E
EasterJoy
Guest
Why wouldn’t you want to be judged on a post you made a year ago? Aren’t you the same person now as you were then?
- Status
5
57thDimension
Guest
I’m not sure why you’ve responded in this way. I wasn’t questioning that seven years is a good period of time to remain chaste. Are you confusing my comment with another?
+Sebastian
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You’d better put “loose and fast” in quotes, young man.
I took his original questions as honest, too. Read my posts. As for what is helpful, do not flatter yourself at the expense of others, if you don’t mind.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Yes, I agree with you, for HER sake, it was a good decision to tell him. She showed a lot more maturity than he did when he responded the way he did.
And now we can see how learning from a previous mistake benefits us. The OP has been sheltered, and admitted it, and has no context to deal with this side of reality. He was raised to stay pure; he did that; and he assumed that this young woman had done so as well. All of which are not unreasonable. But the reaction he had, that of being “hurt” because she had the integrity to tell him the truth, to cut off communication with her, was harsh and immature. I think he is still seeing things from his own POV and not thinking of her at all - what she must have gone through, how hard it must have been for her, and how honest she was to tell him and be vulnerable to him.
OP, I think you should not contact this young lady again.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
What on earth is the point of quibbling with whether a high school girl had turned 18 or not? Do you realize it would not matter if she were 27 and she’d had her fall at 20? Or, for that matter, 57 and had it at 50? She’s been chaste for seven years, for crying out loud, nobody (including her!) is saying that it doesn’t matter at all whether or not someone is a virgin on his or her wedding night,* so what is your point in beating the age thing or the “single occurrence” vs. “multiple occurrence” thing to death like you’re Perry Mason?!?*
5
57thDimension
Guest
Look, it’s clear you’re being sarcastic and uncharitable now. Please stop that.Why wouldn’t you want to be judged on a post you made a year ago? Aren’t you the same person now as you were then?
I asked whether you were drawing comparisons - you simply assumed what my response would be. Can you see the jump you made?
As for being “judged” (*where is the judgment?) on my previous comments, I never disagreed with it - you are welcome to point out where I did. That said, if you are drawing a comparison between the two, it is a weak one - marriage and opinion-finding are two very different things. I hope you can see that.
I am still trying to figure why you are being so uncharitable to me, though.
+Sebastian
L
LaSainte
Guest
People are allowed to have personal observations. And I really respected this woman…she wasn’t someone to just go around making things up. A lot of other people online and elsewhere have also made this observation. I can say, “Sometimes dogs are brown” or even “Pit bulls are know. To be an aggressive breed” without having a scientific source to back it up.
Tell him it’s all in the name of science
T
The_Bucket
Guest
This has escalated quickly. And rather nonsensically if you ask me.
5
57thDimension
Guest
? It is in quotes. Why are you upset about that?You’d better put “loose and fast” in quotes, young man.
I took his original questions as honest, too. Read my posts. As for what is helpful, do not flatter yourself at the expense of others, if you don’t mind.
ETA: it means “to treat something without enough care or attention” - why are making such a bad faith interpretation of what it meant? Why not just ask rather than acting increasingly hostile and uncharitable towards me? I have done nothing but try to be civil and charitable and you are continually attacking me. Please stop it. I don’t appreciate it whatsoever and I wish you’d stop making assumptions of the worst kind.
+Sebastian
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Let me get this straight. You’re posting that the rest of us are taking a “loose and fast” approach to the truth (?!?!) and you think it is uncharitable to take exception to that, or to take that as a “judgment”?
You start calling a woman on this forum loose and fast, and you’d better be ready to duck, buddy.
(<–that’s what’s known as “mad” emoticon. Pay attention to those.)
A
Allegra
Guest
No one is abusing the OP. The posters are answering his question. There is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation where the poster himself has given the criteria by which he requests the situation be judged. That’s sort of silly. True, he MAY not be telling the whole truth. There MAY be something else wrong with the girl that leads him to believe she couldn’t be a good wife or mother. The girl MAY not be telling the truth about her experiences in high school. We don’t know. If he has said stuff that isn’t true or left out pertinant information, then he ought to understand that our conclusions are contingent on the information he gave us and may not be really useful to him in real life.
But given the fact that the OP asked our opinions, we have no reason to doubt his word or assume that his representation of the situation is inaccurate just because it doesn’t paint him in a positive light. Frankly, I think that makes it more likely to be accurate. It isn’t as if the guy is trying to sugar coat it or anything.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I take grave exception to having my truthfulness questioned, let’s just say that.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
this trhread may be about two posts away from a warning about posting etiquette or getting locked altogether. Group hug?:grouphug:
E
EasterJoy
Guest
He said “I don’t want to be a jerk or have too high of expectations.” He was also given very strict criteria with the clear implication that he would be judged by those when someone was looking at whether he would be a decent marriage prospect as part of the explanation for why he should stay chaste himself. Give him the benefit of the doubt, and expect that he means that he doesn’t want to be a jerk but also isn’t sure what to do with the expectations that his catechists put into him.
