I Prefer Someone Else's Kisses
by Motte Brown on 11/14/2007 at 3:17 PM
I like the way Candice handles the topic of premarital kissing in her most recent Boundless Answers column, "He's a Bad Kisser." In short, she says it's not a good idea for reasons we've covered on this blog before, "Physical affection leads to more physical affection all the way to sexual fulfillment." But there's more to it.
Let's consider this portion taken from the young woman's inquiry:
"However, after kissing him, I started getting doubts. He is not a very good kisser. He is not experienced and I find myself not wanting to kiss him."
I'm going out on a limb but it seems that the boyfriend is suffering by comparison here. Meaning the girlfriend has been kissed before. And apparently her previous kiss or kisses clicked in a way that it didn't with him. Sad.
All dating couples who engage in passionate kissing and beyond run the risk of being compared to someone else. They also run the risk of arousing passions with someone not yet their spouse that may adversely affect expectations of passion with the one they end up with.
And even if you do end up with the one with whom you shared your first kisses, it can negatively affect post-marriage kisses as well.
But if you've already done so, it's not too late. Your "after the wedding" kisses can be renewed. Candice writes,
Think back to what it was like before you found out what his kisses are like. Did you anticipate a good physical connection? Did the idea of being kissed by him make you swoon? That's a wonderful state of expectation to be in when you're approaching marriage. In that state, you can trust that the passion will follow — after the wedding.
Believe me. On your wedding day, you will not regret your lack of physical intimacy experience. As Candice has said before, this is the one area where inexperience is a good thing.
1. Jane (not my real name) said the following at 3:44 PM on Nov 14:
(Using a pseudonym here... but I'm a regular poster)
This is one of the things that causes me anxiety. (I know... Phil 4:6-7) Usually the stereotype is that guys really want the inexperienced girl, but it seems in this day and age many guys expect someone who is magically "ready to perform" or the experience is a letdown worth breaking up over, or a disappointment that leaves them fantasizing about someone else.
I know I shouldn't fret, but given my age I am practically guaranteed a situation where the guy is way more experienced than I am -- even just in terms of relationships and not just physical stuff. I've kissed two guys (fairly "innocently," once each), and that was over 12 years ago. For reasons best left implied, whoever I marry is almost bound to have some pretty stratospheric expectations.
Though, of course, I am hoping that WON'T be the case.
2. Christy said the following at 4:07 PM on Nov 14:
Thank you for speaking truth about issues like this one - and this is to all the bloggers.
Our culture, outside and sometimes inside the church, has a different message. I know that Jesus must be the one who keeps my heart right. But it is so good to hear truth spoken by people, too.
3. Katie (the other one) said the following at 4:23 PM on Nov 14:
As soon as I read the Q/A for this week, I knew there would be a blog post to follow...
(note: heated debate to commence shortly)
4. Em said the following at 5:08 PM on Nov 14:
I was thinking about this article this morning because of something Candice wrote:
When I first started kissing Steve, I wasn't very good at it. How could I be, I'd never had any practice. Thankfully he didn't walk away based on my inexperience. In fact, inexperienced is what we're supposed to be when we enter a romantic relationship.
I am surprised that no one has yet directly addressed a cultural expectation that we have, which is actually hidden in what Candice writes above; namely, that a guy *should* be more experienced. (Not saying this is right).
I think this is inherent in the original question, and Candice's answer is a little lackluster, largely because the implication seems that Steve WAS more experienced than she was. I don't know if that's true, but from her writing, that seems to be the case.
5. Kellie said the following at 5:12 PM on Nov 14:
What happened to plain old "save sex for marriage"? Now it's save kissing for marriage???
6. Marc said the following at 5:37 PM on Nov 14:
WARNING: This might rub some blog-viewers of the female gender the wrong way.
I applaud Candice's answer to the most recent question. To all the girls who've watched one-too-many chick-flicks, I've got a shocker for you... when you kiss your "one true love" or whatever you want to call him, chances are, the inexperience will show. In addition, you will not hear the sound of an orchestra in the background. For any gal who is stuck in the chick-flick mode in regards to kissing, you need to grow-up and come back to reality.
I know I sound harsh, but I am this way because I have seen many-a-relationship be shaken because "he [or she, depending on what gender you are] is not a good kisser." And so, if being blunt snaps some couples back into reality, and prevents them from breaking-up because of an oh-so-stupid issue, then so be it.
7. Leah said the following at 5:52 PM on Nov 14:
*shrug*
Like I've said on every other post regarding this topic: it's not biblically mandated, therefore it's up to people's individual choices and convictions.
And cut the girl a bit of slack. It's not like she's walking out just because he "can't kiss" or whatever- she's actively looking for help to change that. Good on her.
8. Adam T. said the following at 6:19 PM on Nov 14:
For a minute, I found it hard to believe that letter was for real.
My initial reaction was to envision the letter-writer as one of these girls who sits around not understanding why she's still single at 30. "Duh... I can't believe I'm not married - I'm such a CATCH!"
But on a deeper level, it makes you have to step back and think, doesn't it? I mean, you *have* to. You read something like that, and you *have* to step back and take a good look at yourself... at *our*selves. You wonder how someone could be so screwed up... but if you think about it, you have to ask yourself 'if someone *else* is that screwed up, might'nt *I* be that screwed up, too?'
I think it's worth noting that the letter-writer seems not to realize quite how absurd her issue is (she apparently feels sufficiently torn about it to write a letter to Boundless). That *has* to make you wonder whether there are things *we* consider important that are actually silly, too.
9. AD said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 14:
I agree with Candice that great kissers are made. My husband was a terrible kisser at first, and so was I! But because we were inexperienced, we got to teach each other what we liked. And now, I love, love, love the way he kisses me (and he feels the same way about my kisses).
I also agree with Motte that even if you marry the person with whom you shared your first kisses, there are negative consequences to kissing before the vows. Don't get me wrong, I am so glad my husband and I saved our kisses for each other. But I wish we had saved those kisses until our wedding day.
10. Chris Roberts said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 14:
Most people are astounded when they learn that my wife and I kissed each other for the first time on our wedding day. I had dated a bit before her and had kissed other girls and I knew how great the temptation was to go further after the kiss. My wife had not dated or kissed and wanted to keep it that way until marriage. So we set our boundaries at gentle hugs and hand holding. Twas not always easy, but by the grace of God our first kiss was on our wedding day.
11. John D. said the following at 7:50 PM on Nov 14:
A topic like this one is where you would want to be able to post anonymously.
12. Thea said the following at 9:02 PM on Nov 14:
Before we were married, my husband and I had been friends for five years and stayed well away from physical affection or flirting, even though we were attracted to each other and enjoyed our friendship a lot.
We proceeded very slowly from friends to casual dates. Attraction turned to caring for each other's welfare and praying for each other. And our relationship was marked by serving one another and striving to serve God together.
Throughout this time of careful control of our emotions and of evaluating how well we worked together and complemented each other, we had a deep appreciation of the gift of being friends. It was an honor to be his friend, through good times and bad. I noticed the way he respectfully treated women around him. I liked the way he treated me with kindness and high esteem. I felt valued for who I was, not for what I looked like or what I could do for him sexually.
My daydreams of him were not lustful but happy and contented visions of just being with him forever doing worthwhile things. He also shared that I frequently made him smile just thinking of me. Funny, I was smiling, too.
But we didn't kiss until we were ready to commit to marriage and were able to share with other that we loved each other--two months before we were officially engaged.
We didn't think we were sinning because we weren't sexually active--hands off each other's bodies except above the shoulders. Our spiritual mentors and pastors who kept us accountable for the six month engagement did not tell us that we were sinning when we fully disclosed our activities. Our pastor who married us had known us as friends and watched us grow into a mature and stable couple.
Our wedding day, we were not nervous. We had this deep seated feeling of peace. God had answered several prayers concerning our relationship and had shown His faithfulness in being our provider. We were not distracted from Him. And my non Christian family made several remarks that I wasn't nervous enough. I explained that I was sure about the marriage and that I was extremely happy with my decision. So far, I'm the only one of my siblings still married to the same person.
And our first night together was joyous and definately the consummation of a five year process. No regrets. I remember thanking God for a guilt free sexual relationship. We did not feel condemned, we felt blessed.
That was 19 years ago. And times have changed, haven't they?
Basically, I don't think kissing is the issue. I think that everything about dating is a delimma. It pays to go slowly. It pays to be sure about your decisions. And once you initiate the physical affection, it's hard to go back. But it is more than kissing that is involved. It is where you stand on obeying God no matter what. It is about sacrificing your own feelings for the good of the other person. It is about denying yourself the right to kiss, even though it's permissible.
Yes, no rules in the Bible about kissing. But there are no laws against self control.
I respect couples who wait until their wedding day for that special kiss. They've avoided a lot of problems, for sure. Especially in this culture and this generation.
But it doesn't mean that it is the end of the world for those who "went all the way" or part of the way. God really forgives us, and gives us the gift of complete grace no matter what we've done. He gives us His love to help us love each other.
Although my husband and I did not sin premaritially, I was in sin about my anger. It came out of the blue and had nothing to do with him or our upcoming marriage but about unresolved issues regarding sexual abuse in my past. I would lose it during our discussions in the car on the way to see my family. We did not share this kind of information with our mentors or pastors. We should have. We were irresponsible.
