Dating and Girls these days

[pianistclare]

You can forgive a person, but that does not require you to marry her.

Who said it did?
The tendency to make blanket statements about girls not being worthy to be wives and mothers because of a youthful mistake that they have confessed and been forgiven for in Confession, is what is concerning.

 

[Loly_Maria]

You could try and find a partner who has never had sex, but that could mean that you are ruling out women who may be more compatible with you.

I also think that it’s bizarre when people say that we all have a connection with everyone we have had sex with. I have friends who wouldn’t even recognise most of the people that they have had sex with; I doubt that they would consider themselves to have a special connection with those people.

 

[Tomdstone]

Who said it did?
The tendency to make blanket statements about girls not being worthy to be wives and mothers because of a youthful mistake that they have confessed and been forgiven for in Confession, is what is concerning.

What is also concerning is the large number of divorces and marriage annulments per year with the husband bearing most of the financial burden. A man has to be very careful these days as to who he chooses to marry, because the laws favor the woman in any divorce or annulment settlement. If a woman has been chaste and faithful to God’s commandments before marriage, there is a good chance that she will continue to be so after her marriage.

 

[josh987654321]

Firstly, no. I do not go around asking girls their sexual history. I may never have had a girlfriend before, but im not that bad with the ladies.

hahaha,

Secondly, and more importantly, ive heard that I should not ‘write off’ a girl just because she has made a mistake in the past sexually.

That’s just me personally.

And I agree. I should not.

Okay.

But I still kind of do.

Okay.

And I feel bad about that.

Why? It’s going to be your marriage and it’s your discernment process. We can give you advice, but if you marry someone your not comfortable with, you’ll have to live with it. I think it only fair to be honest with yourself and the one your discerning.

I feel like I am unable to be with someone knowing that they have been sexually active with someone else.

Which I believe is completely understandable, but I only suggest not to write them off because I believe it may not always be as black and white like that.

And I understand that I shouldnt feel that way,

No, I would think it odd if someone didn’t feel that way, nobody wants their future spouse to have had a sexual history.

but I still do. And i feel bad about that.

I would advise to pray about it.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Xantippe]

How is it that you know if a girl is sexually active or has been in the past? Are you going around asking women about their history, are they going around telling everybody, or are rumors being passed around about them? Personally I can’t see discussing my private life with anyone other than my husband, and that was not until we were seriously preparing for marriage.

Riiiiiight.

I never understand these discussions.

1. Women typically don’t come with “more than 1,000 served here!” tattoos on them or odometers.
2. Rumors are unreliable. Some times people tell stories not about what actually happened, but what they wished had happened. There are such things as fish stories.
3. Everybody thinks everybody else is having way more sex than they actually are.

Related:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-05-28-social-norming.htm

1. It is really inappropriate to ask women that are casual acquaintances or that you are just casually dating what they have been doing with their genitals. And flapping one’s lips about how many people one has or hasn’t been sexually intimate with is a sign of immaturity and poor judgment (and that’s true even if the number is zero).
2. I wasn’t always the miracle of discretion that I am today, but I think I can say with all honesty that the only people that have much of an idea of my permanent record are my OB/GYN and my husband, and I mean to keep it that way.
3. I think it’s not a bad idea for a fiance/e to have a general idea of one’s past conduct, but I don’t think that conversation needs to happen until there is an actual engagement on the table.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

What is also concerning is the large number of divorces and marriage annulments per year with the husband bearing most of the financial burden. A man has to be very careful these days as to who he chooses to marry, because the laws favor the woman in any divorce or annulment settlement. If a woman has been chaste and faithful to God’s commandments before marriage, there is a good chance that she will continue to be so after her marriage.

What does past sin have to do with future marriage? So, you have never committed mortal sin? Never been unfaithful to God’s commandments? Tomdstone is perfect? :clapping: Way to go, bud!

If a girl is sleeping around and being a ho, most wouldn’t start dating her. “Can’t turn a ho into a housewife” is so true. However, making a mistake/didn’t have a proper upbringing/whatever doesn’t mean that she is going to be a disloyal wife.

I had sex before marriage, I had sex before I met my husband. I was extremely loyal to him. 3 years of marriage, he was gone half the time. Literally, thanks, deployments. I didn’t even have fun with myself when he was gone, much less with another man.
So, you are, like, so wrong. People can do bad things and change. God forgives and lets it go and we are supposed to do the same thing.