A
Allegra
Guest
You can say it if you want. I’m just saying, I would try to make sure something as derrogatory and strange as what your professor claimed was true before I’d start stating it as fact. People can also say, “There’s a huge problem with black people being sexual deviants.” or “Jewish people tend to be born with horns.” They don’t have to provide documented scientific evidence to make these claims. I’m just saying, I’d have to see something other than their opinon before I’d believe it.People are allowed to have personal observations. And I really respected this woman…she wasn’t someone to just go around making things up. A lot of other people online and elsewhere have also made this observation. I can say, “Sometimes dogs are brown” or even “Pot bulls are know. To be an aggressive breed” without having a scientific source to back it up.
Tell him it’s all in the name of science
5
57thDimension
Guest
The truth is not a matter of degrees. That is all. I objected to the truths constructed from assumptions, since they have no basis. To say something that is not true is to not regard the truth. I am only pointing that out. If you do not like that, I will stop, but please do not treat me with hostility for doing something I feel is my duty. Beyond that, I don’t believe I leveled any accusation that could be construed as questioning your truthfulness. If I did, please point it out.
Also, you asked me if I wanted to be judged, when clearly judgment is not the correct word. I think the better word would be “assessed.” I was assuming that you were not intending to use such a strong word towards me (which I believe is the charitable thing to do).
+Sebastian
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Actually, I’ve gotta go…no hard feelings, I’ve just been online too much today.
I am sure my nose will be back in shape when I get back.
(but oooo…I did not like the fast and loose with the truth thing, nor piling on to the repentant…grrrr…)
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
Yes, I agree, yet once again, it is important to bring up that each and every act of fornication can and does have consequences, and so it is valuable to avoid all acts of fornication and avoid those consequences. It would also make a difference if she had continued having sex with different people. All of those acts would have had consequences. It does say a lot that she did not take the perspective of, oh well I lost my virginity, what difference does it make if I keep having sex.
Nevertheless, if a person is a virgin (never had sex) before marriage then the consequences of having had sex with someone that is not their spouse are not there. That’s all. St Augustine was an awesome saint that had a very spotted past. I am sure there are plenty of virgins out there that are nowhere near as holy as he was (after his conversion). That does not change the fact that there were consequences to his sins, just as there are consequences to ours. I think people are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, holiness can be achieved after many horrible sins, sexual or not sexual, but that does not change the fact that our sins have consequences! We should not despair, God does forgive us, and we can make reparation (and in purgatory we can finish scrubbing up our souls), but we should not try to act as if there are 0 consequences to our going against God’s design, and that we can do whatever as long as we go to confession afterwards and all consequences will be gone. The reason why virginity is relevant when discerning marriage is because the consequences can be relevant to marriage.
As a side note, I would like to know if everyone that keeps talking about how all sexual sins are pretty much the same, would feel that discovering that their spouse had masturbated while they were on a business trip would have identical effects them and on their marriage as discovering that their spouse had sex with another person while they were on a business trip.
F
fpt
Guest
In my humble opinion, it is very important to make the difference between the fundamental structure of some sexual sins (the libertarian values about the sexuality before he wedding and after the marriage) and *the human weakness concerning the temptation of flesh. The weakness of flesh between boy friend and girl friend is immoral and is sinful, it is not the ideal, of course, but the sexual doctrine of the total liberty is worst than the sexual weak, 5 times in the love, even if it is forcination. *The level and the degree are not the same.
If she was and stays, in doctrine and in praxis, a female liberterian about sex, I could understand your view, even if the catholicism is in favor of forgiveness.* You have right to want a honest girl, as wife and potential mother.
But in this case, it was only a weakness, during a moment. it is totally different.**
In conclusion, there is a saying that says *" the fact of entering into a marriage means to be capable to forgive the infidelity of the other, under special conditions. If you love your spouse, you need to be ready to forgive his sexual sins, otherwise you are not ready and it is not a conjugal love." *This saying is phrased with my own words.
If she was and stays, in doctrine and in praxis, a female liberterian about sex, I could understand your view, even if the catholicism is in favor of forgiveness.* You have right to want a honest girl, as wife and potential mother.
But in this case, it was only a weakness, during a moment. it is totally different.**
In conclusion, there is a saying that says *" the fact of entering into a marriage means to be capable to forgive the infidelity of the other, under special conditions. If you love your spouse, you need to be ready to forgive his sexual sins, otherwise you are not ready and it is not a conjugal love." *This saying is phrased with my own words.
- Status