Dating/courtships And Physical Touch

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh dear. I hate this thread. Who bumped it?

[picchick]

muhahahahahahahaha.....




i didn't.

[jeffpugh]

Muhahahaha.....


I can attest to that

[Resurrexi]

It still disgusts me that Catholics would approve of frenching, making out, petting, and groping anyone to whom one is not married.

[Christie_M]

are you getting that information from the poll or from posts?

[VeniteAdoremus]

I kissed a guy's hands last Saturday...

And I'm not married to him. (Although someone asked him whether I was his wife once.)

To be fair, he was (is) a newly ordained priest and it's proper etiquette .

But to get back on topic:
I'm a cuddling person. So I cuddle. Fortunately I have friends (male and female) who are also cuddly people. I watched the film "Karol" with my back against the knees/shins (under three layers of habit) of a 48-year old sister because 1. we were out of chairs and 2. we were emotional, and I have done similar things with guys back when I still dated. I don't see a problem with that.

At the same time, there are a few people who give me the wrong "vibes", and I won't even allow them to straighten my choir surplice. So I agree wholeheartedly with the people who pointed out that intent is half the battle.

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, I hope we all can be unanimous about that. Intent can make or break an action. "Is it for the best of the other person or solely for my own gain?" that is the question to ask. It's not the only question, but it should be one of the first...

[AngelofMusic]

As a 'young in' I can see why maybe the poll indicates that people are ok with making out and the like. I don't like it much.. a simple kiss on the lips or cheek is perfectly fine with me. I don't really like PDA anyways.. especially not in church. Maybe holding hands would be alright. Hugging is fine.. but the hug cannot last too long unless there is an extenuating circumstance [I believe someone mentioned his girlfriend's mother dying].

Before marriage, I think massages would be ok if the person's back or feet were in a lot of pain and the other person was simply trying to alleviate that pain. A head in the lap and sitting on someone's lap would be ok only if there is a pillow and you are COMPLETELY out of chairs and the floor is not really in a sittable place/condition. Groping and beyond DEFINITELY not.

But that's just me.

Edited June 14, 2009 by AngelofMusic

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1886609' date='Jun 8 2009, 03:41 PM']It still disgusts me that Catholics would approve of frenching, making out, petting, and groping anyone to whom one is not married.[/quote]

I think "approve" might be too strong of a word. But... hypothetically speaking of course.. a lot of us have done these things. However we didn't take any clothes off and have sex!

Yes its probably not the best behavior possible but I have had a girlfriend sit on my lap in her hot tub and we um.. messaged each other. And maybe even kissed.

And even worse I've been to some movies that got a bit boring.. and then.. well you know.. maybe her leg and thigh leaned against mine.. and maybe I accidentally rubbed her leg with my hand.. and she maybe rubbed my legs too.. and maybe she rested her head against mine.. and maybe we rubbed arms and held hands... and had to sit through all of the credits at the end of the movie -- because I was maybe a bit um.. aroused.

Did we go too far? I don't know... I'm don't think that I'm shallow or anything.. but don't think that I would go out with a girl/woman that I didn't find attractive.. And it is awfully tempting to be a little affectionate -- within bounds!

Edited June 14, 2009 by southern california guy

[Guest lmgilbert]

Well, I've heard on Dr Dobson, and personal experience bears it out, that when physical affection begins, it is naturally progressive. Holding hands is a typical first gesture, but after a while it is not enough. So with the first physical expression, the clock is ticking so to speak. In terms of maintaining one's chastity, the longer that first gesture can be put off the better.

Secondly, we live in a very loose culture, so it is safer to assume that our own moral outlook is somewhat affected by it for the worse. In other words, you can't really go very wrong by being (what seems to be) too strait-laced. Emphatically, you want to err on the side of chastity and holiness.

Thirdly, growing up in this culture means having an imagination filled with all sorts of bad example, across the whole spectrum of sexual expression. We don't want to put ourselves in a situation where our moral principles gradually surrender command to our imagination and feelings. The moment when that happens is not always a sharply drawn line.

From the get-go of every relationship, the assumption should be that this relationship can lead to marriage. Since marriage is for a lifetime, you want to have the best marriage possible, and for that you want to have the blessing of God. But I have never known a couple who sexually indulged before marriage (and here I am not necessarily speaking of intercourse) who did not feel the lash one way or another after their marriage. I have seen it again and again.

