NOV

2005

The evils of kissing

11:05 PM 28 comments

I'm enrolled in a Book of Mormon class at BYU. Along with shaving my face it's one of the obligations of receiving an education there, though happily I find it much less irritating than shaving and it actually serves a purpose.

Last night we discussed the second chapter of Jacob, which deals primarily with avoiding pride and what we affectionately call "whoredoms". I don't know that I've ever had a more enjoyable discussion in a religion classroom. Talking about petting, making out and french kissing - an entire room full of mostly single, sexually frustrated college students doing their darndest, theoretically at least, to live up to the standards of the church, all hoping the professor will allow them the justification of their chosen activities. (He didn't, by the way, and against much objection he insisted french kissing is a whoredom.)

To be sure we understood what the ancient prophets would have labeled a whoredom, he asked us to holler out examples. "Petting! Pornography! Fornication!" the group yelled, and after some prodding the professor finally managed to convince a student it was ok to utter the word "masturbation" and add it to the list, but when someone offered homosexuality, the professor rejected it.

"Petting is petting," he said, "regardless of the gender. The Lord doesn't care if it's two girls or a boy and a girl, the sin is the same."

I had never considered that, and at first consideration it seems plausible. After all, God is no respecter of persons, right? What I really enjoyed, though, was the question his statement prompted.

"If petting is petting, is it ok for two girls to kiss?" asked a girl in the back row. Well, that placed the professor in a bad spot - if he wished to remain consistent he would have to either make allowance for same-sex kissing or unavoidably tell this young class of college students that kissing alone is a sin.

In the end, he settled for an "I really don't know the answer to that," which was commendable but not entirely satisfying, so I hope to get some good discussion out of you few readers on this one. I really think it's an intriguing question to ask.

Was the professor wrong to say that there is no distinction between hetero and homosexual petting? Or is it really bad to kiss your opposite-gendered boyfriend or girlfriend? Or is there a clever third way - some clause our single brothers and sisters can use to allay the guilt of making out without relinquishing their distaste for same-sex attraction?

To the top ↑

Your Comments

November 03, 2005 at 6:15 AM [# 1]Marina

Perhaps relinquishing their distaste for same sex attraction is exactly what should happen.

That said, I'm not sure why your prof had a hard time extending his list of whoredoms to include homosexuality, since it seems to me that he was already stretching the meaning of the chapter you were studying. I have read it twice now this morning, and it seems to me that married men were being chastised for being unfaithful to their wives. I am no scriptural scholar, and yes I know that we liken all scriptures to ourselves and interpret them to meet our needs, but if the prof is willing to interpret whoredoms as petting (when, except for as the petting pertains to a married man and someone he is not married to, it is not addressed in this chapter), why not add homosexuality to the list as well?

more to follow...not enough space left for more here!

November 03, 2005 at 7:03 AM [# 2]Marina

In my opinion, to answer all your closing paragraph questions, you must ask yourself, Why does God label some acts as SIN? Is it just a whim or does he really have a reason for encouraging us to refrain from certain behaviors? If we are able to divine the reason behind the command, we can then apply that reason to individual acts such as french kissing or homosexuality.

Without taking too much time or space to go into it, in the end I believe the ruler to be used for sexual intimacy is Respect. Am I respecting myself? Am I respecting my partner?

Personally, I think french kissing can pass the Respect test. I think pornography (promoting it or using it) is never a respectful act. Homosexual acts? My upbringing makes me want to find a way to prove it is always disrespectful, yet I believe that homosexual relationships have the same potential to be loving and respectful as heterosexual relationships.

November 03, 2005 at 7:12 AM [# 3]Marina

The following is pulled from a blog entry by Clifton Daniels. I think it touches on a scientific reason for the question of why God gives us sexual boundaries.

