Making Out

[Maggyie]

restrictive marriage pools can make it easier to find a spouse than not -- I mean statistically speaking. The pool is smaller both for you and for your future spouse who is presumably also looking. You are more likely to spot him and he is more likely to spot you. Like Maggie - she married the first person she dated. It actually wasn't that hard for her. The only "hard" part was finding someone TO date. She had to make a specific effort to seek out people in the pool she was interested in. Many people without "standards" don't ever do that - and their pool is so big to begin its hard to see and be seen.

I get what you are saying, but statistics don't bear this out. You're absolutely right that the challenge was finding someone TO date - and if you are looking for something very specific you could be looking a long, long time for someone who is date-worthy. The larger the pool, the better chance you will find what you are looking for. If your pool is too small you may never find what you're looking for, as it may simply not exist in that small of a pool.

Now we get into whether, not finding what you're looking for (a spouse who you love and who loves you) it is appropriate to settle for what is close to what you were looking for. Whole can of worms. But suffice to say I don't think people with an authentic vocation to marriage should settle.

[maximillion]

Many Amish people have 'hands off' courtships. This means they sit next to each other and share body warmth, and they can hold hands, but nothing more.

 

 

Many of the same also support and practise 'bundling'.

 

 

Each of them is sewn into a blanket and they are permitted to spend the night in the same bed (hands are not free). This is only permitted once the couple have stated the intention of marrying. 

 

While their search for a partner is easier in that in each local community they both know and have grown up with the possibilities, they are limited to other Amish, people in their own or a very limited ( by a buggy ride distance) local community, and the rules of the local church group.

 

 

They seem to manage!

I guess it helps knowing that all of the potential partners hold roughly the same moral standards. 

[Maggyie]

Many Amish people have 'hands off' courtships. This means they sit next to each other and share body warmth, and they can hold hands, but nothing more.


Many of the same also support and practise 'bundling'.


Each of them is sewn into a blanket and they are permitted to spend the night in the same bed (hands are not free). This is only permitted once the couple have stated the intention of marrying.

While their search for a partner is easier in that in each local community they both know and have grown up with the possibilities, they are limited to other Amish, people in their own or a very limited ( by a buggy ride distance) local community, and the rules of the local church group.


They seem to manage!
I guess it helps knowing that all of the potential partners hold roughly the same moral standards.

Well this is what I mean. If we are using subcultures like the Amish as an example of how courtship is supposed to work, we are in trouble. I can just see myself explaining chastity to my coworkers: "what about being sewn into a blanket once you are engaged! That's a great way to increase the intimacy level in a totally chaste way!" That's what the good news about sexuality is all about - sharing body heat and having your hands tied down.

I love the Amish but they are kind of the prime example why limited dating pools are terrible when they get extremely small. The rate of genetic disease is awful in these teensy sexual groups like the Amish.

[Lilllabettt]

Well, Jewish people have a higher rate of genetic disease, too. Should the give up their values to "dilute the pool."

Although this is kind a weird kind of non issue to bring up because I'm pretty sure the dating pool of catholics who don't want to make out before marriage isn't so small it will cause genetic disease.

[Lilllabettt]

I get what you are saying, but statistics don't bear this out. You're absolutely right that the challenge was finding someone TO date - and if you are looking for something very specific you could be looking a long, long time for someone who is date-worthy. The larger the pool, the better chance you will find what you are looking for. If your pool is too small you may never find what you're looking for, as it may simply not exist in that small of a pool.

 

But did it take you a real long time? How long were you on that website -- a month maybe?

[Maggyie]

Agreed. In fact, the article I linked to previously actually has two whole sections on remote preparation for marriage and proximate preparation for marriage and the principles of morality remain the same as for teens. Those sections point out the difference between married chastity and single chastity for adults. Ahem. I was waiting to see if anyone would bring this up because that would prove somebody bothered to read it, but I think people prefer to hear the sound of their own words than read something that has value. French kissing is still off the table for unmarried adults because of its biological nature as arousing.

ABC, your snide tone is frankly sad for someone in a public vocation like your own. I read the (extremely long) piece when you posted it, and as I pointed out to you, it is for parents attempting sex education for their children, complete with helpful explanations about menstruation and nocturnal emissions. It's also about 60 years out of date psychologically - my favorite part is where (paraphrasing) the author talks about how "two weeks before their wedding, Mary and Bill read a book explaining the facts of life, and this violently excited them, which they did not consent to with their wills" and the author goes on to reassure the reader that this couple did not commit a mortal sin by reading the book "because they were obtaining necessary information."

Two weeks before the wedding! What an revelatory experience that must have been. The author presents this example as ordinary and normal.

Your posting of this text is a great example of how the Church's approach to sex education and chastity teaching is designed strictly for managing teenagers - there is NOTHING for adults. No, the resources and guidelines for youths can not all be made to stretch to fit mature men and women. There are general principles, but you can not hand a teenager a manual on sexuality and expect it to guide him through all adult relationships. The Church loses so much credibility among young people this way.

