Making Out

[Slappo]

I agree with everyone who has said that this issue isn't set in stone. It bothers me when we reduce chastity to a list of actions that are and aren't permitted, as this makes it sound as though you're trying to figure out how close you can skirt to a line without crossing it. Chastity is first and foremost an attitude of the heart. It's possible to never kiss or do anything sexual and still be an unchaste person. My first boyfriend was like this. I didn't want to date him, but at nineteen years old I was shy and I struggled to say no to people. He was obsessed with sex. Even holding hands provoked long involved moral musings about what was and wasn't acceptable, and he wanted to talk about this all the time. That's not chastity at all. I think most people are aware of this, deep down, but some people still want every little thing to be set in stone - either because they want to get as close as they legitimately can to sex, or because they suffer from scruples and they want to shy away from it.

 

Yet there are still certain actions that are and aren't permitted... acknowledging that those actions exist is not reducing chastity to them. Certain actions, such as passionate kissing and sex, are reserved for marriage. They should be acknowledged as such, but doing so does reduce chastity to a list.

[cmaD2006]

So ... if and when people think this thread needs to move out of debate table into Raising Small Humans please let us mods know by hitting the report button. 

 

I *think* things are still ok -- although I'm borderline on a few posts.  But if you feel that the topic would be better served in the R.S.H section please let us know.

[tinytherese]

But still, somehow the concept of a guy who never even once picks up the woman he loves in his arms and shares a passionate kiss with her. - I feel like there might be something wrong there.

By "passionate" kiss do you mean, "I'm so happy to see you" and the kiss lasts longer than a split second

or french kissing,

or something else all together?

[tinytherese]

I agree with everyone who has said that this issue isn't set in stone. It bothers me when we reduce chastity to a list of actions that are and aren't permitted, as this makes it sound as though you're trying to figure out how close you can skirt to a line without crossing it.

I agree that chastity isn't simply a list of what we can and can't do, but being specific can be helpful for a lot of people. Providing examples can help them get it more.

Whether or not some forms of physical affection are chaste for a particular person can get more complicated.

I cringe when people say stuff like, "The Church says we can't have sex before marriage, so we won't go all the way. Just as far as we can while still being virgins." Clearly they don't get the true spirit of chastity.

I also agree that your former boyfriend obsessively talking about sex is not being chaste. Edited February 20, 2014 by tinytherese

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I tried making out a few times, i don't really like it, to me it isn't that intimate it made me uncomfortable and activated the sex instinct because it was so uncomfortable and the sex drive to me is a natural response to serious uncomfortablility, to seek comfort when uncomfrtable, it is grotty and messy, and what does it prove that loving words and other actions outside of sex can't prove?  All in all i think making out is a sexual thing from my experience and if used should only be in marriage. This is all just my opinion though.

 

God is GOOD.

[Maggyie]

ABC,  note the web address of your link. It is Family/Parent.txt. It is addressed to parents trying to police the hormonal urges of teenagers.
 

 

 

Consecrated virgin here, dropping in.  CVs naturally need to know how to preserve their virginity and not fall into sins of impurity.  This article on EWTN might be of help for everyone because it explains how arousing activities are not to be done outside of marriage:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/PARENT.TXT

 

I'd suggest reading the whole thing because it's very good but in the meantime, here's part of a paragraph from it:

Finally, if and 
when an adolescent refuses to recognize the danger to himself or 
another (the latter is sometimes more difficult to see), parents 
must indicate the reason behind training in modesty. "These 
attractive parts of the body are used in the preliminaries of the 
marriage act (or, the act from which children come). Since you 
are not married, you have no right to either the marriage act or 
to the preliminaries. So be sensible, guard your eyes, refuse to 
follow the fashion of nudity, of petting, passionate kissing, 
etc., for all these things have the same reasons against them."

 

 

 

By "passionate" kiss do you mean, "I'm so happy to see you" and the kiss lasts longer than a split second

or french kissing,

or something else all together?

 

 

I mean... well any type. French kissing, happy to see you kissing, squeezing your loved one to smithereens in a bear hug kissing.