What I regret was my loss of self control over my tongue and rage. It took five years of counseling and prayer to reach healing after our wedding. That my husband stuck with me through the depression and the confusion and the ugliness and the rejection reinforced in me that he is the right man for me.
So, kissing isn't just the issue. It is the bigger picture. I needed God to forgive me for my destructive anger against my innocent fiance who became my newlywed long suffering husband.
Sex isn't the worst sin. And nothing we do can be unredeemable.
13. Adam D said the following at 9:04 PM on Nov 14:
I just find it sad that people would consider breaking up with someone over a kiss, or just have doubts because it wasn't fantastic or better than they expected. Or maybe they've never kissed before and thought it'd be better or something. Just sad really, I feel for the guy in the Q/A post that was judged so quickly and easily and nearly rejected. And he's probably still ignorant that she isn't satisfied by his kiss!
14. Joseph said the following at 9:20 PM on Nov 14:
From this guy's angle I don't have a problem with my inexperience. As noted from the Q/A and this blog I hope others can agree.
The concept of "ready to preform" I point towards the sexualized media in which everyone is expected to be the best _____, right on the spot. Are too many of us buying into these repeated concepts of TV and movies and forgetting they aren't real?
15. Christine said the following at 9:56 PM on Nov 14:
Having decided a few years ago to wait for my husband to kiss, the awkward thing for me has been telling people. It isn't that I'm ashamed of my decision; it's that I don't want to sound as though I think I'm "holier than thou." Anyway, thanks for affirming this decision. Many people don't...and I've been told more than once that I'm crazy!
16. Nate said the following at 10:45 PM on Nov 14:
Jane,
If it makes you feel any better, I am a single (almost) 28 year-old guy who has never dated or kissed anyone romantically. I've never even held hands. So, there are guys out there who are not "experienced." I never saw a reason to get sucked into the world's way of doing things. The culture at large wants you to believe that everyone is "going with the flow," but that is simply not the case.
Also, I know plenty of men who would highly respect you for the decisions that you have made regarding relationships. It takes courage and wisdom to guard your heart in a culture that is constantly yelling at you to do the opposite. Please do not lower your standards b/c of what the "majority" seems to be doing. If it is God's will for you to marry, I'm sure He will provide you with a husband who values you highly for who you are. For what it is worth, all of the men in my circle of friends would view the way you have conducted your life as an extreme positive going into a relationship. Godly men have a godly outlook on life and relationships. If your goal is to marry a man who is surrendered to God, you don't need to be anxious.
17. Jethro said the following at 1:39 AM on Nov 15:
Flawless argument. I should never ride in a BMW, because then I won't like my Camry. I should never set foot in a mansion, because then I won't like my house. I should never read good books, because then I won't like bad ones.
Puh-lease.
18. Laura said the following at 5:19 AM on Nov 15:
Chris Roberts - I was sooooo excited to read your post, my fiance and I are in the exact same situation! While we love our boundaries, etc, it's comforting to know there are others out there who have experienced similar circumstances!
Christine - please don't feel awkward in sharing your conviction - it's one I share, and I think it rocks! And like yourself, I've had the same problem where I don't want to seem 'holier than thou'. However, what I've found is that the closer I get to my wedding day, the more we're teased and asked how its going, and the more respect and admiration we receive from those around us. It is a true testiment of a godly relationship.*
*Please note: not that any relationship with kissing isn't godly, not implying that at all. However, we as Christians are called to live differently from the world - shouldn't this apply in our relationships as well???
19. K. said the following at 6:05 AM on Nov 15:
"But it is more than kissing that is involved. It is where you stand on obeying God no matter what. It is about sacrificing your own feelings for the good of the other person. It is about denying yourself the right to kiss, even though it's permissible.
Yes, no rules in the Bible about kissing. But there are no laws against self control."
Exactly! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! I don't even think the Boundless writers are arguing for rules for the sake of rules. I just see them trying to point out practical ways to pursue Godly relationships and to enter a marriage without regrets. I just entered my first relationship and the reality of maintaining purity is starting to come into focus and it's tough. I've struggled with keeping my thoughts pure over mere crushes in the past so the night before I knew the "DTR" would be coming from my now-boyfriend I prayed out to God to guard my thoughts and actions...to help me put my money where my mouth is. Part of our DTR discussion was the agreement not to kiss until we were engaged--an idea started by him. I would never have forced such a "rule" but when he brought it up I found it to be so relieving because it takes the pressure off of myself. I think rules are useful when you feel you struggle in a particular area. If kissing removes your self-control or makes you judge the inexperience of your partner maybe you shouldn't kiss. And as Christians with hearts to completely follow God and live under His commands I think we should at least listen to well-meaning people who say "kissing is wrong" before our knee-jerk reactions of "you can't tell me what to do". I certainly don't want to ignore it if the Holy Spirit is trying to convict me of something. Right now I don't think kissing outside of marriage is wrong and the idea of my first kiss being in front of hundreds of people at my wedding is really icky. But I could be wrong.
As for inexperience...my boyfriend and I are both in our mid to late twenties and we're still figuring out the whole hand-holding thing which leads to alot of shared laughter but it's fun trying to figure it out.
20. Marci said the following at 6:20 AM on Nov 15:
Hey All,
I don't think this issue should be dismissed simply because the decision to kiss or not to kiss (some argue) is not Biblically mandated.
As Christians hungry to please Christ, I firmly believe we should seek to honor *priniciples* that are consistent with scripture.
Let's not forget that Paul writes 'All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient' (I Cor 10:23). The issue of kissing before marriage - as with many other issues discussed on Boundless - are about advocating that we live lives that honor the principles. For example, on the issue of kissing before marriage, some will say that since the Bible prohibits premarital sex, then anything done prior to penetration is not a sin. But if we are honoring the *principles* of scripture, we see that we can sin because sex is more than simply penetration (what are culture has choosen to define as "sex").
All this to say - the discussion about whether or not kissing is approporiate before marriage is fitting for individuals who are striving to live a life that exemplifies Godly principles. As well, the book of Proverbs focuses on many Biblical principles - there are few explicit commands in this book. Do we ignore the wisdom in Proverbs merely because it contains few explicit commands?!?
Comments which suggest that everyone should do what is right according to their own convictions (because there's no explicit command in the Bible about a given subject) greatly concern me. How is the Christian life about doing the barest minimum (ie. only paying heed to *commands* in Scripture and ignoring Biblical principles)?
I think Candice Watter's reply was appropriate - it was consistent with Biblical principles.
Blessings...
21. Khalil said the following at 6:35 AM on Nov 15:
I have seen a post or two make a reference to this, but nobody has addressed it directly: Why is it assumed or expected that the guy will be "experienced" in this area? Is it just assumed that all men just think of sex and physical needs (kissing, touching, etc) and practice it constantly while the women just sit aside in a protected little bubble? I do see some bias here in expectations and assumptions.
As another poster said here (Adam, I believe) I do find it sad that someone would consider breaking up and ending a relationship for something such as a kiss. It comes across as very shallow. However, it is a person's honest struggle and concern, so I will not beat her down for expressing it. We all have doubts in relationships. Perhaps there is a lot more beneath the surface than the kiss question that is making her doubt him, doubt herself.
22. Jen said the following at 6:43 AM on Nov 15:
I just want to echo what Thea has said - that this is not so much about kissing as it is about self-control, which is Biblical. I've been challenged in my relationship with my boyfriend by the kissing issue because he has been very clear that he doesn't want to because of the snowball affect kissing often has. From the beginning, I've deeply respected that choice, but it hasn't been easy. And just because you aren't kissing doesn't mean that you aren't sinning in other ways - I've found this to be very true for us. But really, what it comes down to, is sacrifice for someone other than yourself, self-control, and as Elisabeth Eliot says, bringing your love-life under Jesus' control. If you can't submit how you interact with your significant other to Jesus while you are dating, how will you do it when you are married?
23. Robin Munn said the following at 6:46 AM on Nov 15:
Jane,
Just like Nate who posted above me, I'm also a 28-year-old man who's never kissed anyone. And just like Nate said, I and other guys who think like me (we are out there) would view your so-called "inexperience" as a positive thing. It would let me know there was no "baggage" from previous relationships making things difficult.
I decided a long time ago that I didn't want to kiss a woman until I'd made a serious commitment to her -- until I'd asked her to marry me. Kissing just seems like it's too meaningful, too powerful a connection between people to treat it lightly.
And because I know kissing can be so powerful, I also plan to make sure I only kiss my future fiancee (whoever she is) when we're in public. No kissing in private, lest it turn into a make-out session full of temptation. No thanks. I'll save those passionate make-out sessions for after the wedding, when they can sinlessly go to their natural conclusion.
So fear not Jane, there are guys out there who have kept to high standards and who are hoping to marry a woman who's done the same.
24. TN1 said the following at 7:00 AM on Nov 15:
I'm surprised no one here has used the word shallow. That is exactly how I imagine this girl must be to ask such a question---it's a shallow way of critiquing a guy, or anyone! Who seriously puts heavy consideration into whether or not someone can kiss you well? Don't people look forward anymore to learning all that fun stuff together AFTER they're married? When it won't matter how "bad" you are initially because your love and vows for each other are beyond that.
