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.
101. NeedACatchyName said the following at 2:39 PM on Nov 20:
Sara said:
"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."
Sara...you're onto something here. I can't say whether or not this applies to Peter, but I will say this: this scenario is more common that you might think. Granted, it's not very common, but at the same time, it's not extremely rare. There are a good number of guys (and I will admit, I fall into this trap sometimes, though I'd like to think I'm far better about it than I used to be), who really want to be in a relationship, but at the same time, when the opportunity arises for a chance at being in a relationship, they get overly nervous and start secretly dreading it because they don't know what to do. And since this is an extreme turn-off for girls, this almost always either results in the relationship never forming (most likely), or the relationship ending after one date.
Usually the cause of this is lack of experience with relationships (either due to never having dated or due to a long time between relationships) or bad experiences with a hyper-judgmental girl who lashes out if a guy is anything less than perfect. Either way, it's a tough cycle to break, because the best way to break it is by gaining relationship experience, but it's hard to initiate a relationship if you have this problem.
So, two questions come to mind:
1) Is this just a guy thing, or does this happen to girls?
2) Is there any good way to break this cycle?
I think part of the problem, as has been noted on this thread, is the perception (whether true or not) that guys should somehow automatically have a certain amount of aptitude in relationships, regardless of experience, and a lot of said nervousness results when a guy lacks that ability. And I don't just mean abilities with regards to kissing, physical contact, etc., but other things, such as how to relate to girls and talk to them in a "dating" or "courting" setting instead of a friendship setting (really, this always seems to be the biggest one for most "inexperienced" guys). Beyond that, I don't really have any insight. Thoughts?
102. Sara said the following at 6:00 PM on Nov 20:
NeedACatchyName, I'd say it's just as much a girl thing. I might as well have been writing to myself, not Peter: In the same way that it's hard for a guy to 'just be casual' when he's nervous and scared, lots of girls will tell you that it's hard to be casual when they're actually interested in a not-casual, committed relationship. For those of us girls who can't stand playing games, it's frustrating to think we have to play the "I'm hard to get, come 'pursue' me" game, even with guys we already like.
You wrote, "when the opportunity arises for a chance at being in a relationship, they get overly nervous and start secretly dreading it because they don't know what to do."
Of all the times girls expect guys to be confident, it's not right when they're asking you out... If you smile and say, 'I can't believe I'm all nervous about this, but are you doing anything right now? Do you want to...' [whatever, go get a hot chocolate or something], I can't imagine anyone being put off by that. If you get a no, you can break up the awkwardness by being funny like, "well, shucks!" or "aw, man..!" I don't know. About "how to relate to girls and talk to them in a "dating" or "courting" setting instead of a friendship setting", I'd say the settings are the same; it's just about whether romantic feelings come up or not.
It's strange how, in a dating culture, light-hearted things like frisbee and sundaes have to be 'seriousified' and used as a starting point to form relationships.
A solution... I have no idea...arranged marriages?
103. BDB said the following at 7:24 PM on Nov 20:
Tami wrote:
>>Frankly, if the choice those women have is between developing a Christlike character and becoming less godly to attract a guy... <<
Well, for one thing, those nominally Christian women are often listening to Oprah's advice and taking the initiative with guys. After some of this flirting the guys are already pretty sure they're interested. Takes out the risk - no need for motivation either. I'm not recommending this, unmotivated guys can waste years of a woman's life.
Unless, of course, they've had Ted slap them around a little on this blog. But I digress.
>>God help her if a girl just wants to go for a nice walk and get some ice cream.<<
Ha! That reminds me of a Far Side cartoon. It had a guy going over and over in his mind, 'Does she like me? I'll bet she doesn't. Maybe she does? I don't know - Arrrgh!'
Meanwhile, the thought bubble over the girl read, "I think I really like vanilla."
104. Leah said the following at 9:24 PM on Nov 20:
Tami- sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the guys wanted women to be less godly. I just mean that the guys felt daunted and inadequate. They very much admire these godly women, and would never ask for them to be any less godly. It's the just the idea of leading such women daunts them!
105. Peter said the following at 9:58 PM on Nov 20:
Interesting insight everyone has offered...
