Banner of Heaven
In Defense of the Passionate Kiss  June 12, 2005

SeptimusH — June 12 @ 9:43pm

Has it come to this? Have the forces of repression and guilt so gripped us that a post like this is even necessary? Is romance on its deathbed. I’m afraid so.

There are places in the world where people regularly delight in knocking what they have never or rarely tried, places where you consistently see people proclaim the things they never do, or rarely indulge in, as sinful and wrong. Such is their right and privilege, but when they put a blessing as simple, as wonderful, and as innocuous as the passionate kiss in their holy cross-hairs, well, then, things have gone too far.

Now I’m a humble man who hasn’t kissed that many women and I would never claim to be as accomplished as say J. Max Wilson when it comes to not kissing women, but I will, however, proudly say this: of the women I have kissed, I’ve kissed every one of them passionately, and if given the chance I would kiss them all again, and I have no regrets, and I have never lost one ounce of sleep over it (if you don’t count thinking about getting the chance to do it again), and I can still look myself in the mirror. In fact, if I were to list things I regret doing in life right up there at the top would be not kissing a number of women when I had the chance.

Wouldn’t we all agree that strong marriages are crucial to better families? Wouldn’t we all agree that a passionate sexual relationship contributes to a stronger marriage? Wouldn’t we all agree that there is no better way to find out if someone you are dating is capable of passion than a passionate kiss? It follows then that passionate kissing leads to better families.

In fact, I would even dare say that Heavenly Father laid a passionate kiss on Heavenly Mother back in the day before they were joined in holy matrimony… and no lightning isn’t striking me as I type this.

Once you do get sanction to go all the way passionate kissing can sadly become neglected–a way station instead of a destination–and that’s often too bad. So that’s why I offer this advice to young people: kiss more, kiss more passionately, and more often.

There you both are. You think something might happen. There’s risk involved. Do you go for it? If you do you might be rejected, or you might be rewarded. Make a decision. A passionate kiss is what life’s all about.

65 Comments

  1. Reminds me of the final scene in Cinema Paradiso.

    DKL — June 13, 2005 @ 10:02am
  2. “Once you do get sanction to go all the way passionate kissing can sadly become neglected—a way station instead of a destination—and that’s often too bad.”

    This is so sad.

    Mari — June 13, 2005 @ 10:30am
  3. Not for the man, Mari.

    Miranda PJ — June 13, 2005 @ 10:53am
  4. This reminds me of the Julia Roberts character in “Pretty Woman”, who refused to kiss men on the lips because it was too intimate.

    I agree with Aaron, though. Passionate kissing is fun. I feel sorry for people who passionately kiss only one or two people in their whole lives. Are these the people who no one else wants to kiss, or are they just totally uptight and think kissing = marriage proposal?

    Tess — June 13, 2005 @ 11:05am
  5. Tess, the comment was by Septimus, not Aaron. Freudian slip?

    Sigmund Freud — June 13, 2005 @ 11:14am
  6. Oops! You may be right. Aaron IS hot.

    Tess — June 13, 2005 @ 11:23am
  7. What gives Tess? Am I chop liver?

    SeptimusH — June 13, 2005 @ 11:50am
  8. Great post Septimush. The passionate kiss is way underrated.

    A good example of a passionate kiss can be seen in the recent Miller Lite commercials, where two babes mud-wrestle and kiss passionately to help resolve their disagreement. A similar example is the recent Gilligans’ Island commercial. This kind of behavior should definitely be encouraged.

    I would recommend this tactic if Jenn and Miranda ever have an argument. You could podcast it.

    DKL's Evil Twin — June 13, 2005 @ 3:24pm
  9. You’ve kissed women, Sep? I thought you lived in North freakin Dakota with a bunch of cows. I have no idea what you’re talking about–this passionate kiss. But if it’s another thing that I get to do and my roommates don’t, I’m all for it.

    Greg Fox — June 13, 2005 @ 3:30pm
  10. Whoever out there is posing as my evil twin: In order for you to be my evil twin, you actually have to say something that I would not say myself. Thanks, but try again.

