All the single ladies ... and men

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elisabethelisa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s a difference: You’re a dude. I’m not gay.

Thanks for proving the labels I put on.
…and we’ve just veered off into left field again. What in the world does your sexual orientation have to do with anything I’ve said?

This is getting to be a little surreal…
Only those who have proven they deserve them… just as you did right now. :rolleyes:
Nope. I think we’re reading two different books. Yours might possibly be upside down. 🤷
 
…and we’ve just veered off into left field again. What in the world does your sexual orientation have to do with anything I’ve said?

This is getting to be a little surreal…
You’re a dude with a thing for troublesome women. That’s masochistic.
You respond by saying the same could apply to Gemma Galgani (the kind of Catholic woman I’d go for).

If you were somehow trying to one-up me with that ridiculous comparison please know this thread is about what turns people on.

The only reason why this is surreal for you is you’re blinded by your little vendetta that you can’t respond straight.
Nope. I think we’re reading two different books. Yours might possibly be upside down. 🤷
Look at a mirror and then reread my statement again. Clearly, anyone with logical gears left in their head knows who’s really not getting them to turn.
 
I didn’t see anything on your list that was weird. I’m not sure why you keep mentioning it.
 
You put these two together and you get the reason why I put naive and gullible as positives. Unlike the masochist here, I’ve already drawn a line in the number of relationships where I end up constantly having to defend my position and questioning that of others. You wanna be another woman who plays that game with me, get in line but I can no longer fall in love with you because I am just not attracted to the same-old, same-old.

Just for once, I’d like a girl who doesn’t have to resort to butting heads with me one way or another just so I could give what is due to her. Hence, faith and trust winds up tying with naive and gullible. I’ve seen many people say the same about a saint’s child-like (note: not childish) belief in God. Sue me if I’m wrong for wanting a girl who will have the same child-like belief in me as a man. :rolleyes:

P.S.

Again: Says the non-substantial non-reader.
I assume then LW that you would have the same childlike believe in that woman. Nothing wrong with what you want in a woman then.
 
In defence of the two guys, while I do get creeps upon the sight of “obedient” too, I guess I’d like to say that, as much as I do appreciate strong personalities and strong-headed women (having been brought up by three of them may have something to do with it), there is one thing not so much about women as people in general. And that thing is:

– knowing when to follow.

We cannot all be leaders. And sometimes it takes a leader to inspire others to listen to another leader. A leader is also not somebody that simply leads but also one that gets things done (sometimes without a single follower to help).

A leader also knows how difficult a task it is to lead and how little sometimes it has to do with getting your own way. From this point of view, people who simply want to stamp their influence, not so much push a specific point through as just get their will done (i.e. for the sake of their will more than that of the substantive proposal), can sometimes be the supreme annoyance. (This is also annoying in people who actually are in charge of the operation but will not listen to advice, which may result in uninformed decisions that they don’t want to delegate (or read up on).)

For this reason, I think a good leader knows when to shut up and do as others say. This seems to me to be an important aspect of maturing as a leader. I wouldn’t know for 100% sure because I’m more of a lonewolf and mostly do things just on my own.

Especially if you move into a going job, you don’t halt the entire operation trying to take over command, get reports from everybody and hand down your new instructions, you just ask where you’re needed or move on to do some other thing. (Unless the job’s in the process of being botched.) “With respect, captain, my job is being the engine technician and your job is, well, being the captain.” Or something along those lines. A WW2 film. Officer and enlisted drove into a landmine but stopped just in time before explosion, if I recall.

Subsidiarity is a very Catholic keyword, incidentally. That is, if the small people (e.g. private citizens in some form of grassroots initiative) are managing, the big people (e.g. the gov’t) stay away. And, this my addition, and use their precious time on other things of which there surely is a long queue (and if not, then they aren’t needed).

Obviously, if subsidiarity is the proper way of action for people who actually are in charge (because they were ordered to, or simply because they were first to start doing it), it should give even more to think to people who are not in charge but would perhaps like to be. (Which includes strong-headed women.)

