O
on_the_hill
Guest
Maybe it was your rock-n-roll stardom?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
That was probably it.Maybe it was your rock-n-roll stardom?
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
You’re speaking a foreign language here. What the hell does “put extra work into it mean.” Fornication isn’t the only sin. Do you judge all sins the same, and “put extra work” into those issues also?I would be ending up with a non-virgin, so why on earth would I put extra work into it?
The only reason that one would have to “put extra work into it” is that that one is obsessive compulsive, and insecure, over one particular sin. Believe it or not, people are not perfect. And the inability to look past one’s past sins indicates to me that one is not ready to receive the sacrament of marriage.
Okay, how about this real-world example. One has been abused as a child and never told anyone. Do you expect someone to reveal this information to you, a stranger, on the first or second date?To WarriorMonk:
Your masturbation example is silly, as it gets into crude detail. I said before that crude detail is not necessary when giving disclosure, just an acknowledgement.
I still stand by my statement. If you must ask early on, spell out your deal-breakers right up front, and then ask the date if she wishes to continue the relationship. No particular sins or details need to be revealed in that case. For someone that is obsessed with virginity, to the point of degrading others, I’m stunned that you insist on dates (i.e., strangers) to reveal their sexual indiscretions. Sorry, bud, that’s not appropriate. Sexual information gets revealed at a level appropriate to the relationship.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Or not! I mean, if there’s a major reason like STDs, sexual addiction, or previous children or even previous pregnancies that had sad endings, then it is important to speak up.Sexual information gets revealed at a level appropriate to the relationship.
Otherwise, what the heck business is it of yours? Even spouses do not share all of their sins with one another. That’s for individuals to share with their confessors who are acting in persona Christi.
I’m not saying folks can’t volunteer this information. That’s fine. But also, not everyone wants to know everyone’s prior history if it’s not really relevant to the future. If there was past sexual indiscretion that one is determined not to repeat, maybe that is not revealed unless explicitly asked.
Should my wife have asked me about every possible grave sin I could have committed? So Bucket, how many times have you intentionally gotten drunk? How many times did you deliberately miss Mass on a day of obligation? Have you ever stolen anything? Did you ever bear false witness against someone? How about slander? Did you ever ruin someone’s reputation intentionally?
I mean come on.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
In “American Splendor,” Harvey Pekar meets his future wife for the first time at an airport, and the first thing he says to her is, “I had a vasectomy.”Or not! I mean, if there’s a major reason like STDs, sexual addiction, or previous children or even previous pregnancies that had sad endings, then it is important to speak up.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Yeah maybe not the best way to lead off. But something that does need to be disclosed at some point for sure.In “American Splendor,” Harvey Pekar meets his future wife for the first time at an airport, and the first thing he says to her is, “I had a vasectomy.”
G
GEddie
Guest
You know, I can relate to why a male might be over concerned with female virginity.
In the past, it might be a matter of pregnancy (not raising someone else’s kid) or sexual infections. Now, although those issues of course remain, it is more likely a self esteem issue of not being compared sexually to someone else.
If this is really a deal breaker it SHOULD be brought forward soonest. Bearing in mind however, that this may mean ending up alone.
ICXC NIKA.
In the past, it might be a matter of pregnancy (not raising someone else’s kid) or sexual infections. Now, although those issues of course remain, it is more likely a self esteem issue of not being compared sexually to someone else.
If this is really a deal breaker it SHOULD be brought forward soonest. Bearing in mind however, that this may mean ending up alone.
ICXC NIKA.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Man: “Hi, I’m interested in dating you. However, I would like you to know up front that if I am considering dating someone, I would need to know if that person has an STD, sexual addition, previous children, or previous pregnancy. The reason I need to know is that these issues are deal breakers for me, and if the exist, this relationship will not work out”Or not! I mean, if there’s a major reason like STDs, sexual addiction, or previous children or even previous pregnancies that had sad endings, then it is important to speak up.
Woman: “I don’t think this relationship will work. Thanks for your interest.”
What exactly do you object to in the above conversation? The lack of revelation of personal information on the first date?I mean come on.
Do you really expect someone early on to, say, reveal they had 5 abortions and slept with 10 guys? Reality dictates they are not, but the method above lay out the deal breakers and gives them an out.
I have my deal breakers, and if I ever had to date again, I would handle it just as above, as they are very personal and would never expect someone to reveal that type of info on early in the relationship. However, I would expect them to know why my dealbreakers are and end the relationship.
