Making Out

[Lilllabettt]

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.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[PhuturePriest]

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.

 

My sister married the first guy she ever dated. Lots of guys were interested in her during high school, but she had certain standards they didn't meet, plus she believed in courting rather than dating, so she said no to all of them. Then she went to college, met a guy she liked, started courting after a year of knowing him, and then now they're married. People think you won't get married unless you keep your options open, but that just leads to a lot of unsatisfied dates.

[tinytherese]

Now you need to find in this very small group a man who also doesn't want to KISS before marriage. I have no statistics but it's probably another big cut. You're probably looking in a group of 1% of Catholics. In America in the thousands, not millions.

I'm not opposed to kissing or even long kisses. It's making out and french kissing that are too arousing for me.

[abrideofChrist]

I still fail to see how the proponents of "making out" have proven their position. The Church teaches that the unmarried must remain chase, chastity in continence, which doesn't just mean avoiding sex, but other intimately sensual and sexual acts as well. How is a make out session aka 'french kissing' chaste? How is sensually sticking one's tongue into mouth of someone else and visa versa an act that is chaste? How is that not an act that is unchaste? It seems a very sensual and very intimate act that should belong only to the married.

 

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.

[oremus1]

Keep in mind I've never been in a serious relationship before. :P But I want to be able to say that if I ever get married, the only person I ever kissed was my wife.

this is so beautiful!! I will pray for this young man!

 

as long as you a) only date when you are ready for marriage (you have a job, someplace to live, money to support a pregnant woman, emotionally ready for a marriage)

 

b) have dates in public and/or with other people, spend time with your families together etc, you can be alone in like a coffee shop as other people are around,

 

c) go to mass together, or pray together before the date. sounds weird but if you know her from church, why not go out for lunch after mass together? why not go to the evening prayer group then dinner? go on church trips together? keeps you focussed

 

d) many girls will think this is extreme. but there are traditional catholic girls who may respect and even support or share your views. those same girls will also most likely support NFP, premarital chastity, homeschooling and be pro life too.

 

e) read supportive literature. if you cannot be around people who share your views and keep telling you that you are wrong, , the lack of support will make you feel you are wrong. when I was a kid I read this book http://www.joshharris.com/i_kissed_dating_goodbye.php he also wrote another one after he met his wife and they started dating: http://astore.amazon.com/joshharriscom-20/detail/1590521676/190-7718860-2203338. they are now married. he isn't catholic , he is protestant. but the books do not have much heresy and are soundly practical.

 

f) stop dating a girl as soon as you realise you don't want to marry her

 

g) there is no need to prolong dating for years. only date until you know you can marry. I know a few couples who are a bit like you and dated for about 6 months - a year before getting engaged, and 6 months later were married. then VERY shortly after, had a baby. im not saying to rush into it, but once you cut out all the physical and think of the spiritual, practical and emotional compatibility only, it is much clearer where you are going. those people married age 22 - 26 in general.

 

I think it is entirely normal and reasonable for any catholic to only have say one or two serious relationships before marriage. so what if this guy only has one and marries her? that is a great thing.

 

praised be Jesus!!!! St Ambrose, ora pro nobis!!! 

 

Edited February 21, 2014 by oremus1

[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.