Also, if you are going into a marriage worried about the financial burdens of divorce, then you shouldn’t be getting married, ever. :twocents:

 

[Xantippe]

Also, if you are going into a marriage worried about the financial burdens of divorce, then you shouldn’t be getting married, ever. :twocents:

Yes.

 

[Tomdstone]

What does past sin have to do with future marriage? :

When it comes down to a man choosing a wife for marriage, it is just his decision. He will have to live with her and IMHO, there is nothing wrong with looking for a woman who has the same Christian moral values as you do and who has lived her life according to those moral values . So if a man believes what the Catholic Church believes, that it is seriously wrong to have sex before marriage, then I don’t see anything wrong with his looking for a partner with this same belief and with those same moral values. It is his choice and he can marry whomever he wants, provided, of course, that the woman also agrees. There has been a rather serious increase in the number of marriage annulments given by the Catholic Church since Vatican II. A man has to be very careful about the woman he chooses as his life partner. It is only prudent for a man to take into consideration the past life of the woman he will choose as his lifetime partner. If a man finds a woman who takes Christian morals seriously, and who has been faithful to the laws of Christ, then he has met someone who in all likelihood will take her marriage vows seriously and her vocation as a Christian mother seriously.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

When it comes down to a man choosing a wife for marriage, it is just his decision. He will have to live with her and IMHO, there is nothing wrong with looking for a woman who has the same Christian moral values as you do and who has lived her life according to those moral values . So if a man believes what the Catholic Church believes, that it is seriously wrong to have sex before marriage, then I don’t see anything wrong with his looking for a partner with this same belief and with those same moral values. It is his choice and he can marry whomever he wants, provided, of course, that the woman also agrees. There has been a rather serious increase in the number of marriage annulments given by the Catholic Church since Vatican II. A man has to be very careful about the woman he chooses as his life partner. It is only prudent for a man to take into consideration the past life of the woman he will choose as his lifetime partner. If a man finds a woman who takes Christian morals seriously, and who has been faithful to the laws of Christ, then he has met someone who in all likelihood will take her marriage vows seriously and her vocation as a Christian mother seriously.

I think it is quite judgmental to think about someone’s past, when the relationship is in the present. People make mistakes. We all do. Having a lapse in judgment or falling away from the church or just entering into the church doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t share your morals/values NOW. Yes, deciding to marry is very serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly, however, the OP has never dated. You need to date a girl to figure out if you want to marry her. Marriage is the last step. You don’t say, “Hey I wanna marry Jill, I’ll ask her if she is a virgin and if she is I’ll ask her on a date.”
Just because Sue was a non-practicing protestant in college who had sex with her boyfriend, doesn’t mean that she isn’t a devout Catholic now. It isn’t like once you have sex you are some addict or something. Urges can be controlled, before and after losing your virginity.
I very much took my vows seriously and that was before I was even Catholic, marriage being a sacrament wasn’t even a thought of mine, but I meant my vows. I knew marriage was for life. When I got my lovely phone call from the man I married telling me he doesn’t want me anymore. That was the first thing I said, well, I yelled into the phone, “I MEANT my vows!! Did you just want a party and cake?!”
Was I always faithful to God’s commandments? Nope. Being protestant meant that “all sins are the same” so I figured that since I’m going to Hell for lying about doing homework that it didn’t matter what I did, I was already Hell bound. Didn’t stop me from taking my vows seriously.
There are way too many variables to write off a girl who doesn’t have her V-card. My marriage could end up being invalid. So, even if he was my only sex partner, OP would X me off the list. Or Sue who wasn’t even Catholic when she had sex.
To just assume that since a person has sinned in the PAST means that they won’t make a good Catholic wife is wrong and cruel. Heck, she could be a virgin and be a horrible wife.
I don’t think anyone on this forum has kept all of His commandments. There is more than that 6th one.

 

[Sarcelle]

If the OP wants to have a wife that has observed chastity as a single then that is within his right. No need feeling bad about it.
However there seems to be a Madonna/Whore binary view of women that is peeking out in this thread.

 

[Xantippe]

If the OP wants to have a wife that has observed chastity as a single then that is within his right. No need feeling bad about it.

Yes.

But if his standards mean that he’s going to die alone, then he has to be willing to accept that. That’s the question–if he can’t find a suitable virgin (and it’s going to get more and more difficult with every passing year), does he really think that living and dying alone is preferable to even a happy marriage with a woman with a past?

