Making Out

[tinytherese]

In context, St. Augustine was consoling nuns who had been raped. They were afraid that by being sexually abused, that they had sinned by fornicating. St. Augustine assured them they had not sinned, since they didn't break their vow of chastity because they did not agree to have sex with their rapists.

 

Those who have been sexually assaulted or raped can rest assured that despite being violated, that they are not impure or dirty. This is what St. Augustine is talking about when he's talking about spiritual virginity.

 

He is not saying that if you intentionally masturbate, look at pornography, etc. that you are no longer a virgin. Such actions are of course sins against chastity, but in order to lose your virginity you have to willingly have sex.

[AugustineA]

Wow, 11 pages.. Making out can be seriously dangerous, depending on the context, person, and level of intimacy. I remember a few years ago, too much wine, a girl who liked me too much, and boom.. intense make out session. It feels worse if you've been particularly observant, praying, fasting, attending Mass, confession, and studying regularly. It can really shake you up.

 

That's, I think, significantly different from a young couple on the way to marriage, both practicing Catholics. 

[Lil Red]

Josh Harris who wrote the book "I kissed dating goodbye" claimed that he had.  He even started his own church.  And more recently his church had legal problems because of sexual abuse.. And he admitted that he had been sexually abused as a child...

 

Personally, I don't think it's healthy for Catholics to read Protestant dating/marriage advice books. 

[Lil Red]

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?".

 

this whole thread is cray-cray but your post is hilarious. you're seriously putting masturbation and picking our noses in the same sentence? hahahahahahaha your post is seriously full of straw men. 

[IcePrincessKRS]

This is one of the weirdest threads I've ever read. :huh:

[PhuturePriest]

This is one of the weirdest threads I've ever read. :huh:

 

All of the props I got justify the thread's existence.

[Winchester]

How can someone be unable to spell an activity they clearly perform often and on a near professional level?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

this whole thread is cray-cray but your post is hilarious. you're seriously putting masturbation and picking our noses in the same sentence? hahahahahahaha your post is seriously full of straw men. 

 

Lol, can we please make "picking our noses" the new "eating yogurt"?

Edited March 8, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lil Red]

Lol, can we please make "picking our noses" the new "eating yogurt"?

 

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day" ;) 

[southern california guy]

Lol, can we please make "picking our noses" the new "eating yogurt"?

 

Can "eating yo gurt" lead to out of control sexual urges?  :eek:

Edited March 8, 2014 by southern california guy

[PhuturePriest]

Can "eating yo gurt" lead to out of control sexual urges?  :eek:

 

God forbid someone experience "venereal pleasure" of any kind.

 

I actually had a dream where I looked at this thread and abrideofchrist had been banned. I was confused, because she hadn't done anything ban-worthy. Unless Dust told her that she can never use the word "venereal" on the forum again, and she said "Never! If I can't say it again, you might as well ban me!"

Edited March 8, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Selah]

I love Phatmass dreams. Once I had a dream that then Pope Benedict came to visit.

[southern california guy]

God forbid someone experience "venereal pleasure" of any kind.

I actually had a dream where I looked at this thread and abrideofchrist had been banned. I was confused, because she hadn't done anything ban-worthy. Unless Dust told her that she can never use the word "venereal" on the forum again, and she said "Never! If I can't say it again, you might as well ban me!"

If you don't do it then you won't know how good it feels -- and you will not be tempted.

Wait a second! Isn't "venereal" some sot of disease?!

[arfink]

Every time I see this thread get bumped I am reminded of the thousand-and-so miles between me and my lovvie and how we won't be making out until Easter. Thanks a lot guys. Just turn that knife for me. ;)

[PhuturePriest]

Every time I see this thread get bumped I am reminded of the thousand-and-so miles between me and my lovvie and how we won't be making out until Easter. Thanks a lot guys. Just turn that knife for me. ;)

 

"Lovie"?

 

You disgust me. :P

[chrysostom]

During the canonization proceedings for St. Dominic, an important factor was his virginity (according to Guy Bedouelle, O.P., St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word) - the kind of virginity that abrideofChrist speaks of.  It was seen as approaching martyrdom in the merit of self-denial.  So yes, most people are not virgins in that sense, both back then and now.

 

Of course, the definition of virginity meaningful to most today is abstinence from the fullness of the marital act, and of course the preservation of the female physical sign of virginity has always had its own kind of significance throughout the years.  I guess two (or two and a half) definitions are fighting for the space of one word and that gets confusing.

 

It is indeed much harder to be chaste nowadays.  My opinion is that if in previous generations, making out was indubitably seen as foreplay, it will continue to be, and as such should be limited to marriage.  Perhaps confusion has set in now that so many people do it without ending it in the marital act and thus don't classify it as foreplay per se. 

[PhuturePriest]

During the canonization proceedings for St. Dominic, an important factor was his virginity (according to Guy Bedouelle, O.P., St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word) - the kind of virginity that abrideofChrist speaks of.  It was seen as approaching martyrdom in the merit of self-denial.  So yes, most people are not virgins in that sense, both back then and now.

 

Of course, the definition of virginity meaningful to most today is abstinence from the fullness of the marital act, and of course the preservation of the female physical sign of virginity has always had its own kind of significance throughout the years.  I guess two (or two and a half) definitions are fighting for the space of one word and that gets confusing.

