Dating/courtships And Physical Touch

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1490039' date='Apr 1 2008, 01:56 AM']In a (Christian) magazine my little sister gets, they pretty much said that touching is wrong and should be saved for marriage...by that I mean, hand holding, hugs, anything. Oh, and saying, "I love you." (For one thing, I don't see a lot of guys getting up the courage to propose if they've never even been told that they are loved...)
Now, I know that the world today often diminishes the value of things, but I don't think that taking it to the other extreme is healthy, either. Seriously, how can you marry someone you've never even held hands with, before? Or said, "I love you," to? How do you show affection? Humans NEED physical touch. It's been proven that premature babies grow faster if they are massaged and held every day. I just don't get where people get some of their ideas.[/quote]
Yeah, that is rather extreme. Why would I even had said yes to my husband when he proposed had I not known he loved me (through touch & words)? I agree that "I love you" can be said too lightly, but that doesn't mean it should never be said. Oh, and all babies do well with touch, and they greatly encourage skin-to-skin contact (here, at least). I also agree that some kissing is completely chaste. Maybe it's just that I have family that expect to be greeted with a kiss on the lips or cheek. So to me that is a sign of affection, but not necessarily sexual (not that it can't be for some, just saying for me).

[johnnydigit]

what this generation won't accept, the next generation will.

all those kisses in my life, i gave them away. i wish i could take them back and only give them to you, my wife, if only i had known..

all those hand-holdings, i gave them away. i wish i could take them back and only give them to you, my wife, if only i had known..

so subjective are we because of our conditioning from our current generation. each generation will have its own values and interpretations of what is acceptable. so where can i find concrete instructions? in the Bible? it seems even then, it was influenced by the culture at the time.

so what am i saying? i dunno. i guess it just depends on your culture or if it arouses you. notice the word "cult" in culture. one of the definitions of a cult: a group that believes in things that go against the norm of its society. so perhaps this thread's focus is, "what is acceptable to the average Catholic who accepts all of the Church's teachings?"

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1490039' date='Mar 31 2008, 07:56 PM']In a (Christian) magazine my little sister gets, they pretty much said that touching is wrong and should be saved for marriage...by that I mean, hand holding, hugs, anything. Oh, and saying, "I cuddle with my weeble and wub you." (For one thing, I don't see a lot of guys getting up the courage to propose if they've never even been told that they are loved...)
Now, I know that the world today often diminishes the value of things, but I don't think that taking it to the other extreme is healthy, either. Seriously, how can you marry someone you've never even held hands with, before? Or said, "I cuddle with my weeble and wub you," to? How do you show affection? Humans NEED physical touch. It's been proven that premature babies grow faster if they are massaged and held every day. I just don't get where people get some of their ideas.[/quote]

for a developing infant and child, you are correct. now consider that the other half of the world (e.g. middle east) have successfully lived for thousands of years with the idea of almost no touching until marriage. there was even a time when this applied to more than half the world. consider also the strictest times during our American history, which allowed hand-holding probably only when ballroom dancing.

so my point, humans (and most mammals) need physical touch for developmental growth, but not as adults. interesting, i wonder why God designed it like this..

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1490039' date='Mar 31 2008, 10:56 PM']Seriously, how can you marry someone you've never even held hands with, before? Or said, "I cuddle with my weeble and wub you," to? How do you show affection? Humans NEED physical touch.[/quote]

And a Christian in India would say, "Seriously, how can you marry someone without your parents and their parents first giving their blessing to the possible union? Why would I say 'I cuddle with my weeble and wub you' to someone I might not even marry? Married couples NEED the support of their family."

There is only one reason to marry: because you choose to cuddle with my weeble and wub that person exclusively for as long as you both shall live. There is no need to hold hands or hear words to make that decision, though admittedly that is part of the process for most couples in our Western culture. You know, I think The Beatles summed it up pretty well in the titles of a couple of little tunes: "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", but "All You Need is cuddle with my weeble and wub".

[LouisvilleFan]

Okay, it's not April Fool's anymore...

[MissScripture]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1491166' date='Apr 2 2008, 12:20 PM']for a developing infant and child, you are correct. now consider that the other half of the world (e.g. middle east) have successfully lived for thousands of years with the idea of almost no touching until marriage. there was even a time when this applied to more than half the world. consider also the strictest times during our American history, which allowed hand-holding probably only when ballroom dancing.

so my point, humans (and most mammals) need physical touch for developmental growth, but not as adults. interesting, i wonder why God designed it like this..[/quote]
I think that is incorrect. I have worked with a variety of people, and everyone I have worked with responds better to physical touch. I worked with elderly, and the only way I could get one lady to calm down was to hold her hand. I worked with an Alzheimer's patient, and the only way he would respond to me sometimes is if I would put my hand on his shoulder, or hold his hand. I, myself, NEED the physical touch. If I go for a long time without hugs and an arm around the shoulder, I start to lose it. Maybe I'm just psychotic, but I cannot go for too long without someone touching me, or I seriously start to break down. It's part of knowing you are a loveable person.

