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

[jako]

I think that dating before 17/18 is too young. Before that teens should go out in groups. I feel that before 17/18 people are to immature to understand the complexities of romance, and courting. I took a friend to my senior prom, and dated a girl for about 6 weeks in college, then she flaked out and we broke up. I met my wife about 2 years later. We met on a group outing and started dating when we were 21 yrs old. When we married a few years later we were both “inexperienced”, and glad we waited. We have been married 18 years now. You may think I am “old fashioned”. But, whats wrong with being old fashioned? It certainly beats the alternative.

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

Does anyone know of any Church teaching that supports polygamy?

Easy. Section 1345, under the heading of the unity and indissolubility of marriage reports that polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. But then no one here was promoting polygamy. So I ask for the third is there any church teaching that promotes the exclusive dating as vigorously as you?

I am not refering to lust, not am I refering to adultery.

Dating is not marriage. Romance is not marriage Even engagement is not marriage. Only marriage is marriage

I am concerned because your initial post initial claimed this was covered by the seventh commandment. The CCC clearly lays out what is covered by all ten commandments. To go beyond Church teaching in this regard is dishonest. If one tries to use this arguement to convince a girlfriend/boyfriend not to date others, then it is also being manipulative and controlling.

 

[Katie1723]

chevalier:

From Mr Evert’s own site:

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:

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

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

About kissing:

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

As for dating per se:

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

Methinks he doth protest too much! Hey, can I fix you up with a nice Jewish girl?
** ~ Kathy ~**

 

[chevalier]

Methinks he doth protest too much! Hey, can I fix you up with a nice Jewish girl?

As a friendly meeting, yes. You see… I don’t do dates.

pnewton:

Easy. Section 1345, under the heading of the unity and indissolubility of marriage reports that polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. But then no one here was promoting polygamy. So I ask for the third is there any church teaching that promotes the exclusive dating as vigorously as you?

It looks like you’re tying he distinction between polygamy and monogamy to the contractual side of marriage. Perhaps multiple concubinage is not polygamous because it isn’t marriage? Loving multiple people romantically is polygamous if relationships are built upon it.

Dating is not marriage. Romance is not marriage Even engagement is not marriage. Only marriage is marriage

I wish you or your children good luck with seven fiance(e)s.

I am concerned because your initial post initial claimed this was covered by the seventh commandment. The CCC clearly lays out what is covered by all ten commandments. To go beyond Church teaching in this regard is dishonest. If one tries to use this arguement to convince a girlfriend/boyfriend not to date others, then it is also being manipulative and controlling.

The idea that romantic love could possibly be non-exclusive is an American thing none older than 100 years. Show me any example of the Church ever supporting your bizarre idea of a polygamous “chaste romance”. Do you really think that it’s OK to have as many kissing buddies as you like if all know of each other?

Marriage expresses love which is pre-existent to the ceremony and doesn’t start at the moment of exchanging vows. All romantic love is geared towards conjugal love, which requires consummation. Consummation is only possible in marriage, so all involvements except one are vain. At some point you have to choose and to throw out all the surplus people. Hope it feels good.

Whe everyone knows of each other’s multiple romance habits, it becomes a society of mutual adoration, a group romance thing. Chaste swinging. Whatever. Plain damn wrong. Even without sex in it, it’s still contrary to the purpose of love, thus violating the VIIth commandment.

As for the girlfriend who can’t control her hands and mouth, she’s obviously not ready for anything remotely resembling serious courting and shouldn’t be dating. Getting to know people doesn’t entitle you to taste every one of them. Let’s kiss all of them. The one that tastes bad will be returned to her father’s house. The rest may stay so long as the kissing is fun.

It’s totally un-Catholic and that’s what all priests I know would say. One told me that yesterday evening. The idea is not in accordance with Catholic teaching.

JimG:

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.

Everyone seems to be talking of kissing. I believe that having anything more than one romantic partner is wrong, but I don’t believe one shouldn’t meet people as friends. Even realising that they may well turn out to be future spouses. Non-exclusive romantic activity (kissing, sending love letters etc) is bad conduct and something immoral which children should be forbidden from doing or at least not taught to do. People in exclusive relationships only risk indulging. People in non-exclusive relationships are already indulging. It’s done for pleasure and the thrill of it at the expense of other people. It’s a part of the “ME ME ME” culture and one seeking marriage as something to be scared about, producing the absurd belief that people are entitled to have some fun before committing to one person. That’s not Catholic. Seeing multiple people of both genders and being nice to them is good and proper. It’s preferable to any kind of dating, including exclusive. Dating should simply not be done at all. It’s wrong to be loose. All bad conduct is sinful, as Paul teaches and this sort of thing (i.e. having friends with benefits) is extremely bad conduct.

 

[chevalier]

Next, out of all five or six or seven kissing buddies, even if they know of each other, how would one feel seeing the girl or guy kissing another the same way?

Let’s say, out of your five non-exclusive romantic kissing partners you enjoy kissing one the most. Then you see her kissing with some other guy she has told you about. Still everything fine? Well, don’t be jealous. Stay and enjoy the show!

