F
Fairwinds
Guest
it means he pwned himself.
- Status
A
Allegra
Guest
There is no point in censoring your feelings. I actually think it’s for the best that you don’t. I actually think that it’s crucial that you inform all young women you interact with that despite their current behavior and beliefs as well as any other attributes they may or may not have, and their possible compatibility to yourself, you consider any one who is no longer physically intact to be beneath you. This will be best for everyone involved.
I was only attempting to explain that the problem the posters have doesn’t have anything to do with your wanting a virgin, but with your general attitude about women.
P
psymajor
Guest
If you really think I have a lot to learn, then list what you think I need to learn. If a woman was never married and she is a non-virgin, then it means that she committed a mortal sin at least once (99% of the time it was on several occasions). Enough said. Everyone, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc are humans who have certain expectations for their partners. Like I said before, most Catholics are not going to be down with marrying an ex-stoner with felony convictions, even if she is a great Catholic now. The past still matters when picking a spouse and this is a very simple truth. Most catholics are not going to be willing to put up with their spouse being unemployed due to felony convictions from decades ago. Stop pretending like the past has 0 influence on the future, because it does.
A
Allegra
Guest
Sorry. Further clarification required.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
not a chance. you get to learn the hard way, like all men do.
I think Mary Magdalene would have made a fine wife. not to your standards although she was fit company to be a companion of Jesus. frankly, I doubt you’d meet hers standards.
I’d be careful about trashing married Catholic women who have a checkered past.
A
Allegra
Guest
Unfair. Due to our completely messed up society, a vast number of men didn’t get the chance to learn this from where they should have. (watching their father interact correctly with their mother) Too many young men are shooting blind. Of course, actually being in love with someone and knowing what it is to put someone else’s pain above your own pride will go a long, long way. OP’s not there yet and unless he’s had a father figure to show him, he won’t be until the right girl comes along.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
life is 6-5 against. someone could tell the OP, carefully explain the nuances of man-woman relationships (Ridgerunner does an admirable job), but the OP won’t believe anyone of it until he learns the hard way.
B
Byrnwiga
Guest
There is nothing wrong with wanting to marry a virgin, assuming your reasons are honest (I refer to concerns about STIs, a higher chance of divorce, or some emotional cause).
However, the language you are using does not point to such reasons. Why do I say that? You did not state any of those reasons. I could be wrong, and you could have some or all of those reasons, as well. I think where a lot of the responses are focusing on is your use of words that have a sense of entitlement to them (and I do not mean the word “want”) - it comes across as being rooted in pride, rather than prudence. It is not good to think of marriage as what you can get, but what you can give. The previous sentence does not contradict my first sentence. I do not mean to say that it is a bad thing to recognize (and want) partially the ideal of what marriage is supposed to be (two virgins marrying).
Perhaps you should read something by Julian of Norwich, who wrote that sin was necessary because it brings someone to self-knowledge, which then leads to acceptance of the role of God in their life (somewhat like the idea of “felix culpa”).
My intention is not to dissuade you, only to remind you that everyone is deserving of respect. Just because you would not marry someone, does not mean they are less deserving of respect than someone you would marry.
Pray for future spouse.
However, the language you are using does not point to such reasons. Why do I say that? You did not state any of those reasons. I could be wrong, and you could have some or all of those reasons, as well. I think where a lot of the responses are focusing on is your use of words that have a sense of entitlement to them (and I do not mean the word “want”) - it comes across as being rooted in pride, rather than prudence. It is not good to think of marriage as what you can get, but what you can give. The previous sentence does not contradict my first sentence. I do not mean to say that it is a bad thing to recognize (and want) partially the ideal of what marriage is supposed to be (two virgins marrying).
Perhaps you should read something by Julian of Norwich, who wrote that sin was necessary because it brings someone to self-knowledge, which then leads to acceptance of the role of God in their life (somewhat like the idea of “felix culpa”).
My intention is not to dissuade you, only to remind you that everyone is deserving of respect. Just because you would not marry someone, does not mean they are less deserving of respect than someone you would marry.
Pray for future spouse.
S
Sneaux
Guest
You may be a virgin, but you have committed sin. We all have our issues. Don’t act like just because you’re a virgin then that means you’re the perfect Catholic.
L
lerapt78
Guest
Lots of responses in the past two hours!
Just getting back to the requests for clarification for post #32:
My suggestions were based upon what I thought to be probability and likelihood by observing locales and what kind of people those locales will tend to attract in number.