    DKL — June 13, 2005 @ 3:33pm
  11. You guys need to stop using such gendered terms like “babes”!

    DKL's Evil Righteous Twin — June 13, 2005 @ 3:42pm
  12. Now that’s more like it.

    DKL — June 13, 2005 @ 3:50pm
  13. This is actually something that I’ve thought and felt some anxiety about, and since the thread is now closed on M*, I guess this is where I get to air my views. I really like kissing. It does make me feel healthier (emotionally, not always physically), and I think it’s a normal and wonderful part of a relationship. But I’ve had bishops say during their chastity talks that we should stop before arousal, and I’ve always felt some confusion and latent guilt about that. What is arousal? How is it different for men and women? Does this mean that a woman could easily keep kissing when her partner needs to stop because he’s aroused? Is that fair to women? I’m actually not all that concerned about issues of fairness and unfairness–although I think the differences between men’s and women’s bodies are relevant to this discussion–I’m really most concerned about doing the right thing. This sounds a little self-righteous, I realize, but that’s the tension inside of me right now. I really do care deeply about being good and being wise, and sometimes I worry that I could be doing stupid things just because I lack a little self-control.

    Naomi Frandsen — June 13, 2005 @ 3:50pm
  14. I always get the creeps when I hear priesthood leaders say “arousal.” The bishop probably aroused half the guys in the ward by just broaching the topic.

    Miranda PJ — June 13, 2005 @ 3:57pm
  15. Naomi says, “I worry that I could be doing stupid things just because I lack a little self-control.” I like to think that my French charms have something to do with it too, cherie!

    Francois-Xavier's Evil Twin — June 13, 2005 @ 4:12pm
  16. Naomi, here are the signs of arousal, courtesy of Wikipedia.

    Christian Y. Cardall (TSM) — June 13, 2005 @ 4:27pm
  17. Tumescence, that’s not a word you hear every day. Defnitely not on other blogs.

    SeptimusH — June 13, 2005 @ 4:37pm
  18. I am not a bishop or a priesthood authority and I don’t pretend to know what the most righteous thing to do is. That said, I am all for passionate kisses. The more the better. I agree that it is a wonderful way to gauge your sexual chemistry with a potential mate. And after you tie the knot and all your passionate kisses go to your betrothed it is wonderful to know that after all that experience you get to spend eternity with the best of the lot.

    Thanks for defending them Septimus! Great post.

    diet coke — June 13, 2005 @ 5:06pm
  19. “Once you do get sanction to go all the way passionate kissing can sadly become neglected—a way station instead of a destination—and that’s often too bad.”

    But so true. Septimus, how long have you been married?

    Allison — June 13, 2005 @ 5:11pm
  20. From my own pre-married experience, passionate kissing isn’t EVER a destination; it’s ALWAYS a waystation. Sometimes you can get off the train before hitting the end of the line, but the speed with which you’re stoking the engine doesn’t make it easy to jump.

    I am all for affectionate kissing. But passionate kissing — kissing which incites passion — is something that I wish I had saved more completely for my married life.

  21. Allison, let’s just say I know what I’m talking about. And Greg, do me a favor and stop sharing personal details about me online without tallking to me first. Thanks a lot.

    SeptimusH — June 13, 2005 @ 7:05pm
  22. My daughter, when she was 10, came in from playing with the neighbor boys, brothers ages 10, 8, and 4. I asked what she was doing and she said, “Oh, I was just teaching TJ how to kiss (TJ was the 10 year old).” I raised an eyebrow, “Oh? I bet TJ liked that.”

    “Yes!” She declared…and Mathew and Nathan liked it, too.”

    annegb — June 13, 2005 @ 7:39pm
  23. Septimus buddy. As I mentioned in your other post it’s not good for man to be alone. Word of the Lord, actually. This post gives me hope that deep down you still really believe that in spite of all you’ve been through.

    Having said that, for single people french kissing is a dangerous thing as it is a type of becoming one flesh. And it played a role in my big downfall that I mentioned on the other thread.