After some careful thought and personal reflection of my own failures to actually get the girl I think though it really all comes down to a matter of: sex. I know that is controversial to say but I'm going to plant my feet firmly on that point and hold on!
Here is why: It is often said that a woman will know in the first 10 seconds of meeting a guy whether she will want to sleep with him, be in a committed relationship with him, or only keep him around as a friend. I don't think Christian girls go to that extreme but it probably looks something like this in the first 10 seconds: He is so kissable, or I could probably make out with him and stop there, wow he has so many good things going for him I bet he would make a great husband, or wow he has so many things going for him but I could never imagine kissing him.
This probably happens on some subconscious level that you are not even aware of. Men are more simple. We see a nice looking girl and we think about sleeping with her if even but for a fraction of a second. It comes and goes almost instantly. This happens hundreds if not more times every week and month. It is how we are hardwired. I know that is absolutely going to probably set off some people on here but I don't care what anyone postures on here, all men know this is the absolute truth about themselves. I know I certainly don't look at an attractive girl and think to myself: oh wow, she is so Godly, and I love how she cares for people around her on first thought. Now, the difference between Christian guys and non-Christian guys is that the non-Christian guy has been led into believing he is an animal with a sexual imperative and will act and persist on such a thought, and sometimes the Christian guy is so uncomfortable with such a thought they can't settle with it and go to the other extreme and avoid taking a risk altogether.
And if you don't believe this has anything to do with sex think it over more completely. Most often whether or not you like someone has less to do with how good they look on paper and in principle versus that initial feeling you get when you first meet them, and that initial feeling is typically some sort of hidden evaluation of whether you could ever be sexual ( I'm using that broadly here ) with such a person whether you are the most Godly Christian person or not, it is basic to our nature.
Now notice I am not saying we act on such thoughts, I am saying we think them even when we are not even aware of what we are thinking of. I constantly have been told I am just the "nice guy" which really means from a girl: "I am just not romantically interested in you" which really ( and I think all women say things and mean another ) is another way of saying "Hey the thought of kissing you, making out with you, or sleeping with you, never gonna happen!!". Guys are no different. I'm sure there are just "really nice girls" who have heard: "Hey I think your a really nice girl but..", and you know what it has absolutely everything to do with whether a guy thinks he could be sexual with you even if he never acts on it. IIt has nothing to do with what qualities wise would typically look good on paper.
Think I am totally off my rocker? Well someone then explain to me what makes say for example: 2 people: male & female just friends versus lovers, or boyfriend and girlfriend? I mean I have lots of female friends that I am very close to and have very meaningful relationships that are blessing to me. But there is this always present and well defined line: I would never reach in and attempt to kiss them ( something sexual ) because I am just their friend of course, and maybe that is my problem, maybe I should attempt that more. That's another topic for another day though...
I mean to sit here and rationalize how this all works is to deny years of science and research into our psyches and what makes us tick. Men are men and women are women and the same circle of pursuit has been going on for centuries, and it has always been and probably always will be about sex.
Men need to be more forward and define the relationship. In our culture this expectation is typically expected and expressed by making a move ( like a kiss or a touch ) even at risk of a girls rebuff, and women are expected to show interest by flirting, body language ( sexual cues ), and how they dress. I'm not going to get into whether such things are wordly or are Christian but at the very least they are things which make us "human" which I think sometimes the church fails to acknowledge and press down and not address.
Attraction is simply not a choice! I mean think about it, is there any other explanation for why some very nice girls tend to like bad guys, or why men pass up perfectly sweet and Godly girls in favor of the more flirtatious vixen? It has nothing to do with any form of rational thought because when it comes down to it's almost akin to being shown 400 color photographs of anything and pointing out which one draws your eye first. If asked to explain why you chose that photograph you probably would stumble a little or it would be connected to something esoteric like a feeling you got, but you probably and very likely would not be able to furnish a rational argument using any valid logic as to why you chose that particular photo.
It's the same way how we decide initially ( which is typically do or die for whether a relationship will flourish or be instantly dead ) who we like or don't like when it comes to figuring out whether we would date or not date someone. To approach it so rationally is to actually work in reverse and develop qualities and a mindset that actually works counterintuitive to what is attractive.