[abrideofChrist]

ABC, your snide tone is frankly sad for someone in a public vocation like your own. I read the (extremely long) piece when you posted it, and as I pointed out to you, it is for parents attempting sex education for their children, complete with helpful explanations about menstruation and nocturnal emissions. It's also about 60 years out of date psychologically - my favorite part is where (paraphrasing) the author talks about how "two weeks before their wedding, Mary and Bill read a book explaining the facts of life, and this violently excited them, which they did not consent to with their wills" and the author goes on to reassure the reader that this couple did not commit a mortal sin by reading the book "because they were obtaining necessary information."

Two weeks before the wedding! What an revelatory experience that must have been. The author presents this example as ordinary and normal.

Your posting of this text is a great example of how the Church's approach to sex education and chastity teaching is designed strictly for managing teenagers - there is NOTHING for adults. No, the resources and guidelines for youths can not all be made to stretch to fit mature men and women. There are general principles, but you can not hand a teenager a manual on sexuality and expect it to guide him through all adult relationships. The Church loses so much credibility among young people this way.

 

Maggie, I think other people can read the article and come to a different conclusion.  The details "of the facts of life" can include positions and other things which are not appropriate for most people who are not on the threshold of marriage.  Are you seriously saying those of us who are unmarried need to know those things?

[PhuturePriest]

Well, Jewish people have a higher rate of genetic disease, too. Should the give up their values to "dilute the pool."

Although this is kind a weird kind of non issue to bring up because I'm pretty sure the dating pool of catholics who don't want to make out before marriage isn't so small it will cause genetic disease.

 

It also helps that a majority of Catholics in that category are generally not related to each other.

[MissyP89]

Just something I'm thinking about:

 

If the goal is avoiding arousal, you're gonna have a bad time, at least in my experience. As others have noted, sometimes simply being around the person you love most can set off biological and emotional arousal. If we should flee from anything that stirs up those feelings, I honestly don't know how we're supposed to be in a romantic relationship at all.

 

This isn't a statement for/against making out. I'm rather talking about those who mention we shouldn't be aroused like that before marriage.

[PhuturePriest]

Just something I'm thinking about:

 

If the goal is avoiding arousal, you're gonna have a bad time, at least in my experience. As others have noted, sometimes simply being around the person you love most can set off biological and emotional arousal. If we should flee from anything that stirs up those feelings, I honestly don't know how we're supposed to be in a romantic relationship at all.

 

This isn't a statement for/against making out. I'm rather talking about those who mention we shouldn't be aroused like that before marriage.

 

Readers, keep in mind I don't know anything about relationships, so take this thought as an idea that is open to being more properly formed. ;)

 

I think the idea definitely shouldn't be to avoid any and all arousal, because you'll basically be stuck doing nothing else but two word text messages to each other every other week. Arousal is inevitable, so perhaps the idea should be learning how to manage it, and making sure you aren't unnecessarily running into situations you know will make you aroused.

[Lilllabettt]

Just something I'm thinking about:

 

If the goal is avoiding arousal, you're gonna have a bad time, at least in my experience. As others have noted, sometimes simply being around the person you love most can set off biological and emotional arousal. If we should flee from anything that stirs up those feelings, I honestly don't know how we're supposed to be in a romantic relationship at all.

 

This isn't a statement for/against making out. I'm rather talking about those who mention we shouldn't be aroused like that before marriage.

 

Well ... do you see a difference between being in the same room with someone and getting aroused and making plans to go somewhere private and isolated with that someone so you can make out with them and get aroused?

 

why do most people people make out in private?  Sometimes people make out in public, and observers will tell them to "get a room."  Why is that, do you think?

[NotreDame]

why do most people people make out in private?  Sometimes people make out in public, and observers will tell them to "get a room."  Why is that, do you think?

Or like in latin america where everybody lives at home, so couples are forced to use park benches and "cuddle" on the grass. It's pretty much a staple of life south of the border.  Otherwise, I loathe PDA and view it as a sign of weakness in a guy.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we can make a relevant distinction between becoming aroused, and encouraging or seeking arousal. The later would be unchaste. The former depends on circumstances and intention.

[MissyP89]

Readers, keep in mind I don't know anything about relationships, so take this thought as an idea that is open to being more properly formed. ;)

 

I think the idea definitely shouldn't be to avoid any and all arousal, because you'll basically be stuck doing nothing else but two word text messages to each other every other week. Arousal is inevitable, so perhaps the idea should be learning how to manage it, and making sure you aren't unnecessarily running into situations you know will make you aroused.

 

You can be a smart cookie sometimes, punk. :)

 

One of the things Jason Evert actually talks about is the tendency to swing the pendulum in the opposite way and try to avoid anything sensual out of fear. One or both members of the couple "ties themselves to a tree," which can be just as damaging as going too far.