Also, as other people on the internet have noted, there is the unfortunate possibility that a man with these kind of standards will reject honest women with a limited past and inadvertently wind marrying a liar.

 

[Xantippe]

I think it is quite judgmental to think about someone’s past, when the relationship is in the present. People make mistakes. We all do. Having a lapse in judgment or falling away from the church or just entering into the church doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t share your morals/values NOW.

But a positive recent track record is good.

Yes, deciding to marry is very serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly, however, the OP has never dated. You need to date a girl to figure out if you want to marry her. Marriage is the last step. You don’t say, “Hey I wanna marry Jill, I’ll ask her if she is a virgin and if she is I’ll ask her on a date.”

**Right.

I think the OP should start some (judicious) dating and maybe some therapy if he has anxiety about dating.**

Just because Sue was a non-practicing protestant in college who had sex with her boyfriend, doesn’t mean that she isn’t a devout Catholic now. It isn’t like once you have sex you are some addict or something. Urges can be controlled, before and after losing your virginity.

Right.

There are way too many variables to write off a girl who doesn’t have her V-card. My marriage could end up being invalid. So, even if he was my only sex partner, OP would X me off the list. Or Sue who wasn’t even Catholic when she had sex.
To just assume that since a person has sinned in the PAST means that they won’t make a good Catholic wife is wrong and cruel.

Hey, it would certainly simplify evangelism, though! We could cross literally billions of people of the list.

Heck, she could be a virgin and be a horrible wife.

**Right. Happens all the time.
**

 

[josh987654321]

Yes.

But if his standards mean that he’s going to die alone, then he has to be willing to accept that. That’s the question–if he can’t find a suitable virgin (and it’s going to get more and more difficult with every passing year), does he really think that living and dying alone is preferable to even a happy marriage with a woman with a past?

Also, as other people on the internet have noted, there is the unfortunate possibility that a man with these kind of standards will reject honest women with a limited past and inadvertently wind marrying a liar.

Whenever a view like this comes up, for me personally, I straight out reject it, I don’t give the fear of dying alone any thought and I believe that one should not date or discern marriage without first accepting the single life, without first being okay to be without. They are either right for your or they are not. I strongly believe that the fear of being single or dying alone completely blinds one with fear in the discerning process and hence is very dangerous.

Thus no offense intended, but as for me, I absolutely reject what I believe you have insinuated here.

Note: I believe It can also be used to remove just about any standard one might have, including abuse.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Xantippe]

Whenever a view like this comes up, for me personally, I straight out reject it, I don’t give the fear of dying alone any thought and I believe that one should not date or discern marriage without first accepting the single life, without first being okay to be without. They are either right for your or they are not. I strongly believe that the fear of being single or dying alone completely blinds one with fear in the discerning process and hence is very dangerous.

Thus no offense intended, but as for me, I absolutely reject what I believe you have insinuated here.

Note: I believe It can also be used to remove just about any standard one might have, including abuse.

I’m not fear-mongering, I’m just giving a litmus test:

Is living with this (whatever it is) better than dying alone?

A lot of times, honestly, the answer is that dying alone is way better, but one has to ask the question rather than just going through life with an unreasonable “must have” list while lamenting that nobody is living up to one’s standards. The list (whatever it is) is whatever one believes is necessary to make living with another person better than dying alone.

But back to the virginity question. Women are, believe it or not, not shrink-wrapped mint-condition comic books or in-the-box collectible figures that lose 90% of our value once anybody has handled us. I have to say that the comic book and collectible analogy does often come to mind when a young guy that has sat on his hands for years and never dated comes to CAF to complain about not being able to find a virgin–the desire for a virgin often feels less like a religious thing and more like an extension of the passion for mint condition material stuff. I’m not saying that that is the case for the OP, but with other internet people, I don’t think it’s an unfair conclusion.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

This topic and related ones have come up in the forums before and unfortunately, it tends to turn into a battle of the sexes, because usually the topics are about male posters who either can’t get over the past of a specific woman, or express a preference for women without such pasts in general.

I think many women get annoyed about this because of the old “double standard” that a sexual past somehow degrades the value of women on the marriage market, yet a man’s “youthful indiscretions” don’t matter at all, and women are expected to forgive them as a matter of course.

However, once in a while the opposite situation comes up where it is a woman who can’t get over the sexual past of a man, but most of the time the consensus is the same; if they are not married yet, then the OP has to decide whether this issue is a deal-breaker or not. If they already are married, then the advice is to find a way to let it go, because most of the time “having a sexual past” does not make for a decree of nullity.