M
manualman
Guest
I wonder if “Enterthenewage” would be willing to explain this parable of Jesus for us:
Luke 18:
10
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
I’m just wondering how you read that one.
Luke 18:
10
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
I’m just wondering how you read that one.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Before I address this post… I think we crossed wires here friend. I’m agreeing with you to a certain extent. My rhetorical points were addressed back to our mutual other friend.
Pretty sure even if there are no problems on any of those fronts the woman will say this won’t work because that’s a crazy thing to ask.Man: “Hi, I’m interested in dating you. However, I would like you to know up front that if I am considering dating someone, I would need to know if that person has an STD, sexual addition, previous children, or previous pregnancy. The reason I need to know is that these issues are deal breakers for me, and if the exist, this relationship will not work out”
Woman: “I don’t think this relationship will work. Thanks for your interest.”
The radical oversharing.What exactly do you object to in the above conversation? The lack of revelation of personal information on the first date?
Do you really expect someone early on to, say, reveal they had 5 abortions and slept with 10 guys? Reality dictates they are not, but the method above lay out the deal breakers and gives them an out.
If you’re serious, I don’t know why you think it’s appropriate to lay out these “dealbreakers” in that kind of fashion. It’s incredibly off-putting. It’s totally fine to have legit dealbreakers, but you don’t lead off with that. To your earlier point, dates are strangers. You don’t bust all of that out without giving the person a chance to express to you who she is as a human being.I have my deal breakers, and if I ever had to date again, I would handle it just as above, as they are very personal and would never expect someone to reveal that type of info on early in the relationship. However, I would expect them to know why my dealbreakers are and end the relationship.
E
enterthenewage
Guest
To Lorelei12:
I agree, it’s a well articulated description of the Catholic standpoint. But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider. They consider secular reasons as well you know, like the financial risks/rewards and legal risks/rewards. Most people are looking to find a person they are happy with, not a person who has a lot of traits they don’t like and is going to be a drag, and yes, that means looking at what they are getting out of it. Your view that people should not look at what they get out of marriage is a fringe viewpoint. If a person, man or woman (yes it applies to both sexes) has multiple partners outside of marriage, then “slut” is an accurate description of such people. They can stop being sluts by changing their actions, but their sexual history is there to stay.
To The Bucket (first quote):
Most guys, even the secular ones, will agree that virgin girls are better than non-virgins. What do you not understand about the fact that I’m not talking about how christ views it? I’m talking about how people view it. Most families are not going to let a guy high on heroin come into their house and sleep in a spare bedroom. Serious answer (not snarky in any way): I truly don’t see anything wrong with viewing things through cost/benefit analysis. My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife. Lol you can keep arguing with me all you want, but a lot of people don’t agree with what you are saying about everyone being equal.
To: TheWarriorMonk:
Let me break it down for you. If a person was sleeping around a lot and then decide to change their ways according to catholic teaching, it means they are going to be waiting until marriage to have sex. As stated earlier, waiting to have sex until after marriage is a hard task and requires enormous gratification delay. The question I’m asking is why should a virgin go through all of that waiting, wedding preparation, premarital counseling, etc if the virgin will be stuck with a non-virgin anyway? If I was open to being with a non-virgin, which I’m not, I would rather just skip the hardcore non-virgin catholic girls altogether and get with a girl who is Catholic in name only and doesn’t care about marriage. Yes yes, I know it’s a sin, but I wouldn’t really care. I just wouldn’t be motivated to do the extra work (dating, courtship, meeting her family, engagement, premarital counseling, prenups, wedding, etc) when I could just have the same type of sex during the dating phase. The earlier sex, plus the reduced legal risk of not getting married, would be more attractive than getting with a girl who still isn’t a virgin AND wants me to wait longer for sex than the combined period of time all of her past sexual partners had to wait. And throw exponentially higher legal and financial risks into the mix as well. Sounds like a raw deal to me. Real life story, last year I was on a date with a girl who actually did tell me on the first date that her dad did horrible stuff to her as a little kid (she didn’t say exactly what it was and I didn’t even ask, but it sounded like sexual abuse). I don’t know if it’s just that my generation is very different from yours, or that I have been around people who are unusually open. I have also been asked by some girls early on how many past sexual partners I had, so from my experience, I really don’t see anything wrong with being open early on. The time to reveal that information is early on so that there isn’t a bitter emotional breakup down the road.
