinds of relationships, and because going steady was more apt to lead to occasions of sin.

There is nothing to defend. Your opinion and mine are just as valid, but no more so, than the others here. I know that in my dating experience, the more serious and exclusive, the more occasion for sin.

 

[chevalier]

pnewton:

Does anyone know of any Church teaching that supports exclusive dating?

Does anyone know of any Church teaching that supports polygamy?

JimG:

Well, what if your teenage son would just like to take a girl to the Star Wars movie, or to the prom, and has no intention of marrying her?

Then he doesn’t need to kiss her. He can hold his mouth about himself. If he kissed her and then another girl and then her again and that other girl again, he would be slapped across the kisser.

Somehow I feel I have to defend a whole generation of us who spent our teenage years in the 50’s and 60’s: We “played the field,” didn’t “go steady,” and somehow did not seem to lead particularly licentious lives.

Please don’t tempt me into judging invidual people. You already know what I think of such behaviour. Meeting is all right. Going to movies is all right. Going to dances is all right. Kissing multiple people interchangeably is licentious and desecrates the temple of the holy spirit which our bodies are supposed to be. A Catholic girl, any girl, is a daughter of the King of Heaven and should behave and be treated accordingly. Kissing multiple men or being kissed by a man who kisses multiple women violates that dignity.

Our parents didn’t worry about their daughters getting pregnant. Our schools had a virtual zero percent teen pregnancy rate, at a time when contraceptives—and abortion—were unavailable.

Oral sex doesn’t make girls pregnant, either.

Adults advised their kids not to go steady because they were considered not mature enough for those kinds of relationships, and because going steady was more apt to lead to occasions of sin.

Not mature enough for romantic commitment, ergo non mature enough for romantic gesture, which is only justifiable by romantic commitment.

Taking a girl to the movie is different from taking your buddy, or your mother, or your sister. It doesn’t have to be either totally platonic, or purely romantic. Sometimes it can be, well—just a date! How can teens know how to deal with the opposite sex if they avoid them all?

There’s a large road from not kissing romantically to avoiding at all, don’t you think? I have always been meeting multiple female friends one to one. But I’ve never kissed more than one at a time in a romantic way. I didn’t have any kissing buddies for the sake of my own indulging. The fact that you take her to a movie doesn’t entitle you to kiss her.

And I certainly wouldn’t tell a daughter, “Well, you can go to the movie with Matt, but only if he’s your permanent boyfriend, and not just today’s date.”

I wouldn’t tell her that, either. But I wouldn’t allow romantic kissing. I would allow romantic kissing if Matt were a boyfriend and I were convinced the relationship were looking at marriage. Perhaps not by means of Matt proposing, but by means of his and my daughter’s intension being serious. I wouldn’t allow any kissing of “today’s dates”. That’s promiscuous.

pnewton:

There is nothing to defend. Your opinion and mine are just as valid, but no more so, than the others here. I know that in my dating experience, the more serious and exclusive, the more occasion for sin.

Non-exclusive romantic kissing is already sinful promiscuous indulging. It violates the basic teaching on marriage and the dignity of persons.

JimG:

In Jason Evert quote, he says: “Practice the purity you would hope your future spouse would have, and treat your dates with the respect that you hope your future spouse would be given.”

Does he, first of all, believe that dating includes romantic kissing? See whomever you want non-romantically, whether you’re single, engaged, married or consecrated.

Also, he may well mean all dates you ever happen to date. It can mean this as well as multiple dating.

Next, respect that you hope your future spouse would be given is not compatible with multiple kissing. Multiple romantic kissing is defilement, not respect. Kissing without wanting to commit but with wanting to kiss is greedy carnal lust. It’s defilement.

 

[chevalier]

From Mr Evert’s own site:

Q. **I’m fifteen, and am really in love with a guy, but how can I know if he’s the one? **

A.

Being in love is a lot of fun, and I know what it’s like to have your heart feel like it’s in your throat every time the person is within a hundred yards of you. I know the nervousness and the emotional overload. It seems like you’ll have a great day so long as you just get to see the person at a distance.

But neither you nor I can know the future, no matter how intense your feelings or hopes may be with regard to a particular guy. For example, I was madly in love with a girl when I was a senior in high school, and she was all that I could ever imagine or dream of. Because I had never experienced such intense emotions and attractions before, I confused infatuation with destiny. But God did not have her in mind for me. He had all kinds of friendships, relationships, and experiences he wanted to lead me though before introducing me to my wife.

At the age of fifteen, you’re not really supposed to know if he is “the one.” All you need to know is that God knows the plans he has in mind for you. Focus on your friendship with this guy for now, because that will be the best foundation for a lasting love (if that is to come). In the mean time, read the Gospel of Luke, chapter 12, and may God become the center of all your loves.

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=281

I don’t see any “you’re too young to get steady”. I don’t see any “get three more guys to kiss”. Or “you can still kiss half the town, you know, because nothing in the Bible expressly says that you can’t”. He actually even talks about the relationships God intended to lead him through before introducing him to his wife.

Next:

So, you need to consider a few things, based upon how well you know her, and how your relationship is going. For starters, consider how she would react if you said those three words. Do you think she’s heard that before from any guy? Do you think she’s waiting for you to say it? What’s your relationship to her? Are you official? If not, do you think she’s enjoying the simplicity of the friendship now, or do you feel she’s itching for it to become a formal relationship? Either way, take the initiative to talk to her about the relationship if you think she is confused about its clarity. It is a real courtesy to a girl not to leave her wondering about the status of a relationship.