    Also I can’t agree with your logic for why not extend it to the following. “Wouldn’t we all agree that there is no better way to find out if someone you are dating is capable of passion than [premarital sex]? It follows then that [premarital sex] leads to better families.”

    Aaron B. Cox — June 13, 2005 @ 8:40pm
  24. Despite being such a goody-two shoes, I am probably one of the few people on this thread to have used the word “tumescence” in casual conversation…

    I agree with TOTAL Nathan…but you already know that.

    Enjoy yourselves folks. I’m off to spend some time with my beautiful wife…

    Jonathan Max Wilson — June 13, 2005 @ 11:40pm
  25. Oh, incidentally, the counsel against “passionate kissing” comes from the True to the Faith manual…not from me. You all can take it up with the Brethren if you want.

    Jonathan Max Wilson — June 13, 2005 @ 11:49pm
  26. Naomi, you seem to exude Mormon-y goodness with every syllable so I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

    J. Max, on the other hand, is freaking me out, that last line is way too suggestive!

    There’s no danger of tumescence, thank goodness, but clean it up, buddy, not everyone has the willpower I do.

    SeptimusH — June 13, 2005 @ 11:54pm
  27. Aaron:

    Also I can’t agree with your logic for why not extend it to the following. “Wouldn’t we all agree that there is no better way to find out if someone you are dating is capable of passion than [premarital sex]? It follows then that [premarital sex] leads to better families.”

    Why not extend it? Because whether passionate kissing is good or bad, passionate kissing is NOT the same thing as premarital sex. The two are not equal in degree or in kind, and are not logically or semantically interchangeable.

    As for them both being ways of becoming one flesh??? Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I have never, in all the chastity talks I’ve heard in all the wards I’ve attended, heard passionate kissing explained this way.

    Justin H — June 14, 2005 @ 1:03am
  28. SeptimusH: And Greg, do me a favor and stop sharing personal details about me online without tallking to me first.

    Wow. All blogging and no play really does make SeptimusH a dull boy.

    DKL — June 14, 2005 @ 7:39am
  29. Now last Thursday’s Mary Chapin Carpenter show is running through my mind again, which is a good thing, “I shout it out to the night: Give me what I deserve ’cause it’s my right. Shouldn’t I have all of this and …”

    John Mansfield — June 14, 2005 @ 8:24am
  30. Naomi,

    Perhaps one of the smart English majors around here can deconstruct the symbolism inherent in making out with a random Frenchman at the Eiffel tower. That may have something to do with your “what is arousal?” line of questions.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with an English student who likes to make out at major phallic gallic symbols , innocently asking “What is arousal? How is it different for men and women?” But I have to suspect that you already know much of the answer.

    Kaimi — June 14, 2005 @ 9:30am
  31. Kaimi, shouldn’t you be a little bit more discreet with that kind of information?

    DKL — June 14, 2005 @ 10:05am
  32. DKL,

    You may be right. Naomi had previously discussed the topic on blog, so I assumed that it was fair game — like Nate’s misspellings, or Steve’s feather boas and leopard-print thongs, or your own admiration for Neil LaBute. If I misjudged the appropriateness of the topic, I apologize. I wouldn’t want to be negatively impacting the level of discussion around here.

    Kaimi — June 14, 2005 @ 10:23am
  33. Oh, I thought your comment came out of the blue. I didn’t know that she’d blogged about it. That changes everything. Since I got banned shortly after her first post as guest blogger (and partly due to some comment on that post), I didn’t follow the remainder of her guest blogging stint.

    And I think it’s Rosalynde who admires Mr. LaBute. For my part, I’m as indifferent to him as I’m sure he is to me. For everything I said about the fellow, I’ve never so much as bothered to read one of his plays or to see one of his movies in the theatres or on video.

    DKL — June 14, 2005 @ 10:33am
  34. My apologies, Septimus. Didn’t mean to out you on anything, man.