How about doing the show in front of a crucifix? It’s perfectly acceptable to kiss your spouse or even fiance(e) (if in good faith) in front of one, so how about all the many romantic partners? Have them line up next to the cross and kiss them one by one and then from the end of the queue back to the beginning. Is non-exclusive dating and kissing still okay? What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do? Can you visualise our Lord having five romantic partners? Or even two? Any example of that in the New Testament? Any example among the saints of the Church? Show me at least one saint who had had multiple romantic partners and what’s before converting doesn’t count. Can you imagine Saint Gianna Beretta Molla having two Peters?

Everyone has always had one love interest in a monogamous NT society, leading to one marriage. If anyone suggested anything non-exclusive to any lady in my family, he would likely feel sudden pain in the lower face sector. I’ve only ever kissed exclusively (it’s always been normal to meet other people, just not romantically) and haven’t ever had sex or even French-kissed anyone. The number of my closed-mouth kisses after childhood is lower than the number of exclusive love interests. Very unchaste, isn’t it?

 

[chevalier]

jako:

I think that dating before 17/18 is too young. Before that teens should go out in groups. I feel that before 17/18 people are to immature to understand the complexities of romance, and courting. I took a friend to my senior prom, and dated a girl for about 6 weeks in college, then she flaked out and we broke up. I met my wife about 2 years later. We met on a group outing and started dating when we were 21 yrs old. When we married a few years later we were both “inexperienced”, and glad we waited. We have been married 18 years now. You may think I am “old fashioned”. But, whats wrong with being old fashioned? It certainly beats the alternative.

I wholeheartedly agree. The only exceptions I know are people who are emotionally and intellectually ahead of their age and I’m still not sure. The less history the better. The less indulging for mere pleasure, the more kisses and embraces are worth. The more the person respects himself, the more is the future spouse respected. Respecting other people is one way of respecting oneself, as well. Dating is playing adult – getting fun that one isn’t entitled to get. Enjoying the flair of a relationship without obligations. Getting the benefit without paying the price. When non-exclusive, it’s being so extremely selfish as to keep building several romantic relationships just to save oneself time and avoid staying without a partner for a while, still to have someone else when there’s a break-up. Excuses for it pile up but it’s all about all fun and no responsibility. As John Paul II taught, love can’t be separated from responsibility and can’t be divorced from the marital context. The price is always there to pay. Sooner or later, it will bounce back. Avoiding hurts by going into polyamorous arrangements will always backfire. Sad thing, it’s only about as old as the car and it already seems so natural to feel entitled to have some carnal fun just for taking the little effort to eat a dinner with someone. Things which no married person in the right mind would do with anyone else than the spouse are suddenly believed to be non-exclusive and all right to toy with and enjoy without responsibility. The saddest thing is how it’s presented as Catholic teaching or even supported with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body… the same Pope who would never divorce love from responsibility. Other people stop to count. Everything becomes “me me me” and having fun becomes top priority, over everything else. More souls go to hell for the sins of the flesh than for any other reason. Seeking fun while avoiding responsibility is the shortest route here. No serious loving relationship can do as much harm as any level of tolerance for looseness and indulging. Maybe I sound like a 90 year old, but life is tough. Can’t have a cookie and eat it. There’s no such thing as free lunch.

pnewton:

If one tries to use this arguement to convince a girlfriend/boyfriend not to date others, then it is also being manipulative and controlling.

I have never wanted any control. I don’t make demands or even requests. There are people I consider as potential candidates and people I don’t. Those who disrespect their fellow humans so much as to treat them like friends with benefits, I treat like people with an impediment. Those who treat their body (including mouth) like a pool of rewards or source of pleasure, I treat the same. I pray for my future spouse and my future children to be free from that.

Manipulative is the chaste swinging. Seducing multiple people and casting all but one away at a point. Building relationships which are already expected to discontinue. Seeking the bodily pleasure of romantic hugging and kissing, and emotional of closeness, excitement and challenge, while avoiding commitment. If that isn’t manipulative, what is. Life isn’t fooled so easily. The price is always to pay. Sooner or later, it will backfire.

With such approach being so wide-spread, no wonder so many marriage turn out null on the grounds of not being able to stick to one person. No wonder cheating is so common. No wonder even one night stands become acceptable at some point.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

Dating is playing adult – getting fun that one isn’t entitled to get. Enjoying the flair of a relationship without obligations. Getting the benefit without paying the price. When non-exclusive, it’s being so extremely selfish as to keep building several romantic relationships just to save oneself time and avoid staying without a partner for a while, still to have someone else when there’s a break-up. Excuses for it pile up but it’s all about all fun and no responsibility. …
More souls go to hell for the sins of the flesh than for any other reason. Seeking fun while avoiding responsibility is the shortest route here. No serious loving relationship can do as much harm as any level of tolerance for looseness and indulging. Maybe I sound like a 90 year old, but life is tough. Can’t have a cookie and eat it. There’s no such thing as free lunch.

No one is saying that having more than one love interest is a good idea. We’re saying that it is not a mortal sin… because it isn’t. And the message of your posts have gone from “kissing more than one guy is wrong and a girl who does it is a slut” to “dating is… getting fun one isn’t entitled to get.” That is not true.