"The October 2005 issue of Scientific American has a very interesting article on bonding. Bonding is the process by which individuals aquire affection, loyality and moral duty to each other...
Oxytocin has been found to be the key bonding hormone...
In men and women, oxytocin increases during sexual intercourse and surges at orgasm. This increase must cause synaptic changes in the brain that initiates pair bonding. This is an evolutionary adaptation that has made long term care of infants possible.
This process may also explain the importance of monogamy.
If individuals have mulitple sex partners there may be a bonding conflict that makes for unstable relationships.
This begs the answer to the question if premarital sex effects the bonding of married partners."

November 03, 2005 at 10:33 AM [# 4]Paul

The oxytocin link to bonding is interesting... I am very familiar with a guy who became addicted to OxyCotin, the synthetic pain pill designed to operate like our natural oxytocin, and even though he and his similarly afflicted girlfriend seemed to despise each other they stayed together for 4 years. I wonder if it was simply the bond induced by chemicals that caused their relationship to drag on for so long...

(I found how to increase the character limit in comments, by the way. Now you can post more completely.)

November 03, 2005 at 10:38 AM [# 5]Paul

My boss is an attorney and all-around clever guy, and he had an interesting view on this idea of whether same-sex kissing is worse than just kissing.

He likened it to a legal offense; if I assault someone in the process of killing them, I am charged only with murder, not assault. Certainly if I tried to explain that all I did was assault someone the judge would scoff at that. The implication is that God might judge the same way - if a man were to claim he had only been kissing, might God scoff and say, "But you were kissing a guy!"

November 04, 2005 at 11:56 AM [# 6]Marina

To apply the assault/murder analogy, though, we have to have already decided that kissing in itself is bad (as assault is, even if it isn't followed by murder). Right?

November 14, 2005 at 10:00 PM [# 7]Ron

Why do people engage in kissing in the first place? What is its purpose? What other actitivies does it foster?

Formerly, a kiss signified profound caring and interest in considering a commitment to each other.

But many kiss indiscriminately. “Making out” on a first date would generally be rather difficult to defend on the basis of profound caring. (I suppose there might be an obscure situation in which people have known and liked each other for a long time without, for some reason, formally being able to “date.” But that would not be the rule, at least in Western society.)

I think it would be generally true that young people kiss for the personal stimulation it provides. Those who accept Jesus’s statement that he who looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart would have a hard time justifying a French kiss—or even “making out” on dates in general.

It reminds me of Mike Wallace’s point-blank question to Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckely on “60 Minutes,” about hearing that some Mormons don’t drink Coke. President Hinckley replied, “We don’t drink caffeinated drinks.” No explanation, just that statement. I know many Mormons who are as addicted to cola drinks as non-Mormons can be to coffee, but who rationalize that they aren’t drinking coffee, so they’re OK. And they deny that they’re addicted to the cola drinks. But just ask them to go a full week without a cola drink and see what happens. They simply cannot do it!

The true answer to the question about same-sex kissing would be, “Why are they kissing?” Kissing for sexual stimulation is wrong, regardless of the gender question. It invites both parties to focus on their own satisfactions—their own lust.

November 17, 2005 at 2:15 AM [# 8]Tom

My statement here was one of the ones that got lost in the server upgrade, but I will try to reproduce my thoughts as best as possible.

I am sorry I was out of the loop when this got started. What an interesting discussion, given the background and original forum, etc. Having not kissed my wife in about 3 months or so-- missionary, french, butterfly or eskimo-- I thought I would chime in just a bit.:(

I have to take issue with Ron's statement that "Kissing for sexual stimulation is wrong, regardless of the gender question." Kissing is part of human sexuality. Sexuality is a natural and beautiful drive inate throughout God's creatures. Without it we might as well be androgenous/asexual creatures. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about sexuality, including kissing. It is a part of nature that God fully understood and planned for his creatures.

Having said that, this discussion of "whoredoms" is closely related to the assault/murder analogy made previously in this thread. Many acts that are often deemed "wrong" and constituting assault or murder, are at other times not illegal and fully justified. It is not a matter of simple act itself, it is a matter of timing and circumstance.