This said, if you find yourself involved with a strong-willed woman, you don’t break her, you leave her enough freedom and give her enough share in the decision-making to be happy. Problem starts when that seems to be the majority share, of course. Then I guess you need to put your foot down (which you need to know, which means learn, how to do, you can’t really just tell her to “obey” you when you don’t give the appearance of a strong leader; or she will just laugh at you and that will be mighty painful).
I have a problem with the terms “breaking” and “breaking in” even for horses. I wonder about the use of that term in relation to a woman as in “don’t break her spirit”. Why does your wife have to obey you? Shouldn’t both of you be obedient to God and both submit to the other?
 
I assume then LW that you would have the same childlike believe in that woman. Nothing wrong with what you want in a woman then.
In a manner of speaking, yes! Heck, on further reflection, it comes from my experience always dealing with people who don’t always live up to the advice they give me. (Being on the receiving end of that, I can attest that it is not the best trust-building experience.)

I swear, no matter how simple-minded she may be, I thus repeat. How I would love a woman that will not give me cause to keep my guard up and endearing enough that I for once cannot bring myself to be skeptical.
 
I find it very interesting how a popular “red flag” in this thread included being nonreligious. Being an atheist, I never considered whether or not I’d have a problem with having a relationship with a religious person. My guess is that the reason is that my family is religious so I’m used to other religious people. Whereas most of you do not have atheists in your close families and are not used to this type of relationship. Only a hypothesis.

Ultimately, I think these “red flags” are irrelevant. Some people can fall in love with people full of faults. People just naturally turn a blind eye because we give in to our emotions. It is true that some traits are more attractive than others, but the true “green flag” is when that person sparks something inside of you.

For example, my green flags could be:
liberal
nonreligious
Latina

but it wouldn’t surprise me if I ended up having a relationship with a blonde conservative christian. Irony is lovely
 
I find it very interesting how a popular “red flag” in this thread included being nonreligious. Being an atheist, I never considered whether or not I’d have a problem with having a relationship with a religious person. My guess is that the reason is that my family is religious so I’m used to other religious people. Whereas most of you do not have atheists in your close families and are not used to this type of relationship. Only a hypothesis.

Ultimately, I think these “red flags” are irrelevant. Some people can fall in love with people full of faults. People just naturally turn a blind eye because we give in to our emotions. It is true that some traits are more attractive than others, but the true “green flag” is when that person sparks something inside of you.

For example, my green flags could be:
liberal
nonreligious
Latina

but it wouldn’t surprise me if I ended up having a relationship with a blonde conservative christian. Irony is lovely
Maybe for some but that’s not so in my case. 2 atheist cousins, 1 agnostic uncle and 1 agnostic aunt, and also my dad was atheist for most of the time I was with him (he reverted back quite recently). I’m very close to most of them, yet I don’t get attracted to nonbelievers (just doesn’t happen). 🤷
 
Maybe for some but that’s not so in my case. 2 atheist cousins, 1 agnostic uncle and 1 agnostic aunt, and also my dad was atheist for most of the time I was with him (he reverted back quite recently). I’m very close to most of them, yet I don’t get attracted to nonbelievers (just doesn’t happen). 🤷
You ruined my hypothesis rather quickly 😃
I mean, it really does surprise me that this stuff matters in online dating, but then again, I’ve never tried online dating. When I’m attracted to somebody, the last thing that pops into my mind is their religion. Its the personality that turns the flag green. 😃 I would understand more if it were a question of marriage, because a relationship with kids and opposing religions can be difficult. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me.
 
I find it very interesting how a popular “red flag” in this thread included being nonreligious. Being an atheist, I never considered whether or not I’d have a problem with having a relationship with a religious person. My guess is that the reason is that my family is religious so I’m used to other religious people. Whereas most of you do not have atheists in your close families and are not used to this type of relationship. Only a hypothesis.
No. I think for most, we have been burned by unbelievers or “believers” who did not stay true to their faith and lacked morals. I think we (or at least I) assume atheists to lack morals. I know that’s not fair to all atheists, but it’s like the play-it-safe card. Plus, we want someone who is going to go with us to mass and raise our children with the same belief system we have. I grew up with parents who lacked faith, morals, and maturity. Instead, I’m very conservative. My mother calls me an old lady because she thinks I dress like one because I dress more conservative than she does. She thinks if she’s got it, she can flaunt it. She’s a very naturally beautiful, young-looking women, but I don’t think like her in that regard. Also, I veil in front of the host, which she also thinks is for old people. And she has no desire to be catholic because she says it is boring, which to me, reflects her self centeredness. Therefore, I’ve learned that I prefer others who share my views and know where I am coming from.