Should a girl go around kissing guys she doesn’t see as standing above all the rest as prospective husband material? No. Will she necessarily go straight to hell if she does? Well… no. There is one steep road lying in that direction, but there are steps required to make it to all the way to hell’s gate.

As tempting as it is, adding to the truth is not ok. I know you worry for the foolish, but even the foolish know a tall one when they hear it.

It is also not true that “No serious loving relationship can do as much harm as any level of tolerance for looseness and indulging”. Mere outward monogamy is not a sure defense against unchastity. A girl could kiss three different guys every night and not indulge in fornication, something that too many imagine that their “serious loving relationship” will excuse.

Do you see the harm in your stand? It is fine as long as you’re talking to someone who knows what serious love really is, but at that point you’re preaching to the choir! Prior to marriage, chastity is the same for everybody, exclusively attached or not. “Being in love” with the one you are sure is your lifelong soulmate puts you more in the danger zone, if anything. That’s when the lies of romance start to sound their most convincing.

You do not sound 90 years old. Your wisdom does not ring with the wisdom of old age. In spite of the stereotype, having a bone to pick with the idea of fun is not typical of older people. You do sound a little bit as if you think getting to 90 without regrets is purely a matter of avoidance. I hope I’m guilty of reading far too much in to your posts. You can’t eat the cake and have it, but you can go through life neither eating nor having, and that is a shame.

 

[chevalier]

There is no shame in respecting other people and yourself and not doing things which are wrong, no matter how great they feel. The fact that something isn’t mortal doesn’t mean that one is free to do it, let alone to tell others they can do it. I nowhere say that my view of exclusivity includes allowance for anything sexual or prohibition from meeting people and having fun with friends.

My view of exclusivity is that friendship isn’t, can’t be exclusive, while romantic love is. Romantic gesture belongs to romantic love and is not free to indulge in for the fun of it. It’s not a light matter to kiss half the town and feel good for being a virgin. And if you say half the town is a bit much, then I will ask why? If it isn’t exclusive, then how does it matter how many people get it?

If romantic kissing is so light that it’s perfectly acceptable to kiss multiple people on dates, then why isn’t it allowed to married people, as well? People keep saying how romantic kissing is not sexual and all, but if we started talking about married people doing it, there would be quite different evaluations. If it’s something so chaste and so removed from any tie with marriage, then priests should be able to do it, as well. And priests aren’t quite allowed to go on dates and kiss women on the mouth romantically, even if some probably do on a friendly or familiar motive – which is perfectly all right.

It seems to me that you’re demonising and extrapolating the danger and fear of fornication. Just because fornication is mortal doesn’t mean we are entitled to have fun doing venial things or even sinless things but in excess. Not mortal? Likely not for a misguided teenager. But an adult after Confirmation doing the chastity swing dating and kissing many women as a principle? It’s not just unwise, it’s in violation of the natural law and indeed of commandments. It’s a flawed principle of Restricted Polygamy (as opposed to Serial Monogamy which people tend to love throwing at me). Polygamy is expressly condemned. Thus, restricted version or it are still reproachable. Even if they are supposed to serve chastity and, ultimately, a monogamous marriage. I can’t imagine God meaning monogamy for sex alone and telling His faithful, “You can kiss like bunnies if you want, I meant one man and one woman for sex only.”

Thus my future parental rule:

non-romantic friendly one-on-one meetings: allowed, desirable, no exclusivity from this can ever apply (it takes a sick guy to want to be the only friend of even his lawful wife)
romantic dating: never allowed
romantic relationship: potentially allowed, always exclusive, more courting than dating

As multiple romantic relationships are wrong and kissing multiple people is a wrong principle, it can’t ever be suggested to children licitly (I would go to confession if I merely suspected my children could get such a vibe from me), it has to be either exclusive and looking at marriage or nonexistent.

Even if the traditional exclusive romantic involvement really carried more risk of things getting horribly wrong, having multiple romantic relationships is a flawed principle and already wrong.

So do a little wrong to avoid the risk of a big evil? No, that’s not licit. What needs to be done is proper teaching and guarding against fornication instead of undermining the traditional monogamous design, which, after all, comes from God.

While traditional romantic involvement with one person carries the risk of fornication, multiple kissing etc blurs the distinction between love and friendship, divorces love from marriage, reduces marriage to a mere contract for sexual exclusivity, predestines a group of people for dumping (“Sorry, Carol, it’s been great but I need to stop kissing you because I’m getting married to Elen. I will need to stop kissing Jessy, Molly and Triss, too.”) and also gives people the idea that after marriage they can love romantically whomever they wish, so long as they only have sex with the spouse.

Non-exclusive dating, if it’s ever to be morally proper, may give you the right to consider people for courting, survey their traits of character, what they do in life, how they live with people etc, but not to give them a try and have some fun with them that you wouldn’t with friends. There is no justification for that. A romantic embrace and kiss on the mouth is not a perfectly acceptable ending for a meeting between a young man and young woman serving to show they are having a great time. It’s a physical act serving pleasure only, and thus a kind of masturbation.

Marriage is the fulfillment of pre-existent love. It’s not a switch from polygamy to monogamy. Not a switch from kissing everyone to kissing spouse only.

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

It’s totally un-Catholic and that’s what all priests I know would say. One told me that yesterday evening. The idea is not in accordance with Catholic teaching.