So just as Ron mentioned regarding intent, or "mens rea" as it is known in a legal sense, the state of mind of all actors is very important, and dependant upon other circumstances and timing. When I kiss my wife, if may be out of affection. It may be for sexual stimulation. It may be simply flirtatious. Or any number of reasons. None of which may be wrong.

Broad statements about any part of natural human sexuality are not considerate of why the sex drive is so important in the animal kingdom. It is not always for reproduction. Often it is just about bonding, pleasure, stress relief, etc. Those are natural effects of sexual activity that were understood and planned by God. To use a broad brush and declare them immoral paints an incomplete picture of sexuality.

I must agree with Marina that the use of Jacob 2 to delve into a broad discussion of sexuality is a little disingenuous. Jacob was clear in his teachings and did not mince his words. His comments were not aimed at sexuality in general, and certainly not at a discussion of kissing, petting, masturbation and homosexuality. Nevertheless, I recognize that in religious institutions people are often want to openly discuss sexuality without some type of convenient segway and without some superimposed/culturally acceptable sets of taboos. That is indicative of religion's conflict between the natural and the super-natural. It is that same conflict that causes such stress in religious academia because it is so hard to make a moral judgment about acts (like homosexuality or masturbation) that seem to be "natural" or genetically programmed and those that religion has historically deemed immoral-- thus the terrible conflict between "God's will" and "God's creation".

Thus Jacob's discussion was more about timing and circumstance-- fidelity and sexuality inside the bonds of marriage. It was not a discussion about the evils of kissing, masturbation, homosexuality, petting, etc. Did anyone ask the professor if he engaged in foreplay with his wife? I bet Jacob did-- and he did not consider it a sin. Again-- it is not the act-- it is timing.

November 17, 2005 at 7:16 AM [# 9]Paul

Tom, thanks for re-posting!

(For full disclosure I should add that Ron emailed me his comments, saying he couldn't easily get online in his corner of the world, so I put them on here because I thought they added a new perspective.)

I bet, so far, no one here would agree with your contention that it is all about timing and circumstance, otherwise Adam wouldn't have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

In applying your ideas to the original question I am led to ask, can there a state of mind, intent or circumstance that would justify two people of the same gender kissing?

November 17, 2005 at 1:16 PM [# 10]Tom

Are you sinning when you kiss your wife? If not, then it is a matter of timing and circumstance. Kissing itself is not wrong. That is my point.

Your question presupposes that the story of Adam and Eve is reality, Paul. It presupposes that man does not have natural instincts that predate some religious text. It presumes that man is entirely different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Yet a comparison of the human genome to other members of the animal kingdom confirms that we are not so different as we would like to presume.

Do you sin if you sneeze? No, you are acting on a natural impulse. Nevertheless, if you are in an important meeting you may try not to sneeze as it is not appropriate given the circumstances. If someone then has a natural impulse that attracts them to members of the same sex, are they not also acting on similar impulses. Society tells you sneezing in a meeting is not appropriate. Society tells you homosexual attraction is not appropriate. Nature does not say that. If it did, there would be no homosexual displays in nature.

Remember, religion is a product of society. Society is not a product of religion.

November 17, 2005 at 5:13 PM [# 11]Paul

For a second there I thought I would have to confess all my sneezes. I'm glad you cleared that up by the end...

I think I understand you to say that kissing is not a sin, even when one's intent is sexual stimulation, given the proper timing and circumstance. That's a fair summary?

I then meant to ask if any homosexual circumstance would satisfy the proper time and circumstance, and if I understand you correctly you would say that cultural mores determine whether same-sex couples "should" kiss.