All this being said, I don’t think it is necessarily “wrong” for a sexual past to be a deal-breaker. However, the idea that marrying a virgin is a sure-fire way to have a happy lasting marriage, or to reduce the risk of divorce, I think is not quite correct. I recall being shocked to read that, supposedly, Ava Gardner was a virgin at the time of her first marriage, to Mickey Rooney. But that was only her FIRST marriage, she went onto marry twice more, and actually garnered quite a sexual reputation along the way.

Or, to bring up a celebrity closer to our times, Jessica Simpson was supposedly a virgin at the time of HER first marriage to Nick Lachey (though this claim may be iffy as the whole marriage seemed to be essentially a big publicity stunt, complete with Reality TV show). Well, obviously that marriage didn’t last either, and it seems Jessica went on to lead a more conventionally sexually active Hollywood dating life afterwards.

And while I believe Princess Diana wasn’t actually a virgin at marriage (though she claimed to be at the time), I don’t think she was sleeping around before marriage either, yet certainly her marriage didn’t work out in terms of longetivity or fidelity, to the point where many people believe that Prince Harry is NOT the son of Prince Charles!

Anyway, I think very few people would disagree with the principle that couples should have similar morals and values about sex. The disagreement is with the assumption that anyone who is not a virgin at marriage, hence does NOT value chastity. (Or that being a virgin at marriage is the same thing as valuing chastity).

All this being said, there are many examples of past sins in a prospective spouse that would be acceptable to some, but not others. I think many people would be reluctant to marry anyone who had ever experimented with homosexual sex, or drugs, or had been a porn addict, or had a gambling problem in the past. Many people would “write off” anyone with a mental health issue, or anyone who had children. I’m not sure if such people are any less judgmental.

I’ve even read articles on “marriage discernment” that suggest people “write off” prospective spouses based on the sins of their parents because supposedly, people from broken homes are at higher risk of divorce. That seems even more harsh and judgmental to me than “writing off” someone because of their personal sexual pasts, but if someone really is invested in divorce prevention, then I suppose they might find it important.

So, I think that if the OP (or anyone else) really have this strong preference then I am not going to shame them or accuse them of being “judgemental”. As far as I can tell, the OP himself has never stated that women with sexual pasts are generally unfit for marriage, though some others may have given that impression. I am curious however as to his answer to the question of whether he’d consider a chaste widow or divorcee who was not a virgin, but had only had sex within marriage.

And certainly, he is not a hypocrite, as opposed to other men who have posted on CAF who admit to having committed sexual sins themselves yet still want to marry a virgin. Certainly, such men did not get a warm reception and understandably so, I recall one egregious case where a man stated he had broken up his GF because she was not a virgin, but she actually HAD been one until the guy himself had sex with her!

 

[zarek]

This topic and related ones have come up in the forums before and unfortunately, it tends to turn into a battle of the sexes, because usually the topics are about male posters who either can’t get over the past of a specific woman, or express a preference for women without such pasts in general.

I think many women get annoyed about this because of the old “double standard” that a sexual past somehow degrades the value of women on the marriage market, yet a man’s “youthful indiscretions” don’t matter at all, and women are expected to forgive them as a matter of course.

However, once in a while the opposite situation comes up where it is a woman who can’t get over the sexual past of a man, but most of the time the consensus is the same; if they are not married yet, then the OP has to decide whether this issue is a deal-breaker or not. If they already are married, then the advice is to find a way to let it go, because most of the time “having a sexual past” does not make for a decree of nullity.

All this being said, I don’t think it is necessarily “wrong” for a sexual past to be a deal-breaker. However, the idea that marrying a virgin is a sure-fire way to have a happy lasting marriage, or to reduce the risk of divorce, I think is not quite correct. I recall being shocked to read that, supposedly, Ava Gardner was a virgin at the time of her first marriage, to Mickey Rooney. But that was only her FIRST marriage, she went onto marry twice more, and actually garnered quite a sexual reputation along the way.

Or, to bring up a celebrity closer to our times, Jessica Simpson was supposedly a virgin at the time of HER first marriage to Nick Lachey (though this claim may be iffy as the whole marriage seemed to be essentially a big publicity stunt, complete with Reality TV show). Well, obviously that marriage didn’t last either, and it seems Jessica went on to lead a more conventionally sexually active Hollywood dating life afterwards.