For the 4th time now, where does the Church teach this? I have yet to see any Church teaching that multiple romantic relationship are wrong. I have the norm for Catholic teaching, the catechism, here. It doesn’t say this. If one holds something out as Catholic teaching, it should be more than an opinion.

As far as multiple fiance’s, I never said that was proper. I said engagement is not marriage (surely you do not disagree with this) One is a Sacrament, the other not. There are many situations where mutliple relationship would be sinful (as would an exclusive relationship). If lying and false promises are made, obvious there is a sin against the truth.

I think you will never make a convincing arguement based on labeling it sinful. Prudence might make a mor convincing arguement. There are two thing which you have repeatedly done which are very un-convincing.

The first is to switch the topic and talk about lust, lying or some other sin and assume that it is inherent in a non-exclusive relationship.

The second is that you continuely call sin, that which the church (in the Catechism) does not.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

A romantic embrace and kiss on the mouth is not a perfectly acceptable ending for a meeting between a young man and young woman serving to show they are having a great time. It’s a physical act serving pleasure only, and thus a kind of masturbation.

A romantic kiss is the moral equivalent of bringing yourself to climax?!? You must be joking. Equating kissing with masturbating and calling it “a physical act serving pleasure only” implies to me that for you there isn’t serious emotional content in a romantic kiss. I’d not share that with your future spouse.

In fact, I’d say that is one of two chief reasons it should not be done lightly, nor, as a rule, with even two different people simultaneously: it encourages the formation of a serious emotional tie that might logically lead to both marriage and serious temptation. Kiss two guys, and you are very likely to hurt one of them. Kiss even one, and you’re treading on holy ground.

The other reason is that to give serious kisses out lightly encourages others in the attitude that it means nothing and leaves one in the position of wanting to give someone you really do feel strongly about something more. (Yikes.) That doesn’t mean that kissing two guys on the same day is a mortal sin.

chevalier:

The fact that something isn’t mortal doesn’t mean that one is free to do it, let alone to tell others they can do it. I nowhere say that my view of exclusivity includes allowance for anything sexual or prohibition from meeting people and having fun with friends.

I am only saying that it not okay to tell the world that something is a mortal sin when it is not. It is not okay to misrepresent the faith to make your point. This is a big deal. Someone who believed you might avoid receiving the Eucharist after having kissed more than one person. That is bad advice.

chevalier:

If romantic kissing is so light that it’s perfectly acceptable to kiss multiple people on dates, then why isn’t it allowed to married people, as well?

Even totally platonic friendships have to be reined in when you marry. Ask a priest friend if he can play golf. If his work is done, he’s probably free to say “yes.” Unmarried men can decide to quit their jobs and spend the summer hiking the Pacific Crest Trail. Your married friends had better check with their wives and consider the needs of their children. Their lives are no longer their own.

The truth is, there isn’t a reason in the world I couldn’t use your line of thinking to argue that all women ought to all wear the burka, because men so easily fall into lust. Why do you think it is advisable for women to have male friends at all? Ok, it’s not a sin, but over all of history, when has it been okay for unmarried women to go out and choose their own male friends? Practically never, except in liberal societies. We all know the risks… is it worth it?

Do women need male friends? It would be difficult to prove the point. Women in traditional societies did fine, didn’t they? Some would say more so than now. In fact, why do women really need to choose their husbands, or men choose their wives? Has it made them happier? Their marriages aren’t lasting longer, that’s for sure. What do young people know about what it takes to be married? Essentially nothing. Why let them presume they have any idea what to look for in a spouse? Because living a moral life is more than a game of avoidance. A moral life is, first of all, a life.

If you let your daughters have male friends, let alone romantic attachments, you are playing with fire, are you not? How can you argue with that? Because it is appropriate for a holy man to want more for his daughter than the absence of temptation.

I’m not saying that your stand is inappropriate, per se. I am saying it is one of many levels of thought on the subject held by good and holy parents. Just as you would not be sinning by allowing your daughters male friends, other parents may judge that their daughter is ready to date before she is ready to marry and not sin, either.

PS If your daughter ever comes home and tells you she kissed a man other than her steady boyfriend, don’t you dare call her a slut. Don’t even use language like that around your girls. That would not just be a sin. It would be a crime… since it would all but ensure that you wouldn’t be taken into confidence if the stakes were ever truly high.

 

[MarilynIN]

When I was a teenager, we dated versus going steady. A guy would ask me out for a date to a movie or to go mini-golfing or watch stock car races at the racetrack, for example. Sometimes we double-dated, sometimes not. Usually had pizza or some fast-food after, he would drop me off at my front door. Sometimes I would get a good night kiss, sometimes not. Sometimes he would call again, and if I was interested, I would go back out on another date with him. If not, I would decline. I also wouldn’t wait around by the phone for him to call back. There wasn’t any implied contract from one innocent date that we were “committed” to any more dates or to each other. I also don’t consider the occasional good night kiss, which was brief, closed-mouthed, and rather awkward at times, to be licentious behavior. I had plenty of dates with different boys, but only a few boyfriends. That’s the difference.