Of course our mores are defined largely by religion, but discounting both religion and society, what do you suppose God has in mind? Certainly there are examples in nature of homosexuality, but also of rape and even the occasional sneeze. Certainly we shouldn't take the example of animals as God's will for us; it seems as closely as we resemble animals we have an amazing distinction that allows us to enjoy discussions like this.

This doesn't have any clear direction or central question, but hopefully you can follow my train of thought and add to it...

November 17, 2005 at 6:25 PM [# 12]Dave

I have a personal problem with this form of logic altogether. Tom, by your argument I can also justify abuse, rape and incest. All of these actions are based on natural impulses, and can be observed in nature. Would you then argue my past choices have simply been misunderstood in our society? Are my actions a only matter of poor timing and circumstance? Am I a victim of misunderstanding; a man without sin? I hope not!

The definition, the only TRUE test of sin--for me at least--is found within, and therefore applies only to myself. If I conduct myself with integrity in accordance to my core values at all times and in all places to the best of my ability I will still fall short. The beauty of God's plan for me is that 'the best of my ability' will be judged by a perfect being, and my "sentence" will be at once perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Thus, it is sinful and inappropriate for ME to engage in same gender kissing because my core value requires opposite gender (among many other qualifiers). What the rest of the world does is unimportant to my personal salvation, and entirely beyond my control.

Also, it is sinful for ME to judge or hate another person simply because they choose to engage in same gender kissing (or what-have-you ad. nauseum). My core value asserts their innate value is at least equal to my own, regardless of their actions. So what they do isn't important to my definition of sin, which applies only to myself and is useful only for my personal accounting to God. But MY reactions to their actions condemn or redeem ME.

Dunno if this is even clear for all ya'll, but it clarified my own thoughts, so thanks for comment fields!

November 18, 2005 at 2:48 AM [# 13]tom

Dave, I never posited the argument that anyone can justify committing a crime. Society demands that its members conform to certain acceptable practices. That is part of the social contract that separates man from beast. Jacob's counsel in Chapter 2 was not about sexual abuse, rape or incest, neither was my previous discussion of sexuality. Jacob's counsel was about acceptable practices and unacceptable practices. He drew lines that were distinct and unarguable-- one man, one woman. No polygamy. No concubines. etc.

The position I took on circumstances and timing were about what is acceptable within a proper relationship of two consenting adults, and how society and religion generally find those actions acceptable within those bonds of marriage. Outside of marriage, those exact same actions may not be acceptable to society. That was the point I was making.

I have never said that any church should have to accept homosexuality. If a church disagrees with that lifestyle, the church has every right to teach that. The problem for me arises when the same churches take political and social positions that discriminate against people who do not conform to their set of religious beliefs. Forcing your neighbor to conform to your religious beliefs is far from practicing freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

I appreciate your comment that the choices that others make do not affect your standing and personal accounting before God. I wish more people believed that-- and practiced it.

November 25, 2005 at 2:46 PM [# 14]Dave

Ok, I get your distinction between crime and socially acceptable behavior, but that is what disturbs me with this line of logic.

Homosexuality was a crime, and was absolutely socially unacceptable behavior in most societies for the majority of the past. Certainly it has been in our own society.

My view is that as societal constraints slip and change over time more rationalization occurs, and once clear arguements against practices that cannot contribute to the sustainability of society become muddy. (My thought being homosexuality is unable to contribute to persistence of society; thus no religion or moral 'right' vs. 'wrong' need be proven.)

I can easily follow this train of thought 50-100 years into the future where Pedophiles march on the White House, picketting for equal rights.

Thus, one man's crime becomes another man's constitutional right...

Please help me clarify this thought...

November 25, 2005 at 10:51 PM [# 15]tom

The difference lies solely in the fact that the practice of homosexuality, as applicable to "civil unions" or "gay marriage" types of legislations, is a choice of two consenting adults that physically affects no one other than themselves. Criminal behavior, such as pedophilia, rape, incest, etc., involves the criminal exploitation of a human who has not given or is incapable of consent. You know that difference, and you know that consent is always the issue in any sexual relationship, heterosexual or homosexual. There is no way to rationalize behavior that attacks the very soul of a person who does not or cannot consent.