Regarding myself? Well I have no idea why I have never had any experience or luck in this area, but I probably have not tried enough, but that is changing. I am a smart good looking guy with a good personality. I think I have just lacked a little bit of edge or as everyone has succinctly put it: confidence. That will of course come as I talk to more and more women and get more and more confident with each interaction. I'll have to take it in steps.
Which brings me to my next point? Can such things be learned and practiced? Possibly, I suppose, I guess that is what shows like VH1's The Pickup Artist did, and it's not like I would envision myself adapting what I saw on that show ( because I really want a steady relationship leading to marriage ) but I did admire the noble goal of helping guys understand interactions with the opposite sex better by helping the guys on the show remove the blocks to attraction ( which is what will allow a girl to give a guy a chance with her -- think "Hitch" with Will Smith ), and I guess I do think it can be learned. If it is fair game for women to be told how to act, or how not to act around men that pursue them, I would say that what makes a female initially give a guy a chance is not so unique and varied that it cannot also be learned as well, and I don't think it would be manipulation anymore than brushing your teeth or dressing nice would be manipulation.
I certainly wish I had a much different experience growing up or someone to push me along and force me to talk to girls growing up and going through highschool even if nothing would have come from it because at the very least I think I would be in a much different situation now. I certainly don't want to derive all my confidence over whether I can easily attract a girl to me but I am not going to lie when I say I sometimes envy the guys who can do it so easily.
106. rivergreg said the following at 12:51 AM on Nov 21:
Peter, I honestly agree with a lot of what you've had to say in this discussion. I too grew up in the generation of "I kissed dating goodbye" and "choose a life partner carefully - look over this list of 50 important similarities." I honestly wanted to honor the Lord in my dating/courtship/insert-proper-term-here life.
Like many people, I was pretty annoyed at the guys that went through girl after girl, dating one gal for 3 months or so in an extremely close relationship, only to dump her and move on to the next girl.
I wanted to be nothing like those guys, but I found the gaping chasm between their confidence and my lack thereof disconcerting. I think that ends up becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling concern. In his radio series on Love Must Be Tough Dr. Dobson explores the effect of confidence on romantic relationships, and he gives the analogy of a sports game -- one's confidence can boost one's success, and success can boost one's confidence. But the reverse can also be true too - a vicious cycle. (note: there is an important distinction to be made between confidence and pride).
I think we need to give girls more credit here though. They are very keenly aware of a guy's hesitancy or confidence in relating with them, and it's pretty awkward chatting with someone who is visibly uncomfortable with the interaction.
I'm not so sure that girls are drawn to the "experience" in an "experienced guy". Rather I think they are drawn to the confidence. That confidence can come either by experience, or by a quiet inner maturity in the Lord. Honestly, the latter is rare in our world and slower to come by too.
Peter, I suspect you are somewhere around that point of maturity in your life and could very likely see, as a result, your interactions with girls change a lot for the better in the coming months and years :)
107. Louise said the following at 6:10 AM on Nov 21:
Does Mr. Slater really "slap people around?"
I wasn't aware that the Boundlessline bloggers commit physical violence against people.
108. xeres said the following at 9:21 AM on Nov 21:
Peter,
Love is more than chemistry (it's a life-long choice) and we are not slaves to biology, although we are influence by it. If we were, we as a human race will be utterly pathetic and spineless. What about those who choose to live a celibate life? Not everyone will found themselves sleeping with someone. Personally, I have a prejudice against guys who are experienced in any way as well as are wealthy because I always fear they will compare me with their previous love interest. They might the nicest, and good-looking guys I ever met but if I found out they have been with a someone or has lots of money, I get intimidated, nervous, and subconscienciously suspicious, very very.
109. Peter said the following at 9:45 AM on Nov 21:
Xeres,
But initially what leads to "love" is absolutely biological and very much completely chemical, that was the point I was trying to make! There is no logic behind the initial jumpstart.
Now further on down the road, after an attraction ( biological chemistry at work there ) has been established a relationship will take on different parameters, and will be about choice as you describe.