Dating is a way to socialize with the opposite sex, or it should be, without fear of committment. It is learning how to relate to the opposite sex while enjoying an activity together. If you go out a few times and really start to know each other and share a good friendship and it develops, then it starts to become more exclusive. Out of respect, you don’t develop several intense relationships at once. But, if you are just dating, no big deal if you are “just dating” to go out with different people with no committment. Even that quick kiss goodnight on the front porch is no big deal.

I really believe that people of my generation (high school in the 60’s) generally ended up with good spouses, good marriages, lower divorce rates, more so than those who went to high school later than I did. We didn’t accept pressure on ourselves to have sex, or to do heavy petting. If a guy tried something I would have popped him in the jaw. We basically knew what the limits were, and most of us never crossed the line, even when we became more “involved” with a guy.

When my kids were in high school in the 80’s and early 90’s, it really bothered me that after one or two dates with someone, they would start “going steady”. My daughters thought it was terrible that I suggested they go out on dates with more than one person. They said if anyone did that she would be considered a slut or he would be considered a slut puppy. Looking back, it occurs to me we had different definitions of what dating is, what it means. In my day, it was simply a social activity. Sometimes it developed into a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, more often it didn’t. In my girls’ day, it meant that kids were looking to get seriously involved and in a relationship right away. The pressures on them to go beyond a simple goodnight kiss were tremendous. The marriage failure rate is also much higher for those who followed after I did in school.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

MarilynIN:

Sometimes I would get a good night kiss, sometimes not. Sometimes he would call again, and if I was interested, I would go back out on another date with him. If not, I would decline. I also wouldn’t wait around by the phone for him to call back. There wasn’t any implied contract from one innocent date that we were “committed” to any more dates or to each other. I also don’t consider the occasional good night kiss, which was brief, closed-mouthed, and rather awkward at times, to be licentious behavior. I had plenty of dates with different boys, but only a few boyfriends. That’s the difference.
…
If you go out a few times and really start to know each other and share a good friendship and it develops, then it starts to become more exclusive. Out of respect, you don’t develop several intense relationships at once. But, if you are just dating, no big deal if you are “just dating” to go out with different people with no committment. Even that quick kiss goodnight on the front porch is no big deal.
…
If a guy tried something I would have popped him in the jaw. We basically knew what the limits were, and most of us never crossed the line, even when we became more “involved” with a guy.
…
My daughters thought it was terrible that I suggested they go out on dates with more than one person. They said if anyone did that she would be considered a slut or he would be considered a slut puppy.

You illustrate the point very well… these days, kisses given the adjective “romantic” are usually taken as overtly sexual, and are often taken as a portent of things to come, “if all goes well”. Girls who kiss but still draw a line are “teases.” Girls who don’t kiss are “frigid.”

There was a time when the “goodnight kiss” could carry the message “I don’t find your interest repulsive.” It was like that in high school; I would not have expected a fellow to take that message home by the time I reached college.

It doesn’t have to be the way it is now, and you don’t have to change society to do it. You only have to have dear dad explain to his daughters’ dates that an innocent kiss had better be taken that way, because a good swift uppercut by the daughter is the least punishment that will follow male advances contrary to her wishes or her dad’s dictates. This might not be a girl that gets lots of follow-up dates, but her friends won’t be throwing the “s” word around.

 

[Princess_Abby]

Chevalier,

Have you ever read anything by Christopher West? He describes kissing as “affirming the other’s inherent goodness.”

Kissing is not meant to be a selfish act. It seems like you keep focusing on the “pleasure” derived from it with an intention of self-gain, as well as pre-supposing that it is a sick and selfish act unless the two people are willing to commit themselves forever to one another. No, kissing is a happy thing and is sometimes twisted into lust by those with ill intent. But it can also be a chaste sharing of affirmation for the affection between those who care about one another. Christopher West details that is SUPPOSED to be an act of GENEROSITY, not one of self-seeking pleasure.

I kiss various family members, friends, babies, toddlers, children, my husband. Even some co-workers, old priest friends, family friends, etc. The way I kiss my husband is most definitely different then how I kiss anyone else. But, culturally my Irish family is just very affectionate. My neice will run and lift her arms and expect me to pick her up and when I do, she plants a big one on my lips. There is nothing indecent about this, obviously.

I point this out to say that intention is paramount to judging the merit and appropriateness of a kiss. If it is done in generosity, in a spirit of giving to the other a sense of affirmation and affection–but NOT lust or self-pleasure, then there is nothing wrong with it.

BLB-Oregon also points out something very important. Whether or not you are in some sort of exclusive dating/courting relationship, kissing should STILL be a generous act and not a self-serving act. Chastity is requirement for every state in life. In a marriage, one can kiss with desire and the intent to arouse and lead to marital intercourse. However, kissing is NEVER allowed to be lustful. We are not allowed to “lust” after anyone–spouse or not.

In an engaged relationship or even a courting/serious dating situation, one kisses with the HOPE and ANTICIPATION of the sacrament soon to come. It is a romantic affection different from that of an affection toward a platonic friend.

I don’t think you sound like a wise old 90 year old at all. I think you sound like a young boy really wanting to please God but perhaps being scrupulous in the process.