    Greg Fox — June 14, 2005 @ 11:20am
  35. Thanks for coming swiftly to my defense, DKL. Kaimi was acting completely within his rights according to my own self-proclaimed Freedom of Information Act: my roommate referred to one of my carpe diem moments in a comment she made when I was guesting at T&S, and to my surprise and delight, a small group of people with long memories now have a much more exciting idea of me than my past actually warrants :) . Francois, we’re still on for this August, same time, same bridge, right?
    My real argument is with Septimus: you strike me as someone for whom “exuding Mormon-y goodness” isn’t a term of approbation. So are you saying that just because I sound good and conscientious, you don’t think I can get into trouble? That seems a little condescending, both to me and to your idea of goodness. One of my gripes with married people is that they think that their broader experience gives them the right to reduce everything I experience to mere child’s play.

    Naomi Frandsen — June 14, 2005 @ 11:43am
  36. “For everything I said about the fellow, I’ve never so much as bothered to read one of his plays or to see one of his movies in the theatres or on video.”

    LOL, man. LOL.

    Eric Russell — June 14, 2005 @ 2:44pm
  37. You misjudge me, Naomi. I approve of your good and conscientious nature. I envy it, and regret the unjaded innocence that has been lost in my own life. You’re right, I don’t know you that well, and the entire Eiffel tower story has already changed my perceptions. If it makes you feel better I am sure you can get in trouble. We all can.

    What I was getting at was an entirely different thing than what you accuse me of, although, it’s likely no less offensive. When people who are really, really good (as I assume you are) worry about being corrupted or defiled by acts that are really, really minor (such as passionate kissing) it makes people who aren’t quite as pure and familiar with actions that have much more serious consequences feel that much worse.

    It’s like an overweight girl sitting next to a supermodel who’s complaining about how the tootsie roll she’s considering eating might make her fat.

    Having said all that, I don’t want you to be mad at me because so far at least I think you’re an all right person.

    SeptimusH — June 14, 2005 @ 4:40pm
  38. When speaking of whether passionate kissing is or is not appropriate, I think the setup of the very question leads people to speak past each other by taking sides.

    I think that for most, concerns about passionate kissing have to do not so much with the act itself but the amount of time spent and the circumstances surrounding it. Something a former Bishop recommended seems to be the best solution. He called it the 5-55 rule. He suggested that kissing (passionate or not wasn’t specified) was perfectly fine at any time as long as it only lasted five minutes and then didn’t continue again for another 55 minutes.

    I think the point is that passionate kissing isn’t bad in itself, but dangerous when done for hours at a time when no one else is around.

    Eric Russell — June 14, 2005 @ 5:19pm
  39. This is sort of off the topic, and I’m not trying to be sensational, I really believe this. I think older women who have never had sex are not very nice people. I think if you get to be about 35 and you’ve never had sex, you should, because you will learn to be a more Christian person. Every “old maid” I know is just, just, uptight and often unkind and very stodgy. Hmmm…perhaps that’s why they are old maids. But I don’t think so, I think being a virgin until one is 60 makes one unpleasant.

    annegb — June 15, 2005 @ 10:43am
  40. Anne, are you talking about “virgin lips” or actual sex? Because if you’re saying that those women over 35 who have never had sex are all grumbly (w)itches, you’re probably saying they should:

    1. Go inactive
    2. Leave the Church
    3. Enjoy uncommitted sexual escapades
    4. Become “immoral” as the Church defines it, etc.

    If this is what you are saying, that is very interesting indeed.

    There are women (and men) out there who are married and very unpleasant. They can blame it on children, menopause, ignorance, or whatever, but that’s probably just their personalities; same goes for singles. I doubt it has much to do with how many times they exchange bodily fluids with someone else in the most intimate of ways, but I could be wrong!

    Patricia — June 15, 2005 @ 11:04am
  41. Also, who are these 35 + year old single LDS women supposed to have sex with? Priesthood-holding single LDS men? Married men?

    Patricia — June 15, 2005 @ 11:18am
  42. Oh, there’s no shortage of men in and out of the church who will have sex. You don’t have to leave the church, but of course there is a price to be paid.

    Some might be consumed with guilt, some might become more compassionate and uptight. Sexual sin is recoverable. Sometimes not really living life and being unkind is not.