 

It is indeed much harder to be chaste nowadays.  My opinion is that if in previous generations, making out was indubitably seen as foreplay, it will continue to be, and as such should be limited to marriage.  Perhaps confusion has set in now that so many people do it without ending it in the marital act and thus don't classify it as foreplay per se. 

 

The "female physical sign of virginity" is ridiculous and stupid. It's not even a legitimate "sign" of virginity. Something that is commonly destroyed at young ages by riding a bike, exercising, and even medical examinations, has nothing to do with virginity.

 

Just thought I would rant about that. :P I've seen too many people put so much importance on the hymen, when it's really not that important whatsoever. I'm not saying you put importance on it, to be clear.

Edited March 19, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Anastasia13]

During the canonization proceedings for St. Dominic, an important factor was his virginity (according to Guy Bedouelle, O.P., St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word) - the kind of virginity that abrideofChrist speaks of.  It was seen as approaching martyrdom in the merit of self-denial.  So yes, most people are not virgins in that sense, both back then and now.

 

Of course, the definition of virginity meaningful to most today is abstinence from the fullness of the marital act, and of course the preservation of the female physical sign of virginity has always had its own kind of significance throughout the years.  I guess two (or two and a half) definitions are fighting for the space of one word and that gets confusing.

 

It is indeed much harder to be chaste nowadays.  My opinion is that if in previous generations, making out was indubitably seen as foreplay, it will continue to be, and as such should be limited to marriage.  Perhaps confusion has set in now that so many people do it without ending it in the marital act and thus don't classify it as foreplay per se. 

 

French kissing and making out do not automatically lead to sexual intercourse. They can and can cause temptation. Limits, convictions, and great moderation along with when and where help prevent that.  Hugging can lead to more physical contact and things less than kissing can cause someone to be aroused-ask any teenager if they have ever been aroused. Being alone with someone can lead to activity that can lead to sex, yet I don't think it is a sin for a 30-something year old couple to be alone at some point before their wedding day. Since I am disinclined to say that we should only date people we are not attracted to lest we experience arousal or have the thought of sex ever cross our minds, I think it is most important to respect that we have limits of what we can handle so as to not fall into temptation and respect that the marital act belongs in the context of a marriage. Judging based on the existence of arousal, or the exact seconds of a kiss before it becomes sinful or whether contact is limited to just the lips or if tongues touch at all and how much seems a little arbitrary after a while.

 

Does the fact that something can cause arousal automatically make it sinful?

[havok579257]

During the canonization proceedings for St. Dominic, an important factor was his virginity (according to Guy Bedouelle, O.P., St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word) - the kind of virginity that abrideofChrist speaks of.  It was seen as approaching martyrdom in the merit of self-denial.  So yes, most people are not virgins in that sense, both back then and now.

 

Of course, the definition of virginity meaningful to most today is abstinence from the fullness of the marital act, and of course the preservation of the female physical sign of virginity has always had its own kind of significance throughout the years.  I guess two (or two and a half) definitions are fighting for the space of one word and that gets confusing.

 

It is indeed much harder to be chaste nowadays.  My opinion is that if in previous generations, making out was indubitably seen as foreplay, it will continue to be, and as such should be limited to marriage.  Perhaps confusion has set in now that so many people do it without ending it in the marital act and thus don't classify it as foreplay per se. 

 

 

your definition of making out being foreplay makes no sense.  cause even in the confines of a marriage, a couple could not make out unless it lead to the marital act.  to do otherwise would be tsrating something sexual but not finishing which if we stay on the legalistic mindset your going with, means the couple committed a mortal sin by engaing in sexual acts but not being open to life.   

[oremus1]

The "female physical sign of virginity" is ridiculous and stupid. It's not even a legitimate "sign" of virginity. Something that is commonly destroyed at young ages by riding a bike, exercising, and even medical examinations, has nothing to do with virginity.

 

Just thought I would rant about that. :P I've seen too many people put so much importance on the hymen, when it's really not that important whatsoever. I'm not saying you put importance on it, to be clear.

This is true. Without being too graphic for young eyes, it is not, as commonly believed, a blanket shape, but rather, a ring of flesh shaped like a doughnut to allow womens monthly fluids to come out. this aperature (according to Wikipedia) grows larger with age. Also, when the doctor inserts the speculum for medical examinations, such as compulsory smear tests, this will tear it. Also apparantly some women have flexible ones and can engage in relations without it ripping fully.  43% (again, wiki) of women do not bleed in first time intercourse

 

This is why, presumably, Aquinas in Summa (II-II 'on virginity') says that the 'organ of virginity' is accidental, and not indicative of virginity and is to be disregarded.

 

However my priest says that some religious orders require women to be virgins and do require a medical examination to prove it. i dont know if this is true, but Daughters of St Paul in Manila do something like this.

 

your definition of making out being foreplay makes no sense.  cause even in the confines of a marriage, a couple could not make out unless it lead to the marital act.  to do otherwise would be tsrating something sexual but not finishing which if we stay on the legalistic mindset your going with, means the couple committed a mortal sin by engaing in sexual acts but not being open to life.   

it is a weighty thing to disregard aquinas as irrelavent or legalistic