Making Out

[southern california guy]

Here is a critical view on "Christian courting"

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pol3DddDw3w[/media]

[southern california guy]

And here is a review of a book titled "Did I kiss marriage goodbye"

 

Does Kissing Dating Goodbye Lead To Kissing Marriage Goodbye

 

"She then talks about 7 years later (doing the math), most of the women in this bible study group were still surprisingly being single. Notice she says “surprisingly” still single. It is as if she is quite taken aback that most of these women didn’t get married or that in normal circumstances most of these women should have been married. Of course for the younger women in the group, that would only be 20, one wouldn’t expect them to be married. Still her tone is being quite surprised that most of these women weren’t married.

 

Looking at this one would ask, maybe there is a connection between these women “kissing dating goodbye” and “kissing marriage goodbye.” It certainly is something to consider. Is the fact that most of these women didn’t get married when Carolyn McCulley thought they should have been a cause and effect of “kissing dating goodbye” or are they just coincidental? That is, did “kissing dating goodbye” lead to this situation or as my title indicates cause these women to “kiss marriage goodbye?”

 

The book’s foreword was written by Josh Harris who authored the “kissing dating goodbye” book so was I doubtful that Carolyn McCulley would be critical of the approach Josh Harris championed. I obtained and read through the rest of the book and didn’t see where she even asked the question. Maybe she is ignoring the obvious? Maybe being so sold that “kissing dating goodbye” is the “superior alternative” to dating (as a lot who teach that approach seem to be) that seeing this type of connection would be impossible for her?

 

I do realize that in most Christian circles there are typically more single women than single men. With this type of situation, it is probable that at least some single women won’t get married but that wouldn’t lead to most not getting married as Carolyn McCulley observed happening with this group of single women.

 

For those who haven’t read my other blog pages, when I use the term “kissing dating goodbye” I am talking about the approach to single men and women that Josh Harris championed/promoted in his first book. Though it may have some application for teenagers, it many times has lead to older singles almost being “afraid” of those of the opposite sex. Usually in this type of environment, singles are told strongly encouraged to do activities with those of the opposite sex in groups.

 

Those who promote “kissing dating goodbye” typically are quick to point out the problems with dating but “forget” to mention the problems “kissing dating goodbye” has caused over the years. From what I have seen it leads to single learning to avoid relating with those of the opposite sex vs. learning how to. If you want more information on my thoughts on KDG, please see me other blog pages. I have no doubts that this culture where singles are afraid of each other makes it harder for at least some to marry. It could very well cause at least some singles to “kiss marriage goodbye. “

 

One other thought I have is those that the more one has invested in an approach like “kissing dating goodbye” such as with time and past opportunities the harder it is for one to see the problems with it. It is hard to admit that one is wrong. It is even harder to admit the problems when one has invested a lot and thus past up other means and opportunities.

 

 

[Selah]

Ah. I remember that book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye xD

[abrideofChrist]

I know EWTN is not the end all and be all.  I have already quoted the moral theologian in my other thread and gave you guys a very long article to read that put down all kinds of principles and scenarios to determine what was chaste and what wasn't.  Not all forms of dancing are wrong.  That's why it can be helpful to read even if something is long.  But let's cut to the chase and get you a very quick EWTN Q & A about French kissing:

 

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=446085

 

Dear David, Don't blame this kissing on the French; they have already much to answer for. This soul-kissing is seriously sinful since it is meant by nature to arouse one sexually. God bless. Fr.Bob Levis

[Lilllabettt]

ABC i posted this in the consecrated virginity thread and was interested in your thoughts:

 

 

I understand the theology behind it. But I don't buy it. Honestly ... sometimes theology gets lost in its own thought.

 

To me virginity means you have not been united with another created person and become "one flesh" with them in sex. A virgin is someone who has not given their body and soul and willingly had that intense, intimate union with another created person.  Someone who consecrates their virginity forsakes that union with created persons in favor of union with the divine person - that union of which sex is merely a foretaste. 