 

I'll open up a little bit more on this: My fiance and I both came into our dating relationship with a lot of baggage, both emotionally and regarding chastity. We wanted to treat each other better than we had treated others in the past, so for a while we agreed to just hold hands.

 

As our relationship progressed it became apparent that we were merely trying to shove down and push away the healthy desire to show affection. It took a long time for us to work through those issues and that fear, but one of the things that helped the most was making an effort together to learn to show affection in a healthy way. I shudder to think about what would have happened to us if we continued dancing around the issue.

 

tl;dr: Generally speaking, no matter what boundary a couple sets, it should be one where sexuality is integrated in a way that's healthy.

 

That said, I'm proud of you, Miles. I obviously chose a different path, but I'm sure if you stick to your decision you'll be very happy when you do find your wife.

[Lilllabettt]

I think for the typical, sexually integrated individual, "making out" is sexually arousing. Actually I think for the vast majority of people that is the point of the activity. Sexual arousal is a nice feeling, but one most people prefer to have in private.

 

And a typical observer has no wish to watch people sexually arousing each other and would prefer they do that kind of thing in private. Hence, "get a room."

 

Makes sense to me.

[MissyP89]

Well ... do you see a difference between being in the same room with someone and getting aroused and making plans to go somewhere private and isolated with that someone so you can make out with them and get aroused?

 

why do most people people make out in private?  Sometimes people make out in public, and observers will tell them to "get a room."  Why is that, do you think?

 

Yeah, I do see the difference there, thanks. I was confused when people were suggesting avoiding anything that would arouse, but that helps.

[PhuturePriest]

You can be a smart cookie sometimes, punk. :)

 

One of the things Jason Evert actually talks about is the tendency to swing the pendulum in the opposite way and try to avoid anything sensual out of fear. One or both members of the couple "ties themselves to a tree," which can be just as damaging as going too far.

 

I'll open up a little bit more on this: My fiance and I both came into our dating relationship with a lot of baggage, both emotionally and regarding chastity. We wanted to treat each other better than we had treated others in the past, so for a while we agreed to just hold hands.

 

As our relationship progressed it became apparent that we were merely trying to shove down and push away the healthy desire to show affection. It took a long time for us to work through those issues and that fear, but one of the things that helped the most was making an effort together to learn to show affection in a healthy way. I shudder to think about what would have happened to us if we continued dancing around the issue.

 

tl;dr: Generally speaking, no matter what boundary a couple sets, it should be one where sexuality is integrated in a way that's healthy.

 

That said, I'm proud of you, Miles. I obviously chose a different path, but I'm sure if you stick to your decision you'll be very happy when you do find your wife.

 

Assuming my wife isn't the Church, I'm sure you're right. ;)

[Maggyie]

Maggie, I think other people can read the article and come to a different conclusion. The details "of the facts of life" can include positions and other things which are not appropriate for most people who are not on the threshold of marriage. Are you seriously saying those of us who are unmarried need to know those things?

It's not a problem for them to know about the "details." It's not some kind of forbidden knowledge; it's human biology. There is nothing filthy or sinful or impure about the reproductive process of humans and nothing that needs to be kept secret from mature adults. I'm sure some people can't handle it but most are fully capable. No, I wouldn't tell a teenager all the details but I certainly hope adults do not wait until they are 2 weeks from their wedding day to learn about practicalities. Childlike innocence of these matters is most appropriate in children...in fact a few days spent in the country would cure any adult of the need to blush.

And that's the thing, you can probably count on one hand the people who sit down 2 weeks from marriage to learn the X's and O's! This is how the Church loses people, and hypocrisy sets in, when it becomes a Let's Pretend game of ignoring reality, pretending a good Christian must stick their fingers in their ears and squeeze their eyes shut so as not to be defiled by knowledge. The marriage vows are the key to the locked up section of the library... And then we are surprised when people are confused and hurt by what they learn after they finally gain access?

The ironic thing is we've even had a pope write about the mechanics of sex and orgasm - how sad if someone waited to read him until after marriage from a misplaced sense of shame.

But it's not even the Church's standard- she exhorts us to purity and modesty, and gives few details, recognizing that these are not external concepts that can be measured, quantified, or checked off. Rather these are internal spiritual conditions and deeply subjective!!! A virgin who wears a sack and keeps her mind free of the slightest sexual thought can be both immodest and impure. And vice versa. But throughout history the church has been blessed with experts, clerical and lay, eager to fill in the details and tell us otherwise. Whether out of a sense of misogyny or obsessive compulsion or some other kind of anxiety.

[MissyP89]

Assuming my wife isn't the Church, I'm sure you're right. ;)

 

Well in theory I guess it would still hold true. You'd be glad. LOL

[PhuturePriest]

Well in theory I guess it would still hold true. You'd be glad. LOL

 

When I'm ordained one day, I'll have somebody take a picture of me kissing a pillar in the cathedral. ;)