Dave, contributing to the persistence of society is not a standard for legal or justifiable behavior. Never has been and never will be. Eating ice cream does not contribute to the persistence of society, so do you propose that it should be illegal and immoral? Of course you don't. Similarly you do not outlaw two consenting heterosexuals from having sexual relations even if reproduction is not the purpose, that was clearly established some 40 years ago in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut.

November 26, 2005 at 9:07 AM [# 16]Paul

I suppose you chose something as simple ice cream intentionally to show an error in thinking, but the comparison isn't really valid. Kant's categorical imperative demands that reason be applied to the definition of immorality, an idea I like and expect you might also agree with.

Using Kant's idea as a framework, we can probably agree that if everyone chose to eat ice cream, the world might be a little chubbier but otherwise unscathed. If homosexuality were universally applied, however, the consequences would be quite a bit more severe.

Nevertheless I don't disagree with the overall message, Tom. I do give credence to the categorical imperitive and as such I do not believe homosexuality can be considered moral, but I recognize the distinction between legality and morality that must exist. I have wondered if the foundation at which we conservatives are chopping will one day fail us when we need similar shelter from the new vocal majority...

November 26, 2005 at 11:35 AM [# 17]tom

My point was only to point out that "persistence of society" is not what makes a valid argument when it comes to sexuality, thus I point out that Griswold v. Connecticut is established for over 40 years-- regardless of what conservatives think about birth control. The ice cream analogy was just intended to over simplify an argument.

You reference Kant, so I must ask if you feel it is your moral duty to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. That is the only way to attribute Kant's philosophy to this conversation, for he surely did not agree with consequentialism, such as the belief that the act of conceiving a child was what made heterosexual sex a moral act. Kant, if I am not mistaken, taught that contradictions were to be avoided. Thus if sex was only to produce children, it would be contradictory for non-fertile people to engage in sexual intercourse. That conclusion was be contradictory to the desire to have sex regardless of the conception of children, and could not make non-reproductive sexuality immoral.

It becomes a circle. I do not know if Kant detested or approved of homosexual relations, but his philosophy of the categorical imperative would be streched to conclude, as Dave did, that sexual relations must contribute to the persistence of society.

Do you agree?

November 26, 2005 at 11:56 AM [# 18]tom

I have since come to learn that perhaps Kant was very much against homosexuality because, he argued, it was unnatural. I guess he never observed it in nature. I have, and while it does not lead to procreation, it certainly exists, and its naturalness does not seem to coincide with his theory of categorical imperative. Again, I only see his theory applicable if the only reason for sex is procreation. That is a concept I simply do not accept.

November 26, 2005 at 2:11 PM [# 19]Paul

It may be that I don't understand what Kant taught as a whole, but I meant to cite his "universal law formulation," which is it turns out only one of three aspects of the categorical imperative. (Hereafter CI, I mispell "imperative" every time...) It is: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I do not believe it could be good for society if homosexuality were universal; we would have to either evolve at a furious pace or disappear altogether. Thus we may suppose no gay person would "will" that homosexuality were universal, and as such they seem to set a standard for themselves different from that they expect from the rest of society. That, I think, is the contradiction Kant would seek to avoid.

I think the CI would actually support the use of birth control. If no couple on the planet used birth control, we'd be stacked deeper than downtown Tokyo on every square inch of the planet. I can't imagine anyone would "will" that upon society, though I suppose some may.

Of course if every couple used birth control every time they had sex that wouldn't work too well, either. We would be a society of "accidents," shrinking slowly as the death rate exceeds the few births resulting from condoms breaking and such. It seems the only satisfaction of a moral (universal) law as applied to birth control is for each couple to carefully plan their families, according to their conscience, bank accounts, etc. We are therefore able to have sex for recreation as well as procreation, because we can reasonably expect that such activity could become universal without any detriment to society.

