Dating/courtships And Physical Touch

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

I put up the post to remind people that touching is okay, until you get to the point where you want to have sex constantly. Then it would be time to get married. I am fine with touching, hugging, and kissing the girl in my life. However, when it comes down to it, when all you can think about is wanting to have an intimate moment with your loved one, then you need to get married.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1524211' date='May 10 2008, 03:25 PM']I put up the post to remind people that touching is okay, until you get to the point where you want to have sex constantly. Then it would be time to get married. I am fine with touching, hugging, and kissing the girl in my life. However, when it comes down to it, when all you can think about is wanting to have an intimate moment with your loved one, then you need to get married.[/quote]

or, after having discerned marriage as seriously as religious life, answer God's call to religious life, where every normal man or woman still combats lust.

[Alycin]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1522901' date='May 9 2008, 12:05 AM']I think healthy touches are good for a relationship.

I can understand wanting to save kisses for marriage and think it admirable, to an extent.

HOWEVER, if the problem is no touches because it leads to fornication... then... then there is a problem. A problem rooted in a misunderstanding of human relations and sexuality.

Our sexuality is a means to our salvation. Sex is not bad. But it is only good in its proper place. As my philosophy professor says "at the right time, in the right place, with the right person for the right reason". If you cannot hold someone's hand without thinking about sex, then you have a problem. If you are afraid that by hugging someone, then you are sinning, then step back and think about it. The physicality begins while friends and finds its culmination in marriage. As friends, guys and girls generally exchange hugs (and sometimes kisses). Why is it ok as friends and not ok as a couple? No, just like friendship is deepened when a relationship moves beyond friendship, so too does the physical aspect. As the souls become closer, so do the bodies. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT FORNICATION IS OK. THIS IS JUST TO SAY THAT THE HUGS (AND KISSES) BECOME MORE INTIMATE AND EXCLUSIVE. We [i]are[/i] spiritual AND physical beings and our relations with others mirror that.

There is NOTHING wrong with an intimate kiss in an inimate relationship.

If you can't restrain your desires, then you are treating your partner as an object, not a person. That's YOUR problem, not theirs. Not a universal problem for the law is no touching until marriage.
Seriously, if touching is that big of a deal for a guy, why would you want to date him?
If he can't hug or kiss you without thinking about sex, then he doesn't REALLY love you and he's treating you as a sexual object.[/quote]

[MissScripture]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1522901' date='May 8 2008, 11:05 PM']I think healthy touches are good for a relationship.

I can understand wanting to save kisses for marriage and think it admirable, to an extent.

HOWEVER, if the problem is no touches because it leads to fornication... then... then there is a problem. A problem rooted in a misunderstanding of human relations and sexuality.

Our sexuality is a means to our salvation. Sex is not bad. But it is only good in its proper place. As my philosophy professor says "at the right time, in the right place, with the right person for the right reason". If you cannot hold someone's hand without thinking about sex, then you have a problem. If you are afraid that by hugging someone, then you are sinning, then step back and think about it. The physicality begins while friends and finds its culmination in marriage. As friends, guys and girls generally exchange hugs (and sometimes kisses). Why is it ok as friends and not ok as a couple? No, just like friendship is deepened when a relationship moves beyond friendship, so too does the physical aspect. As the souls become closer, so do the bodies. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT FORNICATION IS OK. THIS IS JUST TO SAY THAT THE HUGS (AND KISSES) BECOME MORE INTIMATE AND EXCLUSIVE. We [i]are[/i] spiritual AND physical beings and our relations with others mirror that.

There is NOTHING wrong with an intimate kiss in an inimate relationship.

If you can't restrain your desires, then you are treating your partner as an object, not a person. That's YOUR problem, not theirs. Not a universal problem for the law is no touching until marriage.
Seriously, if touching is that big of a deal for a guy, why would you want to date him?
If he can't hug or kiss you without thinking about sex, then he doesn't REALLY love you and he's treating you as a sexual object.[/quote]
YOU ROCK! :bighug: You said exactly what I mean!

[Lisieux Flower]

yay! i agree with everyone else, missionseeker's post rocks!!

also, i think it's admirable too, wanting to save your first kiss for marriage, but it surprises me that so many people say that if their husband is your first kiss, then you won't be tempted to compare him to other men you've kissed or that he'll compare you to other women. i would never dream of comparing someone i'm in a relationship with and in love with to other guys that i've kissed that i wasn't in love with. it's completely different with you kiss that guy who you're head over for, trust me. when you're in love, no other guy could possibly compare to him...

[missionseeker]

Thanks, guys.

it's something I definitely become passionate about. lol.

Touches are almost sort of holy in some ways- not to sound sacreligious- to say that they aren't that they are "just" touches, isn't giving them enough respect. To say that they are temptations to sin is puritanical in some repsects (I realize that someone can have a valid problem with it, but generally speaking)- it's kind of like puritans with art in churches. It isn't there for us to woriship or to distract us from God, it's there to bring us to God.

Edited May 16, 2008 by missionseeker

[Jesus_lol]

well, saving the first kiss for marriage, just wouldnt work for me. the only way i could imagine it happening is if we met and were married instantly fast, and there would be no way to figure out if each other were the right person. several years before a kiss? without wanting to sound shallow, but i would probably not be sticking around that long.

[Jesus_lol]

woo, i killed the thread! anyways, my view on this is that it makes a good thought, but in the real world of long courtships and engagements before marriage(as it should be), i dont think it can work.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1531324' date='May 17 2008, 10:41 AM']woo, i killed the thread! anyways, my view on this is that it makes a good thought, but in the real world of long courtships and engagements before marriage(as it should be), i dont think it can work.[/quote]
Well, this has been one of those threads that dies and then after you think it's been safely put to rest, it comes back to haunt you.