 

[chevalier]

Please note (Especially Princess Abby) that I’m not saying friendly kisses are bad – even if on the mouth. It’s been normal in various cultures over history. However, having multiple romantic partners even on a chaste basis has only been regarded as normal in monogamous societies (and still it’s typically “adding” another spouse after some time, not courting more than one at a time) and even the latter have recognised the necessity of the link between romance and hopes for marriage.

If it’s just friendship, I don’t have a problem with it. I’ve had contact with so many cultures in which it’s normal that I’m not even moved by it. But again, warning, if it’s just friendship, it should be normal to see nuns and priests doing that and married people with other married people. This is not normally done by people who share romantic kisses on parallel dates in parallel romantic relationships.

I would never refuse a friendly kiss, even on the lips, unless my girlfriend, fiancee or wife had a problem with it. However, I would always politely decline anything which the other person wanted to do on a romantic motive unless I were hoping for a courting relationship to come in more or less close future. There is a clear difference between friendship and romance.

Next, how does it matter that romance isn’t sex… If what you are saying were true, it would be perfectly acceptable for married people to have romance on condition that it isn’t an invitation to anything more.
Princess Abby:

Have you ever read anything by Christopher West? He describes kissing as “affirming the other’s inherent goodness.”

Anything could be construed that way. Also, a kiss which is only affirming the other’s inherent goodness should also be allowed in marriage.

Kissing is not meant to be a selfish act. It seems like you keep focusing on the “pleasure” derived from it with an intention of self-gain, as well as pre-supposing that it is a sick and selfish act unless the two people are willing to commit themselves forever to one another. No, kissing is a happy thing and is sometimes twisted into lust by those with ill intent. But it can also be a chaste sharing of affirmation for the affection between those who care about one another.

If that were true, priests could do that with nuns. Sex is also a happy thing. Josephyte marriage (with a vow of sexual abstinence attached) with multiple people would still be “chaste” and it isn’t done.

I kiss various family members, friends, babies, toddlers, children, my husband. Even some co-workers, old priest friends, family friends, etc.

So do I. Non-romantically. There isn’t a shred of romance in it. It’s typically on the cheek or on the hand and it’s been on the mouth as well. It’s way different from kissing someone you think you’re in love with.

The way I kiss my husband is most definitely different then how I kiss anyone else.

If we are talking about closed-mouth kisses, is the way the husband is kissed so substantially different from the way he was kissed as fiance and before? There is surely some difference, but just how much. A non-sexual kiss between spouses is similar to what happens between engaged people. Should that be shared with everyone just to be happy and have fun? I believe not. This is my point: if you love someone as a man loves a woman or the other way round, the kiss is different from a friendly one. Sharing a kiss of this motivation, even if it doesn’t invite to anything, is, in my view, deeply contrary to natural law and defies the teaching on marriage.

If it is done in generosity, in a spirit of giving to the other a sense of affirmation and affection–but NOT lust or self-pleasure, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Affirmation and affection of the romantic kind shared with multiple people?

BLB-Oregon also points out something very important. Whether or not you are in some sort of exclusive dating/courting relationship, kissing should STILL be a generous act and not a self-serving act. Chastity is requirement for every state in life. In a marriage, one can kiss with desire and the intent to arouse and lead to marital intercourse. However, kissing is NEVER allowed to be lustful. We are not allowed to “lust” after anyone–spouse or not.

Of course. Still, we are talking about pleasure and being happy, nonetheless.

 

[chevalier]

In an engaged relationship or even a courting/serious dating situation, one kisses with the HOPE and ANTICIPATION of the sacrament soon to come.

Okay, but people tend to think it’s OK to have such hope and anticipation with more than one person. Or that it’s OK to have a romantic relationship without such hope or anticipation. Which is in violation of natural law in my humble opinion.

It is a romantic affection different from that of an affection toward a platonic friend.

Of course! This is my exact point. Friends? Okay. As many as you can handle. Romantic? Just one person you’re already married to or hoping to be in the future. Romantic kiss is, by definition, romantic, so is sending love letters, Valentines etc etc (examples only). All the romantic stuff is being divorced from hopes of marriage nowadays, even by Catholics, and I consider it wrong.

I don’t think you sound like a wise old 90 year old at all. I think you sound like a young boy really wanting to please God but perhaps being scrupulous in the process.

Does the priest who was already 30 when he baptised me also sound like such a boy? Or the other priests I know? Does my pre-WW2 pre-Vat2 conservative Polish grandmother also sound like one? Or all my friends who are catechists? Finally, does the Western culture sound like a scrupulous young boy, always affirming the monogamous character of romantic love?

pnewton:

The first is to switch the topic and talk about lust, lying or some other sin and assume that it is inherent in a non-exclusive relationship.

Being romantic with many people is playing with fire. You can’t court more than one, let alone marry. At least not marry in this church. All the romantic relationships except one that you have at one time are predestined for dumping. All the love declarations to stop. All the romantic gesture to discontinue. You can call my exclusive dating-to-courting relationships serial monogamy, even if I don’t have sex with anyone, but what you are propagating is chaste swinging to me. Let’s write romantic love letters to everyone, affirm everyone’s attractivity, have hopes for courting five different people and so on. Is the world going to be better or Our Lord to be pleased by that? You still haven’t shown me a single Catholic saint with more than one romantic partner.