November 26, 2005 at 6:52 PM [# 20]tom

The contradiction continues to arise, Paul. You state your self that "We are therefore able to have sex for recreation as well as procreation, because we can reasonably expect that such activity could become universal without any detriment to society." It means that both are acceptable-- yet when two people have sex without any possibility of procreation, as is the case with homosexuals or infertile couples-- the maxim does not hold true.

Nevertheless, while Kant was an intelligent man and a noted philosopher, his ideas do not dominate the anti-discrimination argument that it applicable to the constitutional principles of American Democracy. Moreover, although Kant was a contemporary to our Constitutional thinkers, his ideas seem to have played little if any role in the morals of equality and justice that our forefathers drafted into the Constitution.

November 27, 2005 at 12:38 AM [# 21]Dave

Thanks, Tom. You're right on with Consent, and that shows the error in my train of thought.

On Kant, Paul's maxim holds true if it is stated as 'heterosexual intercourse' complies with the law of universality, where 'homosexual intercourse' cannot.

Even without it, actually, the morality of infertile couples having sex requires an additional application of the law; that is, 'willing' that all couples having sex also be infertile doesn't hold up to Kant. (That is, universally willing heterosexual intercourse doesn't preclude sterility; sterility is an additional variable relating to heterosexual intercourse.) Though by Kant's definition of morality I think bi-sexuality passes muster.

November 29, 2005 at 5:30 AM [# 22]tom

Is this a sign from God that kissing is a sin, or that peanuts are evil?

Teen with peanut allergy dies after kiss

Associated Press

SAGUENAY, Quebec - A 15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy died after kissing her boyfriend, who had just eaten a peanut butter snack, hospital officials said Monday.

Christina Desforges died in a Quebec hospital Wednesday after doctors were unable to treat her allergic reaction to the kiss the previous weekend.

Desforges, who lived in Saguenay, about 155 miles north of Quebec City, was almost immediately given a shot of adrenaline, a standard tool for treating the anaphylactic shock brought on by a peanut allergy, officials said.

An autopsy was being performed. Dr. Nina Verreault, an allergist at the Chicoutimi Hospital in Saguenay, declined to comment on the case.

The symptoms of peanut allergy can include hives, plunging blood pressure and swelling of the face and throat, which can block breathing.

Peanut allergies have been rising in recent decades. The reason remains unclear but one study found that baby creams or lotions with peanut oil may cause children to develop allergies later in life.

About 1.5 million Americans are severely allergic to even the smallest trace of peanuts and peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States each year. Canadian figures were not immediately available.

November 29, 2005 at 11:05 PM [# 23]Paul

Putting aside all puns about her boyfriend's peanuts, that really is a sad story...

December 15, 2005 at 9:55 PM [# 24]Ray

I'll try again on this one, acknowledging up front that I won't add anything complicated. It fact, it will be quite simple - though long.

The professor was wrong on at least one fundamental level - his application of the whoredom discussion in the second chapter of Jacob. That's already been covered very well; I won't rehash it.

However, he was correct in his statement that the Lord doesn't care if petting is homo- or hetero-sexual - that the sin is the same. Let me address that point from two angles.

First, petting and kissing (of any kind) are not condemned in any of the canonized scriptures of which I am aware. Those records condemn the categories of sexual activity known as forncation and adultery. This broad categorization includes pre-marital and extra-marital sexual ACTIVITY - or activity of a sexual nature.

We DO have a written prohibition against these same types of activities in what we accept as modern scripture - the "For Strength of Youth" pamphlet. Among other things, it says to abstain from petting, "passionate kissing" and any other activity that arouses sexual desire. It doesn't distinguish between hetero- and homo-sexual activity; it prohibits both equally.