 

Another thing that strikes me. Union. Takes 2. Something seems deeply off about the idea that a human person can give their virginity to their hand or a romcom or a dance move or whatever.  Virginity and sex are both more powerful and sacred than that. I really think in this area we are in the realm of persons not things or imagination.

 

[abrideofChrist]

ABC i posted this in the consecrated virginity thread and was interested in your thoughts:

 

My thought is that this is that the word "virginity" is understood differently by different people.  Some people and religions consider virginity to be just physical.  Hence the popularity of an operation to "restore" that physical part that was lost for any reason whatsoever.  This operation is essential in certain cultures or you might get stoned to death for something that could have happened quite innocently.  Others correctly say that virginity is not lost when accidents or other actions happen against the will of the woman.  This is true but it is not the whole truth.

 

Our Lady is a Virgin.  Many people today -and even hundreds of years ago- argue that she conceived miraculously but she is not a virgin because she gave birth.  It is dogma that she was a virgin before, during, and after the conception and birth of Jesus Christ.  In her, nothing was destroyed.  The physical sign is still present in her body because Christ was born in a miraculous fashion.  Most people do not accept this dogma because it is easier for them to believe that she was a "spiritual virgin" (virgin in mind) but that she was not physically a virgin. 

 

The Church has always distinguished between sins of the flesh that involve venereal pleasure and those that do not.  The Church's teaching on virginity and chastity is a lot more nuanced than the black and white physical presence/absence of the organ in women.  Anyone can have spiritual virginity.  Few have virginity that is the absence of venereal pleasure.  I feel that part of this reason is that people have been poorly catechized.  When they do not understand what venereal pleasure is, they think that they "can" go to "the limit" which in their mind stops at intercourse and that's not what the Church says.  Fr. Hardon has a good essay on venereal pleasure:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Moral_Theology/Moral_Theology_009.htm

 

St. Augustine and other Fathers had to tell virgins who were violated during the persecutions and barbaric invasions that they were still virgins (because of lack of consent) but that they were no longer virgins in the same sense Our Lady was.  Consent to venereal pleasure is what destroys virginity forever.  Spiritual virginity can always remain in a person but once a person has consented to venereal pleasure, the material element is lost forever.  A person can go to confession and regain spiritual virginity.  But they will not recover material virginity.  This is not news.  People claim that Vat II has changed all our teachings and we are now more enlightened.  This is not true.  Some people claim that a married person with children can be a virgin according to the Theology of the Body teachings.  This is false.  We can all be spiritual virgins but as John Paul II wrote in Love and Responsibility, the marital act renders the person a non-virgin.  He didn't go into all the other acts that destroy virginity because that was not the subject he was on. 

 

Deliberate acts of stimulating venereal pleasure always destroys virginity.  Always.  Hence lesbian relationships, masturbation, heavy petting, French kissing, and all other acts that are by nature designed to arouse are seriously sinful and the people who indulge in them and will the arousal forfeit their virginity.  Self control and prayer, as Fr. Hardon points out, is essential for maintaining one's virginity and chastity.  Bl. Jacinta in Fatima tells us that most of the souls falling like snowflakes into Hell are there because of sins against purity.  That is no surprise.  Most major rifts have begun in the Church over chastity.  Why else are there such passionate discussions about contraception, married clergy, virginity, and so on?  It is because what the Church teaches is very hard to live out, especially when a person is not formed from childhood to be chaste. 

[southern california guy]

My thought is that this is that the word "virginity" is understood differently by different people.  Some people and religions consider virginity to be just physical.  Hence the popularity of an operation to "restore" that physical part that was lost for any reason whatsoever.  This operation is essential in certain cultures or you might get stoned to death for something that could have happened quite innocently.  Others correctly say that virginity is not lost when accidents or other actions happen against the will of the woman.  This is true but it is not the whole truth.