Clear distinction between friendship and relationship. Here’s the link:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=33

About kissing:

Imagine that you started dating in the fifth grade and you had several relationships where you became very close to your girlfriends but then broke up. You gave part of yourself emotionally or physically to these random people. Later, when you meet the person you marry, you regret having kissed all those people and shared all those secrets. Although it did not seem like a big deal then, it sure adds up.

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=134

As for dating per se:

The concept of dating is about eighty years old–as old as the automobile. Nowadays we are so used to it that we might not be able to imagine any other approach to relationships. But back before the car, the purpose of investing time with a young man or woman was to see if he or she was a potential marriage partner. The reason you expressed romantic interest was to woo the person toward that lifelong commitment. This process usually took place within the context of family activities. When the car was invented, this courting could be divorced from spending time with family because the couple could leave the family behind. Soon, the whole point of spending time together shifted from discernment of marriage to wooing for the sake of wooing. People would begin a relationship simply because they found the other to be cute and fun.

And what else is multiple kissing that doing it for the thrill because people are cute and fun?

More here: pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=6

 

[chevalier]

Or:

Now is the time to realize that great relationships do not “happen.” They are the result of a conscious decision to respect yourself. You need to learn this respect for yourself so that you do not constantly end up with guys who refuse to respect you. In the situation you are in now, this guy only deserves to see you on a “more than friends basis” if he has clearly ended the relationship with this other girl and intends to be with you exclusively.

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=105

Clear: more than friends => exclusive.

About having to pick one before getting romantic:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=10

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=274

About friends with benefits:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=4

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=290

If you break up, you might desire to “just be friends.” But as long as one of you is still romantically interested in the other, this is practically impossible. If the two of you are to be friends again one day, you need space right now. When we try the “just friends” approach right after a breakup, it is usually because we are dragging our feet and we do not want to let go. I have tried it before, and it can harm the friendship in the long run because the breakup is so drawn out.

Romantic interest blocking friendship from being only friendship. Romantic kissing doesn’t then sound like a friendly activity freely to share with many people.

Flirting with many:

The best approach is to make your intentions for purity clear, and make sure that your words, your actions, and your outfits convey the same message. Also consider this: Lots of guys will date a flirt, but who wants to marry one? If a girl is flirty toward me, what reason do I have to think that she is not flirting with other guys? A girl is much more attractive if she does not flutter around trying to impress everyone.

With that said about flirting and other guys, what about romantic kissing?

This is about toying with people and having fun:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=117

Purpose of kisses:

Ask yourself what your kisses are worth. Are they a way to repay a guy for a nice evening? Are they a solution to boredom on a date? Are they a way to cover up hurts or loneliness? Even worse, are they merely for “harmless” fun? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we have forgotten the purpose of a kiss and the meaning of intimacy.

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=116

Also there:

As to what kind of kissing is good, or how much is too much, this is something that each person should take to prayer. More and more often I hear of couples who saved their first kiss for the wedding day. At first this sounded extreme to me, but then I noticed that they were not giving up kissing because it was bad or because they could not control themselves, but because they cherished a simple kiss so much that they wanted God and the world to witness their first one. Their first kiss could be offered as a prayer.

That’s about giving up kissing totally, not just passionate or anything. It’s all about glorifying God. Does rewarding a girl’s seven kissing buddies with “one non-passionate closed-mouth kiss” (sound like “one rare not too salty beaft steak”) qualify as glorifying God? Is that how a daughter of the King of Heaven should behave?

More about kissing in general:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=269

Distracting yourself from your action doesn’t justify the physical (material) sin:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=20

So much as the babble goes on about “non-passionate closed-mouth kissing” being so OK and so free to give, the dispassion doesn’t justify the act and the giveaway is wrong.

 

[st_felicity]

pnewton:

Does anyone know of any Church teaching that supports exclusive dating?

Romans

***Chapter 12 ***1 1 2 I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. 2 Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. ***Chapter 13 ***13 let us conduct ourselves properly as in the day, 4 not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

 

[st_felicity]

**Sirach
**Chapter 1830 6 Go not after your lusts, but keep your desires in check. 31 If you satisfy your lustful appetites they will make you the sport of your enemies. 32 Have no joy in the pleasures of a moment which bring on poverty redoubled;
**Philippians
**Chapter 45 Your kindness 5 should be known to all. The Lord is near. 6 Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. 7

Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 6 9 Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. 7
**James
**Chapter 1

14 Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death. 16 8 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift 9 is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. 18 He willed to give us birth by the word of truth that we may be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 10 19 Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, 11 slow to speak, slow to wrath, 20 for the wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls. 22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. 24 He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law 12 of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. 26 13 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue 14 but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows 15 in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

 

[st_felicity]

Titus
Chapter 21 1 As for yourself, you must say what is consistent with sound doctrine, namely, 2 that older men should be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, love, and endurance. 3 Similarly, older women should be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited. 6 Urge the younger men, similarly, to control themselves, 7 showing yourself as a model of good deeds in every respect, with integrity in your teaching, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be criticized, so that the opponent will be put to shame without anything bad to say about us. 9 Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them 10 or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way. 11 2 For the grace of God has appeared, saving all 12 and training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age, 13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance 3 of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to deliver us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as his own, eager to do what is good. 15 Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

 

[JimG]

chevalier:

Oral sex doesn’t make girls pregnant, either.

Was their anything at all in my post about oral sex? Or about kissing? The people I was speaking of were for more chaste in their dating relationships than seems to be the case in the current trend of exclusive dating at early ages.