Second, I agree with Marina. I always try to understand the "why" for restrictions. In this case, however, I disagree completely with the "respect" angle. If I love a pedophile, showing "respect" for his or her inclinations might be a justification for facilitating that desire. "Respect" is far too subjective for me.

In this case, I see a very clear and simple "why." Petting, passionate kissing (NOT kissing, but "passionate" kissing) and other similar activities (including, in my mind, french-kissing - which CLEARLY simulates intercourse) arouse sexual desire. Sexual desire is addictive and hard to control once initiated. Therefore, avoid any activity that might logically lead to a losing battle with escalating desire for more stimulating activity. "You can't finish what you don't start" is a truism.

I see the smoking and drinking prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom in exactly the same light. If I make it a scientific issue, I lose. There is much evidence that alcohol used in moderation has positive results for many people. I just read this week an article that described the positive aspects of caffeine consumption - one of the richest sources of antioxydents. Yet we are asked to abstain. Why?

Because of evil designs of conspiring men. (Which applies perfectly to those who seek to stimulate sexual desire, as well.) These substances are addictive, and the consequences of over-indugence can be disastrous -- especially for a drunk woman. The article I mentioned in the last paragraph skipped blithely over a statement that heavy coffee drinkers are much more likely to be heavy users of alcohol and cigarettes. It is impossible for each individual to know, with certainty, what his or her limit is PRIOR to reaching it. Because it is not always easy to know those who are weak and prone to misuse, the prohibition has been "adapted to the weakest of the weak who are and can be calles saints."

In other words, if I am strong and not likely to have a problem, then it should be easy for me to abstain; if I have a problem abstaining and find myself fighting the restriction, then I probably am weak in that area and benefit from the prohibition more than others might. (That, in and of itself, is a fascinating concept - that the areas where I need repentence and outside guidance the most are exactly the areas where I want it the least and work to justify my rejection of it the most. Often our biggest weaknesses are most apparent by our claims that we are strong enough to not need outside prohibition or counsel.)

As an additional rant, I have a HUGE problem with those who rail against homosexual activity but are quick to forgive and excuse heterosexual fornication and adultery. I have always said that punishing homosexual activity in any way without doing the same thing for heterosexual fornication and dultery is hypocritical and narrow-minded. That's why, although I oppose redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, I have no problem, within the context of our heterosexually lenient society, with creating a legally recognized way to allow homosexual partners to live in a committed relationship without fear of legal punishment. Again, the alternative is hypocrisy.

December 17, 2005 at 6:41 AM [# 25]Marina

My only problem with what you wrote, Ray, is that sexual arousal is a normal and unavoidable part of life. If one never has a drink of alcohol, one cannot become addicted, you are right. But even if one never exchanges a "passionate" kiss, in fact even if one never even holds hands in a romantic manner, sexual arousal will still occur. It is part of life. Telling our youth that experiencing these feelings is a sin does much more harm than good, in my opinion.

December 20, 2005 at 3:46 PM [# 26]Ray

Marina, look back and re-read what I wrote. I never said that experiencing feelings of sexual arousal is a sin, and I never meant to intimate it, either. I don't teach my kids that, and I certainly don't think my married life would justify me saying it. Sex is great; sexual arousal is great; sometimes anticipation is the only thing that makes a long drive home worthwhile; life would be far worse without it; etc. Believe me, I agree with you 100% on that one.

I also agree completely that denying the normalcy of sex and sexual arousal does terrible damage. Look at Catholics throughout history (not just the situation with deviant priests), as well as too many of our own youth in the church. Too many people teach one extreme in order to avoid the other, while both are destructive.

That particular line of disucssion never came up in what I wrote. I simply said that unmarried individuals are encouraged to not engage in activities that, of their very nature, will heighten sexual arousal to a point that it will be hard to control that arousal. My exact words were "avoid any activity that might logically lead to a losing battle with escalating desire for more stimulating activity." I used the example of alcohol and cigarettes ONLY to discuss the addictive nature of the activities and how hard it to quick once addiction has begun.