The second is that you continuely call sin, that which the church (in the Catechism) does not.

You continually affirm polyamorous arrangements which have always been alien to the Western culture and the Catholic Church. At least until recently.

BLB_Oregon:

In fact, I’d say that is one of two chief reasons it should not be done lightly, nor, as a rule, with even two different people simultaneously: it encourages the formation of a serious emotional tie that might logically lead to both marriage and serious temptation. Kiss two guys, and you are very likely to hurt one of them. Kiss even one, and you’re treading on holy ground.

First, I take it that you’re actually opposed to the idea that multiple romantic relationships, no matter how early stage, are proper? Or romantic kisses on non-exclusive dates? It seems to me that you are, even though you don’t consider the other option to be sinful.

The other reason is that to give serious kisses out lightly encourages others in the attitude that it means nothing and leaves one in the position of wanting to give someone you really do feel strongly about something more. (Yikes.)

For a girl who has several romantic friends, it surely doesn’t mean much. I can’t fathom, however, the idea of a Christian woman flirting with many men and justifying it by the general openness to marriage with any of them. As if the fact she’s going to marry one of them justifies trying out the whole lot. Someone who declares love to many people, sends love letters, embraces and kisses them all, has a serious problem with himself and sends wrong messages as well. The activity in itself may or may not be a mortal sin. But it’s objectively disordered. Tolerating, allowing or propagating it is a wrong act and carries much more potential for sin that actually doing it out of ignorance, fickleness and general irresponsibility. Consciously making a rule of having or staying open to multiple romance is deceiving oneself and doing harm to one’s own personality and proper development.

 

[chevalier]

That doesn’t mean that kissing two guys on the same day is a mortal sin.

But if it’s venial, it doesn’t mean we’re free to do it. Or that we can tell people it’s OK to do it. I repeat once again: to teach one’s children that it’s OK to share romantic activities with many people is wrong. To feel attracted to many people is natural and healthy. To act on the attraction is wrong. The “stage” of it doesn’t matter.

I am only saying that it not okay to tell the world that something is a mortal sin when it is not. It is not okay to misrepresent the faith to make your point. This is a big deal.

I’m not saying it’s mortal. I’m saying there is potential for it. There is inconsistency with the model of love in Christianity and Western culture. Divorcing romantic affection from romantic commitment is wrong. Divorcing romantic gesture from romanting affection or from fromantic commitment is wrong. Divorcing anything even slightly romantic from the hope of marriage is wrong – at least materially, if not also subjectively.

Someone who believed you might avoid receiving the Eucharist after having kissed more than one person. That is bad advice.

That’s my conscience and I stick to it. The message sent by such behaviour is not so innocent as it may appear and the behaviour itself isn’t so innocent as it’s claimed. I repeat once again: to kiss friends on the mouth out of a friendly motivation is perfectly right to me. To act anyhow on a romantic motivation with many people is objectively disordered and at the very least materially wrong. There’s a difference between a friendly motivation and a romantic one, as Princess Abby pointed out, even if the lady seems to be in disagreement with me on some other things. Also, if something is venial, it doesn’t mean we can do it. If something is objectively wrong but would be subjectively not culpable for a person, we still shouldn’t encourage him to do it. As such, I feel it’s proper to encourage non-exclusive meetings of friendship even with the purpose of looking out for someone with whom to start a courting relationship leading to marriage. I feel it isn’t proper to encourage non-exclusive romantic dates and it’s something we shouldn’t do.

A teenager who finds himself or herself in multiple relationships without previously intending such a situation to occur, is first of all in great trouble and having a big problem than acting wrong. Here I agree. But the problem exists nonetheless and trouble is not normal situation. However, an adult Christian after confirmation pursuing such a development? No way…

This probably shows that my usage of the world “slut” may be different from yours. I would have said “whore” if I meant something sexual or akin to prostitution. I used the word to denote a person with a fickle personality and poor standards of conduct. Still, bad conduct is bad conduct. I expect something better from my future children. I will forbid non-exclusive dating and replace it with friendly hanging out (same as the non-exlusive dates you mention but without any romantic manifestations). It isn’t slutty to get to know many people and choose the right one for marriage. It’s at the very least indulging to engage in romantic manifestations with more than one person at a time, though. It isn’t proper to pursue. I have been exposed to opportunities for non-exclusive romantic arrangements or romances that couldn’t possibly result in courting and marriage. Promptly resisted and thank God for help.

 

[chevalier]

If you let your daughters have male friends, let alone romantic attachments, you are playing with fire, are you not?

If you let your daughters have early-stage romantic partners, you are playing with fire, are you net?

Because it is appropriate for a holy man to want more for his daughter than the absence of temptation.

Having multiple romantic partners is already wrong of its own and not only because of temptation. I am not a holy man, but what I desire for my daughter is to shun improper sexual behaviour, as well as polyamory in all its forms, all romantic relationships which are not based on fidelity. Dating, courting or even engagement doesn’t give any special rights. No rights and no claims. The mere condition of not finding someone’s interest repulsive doesn’t mean we can act on it. I don’t find any woman’s interest repulsive but I don’t act romantically with all of them. That would imply my own interest. And what? If only attractive ones are kissed and inattractive aren’t, how is it friends only, platonic and whatnot?