 

I know my opinion doesn't reflect Mary-like-modesty/traditionalist purity standards. I don't think it's un-Catholic though. If I had a 16 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would be upset, but if I had a 30 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would remind myself it's none of my business. I consider it ridiculous to demand women and men to marry who have never in their whole lives kissed or been kissed (and I mean kissed not pecked at). Although fine for individuals who prefer to conduct themselves that way. I think that standard is a disaster for evangelizing (because it will cause people to laugh at the gospel).

 

I totally agree with the poster who said that this standard also reduces one's chances of matrimony significantly. The number of people of either sex who agree with this standard, who are also suitable spouses, is extraordinarily small. By "suitable" I mean single, not a closeted homosexual, not emotionally stunted, fully mature, and psychologically whole. I remember from my single days that all the normal men who at least respected virginity all seemed to be already married. Or priests.

 

On a side note,this standard also results in couples going from 0 to 60 in one night, which is often extremely unpleasant. Being vague given the minors who might be reading, but ask any woman who has been through that and she will tell you it's close to the truth. At least starting at 10 gives you a fighting chance.

[abrideofChrist]

ABC,  note the web address of your link. It is Family/Parent.txt. It is addressed to parents trying to police the hormonal urges of teenagers.
 

 

Maggie, what principles and examples in the article in the link do you specifically object to or think is not applicable to adults?  I did not copy and paste some of  those sections because some are not appropriate for 14 year olds or younger eyes. I get the distinct impression you have not bothered to read the article in question because you think it is only for adolescents.  Does chastity really change for 18 year olds vs. 27 year olds vs. 97 year olds or is it a matter of unmarried vs. married?  There were dozens upon dozens of very practical scenarios to apply the general principles offered in that article that can take some thoughtful reflection by adults.  I'd be very interested in seeing how you handled those questions raised in the article and tell me how morality would be different for a 46 year old vs. a 17 year old who has been properly catechized. 

[Lilllabettt]

I know my opinion doesn't reflect Mary-like-modesty/traditionalist purity standards. I don't think it's un-Catholic though. If I had a 16 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would be upset, but if I had a 30 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would remind myself it's none of my business. 

 

Not buying it. 

 

If your 30 year old married daughter was contracepting that would also be "none of your business" too, correct?  And yet not kosher.

 

And there is also a difference between "making out" and "kissing" someone.  

Making out is an activity choice, its something people go "do" for a chunk of time - they do it for entertainment purposes. 

You can spontaneously kiss someone in the moment to say "I'll miss you so much" or "I've missed you so much" or "I got the job" or "thanks for the flowers" or "yes I'll marry you." None of that is "making out" - making a plan to go be alone somewhere  together, so you can passionately kiss for the "fun" of it for a stretch of time. 

Edited February 21, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[abrideofChrist]

I mean... well any type. French kissing, happy to see you kissing, squeezing your loved one to smithereens in a bear hug kissing.

 

I know my opinion doesn't reflect Mary-like-modesty/traditionalist purity standards. I don't think it's un-Catholic though. If I had a 16 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would be upset, but if I had a 30 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would remind myself it's none of my business. I consider it ridiculous to demand women and men to marry who have never in their whole lives kissed or been kissed (and I mean kissed not pecked at). Although fine for individuals who prefer to conduct themselves that way. I think that standard is a disaster for evangelizing (because it will cause people to laugh at the gospel).

 

I totally agree with the poster who said that this standard also reduces one's chances of matrimony significantly. The number of people of either sex who agree with this standard, who are also suitable spouses, is extraordinarily small. By "suitable" I mean single, not a closeted homosexual, not emotionally stunted, fully mature, and psychologically whole. I remember from my single days that all the normal men who at least respected virginity all seemed to be already married. Or priests.

 

On a side note,this standard also results in couples going from 0 to 60 in one night, which is often extremely unpleasant. Being vague given the minors who might be reading, but ask any woman who has been through that and she will tell you it's close to the truth. At least starting at 10 gives you a fighting chance.