Where most frustration results with people is in that first stage. That's where things are vague and undefined, or feelings are confused.
110. Hannah said the following at 9:48 AM on Nov 21:
I´m glad to see there are guys out there who are not superexperienced nor do they expect their wife to come to be so. :-)
111. Rachael said the following at 9:56 AM on Nov 21:
Wow...Peter, way to put yourself out there. I don't know how true that stuff is, but even if it is true subconsciously or consciously for a lot of people, isn't it great to know that these issues won't be present in heaven...
Anyway, I just want to respond to rivergreg's comment that he's "not so sure that girls are drawn to the 'experience' in an 'experienced guy'." And he also said that "That confidence can come either by experience, or by a quiet inner maturity in the Lord."
Personally, I'd like it if my future husband was inexperienced! It might be true, though, that men who have more interactions with women might feel more at ease interacting with them, especially if they're more of the shy type...I think this experience could come through interacting with family members and friends though, not just romantic relationships...I don't know.
Anyway I just want to say that I think that many women would be totally fine with their husbands having a lack of previous experience, and also I think most growing Christian women would most definitely care most about the heart and spiritual maturity. But yes, attraction also fits somewhere into that equation...but I think attraction can be developed after people get to know each other, and not always an automatic thing.
Anyway, blessings to you all - God is in control!
112. Carrie said the following at 11:00 AM on Nov 21:
Peter, I haven't read all of your posts, but I just want to respond to the "10 second" theory you have about girls. I don't know how entirely accurate that is.
The guy I'm currently interested in I met when he was a freshman and I was a senior in college. I'm sure I made a few less than flattering comments about him that year. Years have passed, some one-on-one time has occurred, and I actually get excited to see him every week.
In the first 10 seconds I first encountered him, I was a complete 180 from where I am now as far as feelings and desires go. 5 years ago I could have gone on and not felt like I was missing anything. Today, I know this guy has a lot to offer someone.
113. Tami said the following at 11:17 AM on Nov 21:
Peter, I hope and pray you reconsider your conclusions.
You said, "Attraction is simply not a choice!" and asked, "...is there any other explanation for why some very nice girls tend to like bad guys, or why men pass up perfectly sweet and Godly girls in favor of the more flirtatious vixen?"
Frankly, yes. It has to do with where the person's heart is, and what he or she values. And probably the fact that enjoying the overt attention of a physically appealing person is trumping the person's consideration of what the other's character is actually like. As Christians, we *do* have the choice to cultivate love and appreciation for Christlike character. And yes, that *does* change the type of person you are attracted to. At times, even physically. (Yes, it DOES happen.)
Shows such as "The Pickup Artist" are hardly a good roadmap for how to start solid relationships. Having those "one-two-three, here's how you do it" tips might seem effective or expedient, but a decent, honest woman -- especially a cute one -- will see right through them and will not appreciate that you attempted to manipulate her (and yes, it is manipulation). We recognize those as strategies for "scoring," not strategies for actually getting to know someone you hope to grow in love for.
I applaud your interest in developing more confidence, but I hope that you turn to a solid Christian mentor, rather than that creepy Mystery dude, for getting there.
114. Peter said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 21:
Rachael writes:
"...but I think attraction can be developed after people get to know each other, and not always an automatic thing."
I completely agree, despite my dogmatic post above!! I had a friend that I had been friends with for quite awhile, and I remember one day a switch turned on in my head and made me feel very deep attraction for her after I began to really see many of her tangible qualities. Unfortunately to the proof of my post above, even though my thoughts of her changed hers never did for me, I was as they say, permanently relegated to the "friend zone" forever!! Thus the point I was trying to make, it made no logical sense to me at all being that we were such great friends and clicked so beautifully!! Which is why a "friendship" to "attraction" style relationship is very rare and most of the time the other way around.
115. Rachael said the following at 12:33 PM on Nov 21:
Peter - that's nice to know that the "switch" happened to you. You wrote: "a 'friendship' to 'attraction' style relationship is very rare and most of the time the other way around'"...sad if it is indeed rare. The big hurdle with that style is that the interest has to be mutual. It's much harder when unreturned interest happens in a close friendship than in a more distant friendship.