    I know it’s an outrageous suggestion. But sometimes I think it could benefit.

    annegb — June 15, 2005 @ 3:50pm
  43. Huh. So people should committ “the sin next to murder” just to be less grumpy…maybe?

    That’s a strange prescription. Why 35? Why not as teens? What if these 35 year olds are YW teachers? Or temple workers? Some people consider sex outside of marriage as breaking temple covenants. This isn’t important to you?

    Whee! Would you offer your son or your husband? Is it that important to you that all the old maids have an orgasm or two?

    Patricia — June 15, 2005 @ 4:06pm
  44. Maybe breaking the law of chastity for this kind of “heatlfh benefit” as Anne suggests would be a personal decision, or an answer to prayer? maybe it could come as a result of a priesthood blessing or a temple trip. maybe it’s personal revelation for the individual. Maybe even affairs, drug use, etc. could be approved under circumstances?

    Anon, a mouse — June 16, 2005 @ 11:07am
  45. well…I’m not convinced it is the sin next to murder. And my suggestion was entirely for older women. And it was not tongue in cheek. And it’s not a health benefit, it’s an emotional development issue.

    It’s simply my personal observation–look around, look around and check out all the older unmarried women you know. Maybe it won’t bear out, maybe it will. I just believe it and I think God would judge that older unmarried woman who decided to sacrifice her “most precious possession–her virginity (oh, give me a break) very kindly. There are lots worse things she could with her old age.

    And no, it’s not important enough to offer my son or husband, but I don’t recall mentioning adultery. My observation, I believe, was that older women who hadn’t had sex were not very nice people. Which, in my experience, is true.

    You know, you can justify anything. Joseph Smith himself said, “that which is wrong in one circumstance can be, and often is, right in another.” I am old enough to know that is absolutely true and thank God you are not God and the one to judge. Because a lot of good people might get shut out over trivial issues, like having sex at 60. And yeah, wheee, that could be a real wake up call to an older virgin. Could make her a happy camper. No apologies here for my position.

    annegb — June 16, 2005 @ 11:47am
  46. Yeah, that Mother Teresa was a real witch…

    Anon, a mouse — June 16, 2005 @ 12:02pm
  47. I think people who *keep* temple covenants are generally very nice people, and those who categorically judge all the single people they know as grumpy virgins who just need to get laid are jerks.

    Some people who never get married are *not* virgins and just don’t go around broadcasting the fact. Some *are* and are incredibly nice people. Some married people who are prejudiced towards single people because they fantasize about their supposed non-sex/love lives are pretty creepy.

    but that’s just my observation.

    Patricia — June 16, 2005 @ 12:07pm
  48. How do you know Mother Teresa was a virgin? Looked at Condaleeza Rice lately?

    And give me a break, people who keep their temple covenants are just as flawed as anybody else. I know a lot of —holes who are active Mormons and a lot of decent people who probably get drunk every Friday night.

    annegb — June 16, 2005 @ 12:13pm
  49. Cat fight!

    Christian Y. Cardall (TSM) — June 16, 2005 @ 12:14pm
  50. I don’t know what looking at Condoleeza Rice has to do with whether Mother Teresa was a virgin or not. And, for that matter, how do you know Condoleeza Rice is a virgin? It’s really, really creepy to assume that a single non-nun is not a virgin and attribute her personality traits to whether or not she has had sex, and how often and with whom.

    Many nuns are virgins and most I know are incredibly nice people.

    Bigots who go around assuming that people are to be criticized, avoided (because they just aren’t “nice peoplel”) and judged because they don’t marry or because they may or may not have had sex are very flawed, indeed.

    There are nice people who are virgins. There are bad people who are not virgins. There are nice people who sleep around. There are bad people who sleep around. There are great people who are married. There are not-so-great pepole who are not married. There are even nice people who never married.

    You can’t just pick out people who have cirucmstances either beyond their control or of their making and categorically call them flawed because no-one (as far as your prurient mind can tell) slept with them.

    Patricia — June 16, 2005 @ 12:25pm
  51. Can if I want.