 

This is like saying a person should test drive a marriage before getting married and cohabit.  French kissing is seriously sinful because of the grave danger of sexual pleasure.  It is wired to be arousing and it doesn't excuse the action if one or both happen to not be aroused by a particular french kiss.  The same goes for ardent kissing.  This is not a matter of traditionalist purity standards, this is a matter of moral theology.  Then again, what do I know?  I do not have those experiences and am just an old celibate woman who shouldn't preach about these things.  You may as well disregard the article too.  It was written by just an old celibate male who knows nothing about human sexuality and morality.  He's only a priest and the foreward is merely written by a priest with a pontifical doctorate in theology and head of the moral theology department at the time at Catholic University of America.  Seriously.  These are the last people you'd want to trust on this subject.  We all know better, of course, because we think that our experience trumps anything the Church might be trying to teach us.  Sadly, we even have the Popes quoted in that article but we know better of course, because we are in the enlightened modern world.
 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think that passionate kissing before marriage actually tempts the couple more... having only a little chaste kiss - like you would give to a relative - would present less temptation, so they can be more pure before marriage. I realize this is not the popular view but again a Pope condemned the view that passionate kissing before marriage is only venially sinful. I'm surprised that so few pay attention to this? I mean this is the Pope and his language sounded 'official' not just like he's stating his opinion on a neutral subject.

[Lilllabettt]

I think that passionate kissing before marriage actually tempts the couple more... having only a little chaste kiss - like you would give to a relative - would present less temptation, so they can be more pure before marriage. I realize this is not the popular view but again a Pope condemned the view that passionate kissing before marriage is only venially sinful. I'm surprised that so few pay attention to this? I mean this is the Pope and his language sounded 'official' not just like he's stating his opinion on a neutral subject.

 

 

Well ... you saying " a pope" said this, you heard this in a sermon once, etc. that won't do it for someone operating in a different order of mind.  You might be one of those folks who will do what someone says just because they say it, and you trust them, they have a great track record ... Great. But "so and so said it" is not a good enough reason for other people.

 

if you are trying to argue from a magisterial p.o.v. then you need to bring in your rationale about what level of the magisterium it is and what kind of assent it demands ...  which something makes me feel like you don't have that formation.

 

btw. Catholicism is not about accepting stuff just because someone says it ... thats just a personality characteristic that some people (maybe you) tend towards.

[CrossCuT]

I think someone should write up a chaste kissing guide and include all the consequences of your actions in red ink with flames around it. Maybe some sparkles...

And then add a voice playback that tells you how indecent of a person you are.

 

It should be hung up in peoples houses so that whenever you start kissing or even think about it, youll be reminded of your sinful ways and avoid the flames of you know where.

[tinytherese]

I know my opinion doesn't reflect Mary-like-modesty/traditionalist purity standards. I don't think it's un-Catholic though. If I had a 16 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would be upset, but if I had a 30 year old daughter who made out with her boyfriend I would remind myself it's none of my business. I consider it ridiculous to demand women and men to marry who have never in their whole lives kissed or been kissed (and I mean kissed not pecked at). Although fine for individuals who prefer to conduct themselves that way. I think that standard is a disaster for evangelizing (because it will cause people to laugh at the gospel).

I totally agree with the poster who said that this standard also reduces one's chances of matrimony significantly. The number of people of either sex who agree with this standard, who are also suitable spouses, is extraordinarily small. By "suitable" I mean single, not a closeted homosexual, not emotionally stunted, fully mature, and psychologically whole. I remember from my single days that all the normal men who at least respected virginity all seemed to be already married. Or priests.

On a side note,this standard also results in couples going from 0 to 60 in one night, which is often extremely unpleasant. Being vague given the minors who might be reading, but ask any woman who has been through that and she will tell you it's close to the truth. At least starting at 10 gives you a fighting chance.

For some people though, (including me,) making out and french kissing are too arousing to handle. Sounds like my odds of finding a husband got significantly reduced.

[PhuturePriest]

For some people though, (including me,) making out and french kissing are too arousing to handle. Sounds like my odds of finding a husband got significantly reduced.

 

I don't think so. I don't even want to kiss a person unless it's my wedding day. That's particularly rare, even among the most traditional couples, but the point is, if a guy isn't willing to stay with you because you won't make out with him, that says a lot more about him than it does about you.

[CrossCuT]

 I don't even want to kiss a person unless it's my wedding day. 

I admire your strength. I wouldnt be able to do that.