116. Peter said the following at 1:59 PM on Nov 21:
Tami writes:
"Shows such as "The Pickup Artist" are hardly a good roadmap for how to start solid relationships. Having those "one-two-three, here's how you do it" tips might seem effective or expedient, but a decent, honest woman -- especially a cute one -- will see right through them and will not appreciate that you attempted to manipulate her (and yes, it is manipulation). We recognize those as strategies for "scoring," not strategies for actually getting to know someone you hope to grow in love for."
Despite the absolute flamboyent name of the show and the questionable intent of some of it occupants ( the final runner up was a guy like me who simply wanted to meet one girl and love one girl ) while it may seem completely preposterous to think a guy might need some sort of "one, two, three" step of instruction in how to interact with a woman, I would challenge your assumption that a smart girl would see through it necessarily, or that she should necessarily even feel manipulated by it. It is simply helping the men overcome behaviors that prevent the best form of themselves from shining through, and since men typically only have such a short time to make a first impression why should some guidelines about what to do or say be considered wrong? It's not anything different from a group of women sitting around and relating on how to deal with the men in their lives or giving each other advice on how to get a guy's attention or keep a guy, and women do this all the time but the minute men are open about it and expose maybe how they do it ( for example the show: which I do consider a bit extreme ) we are told we are unethical. That's completely not fair!!
I think you missed the point of my post. Hardly anyone operates with the weight of "getting to know someone I could fall in love with" right off the beginning. That is far too much expectation and far too serious right at the start, and those that do operate from that mindset ( typically very nice guys who have no interest in being players, or very nice girls who want to be in a steady and committed relationship ) shoot themselves in the foot often because they place such immeasurable expectation on the outcome.
117. Paul said the following at 2:33 PM on Nov 21:
Peter, you need your own blog! ;-)
118. BDB said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 21:
Louise wrote:
>>Does Mr. Slater really "slap people around?"<<
Oh, I'm sure he doesn't really do that. It was a metaphor.
Main Entry: met·a·phor
Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\
Function: noun
1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile
2: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor :
119. Tami said the following at 5:55 PM on Nov 21:
Peter, perhaps I parse this out too much, but I really do see a difference between learning how to interact with members of the opposite sex in order to be better acquainted with them, and stuff like the Pickup Artist "techniques" and "lines" which truly are phony (and yes, an astute woman will recognize them as techniques and lines from a mile away). If a girl falls for that stuff, it's probably because she wants to.
I am not saying there is something wrong with learning how to go up to a woman and say "hello" and how to keep the conversation going, or learning how to keep her interested and build the relationship. If going into a social situation armed with information on current events or topics of interest or learning how to show interest in what a woman is saying or what have you is helpful - hey, that's very positive. We all need to learn how to interact with others and develop our relationships (whether or not they turn romantic). And finding a coach that you admire is a good way of doing that. (A married person is often best because in most cases -- unless the person never mentally graduated from high-school popularity contests -- they won't view you as "competition.")
But the Pickup Artist stuff *is* designed to get a woman to "like you" based on cheesy lines and tricks. (And as a woman who has been on the unfortunate end of *receiving* such approaches... yuck.) As much as VH1 played up the benign "help for nice guys" angle, from what I understand of that dude's real agenda, it has *nothing* to do with helping "nice guys" meet "nice girls." It's about scoring.
I stand by my assertion that the pickup artist stuff is manipulative and ultimately an unhealthy way of starting a relationship with a Christian woman.
I trust you do want to meet a nice girl, and are just looking for some helpful ways to learn how to interact better with women. But as your Christian sister, I'm warning you not to get too deep into that pickup stuff, and to seek the assistance of a socially astute Christian brother if you want to develop your skills in interacting with women. Again -- I believe there is *nothing wrong* with learning social skills and developing confidence. But those lines and little games and formulas and fake reasons for approaching... no.
I know I am stating things very strongly, but I have seen Christian environments turn very sour when those types of ploys and attitudes are applied. So I am protective.
Because really -- do those fake lines serve to build up your sisters in Christ (regardless of whether or not you end up dating them)?