    Condaleeza Rice looks to me like she’s never had sex.

    I don’t avoid prune-faced old maids at the bank, I just think, “honey, you’d be so much happier if you had some good sex. You have no idea what you’re missing”

    annegb — June 16, 2005 @ 12:32pm
  52. Good for you, Anne. Maybe you should start a “home” “visiting” service in your ward. You could be your ward madam! LOL.

    Patricia — June 16, 2005 @ 12:38pm
  53. oh…hon, you just got on my bad side. And that’s hard to do.

    Luckily we are not in the same room.

    Shutting up now for your sake.

    annegb — June 16, 2005 @ 12:49pm
  54. that was uncalled for, patricia. someone who disagrees with you must be a prostitute. real classy.

    of course, you’re suggesting prostitution. so i guess you’re the real madam here.

    Jerry Bruckheimer — June 16, 2005 @ 1:04pm
  55. Anne is the one who suggested there were plenty of men in and out of the Church who would sleep with unmarried older women. She seems like she knows what she’s doing, so why doesn’t she arrange to make it all happen if she’s so concerned about these poor “prune-faced old maids”?

    All I’ve said was:

    1. It’s wrong to disobey the commandments and temple covenants just because one is older and may or may not have had sex.

    2. It’s impossible (and wrong) to judge who has had sex before just by looking at them.

    3. It’s creepy to suggest one can do that.

    4. If someone feels very strongly that older virgins should be out having sex, why don’t they take proactive measures (such as starting a stud farm) instead of insulting single people?

    Patricia — June 16, 2005 @ 1:11pm
  56. Golly, Patricia, you should lighten up. Calling her a prostitue is just simply crossing the line. Why resort to the ad-homenim attacks just because someone disagrees with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. You castigate Anne because she is not ‘moral’ enough by calling her a prostitute?? Seems like someone should take a look in the ‘morality’ mirror.

    Just Joe — June 16, 2005 @ 2:46pm
  57. Can everyone just please kiss and make up on this little thread about kissing?

    SeptimusH — June 16, 2005 @ 2:54pm
  58. […] ;s probably called for. And at our own little blog, a heartfelt post from Septimus about passionate kissing, posted in part because the commenters on a post at Millenial Star had become tox […]

  59. Listen, I owe everybody an apology, this is my bad. My post was off topic and controversial. I knew that, I just threw it in, didn’t think it would strike the nerve it did. I still think it, but my actions were discourteous. I should have just dropped it.

    Back to kissing: I was 17 the first time a guy tried to kiss me like that and I was grossed out. Never went out with him again. I was 28 and had been married twice when I met somebody who knew what they were doing. Oh, whole different reaction. Lucky girls whose guys know how to kiss. You have to practice to get that good.

    annegb — June 17, 2005 @ 8:02am
  60. There’s a great song by K.D. Lang that says,

    Your kiss has hindered my day
    A longing that won’t go away

    I feel sorry for anyone who’s not experienced a kiss like that. One that makes you go weak at the knees.

    Susan M — June 17, 2005 @ 10:05am
  61. So what makes a good kiss then ladies? Is it tenderness? Is it timing? What is it that leaves you longing for more?

    SeptimusH — June 17, 2005 @ 10:22am
  62. It’s the guy, not the technique.

    Laura — June 17, 2005 @ 10:30am
  63. Well, in that case I’m covered.

    SeptimusH — June 17, 2005 @ 10:49am
  64. I’ll tell you what I think, Septimus. For me a good kiss can start slow or fast, but needs to change speeds. It can be gentle, but not weak. It has to arrive on time, but can leave just a little early. I prefer to be held, but not crushed, and I like to be able to breathe, but still be left breathless.

    And by the way, this site is kee-razy. I like it.

    Punky — June 27, 2005 @ 10:30pm
  65. […] No, just joking. I am not to be trusted. So instead, let’s just rub noses. […]

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comments are closed for this post.

Best Viewed with
Firefox: Safer, Faster, Better
Generated in 0.159 seconds (64 queries) | Powered by WordPress