Sexual Morality for Engaged Couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter stjohnberchmans
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Castello is right, then eating and drinking something tasty would result in sexual stimulation?
 
frank_maritano said:
If Castello is right, then eating and drinking something tasty would result in sexual stimulation?
Click to expand...
Yes, that was part of my thinking. As I suggested, he wasn’t being precise enough, but his overall point may be sounder, so I invited him to clarify (and cite!).
 
bbentrup said:
Are you speaking of personal experience? Or are you speaking of general scientific consensus which you can cite to? I also feel this declaration isn’t sufficiently precise as to be most helpful to expand upon your premise. As one example, it is not clear if you are speaking on a general level or a comprehensive one. If your scientific rule (if it is scientific) does not encompass ever single couple, then can you explain the morality for a couple who don’t get this stimulation? Even though I think I catch your general drift, can you please be more exact (and cite)? If you can’t, it makes it seem like you’re making it up, which is unfair to you. If you can prove this (to the extent there is scientific consensus can “prove” something, your other rule that it would be unchaste to intentionally arouse the other sexually would certainly then apply. This would be an interesting situation where science informs the morality calculus which previous generations would not have had the benefit of this knowledge.

Unless and until you can prove this, I think we Catholics need to be open to the idea that some couples, who are not slaves to concupiscence, might be able to engage in this act without sinning. We also need to realize that marriage won’t prevent such an act from not being sinful if they were merely dogs in heat beforehand who are now unleashed by a wedding ceremony. The sin of utilitarianism ignores the wedding.
Click to expand...
As most of the free web based articles on erogenous zones would be immodest in themselves, tell you what - why don’t you do a search or ask your doctor. I do not know your age nor your marital state and would not want to breach the bounds of decorum.
 
Castello said:
As most of the free web based articles on erogenous zones would be immodest in themselves, tell you what - why don’t you do a search or ask your doctor. I do not know your age nor your marital state and would not want to breach the bounds of decorum.
Click to expand...
You’re relying on web-based articles for your science? No scientific journals?
 
bbentrup said:
You’re relying on web-based articles for your science? No scientific journals?
Click to expand...
I am relying on basic biology that I learned in high school. Call your science teacher and ask them.

Seriously, this is common knowledge. If the mouth were not an erog zone, why on God’s green earth would anyone want to mash theirs up against someone elses?
 
Castello said:
I am relying on basic biology that I learned in high school. Call your science teacher and ask them.

Seriously, this is common knowledge. If the mouth were not an erog zone, why on God’s green earth would anyone want to mash theirs up against someone elses?
Click to expand...
Kissing may be pleasurable in and of itself, and a sign that you love someone that you want to share with them. That alone doesn’t mean such activity makes you want to have sex with the kiss partner, as you assert. It might mean that as well, but please cite your source. If you don’t, it makes it look as if you are making it up. Your job is not to show how such kissing can lead to such arousal, but that it necessarily does at all times. If it doesn’t, then each couple should have the freedom to decide that for themselves on a case-by-case basis. If it doesn’t lead to arousal (i.e., temptation for them), then the positive aspects of the sign are not tarnished.

My biology class did not go into such depth. Even if the “can” was explored (which I doubt), the “must” was not. Until you can cite to more credible evidence not based on hearsay, we Catholics have to at least be open to the possibility that such kissing does not with all couples lead to such sexual stimulation. Some may have mastered themselves and are truly acting freely in God’s love.

For what it’s worth, I’ll counter your hearsay evidence with some of my own. I’m happily married for eleven years with three kids. I do not recall extended premarital kissing leading to premarital sex or even its temptation. For me and my fiancee (now my wife), that was a complete non-starter.

Maybe I didn’t appreciate the full ramifications of my conduct; that is entirely possible. I have an open mind, and I’m not even saying you’re wrong. You’re the one with the absolutist position in this debate, and so it would definitely help your cause if you could state your position with more exactness and cite your source (“every 9th-grade biology student knows…” is not good enough).
 
Are there unchaste forms of kissing? yes. Are there dangers in this area? ya sure. Sins? yes.

The reality exists that there is concupscience… The reality is that there can be sins of lust etc. Yes certainly.

But our life in Christ is not about such. It is about following him…knowing true life…authentic love…virtue etc
*
Chastity, modesty, prudence…*

Can there be chaste kisses? Yes of course.

Can there be other forms of chaste and modest signs of affection between those who are not yet married? Yes indeed!

The Church and orthodox Catholic Moral Theology teach the truth about man, about marriage about chastity.

Such is beautifully reasonable, virtuous and freeing.
 
Castello said:
Would you do it in front of her dad, your mom, both grandparents and your parish priest? If not, then don’t do it before you are married.
Click to expand...
I had to chuckle at this one…

This is just an argument for determining if someone has poor taste…not for what is appropriate behavior for couples (whether married or not!). I’m married and would not do that…ewwww!
 
Its not a rule book. Its the principal. This deals with understanding what marriage is and what your relationship is prior to being married. It deals with the language of the body, respecting the procreative and unitive and ultimately marital meaning behind the sexual act. It also deals with acknowledging that even if its ok to do something, it doesn’t mean that its wise. My husband and I were pretty good with being chaste until we became engaged. We still waited, but chastity became 100 times harder. It got to the point where my husband going through a list of all the different things he loved about me were just TOO much. I had to have him stop. And I’m not saying that made me tempted to merely hold his hand. It was…well …very hard to stay in control. Granted the memory of that struggle seemed to have been a gift as once we were married we found I was physically incapable of consumating our marriage. I had to go through physical therapy and my desires became pretty much non-existant. Having that memory that just his words had previously had such a profound effect on me gave me hope to get through.

I’ll say this. Don’t get hard on yourself. Do what you can to reserve the elements of married life for married life. Go to confession regularly. Make a good sincere effort. Its about obediently loving God. Its not about gaining bragging rights about being a virgin on your wedding night. I realized during our engagement part of my motivation was just to have the bragging rights. God showed me. Ha! Now I can brag that not only did I wait till marriage, we didn’t consumate our marriage for the first two months.

Granted not much to brag about. Those first two months…that was a lot of suffering.
 
I am as usual horrified at all the members of the Church who are Catholic in name only. Far be it that we bend ourselves to fit His will, He should fit yours. Women are not to be used, they are to be protected!
 
Morally speaking, there is a difference between kissing a stranger, and kissing a guy you’re courting and kissing a guy you’re engaged to. Its all about what we are communicating through our body language and whether or not we are being honest or lustful. The secular world would say that in the realm of sexual expression, body language goes out the door. We recognize a handshake means something. A nod of the head means something. A smile means something. We know we can be dishonest with your body language. But the secular world sees our drive for sex as different. As such, what is expressed in the secular world is simply the desire to enjoy and indulge in sexual pleasures for recreational purposes.

But the Church reminds us that sexual expression means more to that. As such, objectively speaking, a couple who is close to marrying can physically express more to each other honestly than two people who are strangers.

That said, however, chastity can be a real struggle, especially when you’re engaged. As such, appropriate physical expressions of love can become merely become temptations to do more. Thus it is true that we shouldn’t just be looking at what we can express with honesty, but with avoiding tempting ourselves to express more than is appropriate. As such, a couple can legitimately decide to save their first kiss for their wedding day. Or a couple can be more physically expressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top