To The Bucket (2nd post):
I see openness as a matter of decency. I have dated girls who were probably more open with me than some of the people you are talking about. If you did something, you own up to it both to God and to a potential future spouse. That’s how I see it. If a girl asked me about my faults, I would be honest with her and not try to sugar coat stuff.
I agree, it’s a well articulated description of the Catholic standpoint. But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider. They consider secular reasons as well you know, like the financial risks/rewards and legal risks/rewards. Most people are looking to find a person they are happy with, not a person who has a lot of traits they don’t like and is going to be a drag, and yes, that means looking at what they are getting out of it. Your view that people should not look at what they get out of marriage is a fringe viewpoint. If a person, man or woman (yes it applies to both sexes) has multiple partners outside of marriage, then “slut” is an accurate description of such people. They can stop being sluts by changing their actions, but their sexual history is there to stay.
To The Bucket (first quote):
Most guys, even the secular ones, will agree that virgin girls are better than non-virgins. What do you not understand about the fact that I’m not talking about how christ views it? I’m talking about how people view it. Most families are not going to let a guy high on heroin come into their house and sleep in a spare bedroom. Serious answer (not snarky in any way): I truly don’t see anything wrong with viewing things through cost/benefit analysis. My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife. Lol you can keep arguing with me all you want, but a lot of people don’t agree with what you are saying about everyone being equal.
To: TheWarriorMonk:
Let me break it down for you. If a person was sleeping around a lot and then decide to change their ways according to catholic teaching, it means they are going to be waiting until marriage to have sex. As stated earlier, waiting to have sex until after marriage is a hard task and requires enormous gratification delay. The question I’m asking is why should a virgin go through all of that waiting, wedding preparation, premarital counseling, etc if the virgin will be stuck with a non-virgin anyway? If I was open to being with a non-virgin, which I’m not, I would rather just skip the hardcore non-virgin catholic girls altogether and get with a girl who is Catholic in name only and doesn’t care about marriage. Yes yes, I know it’s a sin, but I wouldn’t really care. I just wouldn’t be motivated to do the extra work (dating, courtship, meeting her family, engagement, premarital counseling, prenups, wedding, etc) when I could just have the same type of sex during the dating phase. The earlier sex, plus the reduced legal risk of not getting married, would be more attractive than getting with a girl who still isn’t a virgin AND wants me to wait longer for sex than the combined period of time all of her past sexual partners had to wait. And throw exponentially higher legal and financial risks into the mix as well. Sounds like a raw deal to me. Real life story, last year I was on a date with a girl who actually did tell me on the first date that her dad did horrible stuff to her as a little kid (she didn’t say exactly what it was and I didn’t even ask, but it sounded like sexual abuse). I don’t know if it’s just that my generation is very different from yours, or that I have been around people who are unusually open. I have also been asked by some girls early on how many past sexual partners I had, so from my experience, I really don’t see anything wrong with being open early on. The time to reveal that information is early on so that there isn’t a bitter emotional breakup down the road.
To The Bucket (2nd post):
I see openness as a matter of decency. I have dated girls who were probably more open with me than some of the people you are talking about. If you did something, you own up to it both to God and to a potential future spouse. That’s how I see it. If a girl asked me about my faults, I would be honest with her and not try to sugar coat stuff.
N
Nopales1234
Guest
I was a virgin when I married, but my husband was not. Honestly, just because of the rareness of virginity among anyone these days, I wasn’t surprised. I wish he had waited, bu it’s nothing I judge him for and never was.I am a 24 year old man, and in my past life, there are two women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have not been sexually active with anyone for almost two years and do plan to until and unless I marry. I am concerned that a lot of Catholic women would avoid a relationship with me because of this, and this is particularly concerning to me now that I find myself attracted to a good Catholic woman in my young adult group at Church. I don’t know if she’s interested or not. She may be. Obviously each individual would feel differently about these circumstances. I just want to get a feel for what people generally think…
However, since we waited for marriage together, I will say it was incredibly hard for him not having sex. So if I were a Catholic lady seeking a man, that would be one of my worries- how to handle temptation.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Why are you, as a Catholic, considering anything other than the Catholic standpoint?I agree, it’s a well articulated description of the Catholic standpoint. But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider.
Better how? Better as people? More desirable? A better potential mate? Most secular guys who are desirous of virgin girls are entranced by the power, the status of being “first,” not by any innate redeeming quality of virginity. Of which there is none by the way. The virtue is chastity, not virginity.Most guys, even the secular ones, will agree that virgin girls are better than non-virgins.