This may sound odd, but in my circle of friends, some of the ones who do kiss their boyfriends tend to envy just a little bit the ones who still have virgin lips. It's almost a sense of knowing what they did physically past a certain point, and knowing they can't go back and undo their actions.
Does this mean that kissing your boyfriend is wrong? I think it can be. If you weren't dishonoring the Lord and each other, I wonder why you would feel any jealousy and regret just because you see your friends who haven’t kissed yet?
25. Carrie said the following at 7:13 AM on Nov 15:
The thought of not kissing until the altar is one that intrigues me. I've tossed it over in my head over the years and I can't come to a firm conclusion as to what my conviction is about kissing.
I do agree that it's opening the door and that kissing is a factor in arousal. I am not completely sure that one is sinning if they kiss before the altar. For some individuals(and I think I am part of this group) they need to know that they are desired. I can see myself having a complex if my fiancè had the conviction that he didn't want to kiss me before the altar. I would be very paranoid because I have a lot of trust issues. A kiss is a simple way to let your significant other know that they are desired. So, while I don't want to "awaken love" too soon, I also want to know I am desired and wanted.
Glad I'm not actually facing this decision because I'd probably go mad.
26. Loris said the following at 7:16 AM on Nov 15:
My first kiss was with the man who became my husband. I never wanted to kiss anyone else because I knew that if I did and we broke up, I would be devastated. Your first anything is an experience you can never get back and it was important to me not to waste my first kiss on someone who might not value it. He was quite experienced, having had several girlfriends in his teens, but there was no problem at all about my lack of experience. Yes, a kiss is a big deal, but it's not the action that is important, it's the person you're kissing. I don't have much patience for this girl. If she genuinely likes this man, she should wait for him to learn how she likes to be kissed. It's certainly not a deal-breaker.
27. H.A.P. said the following at 7:31 AM on Nov 15:
My husband and I had our first kiss right after he proposed. We were both inexperienced and had agreed to wait until then. (We realized our relationship was headed toward marriage early on.) Afterward, I felt like I'd had 26 years of withheld kissing unleased on me in 30 seconds! It wasn't pleasant at all, but that didn't shake my love or commitment to him in the least. I knew that the Lord was the center of our relationship and every part of intimacy (including kissing) might take some practice to make it enjoyable for the both of us. I'm happy to say that I would still want to be married to him if I still wasn't enjoying his kisses, but we have been married just three months and I couldn't have dreamt of more tender and romantic kisses. We are very happy and agree inexperience is the way God intended it to be.
28. Dan Gill said the following at 7:32 AM on Nov 15:
Some people just kiss better than others. So what? After 30 years of marriage, I can tell you that it makes not one whit of difference. Love is from the heart, not the lips.
29. Thea said the following at 9:08 AM on Nov 15:
Amen! And once you are married, there is a lifetime of practice! It gets better, better and better!
'Nuff said?
30. Chris Roberts said the following at 9:18 AM on Nov 15:
"Love is from the heart, not the lips."
Great line. :) That has to make a quote list somewhere.
31. Kit said the following at 9:37 AM on Nov 15:
Well said Thea and Dan. This seems very shallow to me. Of course, we don't know her heart and other issues she may be truly struggling with, but kissing isn't really a valid reason to break up with someone. I'd say general attraction, maybe, if she can't ever see herself being physically attracted to this person, but if she is, I'm sure the kissing will improve. Life isn't like "The Notebook" or "A Walk to Remember."
32. cn said the following at 9:56 AM on Nov 15:
This girl, who is a sister in our kingdom family, made herself vulnerable by asking this question. I pray that she will considered Candice's wisdom and be blessed for seeking someone out to speak into her life.
I wonder what sorts of things are in heart that would shock others.
33. Jo said the following at 10:17 AM on Nov 15:
Laura said: "However, we as Christians are called to live differently from the world - shouldn't this apply in our relationships as well???"
We are not 'called to live differently' - we are called to follow Christ. Following Christ has the effect of changing the way we live, but living differently is not our primary goal. We don't define ourselves as Christians by how different we are to the world, but by how similar we are to Christ.
Of course we want the world to see that we're living by God's rules, not the world's rules, but this will happen naturally if we really are. If we begin setting ourselves higher standards than the Bible sets for us, and force ourselves to keep self-imposed or church-imposed rules that God has never commanded us to keep, all we do is exclude outsiders further and reduce our faith to legalism.
That isn't a comment on the kissing issue. It's also not a personal attack on Laura, I just think that quote exemplifies a lot of the thoughts coming through in these comments. My point is this: if the 'sinfulness' of something is stated or strongly implied in scripture, that's a good reason to treat it as sin. But if it isn't, then by all means raise your personal standard if it's an area of weakness, but don't do so just to 'be more different'.
34. Tami said the following at 10:25 AM on Nov 15:
If the "poor" kissing was symptomatic of overall insensitivity on his part, I might understand. But it doesn't sound like that's what is going on here. If she breaks up with this young man merely for the reason of "bad kissing," I think she would regret it later. Not to mention, really hurt the man. I hope she really prays about it and considers Candice's counsel.
I tend to be more concerned about the ones who act naive but kiss really well or speak smoothly...
And cn, you're right. This isn't simply a matter of "do I kiss or not"... it's a heart issue. One can refrain from kissing but have a heart full of garbage, just as one can chastely kiss from a chaste heart.
35. Jo said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 15:
And Jane: from everything I've heard and seen, guys (Christian and non-Christian) DO want the inexperienced girl. The reason they expect more experience is because it's rare these days to find someone 'innocent'. Every time the issue of virginity has come up in my conversations with non-Christian guys (which is more often than you'd think, even though I only talk about it when directly asked) guys have seemed impressed, accepting, intrigued and if anything, MORE attracted to me than before. If that's non-Christian guys, I shouldn't imagine any of us will have too much trouble with Christian guys who actually share the standards we aspire to. No man wants to date someone MORE experienced than him, but in my opinion, less is definitely not a problem.
36. Kellie said the following at 10:30 AM on Nov 15:
Am I the only one who thinks this is kind of silly? I suppose next the big debate will be over holding hand...which is already hotly debated in extreme conservative circles. I kissed my husband prior to marriage. I don't regret it, it didn't ruin anything. It was simply a way to express our affections for each other.
37. Katie (the other one) said the following at 10:39 AM on Nov 15:
Jo said:
If we begin setting ourselves higher standards than the Bible sets for us, and force ourselves to keep self-imposed or church-imposed rules that God has never commanded us to keep, all we do is exclude outsiders further and reduce our faith to legalism.
10 Points for this statement.
You captured the true nature of this perfectly.
38. Jo said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 15:
And lastly (I'll stop posting in a minute, I swear) -
I actually prefer the stance on this Boundless Answers article: the 'too far' line is not fixed. We can't legalise these things, we must seek God's will for our own conduct and stop being so quick to judge other people's.
39. Carrie said the following at 11:27 AM on Nov 15:
Kellie, not to be "extremely conservative", but the "It was simply a way to express our affections for each other" line of reasoning is EXACTLY what some people say about sex.
We are simply asking the question "where do we draw the line?". That's a valid question. I'm sorry you are offended by people trying to sort through things that grieve their heart.
40. Sara said the following at 11:34 AM on Nov 15:
While most of the time their motives are normal and OK, guys wanting someone 'innocent' isn't always itself an innocent thing. Sometimes it seems to be a power thing: wanting to be the first to 'conquer virgin territory'. It's especially strange when guy's preference for 'innocence' gets them talking about women as if they're little girls: 'sweet and innocent pure'. Do people think there's no connection between attitudes like this and pedophilia? Or asiaphilia: being attracted to the general idea of an innocent, servile asian girl.
Of course, women wanting an inexperienced man can be 'bad' if it's only a matter of insecurity about what the other person will think of your 'performance'.
All that might sound twisted, but I can't help but think there's a relationship between abuse, and the way innocence is mixed up with powerlessness in our culture.
41. John D. said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 15:
Or you can just do what I did and go through your entire twenties not kissing anyone.
42. Shannon said the following at 2:11 PM on Nov 15:
I do have some sympathy for the letter writer. My best friend dated a guy who was a terrible kisser: he would drop one ear to his shoulder, so his head was almost completely sideways, open his mouth as wide as he could, and then shoot his tongue in and out of her mouth. Disaster.
But her concern was not simply "he's not a good kisser." Her concern was that he seemed unresponsive to her discomfort with his technique, that he didn't adjust in response to her actions, and so forth. And that, in a microcosm, is what all relationships are about, give and take, seeing what you get from your partner and responding to that. That's the crux of every relationship, every conversation. So perhaps the letter writer is wondering, "Is it even possible for this guy to change in response to my needs, on this issue and on others?"
That being said, if everything else in the relationship is good, then all in good time.
43. TN1 said the following at 2:19 PM on Nov 15:
"What happened to plain old "save sex for marriage"? Now it's save kissing for marriage???"
This is interesting. Is kissing not a part of sex? Or was Bill Clinton on to something?
44. Adam said the following at 2:51 PM on Nov 15:
Carrie,
Kellie, not to be "extremely conservative", but the "It was simply a way to express our affections for each other" line of reasoning is EXACTLY what some people say about sex.
Yes, but the difference is that one is forbidden in the Bible and the other is not.
We are simply asking the question "where do we draw the line?". That's a valid question.