Can people who disagree with LW stop it, please? This isn’t his forum and enough people have made their point.

Sorry, moving on…

My red flags
passive and/or passive agressive
secretive
lying
rude
lazy
unmotivated
lack of faith (in God, religion, morals, life)
has an ego and/or selfcentered

Green flags

a devout catholic
motivated
driven
excellent work ethic
educated
service-minded (enjoys being charitable)
a good sport/ easy going -goes along well with group activities, likes trying new things, is okay with other people’s differences
eats healthy
wants a big family/ wants to be a foster parent and adopt/ takes pride in being a dad and husband
enjoys the arts
likes to take care of the house -repairs and such
compassionate
takes initiative
is not afraid of standing out or standing alone if necessary. Basically, has a backbone and doesn’t have the need to blend in at the expensive of his beliefs and such.
takes pride in all he does
humble

In general, I want someone who is going to not only compliment me and I compliment him, but for us to bring out the best in each other and be each other’s best friend.
 
As a man, in general, my advice is that morally speaking and intellectually speaking, in my humble opinion, a woman (a future bride of a catholic marriage) has to be or to try to be in favor of natural moral law of human nature, of the marriage, of the marital act and of the family. Thus, in the marriage, the woman should to try to be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ":

the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Wife and the Potential Mother, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity.
And
The female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male: wife is the schoolgirl of the sexuality of her husband; wife is the student of the sexuality of her husband, wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the nurse, the doctress and love’s master of the sexuality of her husband.

She needs to agree with the natural rules of marriage. Thus, she should be, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, I mean in doctrine, against:
  1. the theory of gender, the theory of homosexualism, the feminism radical, the jansenism, the neo-jansenism, the puritanism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the neo-victorianism, the moralism, the rigorism, the quiestism, the fideism, the theoretical providentialism, the quiverfull movements, the absolute procreationsim, **the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality: only the natural moral law explains by the Church, not more not less. **
  2. the communism, the socialism, the marxism and his friends, the clanism, the collectivism, the nazism, the fascism.
In fact, she should be agreed with, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, the fight against** the heresies and ideologies going against the human nature. **It is very simple. About the praxis, it is diffrent. Each one is sinner, each one can to be touched by the weakness.

I know that my approach is very doctrinal and theoritical, but it is very important for the life of couple (all dimensions), for the life of family, for the education of children, for the spiritual life…etc.
 
As a man, in general, my advice is that morally speaking and intellectually speaking, in my humble opinion, a woman (a future bride of a catholic marriage) has to be or to try to be in favor of natural moral law of human nature, of the marriage, of the marital act and of the family. Thus, in the marriage, the woman should to try to be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ":

the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Wife and the Potential Mother, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity.
And
The female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male: wife is the schoolgirl of the sexuality of her husband; wife is the student of the sexuality of her husband, wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the nurse, the doctress and love’s master of the sexuality of her husband.

She needs to agree with the natural rules of marriage. Thus, she should be, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, I mean in doctrine, against:
  1. the theory of gender, the theory of homosexualism, the feminism radical, the jansenism, the neo-jansenism, the puritanism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the neo-victorianism, the moralism, the rigorism, the quiestism, the fideism, the theoretical providentialism, the quiverfull movements, the absolute procreationsim, **the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality: only the natural moral law that is explained by the Church, not more not less. **
  2. the communism, the socialism, the marxism and his friends, the clanism, the collectivism, the nazism, the fascism.
In fact, she should be agreed with, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, the fight against** the heresies and ideologies going against the human nature. **It is very simple. About the praxis, it is different. Each one is sinner, each one can to be touched by the weakness.