Putting it starkly, you have no right to ANY sexual indulgence before marriage. Guys, until you've exchanged vows, you have no right to her, period.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='lmgilbert' post='1890498' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:04 PM']Well, I've heard on Dr Dobson, and personal experience bears it out, that when physical affection begins, it is naturally progressive. Holding hands is a typical first gesture, but after a while it is not enough. So with the first physical expression, the clock is ticking so to speak. In terms of maintaining one's chastity, the longer that first gesture can be put off the better.
...[/quote]
That's interesting. I think I understand 'cause after the first "gesture", you become more desensitised and "need" more "stimulation" to get the same feeling of affection. I guess chastity keeps this in line though. As for the rest of the post, I'll keep that in mind too. Thanks for your thoughts. And welcome to Phatmass!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='lmgilbert' post='1890498' date='Jun 14 2009, 04:04 PM']Putting it starkly, you have no right to ANY sexual indulgence before marriage. Guys, until you've exchanged vows, you have no right to her, period.[/quote]
How do you personally specifically define "sexual indulgence"?

[HisChildForever]

First let me state that I completely understand and accept the Church's stance on sexuality, courtship, marriage, etc. Just so there's no confusion.

As a 21 year old, I have to say that when I think about dating, the future looks pretty bleak. I have yet to meet someone my age - with the exception of my seminarian friends - who would follow the "Catholic way" of dating. Obviously I first need to be asked out on a date, but in all honesty sometimes I wonder what the point is in dating someone my age who is not a devout Catholic. (And it's not like devout Catholic men in their 20's are easy to find.) You go out a few times with the non-Catholic, awesome. But once things turn serious, your now significant other WILL want to be intimate with you. A lot of them do NOT mean anything disrespectful by this, they just are in love and want to show that affection physically - in the most intimate kind of way. They simply do not know any better. Even if this person had the best intentions (they don't view sex as a "fun time"), they WILL struggle with chastity and there will be numerous problems in the relationship, EVEN IF they are a wonderful and caring person. It's just really frustrating, because any time you are asked out by a "secular" guy/girl, there is the possibility that feelings will develop and a relationship will bloom; and you are then on a rocky, rocky path - and you are so entangled in one another that you WILL stay together but be constantly at odds with each other, something that is not healthy at all. In all honesty, what are the chances that a devout Catholic and a non-Catholic (I should say a non-religious) can have a successful, beautiful, healthy, PURE, relationship? I know it has happened, but the chances are slim. ESPECIALLY when you are in your 20s and people your age who are "secular" want to go out, drink, party, and sleep with their girlfriends/boyfriends.

Just think about it. You have been dating someone (say an agnostic) for 3 months, you just made it official, and they try and give you a "deep" kiss. When you politely pull back and explain that it's inappropriate, the relationship is pretty much over.

It almost makes sense to wait until the early 30s to date, because by then both parties are out in the work force and just more mature and professional. Going on dates in your 30s is just different (I would imagine) because by that point, while the physical connection would be nice, you put more weight on the emotional connection (whereas in your 20s the weight is pretty much evenly distributed). Therefore that person would be more willing to wait, whereas the 20-something year old wants to have sex.

Maybe my thoughts are WAY off here, of course there are exceptions, but this is just a general musing on my end. A lot of what I said is really biased, because I was involved with someone who was irreligious and when I tried to explain to him that we couldn't do X Y and Z anymore, he genuinely didn't get it. He told me that he was in love with me and that sometimes he couldn't find the words to express this, and expressing it physically made it all the more powerful. Believe me, the relationship was not healthy for other reasons, but this guy was being genuine. He really didn't get it. It just comes to a point where there's only so much you can do to explain.

Edited June 15, 2009 by HisChildForever

[missionseeker]

My dad wasn't wasn't even baptized when my mother married him. My sister is engaged to a not-really-religious-guy who has had no problems with her stand on this. In fact, he is really in agreement with her. Which his parents don't even get. so.. it's not hopeless.

Not recommended, either.

Just not hopeless.

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1890662' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:43 PM']First let me state that I completely understand and accept the Church's stance on sexuality, courtship, marriage, etc. Just so there's no confusion.