So, the next time your significant other starts crying, what's a person supposed to do? Sit there across the room and say, "It's okay, it'll be alright. And in a few years we can get married and I can give you a hug!" Pardon me if I think that's utterly idiotic.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1491202' date='Apr 2 2008, 01:02 PM']And a Christian in India would say, "Seriously, how can you marry someone without your parents and their parents first giving their blessing to the possible union? Why would I say 'I cuddle with my weeble and wub you' to someone I might not even marry? Married couples NEED the support of their family."

There is only one reason to marry: because you choose to cuddle with my weeble and wub that person exclusively for as long as you both shall live. There is no need to hold hands or hear words to make that decision, though admittedly that is part of the process for most couples in our Western culture. You know, I think The Beatles summed it up pretty well in the titles of a couple of little tunes: "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", but "All You Need is cuddle with my weeble and wub".[/quote]
And you know what? I'd totally agree with the Christians in India, about wanting a blessing. But you know what? You can l ove someone and not marry them. I say I l ove you to my friends. Does that mean I want to marry them all? Heck, no! Does that lessen the meaning any? I don't think so. Like I said, "I l ove you" shouldn't be thrown around carelessly. I think it should only be said if it is meant, but I can't imagine my family giving a blessing to a realtionship where we had never even said, "I l ove you."

Edited April 3, 2008 by MissScripture

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1491819' date='Apr 3 2008, 01:36 PM']And you know what? I'd totally agree with the Christians in India, about wanting a blessing. But you know what? You can l ove someone and not marry them. I say I l ove you to my friends. Does that mean I want to marry them all? Heck, no! Does that lessen the meaning any? I don't think so. Like I said, "I l ove you" shouldn't be thrown around carelessly. I think it should only be said if it is meant, but I can't imagine my family giving a blessing to a realtionship where we had never even said, "I l ove you."[/quote]
To expand on that last statement, saying "I l.ove you" can also be indicative of the decision to l.ove that person, and not just an emotion. So even in an arranged marriage situation, I could see that.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1491819' date='Apr 3 2008, 06:36 AM']I think that is incorrect. I have worked with a variety of people, and everyone I have worked with responds better to physical touch. I worked with elderly, and the only way I could get one lady to calm down was to hold her hand. I worked with an Alzheimer's patient, and the only way he would respond to me sometimes is if I would put my hand on his shoulder, or hold his hand. I, myself, NEED the physical touch. If I go for a long time without hugs and an arm around the shoulder, I start to lose it. Maybe I'm just psychotic, but I cannot go for too long without someone touching me, or I seriously start to break down. It's part of knowing you are a loveable person.

So, the next time your significant other starts crying, what's a person supposed to do? Sit there across the room and say, "It's okay, it'll be alright. And in a few years we can get married and I can give you a hug!" Pardon me if I think that's utterly idiotic.
And you know what? I'd totally agree with the Christians in India, about wanting a blessing. But you know what? You can l ove someone and not marry them. I say I l ove you to my friends. Does that mean I want to marry them all? Heck, no! Does that lessen the meaning any? I don't think so. Like I said, "I l ove you" shouldn't be thrown around carelessly. I think it should only be said if it is meant, but I can't imagine my family giving a blessing to a realtionship where we had never even said, "I l ove you."[/quote]

what you say is obvious. what you insinuated earlier was that it was practically NECESSARY. i was trying to show you that you think it is necessary because it is ingrained in you from our western culture of today. i was trying to show you that countless civilizations today and past don't feel it is necessary. if it isn't even necessary for an adult human, it is definitely not necessary for courtship.

it has been scientifically proven that babies need touch, but not adults. fight it all you want. another example are the millions of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, and even those from other religions. they don't need touch. it's nice, but it's not necessary. for the Christian, God is all you need.

a man and woman who are courting need only to develop their profound luv of God and they will be fulfilled. they need not touch, not speak, or even look at each other until they marry, and yet they can still have a perfectly happy marriage and raise a good family, all because they have God at the center. ancient traditions have proven this.

God teaches us to know what we need in the purest form, not what we want.

Edited April 3, 2008 by johnnydigit

[johnnydigit]

what's with the l-o-v-e changing to "cuddle with my weeble and wub"?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1491819' date='Apr 3 2008, 09:36 AM']I think that is incorrect. I have worked with a variety of people, and everyone I have worked with responds better to physical touch. I worked with elderly, and the only way I could get one lady to calm down was to hold her hand. I worked with an Alzheimer's patient, and the only way he would respond to me sometimes is if I would put my hand on his shoulder, or hold his hand. I, myself, NEED the physical touch. If I go for a long time without hugs and an arm around the shoulder, I start to lose it. Maybe I'm just psychotic, but I cannot go for too long without someone touching me, or I seriously start to break down. It's part of knowing you are a loveable person.[/quote]

That's a good point. I think the question may be more accurately aimed at whether you need physical touch to decide you're going to marry a certain person? I have a feeling that even in India the man and woman at least hug and possibly exchange a kiss on the cheek, though I'm not Indian and can't claim to know the culture that well. What I know is mostly from a Christian grad student friend in college who flew home at one point to meet a girl his parents had chosen, then flew back to marry her a few months later, and a few months after that she finally got her visa to move here and they were clearly an awesome couple.