 

Our Lady is a Virgin.  Many people today -and even hundreds of years ago- argue that she conceived miraculously but she is not a virgin because she gave birth.  It is dogma that she was a virgin before, during, and after the conception and birth of Jesus Christ.  In her, nothing was destroyed.  The physical sign is still present in her body because Christ was born in a miraculous fashion.  Most people do not accept this dogma because it is easier for them to believe that she was a "spiritual virgin" (virgin in mind) but that she was not physically a virgin. 

 

The Church has always distinguished between sins of the flesh that involve venereal pleasure and those that do not.  The Church's teaching on virginity and chastity is a lot more nuanced than the black and white physical presence/absence of the organ in women.  Anyone can have spiritual virginity.  Few have virginity that is the absence of venereal pleasure.  I feel that part of this reason is that people have been poorly catechized.  When they do not understand what venereal pleasure is, they think that they "can" go to "the limit" which in their mind stops at intercourse and that's not what the Church says.  Fr. Hardon has a good essay on venereal pleasure:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Moral_Theology/Moral_Theology_009.htm

 

St. Augustine and other Fathers had to tell virgins who were violated during the persecutions and barbaric invasions that they were still virgins (because of lack of consent) but that they were no longer virgins in the same sense Our Lady was.  Consent to venereal pleasure is what destroys virginity forever.  Spiritual virginity can always remain in a person but once a person has consented to venereal pleasure, the material element is lost forever.  A person can go to confession and regain spiritual virginity.  But they will not recover material virginity.  This is not news.  People claim that Vat II has changed all our teachings and we are now more enlightened.  This is not true.  Some people claim that a married person with children can be a virgin according to the Theology of the Body teachings.  This is false.  We can all be spiritual virgins but as John Paul II wrote in Love and Responsibility, the marital act renders the person a non-virgin.  He didn't go into all the other acts that destroy virginity because that was not the subject he was on. 

 

Deliberate acts of stimulating venereal pleasure always destroys virginity.  Always.  Hence lesbian relationships, masturbation, heavy petting, French kissing, and all other acts that are by nature designed to arouse are seriously sinful and the people who indulge in them and will the arousal forfeit their virginity.  Self control and prayer, as Fr. Hardon points out, is essential for maintaining one's virginity and chastity.  Bl. Jacinta in Fatima tells us that most of the souls falling like snowflakes into Hell are there because of sins against purity.  That is no surprise.  Most major rifts have begun in the Church over chastity.  Why else are there such passionate discussions about contraception, married clergy, virginity, and so on?  It is because what the Church teaches is very hard to live out, especially when a person is not formed from childhood to be chaste. 

 

Masterbation??? Seriously haven't we ALL done that?  In that case there are no virgins...

 

I french kissed with girls before I got married... I think that it is probably not a great idea, but that a person still counts as a "virgin" so long as they have not had sexual intercourse.

 

Are we going to have some people argue "Yeah we had sexual intercourse -- but you guys french kissed -- so you are not virgins either!!"

 

I think that the most important thing is that we don't go making babies with people that we don't want to -- or should not -- marry!  And while french kissing won't cause that problem it could lead to sexual intercourse -- that will!

[Lilllabettt]

I think the difference is that while some people (you, abc, if im not misunderstanding) associate virginity with abstinence from sexual pleasure, other people (me) associate virginity with abstinence from sexual intimacy.

 

A person's inner sanctum -body and soul -are both touched in willful sexual intercourse with another person. A virgin is someone whose inner sanctum - body and soul - have not been touched this way.

 

i think you would say not all sins against chastity remove virginity - but that most such sins do in fact remove virginity.

I would say that most sins against chastity do not remove  virginity -- even if they are public and therefore on those grounds disqualify someone for public consecration. Such a person is not disqualified because she is not a virgin but because consecrating her would be a scandal to the faithful.

 

 

 

 

[Selah]

THAT IS RIGHT.