As a 21 year old, I have to say that when I think about dating, the future looks pretty bleak. I have yet to meet someone my age - with the exception of my seminarian friends - who would follow the "Catholic way" of dating. Obviously I first need to be asked out on a date, but in all honesty sometimes I wonder what the point is in dating someone my age who is not a devout Catholic. (And it's not like devout Catholic men in their 20's are easy to find.) You go out a few times with the non-Catholic, awesome. But once things turn serious, your now significant other WILL want to be intimate with you. A lot of them do NOT mean anything disrespectful by this, they just are in love and want to show that affection physically - in the most intimate kind of way. They simply do not know any better. Even if this person had the best intentions (they don't view sex as a "fun time"), they WILL struggle with chastity and there will be numerous problems in the relationship, EVEN IF they are a wonderful and caring person. It's just really frustrating, because any time you are asked out by a "secular" guy/girl, there is the possibility that feelings will develop and a relationship will bloom; and you are then on a rocky, rocky path - and you are so entangled in one another that you WILL stay together but be constantly at odds with each other, something that is not healthy at all. In all honesty, what are the chances that a devout Catholic and a non-Catholic (I should say a non-religious) can have a successful, beautiful, healthy, PURE, relationship? I know it has happened, but the chances are slim. ESPECIALLY when you are in your 20s and people your age who are "secular" want to go out, drink, party, and sleep with their girlfriends/boyfriends.[/quote]

I always found dating outside of the Faith is frustrating. I have also witnessed people who dated outside of their faith and made excuses like they are witnessing to them about the faith while they are dating them; absurd nonetheless.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1890662' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:43 PM']Just think about it. You have been dating someone (say an agnostic) for 3 months, you just made it official, and they try and give you a "deep" kiss. When you politely pull back and explain that it's inappropriate, the relationship is pretty much over.[/quote]

Not always true, but I am sure it happens alot. I have seen a relationship where the man intended to do the deed/sex one night with a pretty gal he met and the next thing he knew he was on the ground in pain as he realized that she kneed him in the groin just for trying to give her a peck on the cheek. Three years later they got married, as she made him wait for a kiss all the way to their wedding day. This was my cousin who lives in San Diego CA.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1890662' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:43 PM']It almost makes sense to wait until the early 30s to date, because by then both parties are out in the work force and just more mature and professional. Going on dates in your 30s is just different (I would imagine) because by that point, while the physical connection would be nice, you put more weight on the emotional connection (whereas in your 20s the weight is pretty much evenly distributed). Therefore that person would be more willing to wait, whereas the 20-something year old wants to have sex.[/quote]

Also, not always true but sadly common. Date in your 20's and do not settle for anything less than what you desire in a man who is to be the Priest in your home and the bringer of little joys in your world. If you are intended for marriage then by all means go out, but here is something: Do not date. Just befriend them and go and have fun, but not date. A "Date" creates an image of what people are supposed to do when out with the opposite sex. "Dating" has this misnomer about it that makes the psyche overflow with images of hearts and sexual phantasy. Befriending creates the image of friendship as the center, which love is also involved. I hope you befriend your future husband, if God so wills it and I hope you avoid "dating" altogether.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1890662' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:43 PM']Maybe my thoughts are WAY off here, of course there are exceptions, but this is just a general musing on my end. A lot of what I said is really biased, because I was involved with someone who was irreligious and when I tried to explain to him that we couldn't do X Y and Z anymore, he genuinely didn't get it. He told me that he was in love with me and that sometimes he couldn't find the words to express this, and expressing it physically made it all the more powerful. Believe me, the relationship was not healthy for other reasons, but this guy was being genuine. He really didn't get it. It just comes to a point where there's only so much you can do to explain.[/quote]

No need to explain. I hate the word love sometimes, especially when it is overused.
An old associate of mine who happens to be Roman Catholic once explained to me what love is. Love is not the feeling you get when you are out on your date in a movie theatre when you touch hands in the popcorn. Love is not the time when you drop to one knee and propose to live the rest of your life with that one person. Love is not the time when you walk down the aisle and say "I do" or "I will". Love is not the time you make up after you have your fifth argument in one week after being married for a year. Love is not the time you have your first child together. Love is not the first time you celebrated your 10th anniversary together.

Love is the time you held his/her hand when they were in more pain than they could bare. Love is when you carried your spouse to the toilet when they could no longer walk to it, and helped them with every duty needed. Love is when you can wake up after a horrible night in disagreement, still be in disagreement and still be able to tend to their needs and wants even in anger. Love is being able to wake up and admit you were wrong when you were. Love is being able to listen even if you heard it said 1000 times 1000. And finally love is being able to see them at their worst and accept them as they see you at your worst and accept them. This does not take place right away and in some marriages it can take place after fifty years of marriage. but you are not in love until you can do all this and much more.

This is why marriage councilors roll their eyes when they hear "we're in love and want to get married"...