And I’m telling you that you’re delusional.What do you not understand about the fact that I’m not talking about how christ views it? I’m talking about how people view it.
Of course a lot of people don’t agree with that sentiment. A lot of people also don’t believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or that unborn children are, well, people. They’re wrong. And again, why are you using criteria outside of the criteria laid down by Christ?My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife. Lol you can keep arguing with me all you want, but a lot of people don’t agree with what you are saying about everyone being equal.
Because… they love that person? Just a wild guess.If a person was sleeping around a lot and then decide to change their ways according to catholic teaching, it means they are going to be waiting until marriage to have sex. As stated earlier, waiting to have sex until after marriage is a hard task and requires enormous gratification delay. The question I’m asking is why should a virgin go through all of that waiting, wedding preparation, premarital counseling, etc if the virgin will be stuck with a non-virgin anyway?
And… SCENE!Yes yes, I know it’s a sin, but I wouldn’t really care.
I bet that sexual abuse was a dealbreaker, right?Real life story, last year I was on a date with a girl who actually did tell me on the first date that her dad did horrible stuff to her as a little kid (she didn’t say exactly what it was and I didn’t even ask, but it sounded like sexual abuse).
It’s not about sugar-coating it. And it’s not about having high standards. It’s about treating people with kindness, mercy, compassion and a sense of dignity. Yes, if someone asks you a blunt question, you should answer honestly. Yes, there is time enough for blunt questioning.I see openness as a matter of decency. I have dated girls who were probably more open with me than some of the people you are talking about. If you did something, you own up to it both to God and to a potential future spouse. That’s how I see it. If a girl asked me about my faults, I would be honest with her and not try to sugar coat stuff.
What I really, really can’t wrap my mind around is why this particular issue is a “dealbreaker” but all kinds of other sin, potentially mortal sin, is not.
And before you question whether I’m of “your generation” or if I “get it”… brother I ain’t even in my 30s yet.
Also, true fact… both my wife and I were virgins. She had kissed and dated a bunch of guys previously, my history was more limited. So what? I would have dated her even if she had slipped up. I love her and I know her commitment to Christ’s teaching. A failure would not have deterred me and I’m surely glad that my own actual history of serious sin with when it came to chastity (porn and whatnot) did not deter her.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Isn’t it amazing how much actually being married puts marriage and things relating to it into perspective?And before you question whether I’m of “your generation” or if I “get it”… brother I ain’t even in my 30s yet.
The person you’re arguing with is not married, is younger than the OP (and the OP is only 24), and doesn’t seem to even have any idea about what marriage is or what makes a good one. (I mean, come on, the idea of needing to “compensate” your spouse for your sexual history? What could that even entail?) I really think that just the difference in perspective, between someone who is young and probably very scared of risking so much on another person, which is what marriage is, and someone who is a bit older and has already made that commitment and really gets how it feels is causing the disagreement here.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I think what you are accusing me of is the fallacy of equivocation. I did not use the term “virgin” in the same way Jerome did. In fact, I specifically said that a historical event (i.e. an “experience” as your Jerome quote says) cannot be reversed.Then it seems you are not talking about virginity.
Jerome says that “Other things God can do, but He cannot restore the virgin after her downfall.” and Aquinas says
But I am allowed to use the term in its different sense, and that’s what I have done.
X
Xantippe
Guest
The Bucket said:
“I don’t know why you think it’s appropriate to lay out these “dealbreakers” in that kind of fashion. It’s incredibly off-putting. It’s totally fine to have legit dealbreakers, but you don’t lead off with that. To your earlier point, dates are strangers. You don’t bust all of that out without giving the person a chance to express to you who she is as a human being.”
Yeah.
I think I probably wouldn’t have married somebody with herpes (and I’m sure there are lots of nice people with herpes), but I wouldn’t have been going around asking strange men, “Do you have herpes?”
enterthenewage said:
“But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider. They consider secular reasons as well you know, like the financial risks/rewards and legal risks/rewards.”
From that point of view, there is no point in marriage or having children at all. It’s probably cheaper to keep a polo pony or buy a new motorcycle every year.
“My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife.”
That’s setting the bar pretty low, considering all the other possible horribles.
As they say on another website, aim higher!
The Bucket said:
“Because… they love that person? Just a wild guess.”
Yes!
“Yes, if someone asks you a blunt question, you should answer honestly.”