It feels to me that the sexual revolution has created the whole demand for dating and the idea that the man or the woman deserves something. This is why kissing became expected at the end of a date. It’s become such a popular demand that even Catholics have got used to it and no longer see anything wrong in it. They just content themselves with cutting sexual stimulation out of it. The people deserve nothing and the kissing is not something to which they are entitled. It is an expression of mutual love and hope for marriage which has been taken out of its native context and misplaced. Expressions of mutual love are not intented for carefree fun and happiness in freedom from rigid rules. It still feels romantic to people and by the “it’s not such a big deal” kind of reasoning, they are arriving at the conclusion that it’s all right to be romantic with many people and have many romantic interests if things don’t go too far. But it’s a product of the modern culture saturated with sex and not of the culture of life, even if Christians seem to have incorporated it.
On a final note, if any monogamous arrangement is an invitation to fornication, is marriage no? If monogamy leads to unchastity, why is marriage allowed at all? After all, lust is not proper even in marriage, but always wrong. So is not marriage a huge temptation? And yet we still do it. We even do courting before marriage. So at what point to draw the line between polyamory and traditional mutual commitment? Why propagate polyamory in the first place? It’s a rebound produced by the fact that the public seems to be growingly tired with the Christian concept of monogamy and would like to have as much “diversity” as possible. Marriage is feared, so people feel they need to get as much fun as possible before marriage because marriage will likely be no fun but bitter obligation.

Four consecutive posts. My record so far. You have it all or nearly all. All I could think of. It may be hard and tiring to read it all, but I’d rather you read it all before replying to short parts.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

Four consecutive posts. My record so far. You have it all or nearly all. All I could think of. It may be hard and tiring to read it all, but I’d rather you read it all before replying to short parts.

Ok, so you don’t think people should behave romantically toward more than one person at a time. Fine. No one has said that is a good idea, and most think it is at least a venial sin.

You have said it is a mortal sin. It’s not. Period.

You have said that romantic behavior shouldn’t be bandied about in ways that not only tempt people but also make the behavior less romantic because it is less attached to fidelity. Good point. A bit vehemently made, to say the least, but a good point, nonetheless.

You know some great priests and old people who agree with you. Great. This isn’t an age-related debate. There are some who think you are still too permissive and some who think you are far too conservative. A great deal depends on the young people involved, as well. The Church has not taken your side specifically.

You think name-calling has a productive place in raising daughters and preaching the Gospel. I think you’re out to lunch AND that such name-calling is an offense to charity that is a venial sin itself. (“Love the sinner and hate the sin. Well, call the sinner nasty names, but you know, for their own good.” Save that.) I hope to high heavens that you change your mind and the habits of your speech before you actually have any daughters.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Not having much time, I have not read every single word of the preceding discussion, but only skimmed it to see what direction it was taking. At this point I have several questions, which may have already been answered, but it doesn’t seem as though that is the case.

First, what does it mean to have a romantic relationship with someone? It doesn’t mean a relationship where one gives the other flowers and Valentine’s Day cards and kisses, for it is entirely possible to imagine a romantic relationship where those things have never been given (at least not yet). Those things can be an expression of a romantic relationship, but they are not necessary expressions of a romantic relationship. Thus, they do not define “romantic”.

Second, what is the significance of a romantic kiss? I exclude from my question kisses intended to sexually arouse. Arousing kisses can also be romantic, but I do not believe that romantic kisses are necessarily arousing.

Third, if one is married, is it appropriate for them to have a romantic relationship with someone other than their spouse. If not, what is it about the nature of such a romantic relationship that puts it in contradiction with being married? Or, what is it about the marriage relationship that puts it in contradiction to all other romantic relationships?

 

[JimG]

MarilynIN:

When I was a teenager, we dated versus going steady. A guy would ask me out for a date to a movie or to go mini-golfing or watch stock car races at the racetrack, for example. Sometimes we double-dated, sometimes not. Usually had pizza or some fast-food after, he would drop me off at my front door. Sometimes I would get a good night kiss, sometimes not. Sometimes he would call again, and if I was interested, I would go back out on another date with him. If not, I would decline. I also wouldn’t wait around by the phone for him to call back. There wasn’t any implied contract from one innocent date that we were “committed” to any more dates or to each other.
I also don’t consider the occasional good night kiss, which was brief, closed-mouthed, and rather awkward at times, to be licentious behavior. I had plenty of dates with different boys, but only a few boyfriends. That’s the difference. . . . Dating is a way to socialize with the opposite sex, or it should be, without fear of committment.

Marilyn, you have aptly described the dating game as it was in my high school days better than I could. There was nothing at all licentious about it.

As you mentioned, the rules have now changed, trending toward to earlier, more exclusive, pairings. In my view, this development is for the worse.

I really believe that people of my generation (high school in the 60’s) generally ended up with good spouses, good marriages, lower divorce rates, more so than those who went to high school later than I did. We didn’t accept pressure on ourselves to have sex, or to do heavy petting. If a guy tried something I would have popped him in the jaw. We basically knew what the limits were, and most of us never crossed the line, even when we became more “involved” with a guy.

And that’s the difference too. Boys and girls–but especially the girls-- knew exactly when and where to draw the line!