 

NO ONE IS VIRGIN

ALL HAS BEEN SEXED

 

YOU PAY NOW

 

(No, not...not in a mail order bride way...you know what, forget it)

[PhuturePriest]

If I had a drink every time I read the phrase "venereal pleasure" in this thread (And trust me, I wanted one), I would have died within the first two pages. I hadn't even heard the word "venereal" until this thread. I had to look it up.

 

The real question that everyone should be asking is why do you say "venereal" (A phrase that, according to Google, has dropped tremendously in popularity in the past few years) rather than a more commonly used term? Is it because you want me to die of alcohol poisoning?

Edited March 3, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Selah]

If you like it, it's wrong.

 

Ever.

[southern california guy]

THAT IS RIGHT.

 

NO ONE IS VIRGIN

ALL HAS BEEN SEXED

 

YOU PAY NOW

 

(No, not...not in a mail order bride way...you know what, forget it)

 

You're telling me!  I've even got a son on the way!  A son!  :bananarap:

[abrideofChrist]

I think the difference is that while some people (you, abc, if im not misunderstanding) associate virginity with abstinence from sexual pleasure, other people (me) associate virginity with abstinence from sexual intimacy.

 

A person's inner sanctum -body and soul -are both touched in willful sexual intercourse with another person. A virgin is someone whose inner sanctum - body and soul - have not been touched this way.

 

i think you would say not all sins against chastity remove virginity - but that most such sins do in fact remove virginity.

I would say that most sins against chastity do not remove  virginity -- even if they are public and therefore on those grounds disqualify someone for public consecration. Such a person is not disqualified because she is not a virgin but because consecrating her would be a scandal to the faithful.

 

This is a popular view but not the theological view.  Check out the moral theology manuals and read up on venereal pleasure and formal element of virginity.  Masturbation, french kissing, and other actions lead to venereal pleasure. 

[abrideofChrist]

Masterbation??? Seriously haven't we ALL done that?  In that case there are no virgins...

 

I french kissed with girls before I got married... I think that it is probably not a great idea, but that a person still counts as a "virgin" so long as they have not had sexual intercourse.

 

Are we going to have some people argue "Yeah we had sexual intercourse -- but you guys french kissed -- so you are not virgins either!!"

 

I think that the most important thing is that we don't go making babies with people that we don't want to -- or should not -- marry!  And while french kissing won't cause that problem it could lead to sexual intercourse -- that will!

 

No, we have not ALL done that.  We have virgins.  Both men and women are called to be virgins unless they are married.  The Church says that we are given the graces necessary to refrain from sin.  We just have to take advantage of those graces.  Just because many people choose to lose their virginity is not an argument against the existence of virginity or its definition.

[southern california guy]

No, we have not ALL done that.  We have virgins.  Both men and women are called to be virgins unless they are married.  The Church says that we are given the graces necessary to refrain from sin.  We just have to take advantage of those graces.  Just because many people choose to lose their virginity is not an argument against the existence of virginity or its definition.

 

I think I am going to write a book and become really really rich.  I will title it "I kissed my life goodbye".  It will teach people how to live a life that takes a lot of effort and deprives them of many natural human pleasures and satisfactions -- while doing absolutely nothing of any benefit for anybody else.

 

First off I will teach people not to be vain about their looks -- especially concerning the opposite sexes view of us.  We will become know as the "bagheads" -- because we will wear bags over our heads.  No makeup, no fancy hair style.  We won't even wash our hair or brush our teeth.  And we will eat a lot of food and become really really fat.  Eating will be our only pleasure, because excess eating will make us so fat and unattractive to the opposite sex.  Also we will avoid all exercise and sports -- because they are good for us, they are fun, and they make us feel and look better.  We will NOT be narcissists!!!! 

 

Secondly we will absolutely never masterbate or even pick our noses!  We will occupy ourselves by kneeling and praying constantly -- to the point where we absolutely hate the prayers and feel that we are losing our minds.  Not only will we kneel on hard stone floors we will also walk around on our knees.  Even if we have to go into town we will be on our knees.  We will hear little kids asking "Mommy why does that fat woman wear a bag over her head and walk on her knees?".