Or alternately, with a blunt, “I don’t think I know you well enough to talk about that yet. Let’s have this conversation again later when we know each other better.”
“I don’t know why you think it’s appropriate to lay out these “dealbreakers” in that kind of fashion. It’s incredibly off-putting. It’s totally fine to have legit dealbreakers, but you don’t lead off with that. To your earlier point, dates are strangers. You don’t bust all of that out without giving the person a chance to express to you who she is as a human being.”
Yeah.
I think I probably wouldn’t have married somebody with herpes (and I’m sure there are lots of nice people with herpes), but I wouldn’t have been going around asking strange men, “Do you have herpes?”
enterthenewage said:
“But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider. They consider secular reasons as well you know, like the financial risks/rewards and legal risks/rewards.”
From that point of view, there is no point in marriage or having children at all. It’s probably cheaper to keep a polo pony or buy a new motorcycle every year.
“My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife.”
That’s setting the bar pretty low, considering all the other possible horribles.
As they say on another website, aim higher!
The Bucket said:
“Because… they love that person? Just a wild guess.”
Yes!
“Yes, if someone asks you a blunt question, you should answer honestly.”
Or alternately, with a blunt, “I don’t think I know you well enough to talk about that yet. Let’s have this conversation again later when we know each other better.”
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Word.Isn’t it amazing how much actually being married puts marriage and things relating to it into perspective?
Hey I married young! I was just 22. And yeah, there were some quasi-dealbreakers for me. I didn’t want to engage in an interfaith relationship, for instance, but I was open to it if the right girl came along. I didn’t want to get into a relationship with someone who was totally secular and I wanted my spouse to have many of the same views on child-rearing and community and whatnot. But that just means that I wanted to find someone who was a serious person, serious about God and compatible.The person you’re arguing with is not married, is younger than the OP (and the OP is only 24), and doesn’t seem to even have any idea about what marriage is or what makes a good one. (I mean, come on, the idea of needing to “compensate” your spouse for your sexual history? What could that even entail?) I really think that just the difference in perspective, between someone who is young and probably very scared of risking so much on another person, which is what marriage is, and someone who is a bit older and has already made that commitment and really gets how it feels is causing the disagreement here.
Virginity wasn’t a “bonus” in my case. It was a byproduct of my wife having a firm commitment to chastity. But that commitment is definitely possible without virginity. I would hope Catholics would understand that! That’s why we have Reconciliation. That’s why we have the Divine Mercy. We are all sinners, but we are not irretrievably broken. That’s Calvinism, Lutheranism, Puritan talk.
I totally understand not wanting to go by feelings and having a sober approach to getting involved with someone. That’s logical stuff and we are certainly called to exercise good judgment. But the way people who have committed certain sins are so easily tossed aside by this small, select group of people makes me sad.
I know you’re not one BEL, but most of us are Catholics here. Well-informed ones at that. We should be the platoon leaders of the Church Militant. Our understanding of doctrine should enable us to be better soldiers, better medics out on the battlefield.
Instead, in far too many cases that understanding is becoming a plate of armor made from pride that is weighing us down in the muck while someone like you BEL, who does not have the benefit of the Real Presence to nourish her, has a spirit and disposition far more akin to Christ when it comes to many issues. I hope you do not take that as a sign of disrespect, by the way. I’m merely saying that well-informed Catholics are the ones to whom the five talents were given… and we’re throwing them in the ground and deluding ourselves that we’re investing them in blue-chip stocks.
G
Galbin
Guest
For someone who claims to be a practicing Catholic you don’t seem very Christian. Do you not recall John 8:7.“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Your judgement of non virgins is most un-Christlike. Look, nobody has an issue with you choosing a virgin for your marriage. That is totally cool. However, it’s not for you to judge non virgins.To Lorelei12:
I agree, it’s a well articulated description of the Catholic standpoint. But what I have been getting at is that the Catholic standpoint is not the only thing people consider. They consider secular reasons as well you know, like the financial risks/rewards and legal risks/rewards. Most people are looking to find a person they are happy with, not a person who has a lot of traits they don’t like and is going to be a drag, and yes, that means looking at what they are getting out of it. Your view that people should not look at what they get out of marriage is a fringe viewpoint. If a person, man or woman (yes it applies to both sexes) has multiple partners outside of marriage, then “slut” is an accurate description of such people. They can stop being sluts by changing their actions, but their sexual history is there to stay.