Asking genuine but nonintrusive questions about the girl is a much more successful approach to raising her interest in you.
120. Jo said the following at 10:45 AM on Nov 22:
the best way a guy can easily attract a girl: ask thoughtful questions (not too deep, but deeper than smalltalk - questions that invite her to share a bit about who she is) and show genuine interest in her answers.
that's something that's relatively easy to do if you really ARE interested (even if you're nervous!), but virtually impossible to do if you're not, because most girls can tell when a guy isn't being genuine. hence, the guy who DOES come across as genuinely interested will automatically get credit.
all of the above is of course just my opinion. :)
121. April said the following at 3:41 PM on Nov 28:
I’ve not posted before, and I know I’m coming into this one late, but I do have some different thoughts. So I’ve read through this and haven’t seen this thought, myself wondering about what her true question is. So beyond the debate of to kiss or not to kiss.... Perhaps, she is worried because she isn’t physically attracted to him. If she is repulsed by him, then she should reconsider.
I have dated only twice and not flippantly either. Both declared marriage desires, one more seriously then the other. My realization after those relationships is how I wasn’t attracted to them, but thought, well they are good Christian guys (apparently) and they are pursuing, and isn’t marriage something I want? So because they are pursing I guess I should allow them too.
The second guy made a rule not to kiss until engagement (which is fine).... honestly I think it sped things too quickly to him talking marriage before he was ready, which is why he freaked out and saying “I was pressuring” when he went ring shopping I wanted to know timeline he was thinking.... Oh silly me thought that meant something. But I think cause he wanted the physical, he played with the emotional.
Anyway, I digress. My big realization after those relationships ended, followed the “Christians rules” by the book, still got hurt, but have healed, came to understand that the main that that was missing is an understanding of what relationships, a true marital relationship needs to have, you have to be attracted and connected spiritually, emotionally, and physically. I’m not saying, sex ... so please don’t take this post to that debate.
But I am saying if any of those elements are missing then why bother with the relationship, just because that person is there ... doesn’t mean you should pursue it if one of those three apsects is missing.
I date two I wasn’t attracted too, thinking well that might come with time. It didn’t. In fact felt myself cringe when they hugged me or kissed my cheek. Made me think ... now is that something I want to settle for just because I’m suppose to be a good Christian girl and do the right thing and marry ... doesn’t seem like a great way to start any marriage.
Therefore I wonder what this girl's question really was. I hope she doesn’t justify or talk away, but clearly evaluate if it’s more then just inexperience or unattration and looks if there is connection on a spiritual, emotional, and physical level. I don’t think any relationship should be pursued if any of those things are missing, just because they are there doesn’t mean you should marry them. Believe me I’ve come close to trying and that’s lead to heart ache and lessons learned not to settle for less then God’s best. Unequally yoked I think is more than just spiritual, just as love is more then physical.
122. Kit said the following at 4:49 PM on Nov 28:
Some good things to think about! Peter, thank you for your thoughts. I would have to say that from my observations of men and women, you are right on. It may not be the first thing anyone ever talks about, especially in Christian circles, but I think it is fundamentally true.
Although, it should be noted that there are many things women can do to be more attractive if you weren't given the Paris Hilton figure. Dressing attractively and modestly, smiling, and making sure to put yourself together every day I think can go a long way with men. This just from a female perspective...
123. Amanda L said the following at 7:11 PM on Dec 9:
I'm twenty years old.
I haven't dated yet...haven't held hands yet. Nothing.
I barely even hug guys except for my dad.
I used to think that I'd most likely wait until my wedding for my first kiss, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that that was more of a decison to be made with the man I marry.
So, my current "plan" is to keep my kisses until I'm engaged.
Not out of legalism, but out of the desire not to put myself or my prospective husband into an overly tempting situation.
I'm an affectionate person, always have been, so for me to start kissing a man before I had totally committed to him would be inherently unwise.
Way too easy to get carried away.
So, I guess I'm saying I agree with what several people have said.
Whether or not to kiss before marriage is definately a personal choice, based on levels of self-control and whether the kissing is causing you to sin(either in your mind or with your body).