And while I believe Princess Diana wasn’t actually a virgin at marriage (though she claimed to be at the time), I don’t think she was sleeping around before marriage either, yet certainly her marriage didn’t work out in terms of longetivity or fidelity, to the point where many people believe that Prince Harry is NOT the son of Prince Charles!

Anyway, I think very few people would disagree with the principle that couples should have similar morals and values about sex. The disagreement is with the assumption that anyone who is not a virgin at marriage, hence does NOT value chastity. (Or that being a virgin at marriage is the same thing as valuing chastity).

All this being said, there are many examples of past sins in a prospective spouse that would be acceptable to some, but not others. I think many people would be reluctant to marry anyone who had ever experimented with homosexual sex, or drugs, or had been a porn addict, or had a gambling problem in the past. Many people would “write off” anyone with a mental health issue, or anyone who had children. I’m not sure if such people are any less judgmental.

I’ve even read articles on “marriage discernment” that suggest people “write off” prospective spouses based on the sins of their parents because supposedly, people from broken homes are at higher risk of divorce. That seems even more harsh and judgmental to me than “writing off” someone because of their personal sexual pasts, but if someone really is invested in divorce prevention, then I suppose they might find it important.

So, I think that if the OP (or anyone else) really have this strong preference then I am not going to shame them or accuse them of being “judgemental”. As far as I can tell, the OP himself has never stated that women with sexual pasts are generally unfit for marriage, though some others may have given that impression. I am curious however as to his answer to the question of whether he’d consider a chaste widow or divorcee who was not a virgin, but had only had sex within marriage.

And certainly, he is not a hypocrite, as opposed to other men who have posted on CAF who admit to having committed sexual sins themselves yet still want to marry a virgin. Certainly, such men did not get a warm reception and understandably so, I recall one egregious case where a man stated he had broken up his GF because she was not a virgin, but she actually HAD been one until the guy himself had sex with her!

Thank you very much for youre comment. I really do appreciate it. Firstly, about a widow/divorcee, this has not even crossed my mind. Im only 22. I doubt ill be meeting a widow/divorcee at my age. Thought possible. But unlikey. Thats why I havent even considered the though.

And thats for not calling me judgemental. I never said that women with a sexual past were unfit for marriage. And its not like I would not give a woman like that a chance.

This whole topic has been making me very insecure over the past few months. And its just that ive never found anyone with similar views as me (as strict as they are). The strange thing is, these views to me have nothing to do with being catholic or being religious. Theyre just my views. My preferences.

 

[Tomdstone]

Also, as other people on the internet have noted, there is the unfortunate possibility that a man with these kind of standards will reject honest women with a limited past and inadvertently wind marrying a liar.

If a person lies about her past, this could be grounds for annulment under provision:
Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2).

 

[pianistclare]

Thank you very much for youre comment. I really do appreciate it. Firstly, about a widow/divorcee, this has not even crossed my mind. Im only 22. I doubt ill be meeting a widow/divorcee at my age. Thought possible. But unlikey. Thats why I havent even considered the though.

And thats for not calling me judgemental. I never said that women with a sexual past were unfit for marriage. And its not like I would not give a woman like that a chance.

This whole topic has been making me very insecure over the past few months. And its just that ive never found anyone with similar views as me (as strict as they are). The strange thing is, these views to me have nothing to do with being catholic or being religious. Theyre just my views. My preferences.

You’re only 22? And this is on your mind at this stage in life?
Come on.
you’re kidding right?
I have 2 virgins living in my house…way beautiful, faithful Catholic young ladies.
What are you doing to meet young women like them?
You say your views are strict. Start there. Lighten up. Values are good. Painting yourself in a corner?
Not so much.

 

[Xantippe]

If a person lies about her past, this could be grounds for annulment under provision:
Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2).

Even if an annulment is immediately forthcoming (which cannot be counted on), that doesn’t save you or your kids any heartache.

 

[Xantippe]

You’re only 22? And this is on your mind at this stage in life?
Come on.
you’re kidding right?
I have 2 virgins living in my house…way beautiful, faithful Catholic young ladies.
What are you doing to meet young women like them?
You say your views are strict. Start there. Lighten up. Values are good. Painting yourself in a corner?
Not so much.

Right.

Chaste young women won’t jump on your lap. They’re also generally not hanging out at bars. The smart ones also don’t go around saying, “I’m a virgin!!!” because it’s like chumming shark-filled waters.

If you want to meet one, improve and expand your life.

Get a move on, because the ones your age are mostly going to be getting married very soon.