The simple answer to the question is the old protestant catch phrase "Sola Scriptura." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the scriptures fully equip us for every good work. If it is a good work to teach that kissing is wrong, then we should be able to do that from the Bible. The fact that we cannot shows that it is something that is allowable for Christians.
I agree with the folks who say that we need to examine our modivations for kissing, and do it for all of the right reasons. At the same time, we need to bring our contience into conformity with the scriptures. Hence, what we "regret" should not be based upon subjective feelings, but rather upon the clear testimony of scripture that what has been done is a violation of the very word of God.
For instance, I was intrigued by a blog post a while back in which the author quoted a survey which said that married people were generally more obese. Thus, if we get married, we are more likely to commit the sin of gluttony. Now, does that mean that we should not get married to avoid the sin of gluttony?
I really think that, no matter what we do, we will be at a greater risk for sin. In my view, our likelyhood of committing a sin has nothing to do with our environment, but it has to do with the sin that is already inside of us. The problem lies in the heart, and if we do not commit the sin of fornication, we will end up looking at pornography, committing adultery, engaging in prostitution etc. It is the sin that is the problem, and merely refraining from kissing only puts a band aide on the situation. If we really care about purity we will desire repentance from our sin, and desire a change from the inside, rather than an external change which will never be able to purify us.
45. Aaron Wells said the following at 3:13 PM on Nov 15:
As an elaboration on what John D. is saying, at least when you decide not to kiss until you are married, you do not have to wonder whether or not you are doing the right thing in that area.
46. Jo said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 15:
Sara said: "Sometimes it seems to be a power thing: wanting to be the first to 'conquer virgin territory'."
Oh yes, definitely. I've certainly seen this attitude a lot, and I wasn't suggesting it's a good thing. My point really was just that if non-Christian guys aren't put off by our 'inexperience', then we certainly shouldn't expect Christian guys who share our beliefs about sex to be worried by it.
47. Laura said the following at 3:43 PM on Nov 15:
Carrie said "I can see myself having a complex if my fiancè had the conviction that he didn't want to kiss me before the altar. I would be very paranoid because I have a lot of trust issues."
If you loved your fiance the way Christ loves us, would you still have this attitude? Please hear my heart, I'm not trying to attack you for expressing your honest opinion. However, if the only reason you kiss someone is to feel desired, or to confirm that you're good enough, then that relationship is going to experience some really tough times as you realise that kissing does not fill that need. Only God can help you through your trust issues - no person and no kiss - and honestly, it's very unfair to place such a huge load on their shoulders. With God as our first love, all the rest will follow.
48. Adam Sloope said the following at 5:07 PM on Nov 15:
This whole dating thing and sin has confused everyone. Looking back at the Bible and the marriages that were made within, we don't see this dating thing we do here in America so it will be hard to pull out anything black and white, but there is something we can learn. Marriage or dating success was not dependant upon kissing or "performing" after marriage. The only reason we think these things is because we are comparing others to our own past, which is unfair. So dating is a choice to invest time in a person to see if they could be a possible companion (husband/wife). It is unfair to judge them by our past. It is all about a decision we make to spend the rest of our lives with this person as a covenant with God. Even if I marry a woman who can't kiss well and is awkward, it does not mean anything, because my decision is based on love not emotional or physical stuff. In no way am I disregarding physical attraction, but compatibility sexually should not be figured out until after marriage at which point it does not matter right?
49. Marci said the following at 5:18 PM on Nov 15:
TN1, you said: "This is interesting. Is kissing not a part of sex? Or was Bill Clinton on to something?"
Finally! Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. I just don't understand how people view penetration as the only thing that constitutes sex.
Does anyone honestly believe that God did not design intimate kisses for sex? I can't understand why so many people split hairs in this area...
Blessings
50. Kelly said the following at 6:12 PM on Nov 15:
A question for Loris, who wrote this:
My first kiss was with the man who became my husband. I never wanted to kiss anyone else because I knew that if I did and we broke up, I would be devastated.
That was always my intention too. But the years passed and I eventually let myself be kissed by a man who'd been my friend for the past few years (I was 24).
I think because I'd waited so long, and then finally gave in to the overwhelming attention, of course I got far too attached. Some days I truly regret the kisses, other days I look on it as a growing experience.
So now I actually advocate kissing at a younger age, when you more easily get over heartbreaks. If you wait for first kiss with your future husband (say, 35? 40? and never been kissed), men tend to run screaming in the other direction. At least, that's been my experience: the idea that a girl has saved herself for one special person is often far too overwhelming and pressure-inducing at the start and as a result, the relationship never even gets off the ground!
51. Kelly said the following at 6:30 PM on Nov 15:
Marc said the following:
when you kiss your "one true love" or whatever you want to call him, chances are, the inexperience will show. In addition, you will not hear the sound of an orchestra in the background.
I have to disagree with this. ;) The first time I kissed Tom (not his real name), we'd been dating for several months and it was a beautiful moment that occurred perfectly innocently, naturally. It was one of those movie-type fairytale kisses! I'd only been kissed once before and he hadn't kissed anyone in a long time, yet the inexperience seemed not to matter at all.
On the flip side, I once had a boyfriend who kissed me two seconds after I agreed to officially go out with him. I wasn't ready for it, I hadn't even CONTEMPLATED holding his hand yet (much less kissing!) and it really put me off. It was certainly a horrible memory for a 'first kiss', which should be special.
I guess what I'm saying here is that if you do decide to kiss during your dating relationship, DON'T rush into it. You can give each other shy smiles for weeks, hold hands for months, and then that first kiss will seem all the more special.
[Although I feel compelled to add that, sadly, I did not marry Tom - he broke my heart, and so I constantly wonder, having experienced three dating relationships since then, and only one of those three involved kisses, if I'll ever love someone like that again.]
52. Adam said the following at 6:31 PM on Nov 15:
TN1,
This is interesting. Is kissing not a part of sex? Or was Bill Clinton on to something?
What matters is not how Bill Clinton defines things, but how the Bible defines things. Again, I have to keep bringing those that are opposed to premarital kissing back to scripture and ask them to proove it from the scriptures. If you cannot, then you are stuck denying the sufficiency of the scriptures.
Also, I think to parallel a married man who is bound to a wife, and who, not only kissed a woman other than his wife, but kissed areas that are off limits for *everyone* outside of marriage, is to compare apples and oranges. You will find what Bill Clinton did spoken against in Ezekiel 23. However, one thing you will not find in that passage is a condemnation of premarital kissing.
So, no, TN1 and Marci, we are not limiting sexual sin to penetration. However, what we are asking for is scriptural support if you are going to say that this is somehow sinful.
53. Kit said the following at 6:37 PM on Nov 15:
TN1 and Marci,
What does Bill Clinton have to do with kissing and this conversation? I'm missing the relevance of this to the discussion. On a side note, I'm also not quite sure why people can't let this issue go. Yes, Bill committed much adultery. This was like six years ago...I think we as Americans need to move on.
Kelly, I too have mixed feelings. I think it is possible to have a "chaste" kiss. It is not sex, and although it is often a pre-cursor to sex, it doens't have to be. I think each person needs to figure out what his/her belifs are in a relationship, and then discuss this with the boyfriend/girlfriend. As long as the participants are in agreement, that's the most important thing.
54. Leah said the following at 6:42 PM on Nov 15:
Laura- you say that not kissing before marriage " It is a true testiment of a godly relationship.*
*Please note: not that any relationship with kissing isn't godly, not implying that at all. However, we as Christians are called to live differently from the world - shouldn't this apply in our relationships as well??? "
Yes, it should apply in our relationships as well. And I can completely and honestly say that my relationship with my boyfriend is a testiment because it is different- even though we do kiss. Why? Because (non-Christian) people are astounded that we've been going out for 2 and a half years and never gotten undressed for each other, never had sex, haven't moved in together. There are many more things other than kissing that non-Christians expect you to do that you can turn into a witness.
Marci- kisses are most definitely, positively not necessarily sexual. For sure, some are. But please, do not put a blanket over them and say "how can they not be sexual". Because there are many ways. A kiss through which there flows only love is the most beautiful type.
And to those criticising the girl who wrote the initial letter: please, cut her some slack! (And no, it's not me :P). She realises there is a problem with her attitude and has gone looking for help. How is that not commendable? She is feeling confused and anxious and knows that by her attitude she has potentially wronged her boyfriend and is searching for a way to fix her attitude.
55. Kellie said the following at 7:08 PM on Nov 15:
Marci and TN1, kissing can be a part of sex, but no, it's not sex.
Oral sex (I assume that's what the Bill Clinton comment referred to) is not kissing...it's oral sex.
56. farmer Tom said the following at 9:35 PM on Nov 15:
,i>Jo had the following to say on Nov 15 at 10:17 AM:
Laura said: "However, we as Christians are called to live differently from the world - shouldn't this apply in our relationships as well???"
We are not 'called to live differently' - we are called to follow Christ. Following Christ has the effect of changing the way we live, but living differently is not our primary goal. We don't define ourselves as Christians by how different we are to the world, but by how similar we are to Christ.
I can't let this post pass without comment.
These two comments in particular.We are not 'called to live differently'
We don't define ourselves as Christians by how different we are to the world,
One of the major problems in chistianity today is the attempt to blur the lines between the behaviors of the world and those who claim the name of Christ.