A woman/man who would like to meet a mate who shares their conservative values (including virginity) might turn to venues which are conducive to the more traditional methods of courting and relationship-building. These would places in which face-to-face interaction and low-pressure (not built upon superficial appearance) meetings are likely to occur. It’s no guarantee of virginity of course, but it’s not unreasonable to think that one who wants to develop a deeper connection with the opposite sex might enjoy an environment in which she can get to know a guy who isn’t seeking an object of lust, and who won’t care that her face is bare and her clothes have dirt on them, and her hands and hair are covered in clay. Outings such as community project-building, art classes, book clubs, pottery classes(lol) might draw a higher number of people who are attracted to that kind of socialization (Though I acknowledge a good point was made about there being a good number of hippies/liberals in such places, too). There’s a reason we don’t encourage people to meet “quality” mates at bars and clubs, and suggest other locales instead.
Regarding the subdued person: perhaps because their personality doesn’t orient them to mingle comfortably with a large group of people at any given time, they have a tendency to prefer limited one-on-one relationships. Just doing the numbers here: If being subdued or shy makes it difficult to attract and/or keep the attention of the opposite sex, that naturally means fewer interactions with the opposite sex, which naturally reduces the number of opportunities for sexual encounters. It’s not a concrete conclusion of course that shy/subdued people have few sexual partners and therefore outgoing/assertive people must naturally have a million notches on their bedposts; it’s simply taking statistical probability into consideration.
In giving the OPoster an opportunity to increase his chances of meeting more traditional, marriage-minded women (which is something those who value virginity are likely to be), I’m in no way presenting these options as some sort of fool-proof guarantee. When I typed my original post I was thinking about my personal observations regarding the people I’ve known who have been sexually conservative vs sexually liberal – where did they hang out?, what were their personalities?, what kind of appearances did they have?, etc.
Just getting back to the requests for clarification for post #32:
My suggestions were based upon what I thought to be probability and likelihood by observing locales and what kind of people those locales will tend to attract in number.
A woman/man who would like to meet a mate who shares their conservative values (including virginity) might turn to venues which are conducive to the more traditional methods of courting and relationship-building. These would places in which face-to-face interaction and low-pressure (not built upon superficial appearance) meetings are likely to occur. It’s no guarantee of virginity of course, but it’s not unreasonable to think that one who wants to develop a deeper connection with the opposite sex might enjoy an environment in which she can get to know a guy who isn’t seeking an object of lust, and who won’t care that her face is bare and her clothes have dirt on them, and her hands and hair are covered in clay. Outings such as community project-building, art classes, book clubs, pottery classes(lol) might draw a higher number of people who are attracted to that kind of socialization (Though I acknowledge a good point was made about there being a good number of hippies/liberals in such places, too). There’s a reason we don’t encourage people to meet “quality” mates at bars and clubs, and suggest other locales instead.
Regarding the subdued person: perhaps because their personality doesn’t orient them to mingle comfortably with a large group of people at any given time, they have a tendency to prefer limited one-on-one relationships. Just doing the numbers here: If being subdued or shy makes it difficult to attract and/or keep the attention of the opposite sex, that naturally means fewer interactions with the opposite sex, which naturally reduces the number of opportunities for sexual encounters. It’s not a concrete conclusion of course that shy/subdued people have few sexual partners and therefore outgoing/assertive people must naturally have a million notches on their bedposts; it’s simply taking statistical probability into consideration.
In giving the OPoster an opportunity to increase his chances of meeting more traditional, marriage-minded women (which is something those who value virginity are likely to be), I’m in no way presenting these options as some sort of fool-proof guarantee. When I typed my original post I was thinking about my personal observations regarding the people I’ve known who have been sexually conservative vs sexually liberal – where did they hang out?, what were their personalities?, what kind of appearances did they have?, etc.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
it also means that subdued persons don’t have the same opportunities to built the interpersonal skills needed to develop mature relationships that men and women enjoy. its one thing to be 17 years old and still learning what the opposite sex wants or expects, all that is learned through trial and error, and no amount of lecturing by the nuns, or CAF contributors, will ever substitute for that.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Possibly a very hard way. I recall, for example, a woman of my acquaintence long ago. If ever a woman was a virgin, it was her. She started going with a guy who fell deeply in love with her. I guess the question of her virginity was troubling him, so one day he just plain asked her.
She affirmed her virginity to him, then dropped him immediately. She explained to me that if her virginity was more important to him than her as a person, she certainly didn’t want to be married to such a man.
I could see her point.