To The Bucket (first quote):
Most guys, even the secular ones, will agree that virgin girls are better than non-virgins. What do you not understand about the fact that I’m not talking about how christ views it? I’m talking about how people view it. Most families are not going to let a guy high on heroin come into their house and sleep in a spare bedroom. Serious answer (not snarky in any way): I truly don’t see anything wrong with viewing things through cost/benefit analysis. My only criteria that I would say is truly hard would be 1) virginity and 2) someone who is 100% prolife. Lol you can keep arguing with me all you want, but a lot of people don’t agree with what you are saying about everyone being equal.
To: TheWarriorMonk:
Let me break it down for you. If a person was sleeping around a lot and then decide to change their ways according to catholic teaching, it means they are going to be waiting until marriage to have sex. As stated earlier, waiting to have sex until after marriage is a hard task and requires enormous gratification delay. The question I’m asking is why should a virgin go through all of that waiting, wedding preparation, premarital counseling, etc if the virgin will be stuck with a non-virgin anyway? If I was open to being with a non-virgin, which I’m not, I would rather just skip the hardcore non-virgin catholic girls altogether and get with a girl who is Catholic in name only and doesn’t care about marriage. Yes yes, I know it’s a sin, but I wouldn’t really care. I just wouldn’t be motivated to do the extra work (dating, courtship, meeting her family, engagement, premarital counseling, prenups, wedding, etc) when I could just have the same type of sex during the dating phase. The earlier sex, plus the reduced legal risk of not getting married, would be more attractive than getting with a girl who still isn’t a virgin AND wants me to wait longer for sex than the combined period of time all of her past sexual partners had to wait. And throw exponentially higher legal and financial risks into the mix as well. Sounds like a raw deal to me. Real life story, last year I was on a date with a girl who actually did tell me on the first date that her dad did horrible stuff to her as a little kid (she didn’t say exactly what it was and I didn’t even ask, but it sounded like sexual abuse). I don’t know if it’s just that my generation is very different from yours, or that I have been around people who are unusually open. I have also been asked by some girls early on how many past sexual partners I had, so from my experience, I really don’t see anything wrong with being open early on. The time to reveal that information is early on so that there isn’t a bitter emotional breakup down the road.
To The Bucket (2nd post):
I see openness as a matter of decency. I have dated girls who were probably more open with me than some of the people you are talking about. If you did something, you own up to it both to God and to a potential future spouse. That’s how I see it. If a girl asked me about my faults, I would be honest with her and not try to sugar coat stuff.
Also, you’d be surprised what happens when you actually fall in love with someone. It’s nothing like choosing a car!!! You love whom you love and it takes a majorly important reason (infidelity, wanting different things from life, abuse etc.) to actually give up that love. In fact, many of we married folk had lists of what we wanted in a spouse, and yet our loves actually turned out to be very different than what we had imagined.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yep! And trust me, what I got is nothing like what I wanted. But when the right person comes along, your wants conform to them, not the other way around. (Yes, of course there will always be ‘non-negotiables’, but you really have no idea what those are until you’re in a position of negotiating!)In fact, many of we married folk had lists of what we wanted in a spouse, and yet our loves actually turned out to be very different than what we had imagined.
M
manualman
Guest
And yet, that’s not quite true either. The reason chastity is a virtue is because it preserves the unique power of sexual intimacy to profoundly bond man and wife in a way that IS damaged by prior fornication. This, quite simply, is why fornication is a sin in the first place. Reconciliation brings forgiveness and healing, but doesn’t erase all temporal consequences of sin. A past history of fornication really does cause lasting damage to one’s potential in marriage.Better how? Better as people? More desirable? A better potential mate? Most secular guys who are desirous of virgin girls are entranced by the power, the status of being “first,” not by any innate redeeming quality of virginity. Of which there is none by the way. The virtue is chastity, not virginity.
Just as it is unChristlike to deny forgiveness for sins, it is also unChristlike to deny that sin does actual damage and some of it long lasting. One poster on this thread seems to be erring in that he’d choose to refuse giving love to anyone who failed to live up to the standard he lived up to in this ONE area of life. Quite unlike how Jesus treated people.
But others (not necessarily you, but the above almost sounds this way), seem to be implying that fornication is no big deal as long as you confess it. This is perilously close to “cheap grace” which is not supposed to be something catholics get suckered into!
The high ground is to recognize that fornication DOES profoundly damage a person, while still recognizing that we ourselves are plenty damaged as well. Thus, we’re called to love one another as Christ loved us: broken, damaged and “low quality” as we are by His standards.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.