Paul makes an eloquent argument for Faith and Grace in the Book of Romans. He lays out the need for a Savior, one man to pay the penalty for the sin passed to all men through Adam. But, too many people who read the Bible and claim to love Christ stop there. The Christian life is much more than being saved from sin. It is being set apart unto Christ.
And this is where I find these comments to be.....um.......well.......um......wrong. There I said it.
Read Romans 8:29:
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Yes, we are called to follow Christ, we are to be conformed to his image
But, that is not the whole story.
Read
Passage Romans 12:1:
Romans 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
My pastor calls it the put off and put on principle. We are to put off the world, to actively live differently than the world around us, while putting on (conforming to) Jesus Christ.
Not only that, Paul says later in II Corinthians 6: 14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:............
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,........
There is to be a visible, obvious difference between the world and the follower of Jesus Christ. We are to literally separate ourselves from the world.
The point I'm trying to make is, that we should be different than the world, even in our dating relationships, whether or not we kiss before marriage, there should be such a difference in the behavior and attitude of a follower of Jesus Christ that the world around will say, "That person is a Christian, I can tell by how they act."
57. Jesse said the following at 12:09 AM on Nov 16:
By the time I'd even heard about saving kisses for marriage, I'd already kissed several different girls. I thought the idea was novel and could understand someone's reason for abstaining as a means to avoid temptation. But, I know from experience that kissing does not render a relationship sex-bound, nor does it nullify that relationship's potential to bear fruit for God's kingdom. I draw the line at kissing, and I've been in relationships that saw friends accept Christ, ministries grow, and fellow couples make new commitments to purity. I draw the line at kissing and I know that I'll have an amazing physical relationship with my future wife. I am a virgin and I'm saving myself for marriage. Please don't make up an extra-biblical law that separates you and I.
58. Carrie said the following at 6:40 AM on Nov 16:
Laura asked me:
"If you loved your fiance the way Christ loves us, would you still have this attitude?" and reminded me "However, if the only reason you kiss someone is to feel desired, or to confirm that you're good enough, then that relationship is going to experience some really tough times as you realise that kissing does not fill that need."
Feeling desired isn't the only reason I would have for kissing, but it'd be in the top 3 -- that much I won't deny.
As if as the hypothetical "if I loved my fiancè . . ." I'd have to answer "I don't know". Christ isn't a two dimensional character. He has emotions and He has desires. He's perfect, so He can get those desires met on His own through His triadic nature. While I am to imitate Christ, I have to admit that I am not Christ and cannot fulfill my own desires. I don't think stiffling my desires is healthy either. This brings me back to the same dilemma I presented in my first post (in this thread): "So, while I don't want to "awaken love" too soon, I also want to know I am desired and wanted."
59. Louise said the following at 7:16 AM on Nov 16:
For contact to be "sexual contact" it must include at least one sexual organ.
Kissing, mouth to mouth, does not constitute sexual contact.
What is going to be next? Are telephone calls going to be considered sexual contact, because the people having the conversation possess sexual organs?
60. Louise said the following at 9:24 AM on Nov 16:
Sexual organs are those body parts which must be covered by a bathing suit.
This only included the buttocks, genitals, and female breasts.
61. Jo said the following at 9:25 AM on Nov 16:
farmer Tom, I don't think we're really disagreeing.
Yes, if we're truly following Christ we will be different. That much is absolutely true, and illustrated by the verses you quoted. And yes, the Bible presents it as an 'either/or' choice, "Don't conform to the world; instead be like Christ", because overall, the ways of the world are opposed to the way of Christ. Whenever Christ and the world disagree (which is often), we are called to act like Christ.
The point I'm making is that some Christians seem to think that merely following Christ will not make us quite different enough. We start creating differences in areas where in fact there is no disagreement between Christ and the world, or taking our legitimate differences further than we need to for the purpose of making an even bigger statement. Rather than just avoiding media with anti-Christian messages, I'll avoid ALL secular media because we're meant to be different right? Rather than saving sex 'til marriage, I'll save kissing 'til marriage too, because that's an even more obvious gesture. Rather than go to that party and abstain from drinking, i'll just skip it altogether, because that sends a clearer message about my beliefs.
ALL the above examples may be done out of good motives, in no way am I condemning anyone who has made those choices. What I'm challenging is the reasoning of "...in order to be more different", as opposed to "...because that's what I believe Christ is asking me to do".
In a recent sermon at my church the speaker suggested that all of us have a tendency either to want to be like the world, or to run away from it. (That old immersion/isolation problem again.) I really believe we aren't called to 'be different from the world' any more than we're called to 'be relevant to the world'. They are opposite sides of the same coin and both have a place in the living out of our faith. But if we make them our primary goal, they distract us from our basic calling, which is simply to be like Christ.
62. Carrie said the following at 10:07 AM on Nov 16:
Louise asked "Are telephone calls going to be considered sexual contact, because the people having the conversation possess sexual organs?"
The part of the question that states " . . .because the people having the conversation possess sexual organs" is the heart of the issue. We skirt around the obvious all the time. God created "male" and "female".
To address the specific question you asked about phone calls, even phone calls can't be innocent in a fallen world. My pastor has a rule with his daughters (who are teenagers): they may not call boys on the telephone. He also doesn't/didn't allow females to call his sons. One female called one of his sons once and it never happened again.
Incidentally, just this past weekend, the issue of calling boys came up with a friend of mine. We were on the campus of our alma mater and I ran into a male friend of mine. He has a new cell number and he gave it to me. He told me "Call me anytime". My friend and I made our way back to my car and as we were driving away I commented to her "Cute boys are SUCH a distraction!". She encouraged me "I would have said 'Why don't you call me anytime?'". I knew she was right and I need to quit boy chasing.
I have called many a boy in my day and I am reaping what I have sown . . . still single at 26. Chasing boys doesn't really get you anywhere no matter how "innocent" the phone call is.
63. Kit said the following at 10:15 AM on Nov 16:
"To address the specific question you asked about phone calls, even phone calls can't be innocent in a fallen world. My pastor has a rule with his daughters (who are teenagers): they may not call boys on the telephone. He also doesn't/didn't allow females to call his sons. One female called one of his sons once and it never happened again."
Yikes! This sounds a little extreme to me; if I was a teenager in that house, I would be rebelling! I'd say phone calls are a good way to get to know one another! How else are people supposed to get to know one another? What's next--censoring the mail so they can't even be pen-pals? Of course phone calls are like everything else, and discernment must be practiced, but there is nothing un-innocent about an ordinary phone call, especially when initiated by the man. Otherwise people wouldn't speak until after they were married!
64. Louise said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 16:
Okay, now people can't even call people on the phone without it being sexual.
My reference to the phone was a joke, BTW.
Seems my jokes go over on this blog about as well as those of Mr. Brown.
65. Loris said the following at 10:48 AM on Nov 16:
In reply to Kelly,
"Only kissing the man I would marry" was not a hard-and-fast rule with me, but a desire of my heart I never told anyone about that the Lord honored. As it happened, I met my husband when I was 19 and we started dating about eight months later. Having a first kiss at 20 is still pretty young. And yes, he asked me if he could kiss me first, which got him major points both with me and with my dad, when I told my dad about it.
66. Chantell said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 16:
We're glorifying naivete as a substitute for innocence here. For women, kissing is a significant expression of passion and chemistry that is quite separate from sex. That's why the author of the original letter we're lambasting asks a legitimate question. If kissing her fiance feels like kissing her brother, I predict there's a problem that can't be resolved with practice. To treat the issue of kissing as one of mere skill is to discount those factors that make love delightful and elevate marriage above drudgery (to quote Ravi Zacharias).
67. Sara said the following at 12:00 PM on Nov 16:
I can't help but give my one of my favourite quotes from Flannery O'Connor. I just went to look it up and found it had already been posted on Boundless! So from an article from Sam Torode,
"Could it be that the act of kissing has been distorted and blown out of proportion by our culture? First, considered as a biological act, there isn't much to it. My favorite quote on kissing comes from Flannery O'Connor's story Good Country People. When the main female character in that story is kissed, O'Connor writes: "She had never been kissed before and she was pleased to discover that it was an unexceptional experience and all a matter of the mind's control. Some people might enjoy drain water if they were told it was vodka."
Second, kissing between friends and even strangers is not considered anything special in Europe or many Orthodox churches. Last fall, at an Orthodox church in Maryland, I was kissed by a number of total strangers — including a couple of men. To me this was a shocking experience; culturally, the "kiss of peace" is lost to me, and that is sad. (Continuing my misadventures, this spring at a formal waltz ball, I completely bumbled the occasion when a woman tried to exchange a kiss on the cheek.) Patchin writes that "kissing is treated so nonchalantly" in our culture; I believe it is quite the opposite. Kissing has been so blown out of proportion that we cannot treat it casually. The very phrase "kiss of peace" makes no sense to a culture that only knows the "kiss of passion."
That's from http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/beyond_buddies/a0000308.html
68. Carrie said the following at 12:49 PM on Nov 16:
Kit, I can assure you as tempted as these girls may be to rebel, they are filled with love for the Savior and they know that by obeying their parents they are obeying God.
Yes, it is extreme, my pastor and his wife wouldn't deny that for a second. However, you won't catch them suggesting this be a rule every Christian family should practice.
Also, it's not like the kids don't get any interaction with the opposite gender. They go to school and there are other people in the church besides the pastor's family.