I know that my approach is very doctrinal and theoritical, but it is very important for the life of couple (all dimensions), for the life of family, for the education of children, for the spiritual life…etc.
Smart, educated, intelligent, open mind (no focus only her culturalism), not simplistic intellectually speaking,

Beautiful, pretty, feminine, sensual, sexy, not prudish, not vulgar, not uptight, not strict, not rigorist, not moralist, according to my own references: the balance and the modration at XXI century.

The fact of wanting to love his husband physically, sexually, psychologically, affectively, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, naturally, religiously: the conjugal natural goodness and conjugal charity in the couple is the key.

THE NATURAL MORAL LAW IS THE FIRST KEY fOR DISCERNING (THE NON NEGOTIABLE POINTS OF THE COUPLE AND OF THE FAMILY).

AFTER, THERE ARE THE PERSONAL COMPATIBILITIES OR THE PERSONAL INCOMPATIBILITIES IN FONCTION OF EACH PERSON. THE QUESTION IS HOW TO IDENTIFY THEM, WITH THE BALANCE AND THE MODERATION IN ORDER TO FIND THE SOUL MATE FOR THE MARRIAGE.
 
As a man, in general, my advice is that morally speaking and intellectually speaking, in my humble opinion, a woman (a future bride of a catholic marriage) has to be or to try to be in favor of natural moral law of human nature, of the marriage, of the marital act and of the family. Thus, in the marriage, the woman should to try to be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ":

the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Wife and the Potential Mother, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity.
And
The female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male: wife is the schoolgirl of the sexuality of her husband; wife is the student of the sexuality of her husband, wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the nurse, the doctress and love’s master of the sexuality of her husband.

She needs to agree with the natural rules of marriage. Thus, she should be, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, I mean in doctrine, against:
  1. the theory of gender, the theory of homosexualism, the feminism radical, the jansenism, the neo-jansenism, the puritanism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the neo-victorianism, the moralism, the rigorism, the quiestism, the fideism, the theoretical providentialism, the quiverfull movements, the absolute procreationsim, **the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality: only the natural moral law explains by the Church, not more not less. **
  2. the communism, the socialism, the marxism and his friends, the clanism, the collectivism, the nazism, the fascism.
In fact, she should be agreed with, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, the fight against** the heresies and ideologies going against the human nature. **It is very simple. About the praxis, it is diffrent. Each one is sinner, each one can to be touched by the weakness.

I know that my approach is very doctrinal and theoritical, but it is very important for the life of couple (all dimensions), for the life of family, for the education of children, for the spiritual life…etc.
Wow fpt. There is more to marriage than sexuality. There is more to a woman than sexuality. Trying to propagate your views even on such a thread is unbelievable.

I only checked out this thread because I noticed by chance that you were the last person to post here. I only wanted to see what you have to say about singles. But what you have to say doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s just unbelievable that you say part of your bigger theories on sexuality here.

I won’t be posting further on this thread, so don’t bother about replying. Again I only came here to read your post about single women and men.
 
Wow fpt. There is more to marriage than sexuality. There is more to a woman than sexuality. Trying to propagate your views even on such a thread is unbelievable.

I only checked out this thread because I noticed by chance that you were the last person to post here. I only wanted to see what you have to say about singles. But what you have to say doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s just unbelievable that you say part of your bigger theories on sexuality here.

I won’t be posting further on this thread, so don’t bother about replying. Again I only came here to read your post about single women and men.
Of course, in the marriage the conjugal sexuality is not the only important point, I am okay with you. But, since the word is world with the effects of original sin, the morality of marriage, in all dimensions is so important, ven sexuality:

The fact of being a wife;
The fact of being a husband;
The fact of being a father;
The fact of being a mother,
The fact of trying to be a be a saint via the marriage

All is linked.

Marriage is an institution and a contract in link with the human person (body and soul with all corollaries): a sexed contrat with alterity and complementarity of bodies and souls.

Of couse the conjugal sexuality is not all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top