[Jesus_lol]

oh.
then, oops?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1531790' date='May 17 2008, 06:53 PM']oh.
then, oops?[/quote]
S'okay. It's not as painful as some of the threads that people don't let die.

[jeffpugh]

Like the torture thread

Anywho, I like this thread.

[MissScripture]

So, I just noticed that there is no "t" in the word courtship in the title of this thread. I just find it odd that I've posted on this thread so many times and just noticed it now...

[Jesus_lol]

i just noticed that Misscripture spelled her name wrong, there needs to be another "S"













gotcha?

[mommas_boy]

I'll add my voice to the discussion without reading the other posts, and likely echo several:

My thoughts: men come with a built-in chastity indicator. When the indicator goes off, it's a good time to stop.

Past that, I'd love to at least try a relationship where we promised not to kiss until the altar, God willing.

[JustJ]

Well, that's a really sad format for getting the answers, because I think it should be different based on the situations. I'll admit I haven't actually read the thread, though. Clearly, many Christians put forth the idea of no sex before marriage, so you could say that, as ambiguously as it is.

Why not instead think of it this way. Guys, if you will get married, that means your future wife is probably out there in the world right now. However, she's with another guy. How far would you want those two to go? Remember, that's your future wife!

In accordance with the Rule of "Don't Be A Jerk", you should imagine that other men might feel the same way about how much they want doing with their future wife, and so you should generally stop where you would want them to stop.

Some of you may think that's in different places, but hey, that's fine. I'm not really here to judge.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1585857' date='Jun 28 2008, 06:50 PM']Well, that's a really sad format for getting the answers, because I think it should be different based on the situations. I'll admit I haven't actually read the thread, though. Clearly, many Christians put forth the idea of no sex before marriage, so you could say that, as ambiguously as it is.
...
...
In accordance with the Rule of "Don't Be A Jerk"...[/quote]

The theological and philosophical basis for abstinence before marriage is much more clearly defined and maintained in the teaching of the Catholic tradition than in many other Christian traditions. There is nothing ambiguous about Catholic teaching on sex...although it is very commonly misquoted and misunderstood. You should read Humanae Vitae or the writings of JPII on the Theology of the Body in order to get a better grasp of the Catholic position. There have probably been plenty of threads on Phatmass about it too so search for them and check it out.

The Catholic teaching runs much, much, much deeper than the 'don't be a jerk' approach. The problem with the 'don't be a jerk' approach is that it presupposes that both 'the jerk' and the guy who later comes along and marries the girl in question have a similar view on sex. Caring what another guy has or has not done with your wife is drawn from a potentially unrecognized internal understanding of the true purpose of sex and marriage (as defined by the Catholic Church). A man doesn't want another guy having intercourse with his wife (before they are married) because in marriage they become one and the though of somone else sharing a sexual act intrudes on that later intimacy. A man doesn't want another guy engaging in any sexual act with the woman who is to become his wife because deep down we recognize that all of those encounters are somewhat selfishly detracting from complete self-giving in marital intercourse. Sex isn't a one time event but one of the founding actions of a covenential relationship between a man and a woman and their God. There is a lot more to it, but you are free to read up on that on your own; I won't rehash old posts here.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1567538' date='Jun 10 2008, 08:13 PM']I'll add my voice to the discussion without reading the other posts, and likely echo several:

My thoughts: men come with a built-in chastity indicator. When the indicator goes off, it's a good time to stop.[/quote]


I disagree, just a little bit. There are some things that a lot of different people have no control over.

[EstoVir_TheWay_4]

[quote]My thoughts: men come with a built-in chastity indicator. When the indicator goes off, it's a good time to stop.[/quote]

Good luck stopping when the indicator gets red!
Yeah, many of us know where our limits are when it comes to physical intimacy before we lose control, but it's not enough to just go along until our alarm sounds.

[corban711]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1522901' date='May 9 2008, 12:05 AM']I think healthy touches are good for a relationship.

I can understand wanting to save kisses for marriage and think it admirable, to an extent.

HOWEVER, if the problem is no touches because it leads to fornication... then... then there is a problem. A problem rooted in a misunderstanding of human relations and sexuality.

Our sexuality is a means to our salvation. Sex is not bad. But it is only good in its proper place. As my philosophy professor says "at the right time, in the right place, with the right person for the right reason". If you cannot hold someone's hand without thinking about sex, then you have a problem. If you are afraid that by hugging someone, then you are sinning, then step back and think about it. The physicality begins while friends and finds its culmination in marriage. As friends, guys and girls generally exchange hugs (and sometimes kisses). Why is it ok as friends and not ok as a couple? No, just like friendship is deepened when a relationship moves beyond friendship, so too does the physical aspect. As the souls become closer, so do the bodies. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT FORNICATION IS OK. THIS IS JUST TO SAY THAT THE HUGS (AND KISSES) BECOME MORE INTIMATE AND EXCLUSIVE. We [i]are[/i] spiritual AND physical beings and our relations with others mirror that.

There is NOTHING wrong with an intimate kiss in an inimate relationship.

If you can't restrain your desires, then you are treating your partner as an object, not a person. That's YOUR problem, not theirs. Not a universal problem for the law is no touching until marriage.
Seriously, if touching is that big of a deal for a guy, why would you want to date him?
If he can't hug or kiss you without thinking about sex, then he doesn't REALLY love you and he's treating you as a sexual object.[/quote]


somehow i think i must have stopped following this thread, as i don't remember seeing this post. but im going to join Catherine's fan club here. great post Catherine that basically summed up most of my thoughts