And I'm not completely sure that phone calls are 100% innocent. I remember being in 6th grade waiting for a certain boy to call me to go over something for choir (I wasn't a Christian at the time, my parents still aren't believers, and I attended a public school) and my heart was racing.
69. Carrie said the following at 12:54 PM on Nov 16:
Oh, and Louise, I could sense you were joking, but I wanted to point out that I don't think phone calls can be completely innocent.
You did, however, hit the nail on the head with the conclusion that people have sexual organs. It's because of this obvious state of being that we can't let down our guard in our battle to remain pure . . . . even in something as "innocent" as a phone call.
70. Louise said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 16:
Maybe it would be safer if we surgically removed our sexual organs.
Then at least, we could talk on the phone without worrying about "The Battle to Remain Pure."
And re Kellie's comment re the "silliness" of this discussion, it's now gone quite beyond that.
71. Carrie Lea said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 16:
Louise,
I can think of an example when even a phone call could be, in a sense, "sexual contact." Ever heard of phone sex?
If my husband were to engage in this activity with another woman, you bet I would consider it cheating, and thus a sexual act. Some types of kisses would be acceptable, but others would definitely not. In that sense, I would have to agree with those who consider at least some types of kisses to be sexual in nature.
Adam,
Surely you can think of some acts that are not mentioned specifically in Scripture, yet are obviously wrong. For instance, (gross-out warning) where is the scriptural support for the idea that cooking a dead infant in front of his siblings and feeding him to them is wrong? You could point to the dietary laws, IF you are willing to accept that they still apply to us. Yet anyone can see that this would be a heinous act.
The Boundless authors don't seem to be saying that kissing is wrong in itself, but that it can be wrong if done with an attitude or in a manner that is not pure.
Consider these verses:
Here is the idea that certain leaders are in a position to judge not only cases, but questions of detail in the Law:
"Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. ... Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left." (Deut. 17:9-11)
Reiterated by Jesus:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you." (Matthew 23:2-3)
Specifically regarding acts leading to sexual arousal (which many agree includes certain types of kissing):
"Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires." (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4)
That said, I agree that the sin comes from the heart. However, I would add that it is not limited to the heart. We may not have reached a place of perfect purity in our hearts, but that does not excuse us from "acting out" what we know to be right and wise. After all, our souls are affected by what our bodies do.
72. Carrie said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 16:
How is remaining pure not a battle???
73. skp said the following at 2:22 PM on Nov 16:
Multiple posts on where do you draw the line: telephone calls----holding hands----kissing----sex.
Many others on why do you draw the line---it prevents temptation--because we need to live differently from the world....it doesn't say that in the bible you're making rules that don't exist......
I ask what are your motives- is it to honor God or is it some kind of contest ....I'm a better Christina than you are.
74. Motte said the following at 2:24 PM on Nov 16:
Adam:
I believe Scott Croft makes a compelling case in his article "To Kiss or Not to Kiss" from Scripture that some forms of kissing could be considered sin; particularly his applicaton of 1 Timothy 5:1-2. But I also agree with Scott that Christians can disagree on this issue. He writes,
"I want to be careful to acknowledge that whether premarital kissing is a sin or not is not a salvation issue. Two people who believe totally opposite things on that question can still believe the exact same gospel and can still be in heaven together one day. Both can enjoy the same grace and salvation of Jesus Christ. One of them's just wrong about kissing :)"
75. Louise said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 16:
I don't know if remaining pure is a battle.
I do know however, that this conversation is stupid and no longer worth my time and effort.
76. Adam said the following at 3:11 PM on Nov 16:
Carrie Lea,
Surely you can think of some acts that are not mentioned specifically in Scripture, yet are obviously wrong. For instance, (gross-out warning) where is the scriptural support for the idea that cooking a dead infant in front of his siblings and feeding him to them is wrong? You could point to the dietary laws, IF you are willing to accept that they still apply to us. Yet anyone can see that this would be a heinous act.
First of all, we do not need to find every act mentioned in the Bible by name. Something can be condemned either in specific vocabulary or by concept. For instance, the Bible doesn't mention the specific word "abortion," but the concept is clearly there in Exodus 21:22-25. However, the Bible never says kissing is wrong either in vocabulary or concept. That is the point.
However, I will take up your challenge. In Leviticus 26:29, God mentions that his people will sin in specific ways, and that he will punish them for their sins. One sin is specifically mentioned:
Leviticus 26:29-30 'Further, you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat. 30 'I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and heap your remains on the remains of your idols, for My soul shall abhor you.
Notice, that it is not a matter of "purity codes," it is rather a matter of morality as it is put in the same context as idolatry.
The Boundless authors don't seem to be saying that kissing is wrong in itself, but that it can be wrong if done with an attitude or in a manner that is not pure.
However, this is true of any action. Remember what Paul himself said:
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Thus, any action can be done sinfully, not just kissing. Does that mean that we should refrain from marriage because we might get married for sinful reasons?
Specifically regarding acts leading to sexual arousal (which many agree includes certain types of kissing):
"Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires." (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4)
The key to the text is what is meant by love personified. What does it mean when we say that love desires something? I think the most consistent way to read the text is to say that we are still talking about the love of the two lovers. Otherwise, the text becomes grossly disrupted, as you have to jump to the love of the daughters of Jerusalem, and then back to the love of the two lovers.
I would simply say that the text means that you cannot force two people to fall in love. Love must be something that comes natural, and it is not something that can be forced upon people.
That said, I agree that the sin comes from the heart. However, I would add that it is not limited to the heart. We may not have reached a place of perfect purity in our hearts, but that does not excuse us from "acting out" what we know to be right and wise. After all, our souls are affected by what our bodies do.
First of all, I do not agree that refraining from kissing is right or wise. Secondly, you tried to argue that you and Boundless are not trying to say that premarital kissing is wrong. Well, if refraining from premarital kissing is "right," then what is not refraining from premarital kissing? It must be the opposite of what is right, which means it is what is wrong. Thirdly, what you say seems to contradict what the apostle Paul says in his letter to the Colossians:
Colossians 2:20-23 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Sounds like what Paul is saying is that no way of treating your body will help in the batter against the desires of the flesh, including the fight against fleshly temptation. Yet, you have just told me that, by changing your environment, and obeying commands such as "do not touch," you will all of the sudden be able to be sanctified.
The Boundless authors don't seem to be saying that kissing is wrong in itself
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I did not get that impression from reading this part of Scott Croft's article on the topic. He said:
I'll start by putting my position right on the line:
I believe the Bible to teach that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sin, and all romantically oriented physical activity is sexual activity. In my view, this includes premarital kissing. [from http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001429.cfm]
I am taking this to mean that he is drawing a direct connection between romantically oriented physical activity, sexual activity, and sin.
Matt Schmucker likewise says:
Second, Christian men are called to protect their sisters in Christ, not take advantage of them. Consider 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 (NIV):
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.
Where the NIV says, "no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him," the NASB says, "no one should defraud." Defraud means "to deprive of something by deception or fraud."
What do I mean by defrauding in this context? Simply put, a man defrauds a woman when, by his words or actions, he promises the benefits of marriage to a woman he either has no intention of marrying or if he does, has no way of finally knowing that he will. The four authors of this chapter often speak on this topic because we know that brothers in Christ in our church and yours are defrauding (taking advantage of) sisters in Christ, and as the apostle James says, "My brothers, these things ought not to be so" (James 3:10). [from http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001193.cfm]
It seems like Mr. Schmucker is saying that kissing is inconsistent with 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6, because it is his assertion that it "defrauds" someone.
Again, maybe I am misunderstanding these authors, but I have even talked to people who use these arguments when I tell them that I believe that premarital kissing is Biblically acceptable before marriage.
Again, I see no Biblical support for this at all. Unless you can show [yes, I will take both vocabulary and concept] from the scriptures that kissing is somehow wrong and unwise, you are forced the the conclusion that the idea that premarital kissing is wrong is unbiblical.
77. Adam said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 16:
Motte,
I appriciate the comment. I too agree that this is an issue upon which Christians can disagree. I guess what I am pointing out is that it is inconsistent to argue that premarital kissing is sinful, and that the scriptures are sufficient to define sin for us.
As for Scott Croft's article, yes I have read it before. I believe Scott is engaging in a long circular argument.
His argument appears to be in this form:
1. All sexual activity ouside of marriage is sin.
2. Premarital kissing is a romantically oriented physical activity, and therefore, a sexual activity.
3. Therefore, premarital kissing is a sin.
Of course, we can easily challange premise #2. First of all, what does Mr. Croft mean by a "sexual activity?" His language is ambiguous. However, his definition could only take on one of two descriptions, sinful or not sinful. If he means "sexual activity" in the sense of something romantic that is not said to be sinful in the Bible, then he refutes his own argument. However, if he means a "sexual activity" in the sense of a romantic action which is said to be sinful in the Bible, then he would be under obligation to prove that premarital kissing is sinful romantic action from the text of the Bible. I am pretty sure he wants us to take the second interpretation, however, he retreats to ambiguious language so he doesn't have to prove this interpretation. He can then go off quoting all of these passages which talk about extramarital sexuality being wrong, but never proves that his definition of a "sexual activity" is consistent with how the Bible uses such terminology. Thus, I would say Mr. Croft is wrong to say that a romantically oriented physical activity is a sexual activity, as the Bible never defines it as such. Thus, he has also begged the question, attributing kissing as a sexual activity in the sense that the Bible uses the term, when he has never prooven that from the text of the scriptures themselves.