The difference between them is simple: the drugs are prohibited completely, while the explicitly stimulating sexual activities (and I don't include a simple kiss in that list) are prohibited only until marriage. Just as the Word of Wisdom itself does not call tobacco and alcohol bad, evil and sinful (but merely tells us to abstain EVEN though they have good and useful applications), "For the Strength of Youth" addresses sexual activity in the same manner. It never calls kissing and petting bad, evil and sinful (that's people putting in their own interpretations); it merely says to abstain until marriage. I didn't mean to take it any further than that.

I've always been taught by my active Mormon parents that sexual desire is natural and good, but that the exercise of that desire should be confined to marriage. That's what I've heard from official church statements and in the temple. I personally have never been told by a parent or a church leader that sex and sexual arousal are bad and sinful, so maybe I simply miss those implications when I express my feelings about it. I start from the position that says, "It's great; just control yourself."

As to your statement that, "even if one never exchanges a 'passionate' kiss, in fact even if one never even holds hands in a romantic manner, sexual arousal will still occur," I agree. However, I think you also would agree that such a scenario is extremely unlikely to encourage a pre-marital addiction, particulary one that actively and physically involves a member of the opposite sex, unless other explicitly sexual activities are initiated, as well.

One final note: A Catholic friend of mine just sent me some CD's entitled "Naked Without Shame" - an adaptation of Pope John Paul's teachings from the early years of his tenure as Pope. I have not listened to all of them yet, but it strikes me as fascinating that, so far, he has stated what I was taught by my parents from an early age and what I have "always" believed.

December 24, 2005 at 1:00 AM [# 27]Dave

Ray, I have a problem with the implication that sex is addictive.
Through my therapy over the past 3.5 years, I've learned not to refer to anything sexual as 'addictive' with the exception of pornography. (Which now brings up some intriguing thoughts about why porn is exempted.)
For me 'addiction' is a cop-out. It allows deviancy to be blamed on the external or uncontrollable. That is a very dangerous road for me to venture down, as it enables/ excuses my deviance and removes personal accountability.

Although there are many parallels between sexual deviance and, say, alcoholism, there are important differences. Drunken stupor is not a normal nor natural thing. Sexual urges and expressions are natural and normal when appropriately controlled.
An acoholic MUST avoid alcohol. Deviants MUST learn to control inappropriate thoughts/behaviors. I cannot avoid my sexuality. Even eunichs remain equiped with the largest sexual organ--the brain.
Treatment for addicts and deviants is very similar in striking ways. 12-step programs, for example, are often paralleled in my therapy. The difference is that acoholics learn to abstain from their poison completely, in every way and all situations.
I cannot avoid sex. Instead I am learning to recognize, stop and replace deviant thoughts with appropriate, empathic ones. (With proper thought, actions follow.)

Alcoholism is an addiction, with psychological and physical withdrawal symptoms. Sexual deviance is a habit in thought and actions--it is a choice. Although there may be psychological reliance on deviance, it is not comparable to addiction.

Just $.02 from a different perspective...

December 24, 2005 at 9:45 PM [# 28]Ray

Dave, I really appreciate the distinction. It seems like the central issue, however, is still how one defines sexual deviancy (or sexual sin) (or simply prohibited sexual activity) and how one reacts to the natural urges brought on by sexual stimulation when it is felt. Do you act upon it or "recognize, stop and replace"? (Can anyone say, "Hum your favorite hymn?")

While sex and sexual stimulation might or might not fit a clinical definition of addiction, I think all of us who enjoy it can agree that having experienced it before heightens our desire to experience it again - and that feeling one level of stimulation leads to a desire to feel a stronger level. That's the point I was making.

To the top ↑

Reader comments have been disabled for this entry.

To the top ↑

The evils of kissing

Your Comments

Friendly Blogs

Other Sites