T
thewanderer
Guest
OP, Please pay careful attention to these two posts. they have a LOT of wisdom in them. Also, I know I worded my replies to you harsher than perhaps was necessary, but regardless, my advice to work on yourself (which is advice I would give to anybody who says they want to get married) still stands. If you want to have a successful marriage it is extremely important to focus on what faults of yours you need to fix and to work on fixing those as well as to work on changing your attitude from “what do I want” to “what do others want”.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I agree with you, however when you say “Catholics” they are probably cradle catholics. It really boils down to, “I would not like to find out my future wife (whoever she may be) had another sexual partner and thus it would be wrong for me to do it to her or for her to do it to me.”
Unfortunately sexual immorality is on the rise, just look at how many advocate same sex marriage. I certainly don’t plan on lowering the bar just because the rest of society is.
It pisses me off when people say things like “Take what you can get.” Or “If your standards are that high (over something like virginity) than you don’t deserve or you wont find someone.” When they say things like “Your standards are too high, your dreaming or that’s not reality or scoff with something sarcastic like good luck.”
Absolutely
I agree.
I think it’s the same for women as it is for men. I would have just said “If I can do it, than they should be able to too.”
I would also say “I don’t want to lower the bar or settle, just because the majority of society is embracing sexual immorality.”
As Jesus said “servants don’t deserve special thanks for doing what they are supposed to do.”
however remember that if they have fallen short, say they had sex once and were very sorry and chaste for many years etc than that certainly wouldn’t be a deal breaker, because we all make mistakes.
I don’t know.
In saying all of this, I agree with a lot of what you have said especially about “virginity” however if I met a really nice women and I found out she had lost her virginity once or something and she had been living a chaste life ever since and was very sorry for what she did, than I would certainly not cross her off of my books (so to speak).
Our sexuality is sacred, the less and less sacred our sexuality becomes, the less and less intimate our marriage will become.
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
F
Fairwinds
Guest
if you (the generic you) could choke down the thought of marrying a non-virgin, and did so, three months into the marriage it won’t matter in the least – unless you keep picking away at it.
A
Allegra
Guest
I don’t mean strangers like us telling him what’s right. I just mean that when someone grows up in a home that is living a healthy marriage, it is more likely to come natural to them. It’s not fool proof, but it’s at least a good start.
T
thewanderer
Guest
OP, I get it that you care about keeping virginity intact, but I have to admit, there are plenty of marriages between virgins that fail, as well as marriages between non-virgins that succeed. Virginity is not the deciding factor as to whether or not your marriage will succeed. It is, in fact, not even a guarantee of chastity. Again, I am not trying to say you shouldn’t look for only a virgin, if that is one of your non-negotiables, then so be it, thats your right, but make sure that you don’t place too much faith in virginity as a gaurantee for a happy life-long marriage, and make sure that you don’t fall into the trap of looking at non-virgins as horrible sinners who have been ruined. They are people, sinners just like you and me, sure, we haven’t sinned in the same way they have, but we have all sinned, we are all loved by God, and we are all able to achieve forgiveness for our sins.
And they would be wrong to say that you have to accept a non-virgin as your wife, although it is also perfectly reasonable for them to caution you that if this really is a non-negotiable your chances of finding a good wife, or any wife at all, will be lower. That, again, is not to say you should change your course of action, but it is a good thing to be aware of. As for the idea of censoring your feelings… well, at the very least, if you decide not to censor them, and especially if in so doing you insult a group of people, you kind of have to expect a negative reaction.
I also think this post has some good insights OP.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
100% correct.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m just going to have disagree with you. I knew many Good Catholics who were always very careful to put on make-up every day, wear really nice and fashionable, yet modest clothing, wore heels, etc. As well as ones who like to go out to a bar with their friends to have fun. While I totally understand not going to a bar to pick up a chaste woman because you’re more likely to run into somebody extremely unchaste as that is their pick-up spot, I don’t know, something about your post makes it sound as though you think wearing makeup heels and fashionable clothing and going to a bar is linked to promiscuity which is just false and insulting. Plenty of good chaste women would never dream of going to a pottery class or some other such outing for the sake of meeting a husband, plenty put on makeup and heels for their own sake, because it makes them feel more self-confident and happy. I don’t know, it just seems like you’ve had a very different life experience than I have if you think that chaste people don’t wear makeup or go to bars.
A
Allegra
Guest
Not necessarily. If a person really didn’t hold sexuality as sacred, it would effect the marriage for a long time. However, as has been stated multiple times in this thread, non-virginity doesn’t always indicate a continuing lack of respect for the sacredness of the marital bond.
- Status