Also, he uses a really bad argument that says that, if we are not married to someone, then we are to treat them like a biological brother or sister, and then cites passages talking about spiritual brothers and sisters as if it had any relevance. If we want to go that route, we could use the following argument:
1. If we are not married to someone in the church, we are to treat them as biological brothers and sisters.
2. Biological brothers and sisters are not allowed to attend marriage counciling with each other, since it is immoral for brothers and sisters to get married.
3. Therefore, if you are unmarried, you cannot attend marriage counciling.
Or even better yet:
1. If we are not married to someone in the church, we are to treat them as biological brothers and sisters.
2. Biological brothers and sisters are not allowed to marry each another.
3. Therefore, no two Christians are allowed to marry each other.
Of course, now Scott Croft's argument has destroyed marriage altogether.
I agree with you guys on the issues of commitment and parental involvement in relationships. I think that those are key to having good relationships. However, I think we need to remember to remain consistent with the scriptures at all times, and not engage in things that might be counter-cultural, but cannot be substantiated from the text of the Bible.
God Bless,
Adam
78. Thea said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 16:
About "bad kissers":
There are hundreds of ways to kiss. Some my husband likes more than me and others I like more than he. We love each other and we often kiss each other according to how the other one likes it best. And then, there's finding out new ways to kiss we didn't know before.
So, if by chance you date someone and then get married without knowing what kind of kisser he/she is because you waited until the wedding day, then it's an opportunity, not a disaster.
And if you kiss beforehand and find it a problem area, I hope that it isn't the end of the relationship.
That's where good communication skills and sensitivity come in, which take time to develop, as well as getting to know each other's hearts.
It's like, we look at the whole person and the whole relationship instead of one small part of it.
79. Elizabeth H. said the following at 4:01 PM on Nov 16:
Thanks for this topic. I support saving kissing for marriage, but I appreciate breaking the taboo about what to do if one spouse is more “experienced.”
I think physical attraction also relates to gender roles. I know that God will help my future husband and me to be attracted to each other. I know that I will find it extremely attractive to be pursued and led into a relationship by a godly man who loves me. Perhaps my future husband will not be able to lead me using prior experience, but he will lead by love. (I hope! :) )
80. Adam D said the following at 8:23 PM on Nov 16:
Can't we all just kiss and make up?
81. Leah said the following at 11:11 PM on Nov 16:
Carrie- I tend to wonder why you think calling a guy is chasing him. I've called many guys for various reasons, and never to chase him. And when you said your heart was racing in 6th grade because a choir boy was going to call you... sorry, but why is that wrong? You were, what, a 12 year old girl probably just discovering how exciting boys can be? I don't think either you or him were contemplating phone sex or anything.
82. Candice said the following at 6:22 AM on Nov 17:
This blows my mind... this blog has over 80 posts... that's over ten times that amount that most of the other blogs have.
83. David P said the following at 6:37 AM on Nov 17:
Adam D:
Sure, as long as it doesn't turn into 'kiss and make out'. ;-)
To me, this whole thing is just straining at gnats. Some people can and have taken pre-marital kissing in stride and come out the better for it while others wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. You should know which type you are. As for the young woman in the original column, she may rest assured that not being a good kisser is easily rectifiable, the process of which is one of the more pleasant aspects of marriage.
84. Carrie said the following at 6:26 AM on Nov 18:
Leah, I've searched my heart and I have come to realize that I position myself in order to have an excuse to call single, available, members of the opposite gender. Maybe that's not true of you and that's great (I envy you in that case), but I have realized that I am chasing boys by calling them.
As far as the heart racing comment I didn't make the comment to say that there is anything wrong with that specific situation. I was just merely pointing out that even in the most "innocent" of situations, hearts are at stake.
85. Leah said the following at 6:19 PM on Nov 18:
Carrie- ok, sure. It just sounded like you were blanketing all phone calls to guys as "chasing" them! :)
86. Chelsea said the following at 7:53 PM on Nov 18:
I feel that the Lord would not want men and women to be near each other in an intimate way before marriage. Period!!
I made a few mistakes before I was saved, nothing really BAD, but just little things, like small kisses and handholding that were really going to lead to other things if I hadn't felt the Holy Spirit saying, "Hold on! Wait a minute! This isn't how I designed it!"
So luckily for me, I did not have to deal with a lot of the heartbreak and mental issues that comes from premarital intimacy, but it was difficult. So I would really encourage EVERYONE to wait for the altar. You can figure the how-to stuff out AFTER you're married. I wouldn't want to risk my soul just for a few kisses, you know?
87. Katie (the other one) said the following at 9:42 PM on Nov 18:
Carrie said:
I was just merely pointing out that even in the most "innocent" of situations, hearts are at stake.
Wow. Carrie, if I took everything in life as seriously as you seem to, I'd have had an ulcer by age 20. Not everything in life is as morose and multifaceted as you might think. Surprisingly, some things truly are innocent.
88. Peter said the following at 10:52 PM on Nov 18:
I just wanted to pipe in real quick here....
I am a 30 year old male, and I've never even had a kiss with a girl before ( and I am decent looking and not weird by any means in case anyone thinks that ). This issue of having some sort of tactical in the field experience is a huge source of anxiety for me in todays culture.
Why? Because I think on some level even Christian girls are being conditioned to hold a double standard which says they must be pure until marriage but subtly they are also buying into this idea that guys must have some sort of past or some sort of experience to be attractive or to be given a chance at all!
I mean c'mon ladies? You know deep down it makes you feel more comfortable to be with a guy that is comfortable in his own skin!! And speaking as a guy: that only happens in our minds with some experience. For a guy like me that has not had "any" luck in this area and a lack of experience coupled with the ridiculous sexualization of our culture leads to a an overwhelmingly distored lack of comfort in this so called dance of attraction and dating which only creates an endless loop of frustration. That lack of comfort leads to a lack of confidence which leads to always being put in a friend zone because whether Christian girls would like to admit it or not you respond to the same sort of cues non-Christian girls do, which is why guys who have been with several girls ( partially or all the way ) will always be the ones that are most comfortable around girls and be perceived as "great guys" and be found to be "attractive" ( regardless of whether the girl knows about his past or not ) because they have technically crossed a line and reached a comfort in their interactions with women that has given them the confidence to subtly communicate the vibe that they have had or have women in their life which almost every girl whether they want to deny it or not responds to!! Attraction is not a choice! I will go out on a limb here and say it they actually respond to it on a more subliminal level than they think. Christian or non-Christian, it does not matter!
I feel sorry for the young guy mentioned in the original letter but on another level I envy him because at least he has kissed, and can feel even slightly confident about that, which if things do not work out with the present girl will help him with the next because he won't have that pressing on his shoulders!!
And I just want to say I'm so sick and tired of running into these godly Christian girls who speak out of two sides of their mouth and say they want A, B, C, & D Christian qualities in a man, and then if you just observe the men they talk to or just subliminally approach without even realizing it are the complete opposite.
Just proves my point even more actually!!
89. Kellie said the following at 8:29 AM on Nov 19:
Carrie,
Even in relationships that lead to marriage, hearts are at stake. Loving someone is a risk. I am troubled by the trends in the Christian world that seek to take all the risk out of relationships...those are not relationships worth having.
90. Sara said the following at 11:18 AM on Nov 19:
Peter, unfortunately I think you're right, although it depends on the kind of person you are. There's nothing strange about a guy's inexperience making him feel extra vulnerable or anxious. I think what is maybe less attractive to girls is when a guy is so preoccupied with his shyness that he is paying only secondary attention to the girl.
The thing that's attractive about confident guys is that they really seem to *like* girls, and not see girls' thoughts and feelings as some kind of uncomfortable obstacle to overcome. It all comes easier to some people than others. Some 'unexperienced' people are lucky enough to have the kind of personality that makes them able to still be open and unashamed about their inexperience, and have a good sense of humour about their awkwardness; to see the whole thing just as something new two people can figure out together.
91. Erica said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 19:
Women are created different from men. Men are more easily aroused than a woman. Also, a man can easily reach orgasm than a woman. A woman can only reach after a period of foreplay. Also, some women are only interested in sex only during their ovulation period (once per month) while most men are interested in sex on a weekly basis. Peter, I believe this is result why women both in the church and the world are advised or ill advised to seek men who are more experienced than them.
At the bridal shower I attended and my shower the women there warned me that I should ensured that I have kissed the man I am marrying to. The brides at the other bridal showers are encouraged to do so too. Also, to make sure that the guy is able to have an erection. The women who are giving the advised are women who are christian and have been married 10, 15, 20, 30 years.
A lady at my church told of a sister of the same denomination that I attended who on her wedding night found out that the groom was Transexual who does not have a male sex organ. She remain married to him, what should a woman in that position do? Boundless frequently advised their readers to withhold all form of showing affection inculding holding hands and kissing. What steps can one take to ensure that the persons they are marrying are normal biological man or woman before they married them. In today's world there a lot are couples who have sex problems and some of these folks are christians who were virgins when they got married. Although we never have sex before we married we hugged and kissed each other. I have no regret of doing so? I have enjoyed his kisses before got marry and after.