That's when I started to joke with people that I was gonna get my parents to do that for me

Physical touch is very powerful precisely because we need and crave it, which is why we also much be careful in how we touch, especially in romantic relationships where the emotional and spiritual investment is so much higher.

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1491819' date='Apr 3 2008, 09:36 AM']And you know what? I'd totally agree with the Christians in India, about wanting a blessing. But you know what? You can l ove someone and not marry them. I say I l ove you to my friends. Does that mean I want to marry them all? Heck, no! Does that lessen the meaning any? I don't think so. Like I said, "I l ove you" shouldn't be thrown around carelessly. I think it should only be said if it is meant, but I can't imagine my family giving a blessing to a realtionship where we had never even said, "I l ove you."[/quote]

Yeah, I'm assuming that any references to the l-word in this thread are of the romantic variety. Of course, IIRC, it's worth mentioning that the Greek equivalent, eros, is never used in the Bible. Also, another Christian friend of mine actually didn't say "I l-word you" to his girlfriend until he was on his knee in front of her. I think they had talked about that and decided to avoid saying that to each other until they were ready for the marriage covenant in which said l-word (in the romantic sense) culminates.

Edited April 3, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1483968' date='Mar 25 2008, 03:37 PM']My SO and I have gone up to the line (intercourse) but not crossed. We agreed that we have to reign things back from the point we were at, but we are not cutting out French kissing. We are not officially engaged yet but have expressed the desire to marry each other, so in my mind that gives a little more leeway. We have already talked about getting married in a little less than a year, and are starting to figure out where we will do that, etc. As a couple, we are growing closer emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. While we are not going to consummate our relationship before marriage, physical closeness increases too. It is part of affirming that we love each other, and find each other physically attractive, and as long as we don't go "all the way" and keep boundaries in place to help guard against hormone-induced poor judgment, we are both comfortable with where things stand physically. Including French kissing.[/quote]

saying you've gone up to the "line" but not crossed says alot more than your willing to admit.

May I recommend Theology of the Body, Three to get Married, and Love and Responsibility? Also, the [url="http://www.pureloveclub.com"]pureloveclub[/url]?

Chaste is not just not having sex, but being pure with the one you love and guarding your loves' pureness. And if it's true love, you'll both keep yourselves far from ever reaching the "line" again and being fully aware and honest how each of you react to physical closeness. Jason Evert puts it pretty bluntly when he states if you'd allow that to happen with your future spouse, because your boyfriend may very well be someone else's husband and you may be someone else's future wife.

God Bless.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1494585' date='Apr 7 2008, 07:44 PM']saying you've gone up to the "line" but not crossed says alot more than your willing to admit.

May I recommend Theology of the Body, Three to get Married, and Love and Responsibility? Also, the [url="http://www.pureloveclub.com"]pureloveclub[/url]?

Chaste is not just not having sex, but being pure with the one you love and guarding your loves' pureness. And if it's true love, you'll both keep yourselves far from ever reaching the "line" again and being fully aware and honest how each of you react to physical closeness. Jason Evert puts it pretty bluntly when he states if you'd allow that to happen with your future spouse, because your boyfriend may very well be someone else's husband and you may be someone else's future wife.

God Bless.[/quote]

agreed. until God binds what man cannot unbind (the "i do"), ideally you shouldn't be taking your SO anywhere near that line. "how far would you take them to the edge of a cliff?" hopefully not anywhere near it. more like, safely on the sidewalk.

[Deb]

I guess you could have a short "french kiss" that I guess wouldn't be particularly immoral, however I find the idea of sticking your tongue down someones throat and vice versa to be a bit repulsive....
[/quote]

ahhh, ye not of what you speak.

[johnnydigit]

imo, french kissing would not be appropriate. they seem to be intended for arousal, and not for greetings or simple affections. do you tongue hello to anyone else? handshakes, hugs, and pecks seem reasonable, but not tongue dancing. how about an intercourse hello?

putting it into the context of a future mate is a good idea. would you feel comfortable knowing that someone else gyrated their tongue in your husband's or wife's mouth?

[praying4carmel]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1483310' date='Mar 24 2008, 10:16 PM']while going through your list, i was surprised that i thought, "wow, imagine how in love and how special, and how intense it would be if we were to not even so much as arouse each other, to always play it safe and stop, and remain faithful until our wedding night. it would be like fireworks!" oh how difficult it would be in this day and age..

[url="http://www.pureloveclub.com/"]http://www.pureloveclub.com/[/url][/quote]

I think it's a wonderful idea JohnnyD, However for most women, the wedding night is less than fireworks!
It might be for the guy but for the woman alas, no.