92. Carrie said the following at 12:01 PM on Nov 19:
Katie (the other one), I respectfully disagree with your assessment of "Not everything in life is as morose and multifaceted as you might think".
Actually, I can't even begin to conceive how morose and multifaceted the human heart is. It goes far beyond my own understanding. I don't have an ulcer because I know that Christ is the victor of it all.
I think it's impossible for anything to be completely, 100% innocent in the fallen world we live in. The only hope we have for true, 100% innocence is in Christ and won't be found before heaven.
93. Jo said the following at 1:45 PM on Nov 19:
Peter said: "...guys who have been with several girls ( partially or all the way ) will always be the ones that are most comfortable around girls and be perceived as "great guys" and be found to be "attractive" ( regardless of whether the girl knows about his past or not ) because they have technically crossed a line and reached a comfort in their interactions with women that has given them the confidence to subtly communicate the vibe that they have had or have women in their life which almost every girl whether they want to deny it or not responds to!!"
That's a really, really interesting point. I've genuinely never thought about that before, thanks for bringing it up.
94. Peter said the following at 8:30 PM on Nov 19:
Sara wrote: "The thing that's attractive about confident guys is that they really seem to *like* girls, and not see girls' thoughts and feelings as some kind of uncomfortable obstacle to overcome. It all comes easier to some people than others. Some 'unexperienced' people are lucky enough to have the kind of personality that makes them able to still be open and unashamed about their inexperience, and have a good sense of humour about their awkwardness; to see the whole thing just as something new two people can figure out together."
Well it's not that confident guys like girls more, trust me I can think of some absolutely huge crushes I've had as as the guy that gets put in "nice guy" slot more often than not, it's that confident guys have been around or gone through enough girls that they just know either through intimacy or instinctively through countless interactions how to subvert those things you bring up. It's something that would probably never EVER cross a girl's mind to ask why a guy seems to be so confident around girls or women because naturally as a women you are just instantly drawn to it, there is something going on that is not easily explained by Scripture there, it is a primal human thing. There are of course exceptions: some men are just naturally confident but I believe there are many more men who either fake it or are not, and if you don't believe me...
Watch a show like the Pickup artist on VH1, where regular guys are completely transformed ( albeit probably for very wordly reasons ) in a short period of time because they are trained to supress or get over all the qualities that would naturally communicate to a women they have not had that experience, and I'm not justifying that show at all but on some level from the time women are teenagers they are schooled in the art or the practice of making themselves appealing to the opposite sex, through peers, culture, and such, such shows in my mind and the requisite underground community simply do the same but only for men. Because you certainly won't hear men sitting around talking about how they "don't know" how to engage or approach or they are not sure "about when to kiss" . There is too much ego on the line. But girls expect and are drawn to such men who are smooth and comfortable in such things. It's simply a reality.
Where does this put the guy who wants to remain pure and not feel like he is always taking advantage of a girl because he desires her in a romantic way? I'm not sure, if I had it figured out I would be in a different place right now, but I have come to believe that a romantic pursuit with a person you intend to marry is not at all a spiritual endeavor, it is very much an effort that requires you to keep your foot firmly planted into your own humanity, because lets face it, if we all were completely satisfied with our relationships with God we would never desire any relationship but that one.
And I just want to say I regret reading I Kissed Dating Goodbye so many years ago. While I applaud the countercultural exhortation of dating espoused in the book I think it ultimately gave me a platform ( and many others like me ) to excuse myself from taking some risks and figuring out what it means to put your foot forward and move on something, and now it's been so long and I've had so much frustration it almost seems like it will never end now.
95. xeres said the following at 10:27 PM on Nov 19:
Peter,
You said : "if we all were completely satisfied with our relationships with God we would never desire any relationship but that one.?
What do you mean? Would you please articulate that you mean marital and romantic relationships. It sounds like being satisfied with God equate we don't need all kinds of relationships (in general like family, friends, neighbors, discipleship etc), which is unbiblical since humans aren't meant to be alone as God says in Genesis. The two commandments are love God and love your neighbor as youself. How can the "love your neighbor" be fulfilled if someone doesn't have some type of relationship, whatever it is?
96. Leah said the following at 6:16 AM on Nov 20:
Peter, you seem to imply that "the guy who wants to remain pure and not feel like he is always taking advantage of a girl because he desires her in a romantic way" cannot be confident around girls, and that confident men are, for the most part, confident because they have "gone through enough girls".
I would argue that's not true. If I think of all my guy friends from my christian group on campus, a majority of them appear confident. Not arrogant or over the top, but comfortable. I'm not saying they are, but they certainly appear that way. What's also notable is that they don't appear to be chasing girls with that confidence. Everyone is simply friends. (There are a few of us who are observant enough to notice when a relationship is blossoming, but often it goes largely undetected until he actually asks).
And these guys certainly aren't "experienced". I know most of them have had only 1, or no, girlfriends at all.
However- on a different tack- apparently there is a certain group of girls in our christian campus group loosely termed the "untouchables" by guys. They are the ones seen as so Godly and biblically knowledgeable that the guys feel they could never do an adequate job of leading such women. Which of course is rubbish, but I guess that is an example of men feeling inadequate and unconfident in regards to relationships. However, I have never noticed this unconfidence coming through to the surface.
97. Tami said the following at 10:57 AM on Nov 20:
Referring to the guys Leah described in her last comment:
I'm still so confounded by this idea that a woman needs to be "less godly" in order to attract a Christian guy.
I understand it if the women act holier-than-thou and hammer people with their Bible knowledge. But to look over those women just because they're godly? That also implies that that they are humble, kind, thoughtful people who *aren't* going to hammer you all the time, and likely to accept a good man's leadership.
Frankly, if the choice those women have is between developing a Christlike character and becoming less godly to attract a guy... maybe they're *better off* waiting for men that actually respect those qualities.
Maybe a guy can explain this to me?
To Peter - I hope it heartens you to know that some women *do* recognize that these guys connect with us so well *because* they're so practiced. I have fun conversing with those kinds of guys (and yes, they can be pretty flattering), but I also have a difficult time taking them seriously as relationship material. If they're so comfortable with me, they're likely super comfortable with other women, too! Little to no real "specialness" there.
That said, sometimes awkwardness comes off as "I don't like you, and I can't be bothered to get to know you." Not saying that's true or right, but it is what it is.
When I was younger, I thought this one guy hated me because he would barely look at me or be bothered (or so it seemed) to say hi. I got to know him a lot better, and he turned out to be a really kind guy and a good friend. He was just... awkward, and I think he had a lot of presumptions about me, too (which is a different story, but anyway).
98. Carole L said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 20:
“Peter stated:
… I think on some level even Christian girls are being conditioned to hold a double standard which says they must be pure until marriage but subtly they are also buying into this idea that guys must have some sort of past or some sort of experience to be attractive or to be given a chance at all!
I mean c'mon ladies? You know deep down it makes you feel more comfortable to be with a guy that is comfortable in his own skin!! And speaking as a guy: that only happens in our minds with some experience.
Erica stated:
Women are created different from men. Men are more easily aroused than a woman. Also, a man can easily reach orgasm than a woman. A woman can only reach after a period of foreplay. Also, some women are only interested in sex only during their ovulation period (once per month) while most men are interested in sex on a weekly basis. Peter, I believe this is result why women both in the church and the world are advised or ill advised to seek men who are more experienced than them.”
I have a question: Who are the men getting the experience from? Does this create two types, or classes, of women, some to “have fun” with, and those you marry? What happens to the “fun” women who were “used” to get the experience? Are they now unfit for marriage, because of the double standard stating the wife must be pure?
I fully believe in purity until the marriage bed, for BOTH man and woman, this is the ultimate wedding gift to give to your spouse.
I was raised in the pre-women’s rights era-1950’s-60’s (definitely showing my age here), and it always angered me that there were two classes of women, those whose company the men “enjoyed” and those they married, and asked to raise their children. This is the ultimate hypocrisy!
99. Sara said the following at 11:16 AM on Nov 20:
Peter, When you say you like girls as much as the next person, it maybe sounds more like you admire certain girls from a distance, and think about how nice (or, what a relief) it would be to be in a good relationship with them. That stuff is in your head... in reality, when you're two feet away from a girl, I don't think you're liking the situation much at all! Which is totally understandable if you're feeling confused or frustrated that things that should come naturally can be so difficult.
Again, just as a girl reading your posts, the first and (maybe too harsh) thing that comes to mind is, here's a guy who's thinking of methods and strategies and self-presentation and points and counterpoints...what girl would want to be made to feel that going out with her is as painful and tedious a task as preparing for a trial? God help her if a girl just wants to go for a nice walk and get some ice cream.
100. A Christian wife said the following at 1:29 PM on Nov 20:
I really think that the church in general would better serve the younger generations by being more open about sex. I don't mean condoning premarital sex, but actually having discussions about what a sexual relationship might look like inside of marriage. One reason I get frustrated by discussions of where to draw the line prior to marriage is the assumption that immediately after the wedding a Christian couple who has remained pure will automatically have a wonderful sexual relationship. This may be true for some, but not for others. For some of us it is difficult to make the transition from the physical being wrong, to it being wrong not to satisfy your spouse physically. And while advice about being physical prior to marriage abounds, how to being physical within marriage is greatly lacking and is not a subject a good Christian discusses.