If your GF or BF wanted to save kissing for marriage

[Xantippe]

You do realize that these are the same accusations secular people throw at people who have a no-sex-before-marriage stance?

**And I’d say to that that one can actually figure a lot out about a via licit physical affection and that one doesn’t need to have actual intercourse to figure out if one’s intended is a passionate person. **

Xantippe, I have agreed with your posts on the original Duggar courtship topic, but your statement that “I would be very concerned if any of my children were involved with someone who wouldn’t kiss before marriage”, actually reminds me of a post by BlueEyedLady a while back when she stated that she’d be concerned if any of her children were involved with someone who didn’t have sex before marriage!

**Well, I would be concerned.

Every so often, some naive woman accidentally winds up with a gay husband. It’s also not uncommon for men to wind up with a wife who has a sex drive so miniscule that you need a scanning electron microscope to find it.

If both are asexual–great! If both have low libidos–great! But I would encourage young people who have more average sexuality to make sure not to mistake any of the above for purity. **

However, it seems that whenever such a person either posts on the site, or whether a poster asks for advice because a significant other wants to have sex before marriage, most posters automatically assume a person who thinks sex before marriage is acceptable, MUST be motivated ONLY by selfish lust and should be kicked to the curb immediately. Even though, from a completely secular POV, isn’t the idea that people should actually have sex to confirm “sexual compatibility” isn’t THAT different from the idea that they should kiss or “make out” to test for this.

** Isn’t the important thing compatibility? So a SO who wants premarital sex is incompatible with one who strongly believes in waiting, just as a SO who wants to wait to kiss is incompatible with one who strongly believes in the reverse.

So we don’t need to go to the work of assigning culpability, we just need to identify points of incompatibility and figure out how serious they are.

As BEL (I think) would say, it’s not a punishment to be found incompatible. It saves everybody’s time and energy to figure that out as early as possible and move on.
**

This doesn’t mean I endorse sex before marriage, but perhaps we should be a LITTLE more charitable both to people whose physical boundaries are more strict than our own (instead of accusing them of being frigid), and those whose boundaries are more lax than their own (instead of accusing them of being selfish lustful sinners)?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’d be okay with it. Kissing wasn’t apart of my culture until the Europeans came anyway and it’s still not that important now. Kissing amongst married couples is not done all that often either.

Didn’t catch this before but I totally agree. I do think physical affection is important between dating couples, but I do NOT think the actual act of kissing itself is mandatory in expressing such affection, and some people who assume this might be falling into an ethnocentric trap.

Now, I suppose some posters like Isca might say “well that’s because non-European cultures don’t believe in romantic love anyway”, but it’s not that cut and dry, either. Most cultures, even those with a strong tradition of arranged marriage, also have their share of fairytale romances and love stories.

For example, “The Butterfly Lovers” is a very old Chinese tale about a girl who disguises herself as a boy to attend university (as only boys could attend in those times), befriends a fellow student, then later falls in love with him, yet the boy has no idea his best friend is actually a girl. By the time he finds out, and realizes he loves her too, it is too late, for her family has already betrothed her to another man. The lovers, much like Romeo and Juliet, wind up reunited only in death.

There’s no mention of sex, kissing, or even physical contact between the lovers in most versions of this story. But I’d still consider it a love story.

sparrowmouse, I think there’s a difference between “no passionate kissing/making out” (which many Catholics do believe), “no kissing at all” (which I think can be a respectable choice depending on the motivations) and “no physical affection at all” (which I think is very questionable for most couples).

Also, it occurs to me that perhaps women tend ot actually suffer more from a “no physical affection” stance than men. Certainly there are enough stories of husbands who only touch their wives when they want sex, yet many women find non-sexual physical affection to be just as important.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

On the other hand, some of the arguments used by those who disagree with the physical boundaries the Duggars follow, about the importance of physical attraction and not wanting to “go from 0 to 60” on the wedding night, also strike me as not that different from arguments used to denigrate saving sexual intercourse for marriage as well.

Well don’t you think that’s how you end up turning rules on themselves? This is why I’m often amused by such rigidity. There’s so many ways you can have them work to your advantage even when you yourself don’t openly embrace them.

You don’t want to kiss? Fine. It pleases me to know that whatever previous guy you’ve had didn’t have the same privilege either. The same goes for sex. It only means that success means getting beyond where no previous suitor has gone before.

But! Should you betray that you in fact failed living up to such rigidity, I’m gonna hold it against you. Not so much in a painful way but just letting you know that you’ll need to make a harder case for you saying no when you already said yes before.

That’s just for kissing by the way.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well don’t you think that’s how you end up turning rules on themselves? This is why I’m often amused by such rigidity. There’s so many ways you can have them work to your advantage even when you yourself don’t openly embrace them.

You don’t want to kiss? Fine. It pleases me to know that whatever previous guy you’ve had didn’t have the same privilege either. The same goes for sex. It only means that success means getting beyond where no previous suitor has gone before.

But! Should you betray that you in fact failed living up to such rigidity, I’m gonna hold it against you. Not so much in a painful way but just letting you know that you’ll need to make a harder case for you saying no when you already said yes before.

That’s just for kissing by the way.

Lost Wanderer, this is not the first time you have suggested that you think it’s some kind of mark of manliness or whatever to “succeed” in getting people to betray their own consciences regarding physical contact in dating.

If you’re joking, then I’ll just ignore you from now on, as I did not mean for this topic to be a joke topic.

If you’re serious, then I do hope you never get hit with a sexual harassment charge or worse. (Because while most women who feel pressured, coerced, and abused by a man into going “farther” than they want to physically unfortunately let him get away with it, not all do.)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lost Wanderer, this is not the first time you have suggested that you think it’s some kind of mark of manliness or whatever to “succeed” in getting people to betray their own consciences regarding physical contact in dating.

Have you ever considered that anyone who takes emotional offense at what I say are the ones who aren’t taking said views seriously enough?

Many speak for moral integrity and think my jabs toward it are somehow an amoralist jest. That’s all well and true but I will say now, nobody on these boards has ever really the gall to dig deeper than that. They’re too busy nursing their ideological sensibilities and never wonder what else I could be getting at.

“Peace is never my profession. War is my profession. Should you fail at your job. I will not fail at mine.”

Likewise, it’s the same with a lot of other things. Chastity. Integrity. These are all things you set up for yourself. You want accountability? You’ll be held accountable. It is you who betrays your own conscience. And when you fail at that job, don’t expect the opposite to fail at theirs. It’ll be like expecting kerosene not to catch fire after you threw a torch at it.

And for the record? You give me way too much credit. Most guys around me have done worse to the point that they still hold me as the Nice Guy. Please think about that before getting personal with the sexual harassment implications.

 

[DarkLight]

I think I’d want to find out more…and as a former member of the no kissing before marriage club, I think I’d want a guy to at least figure out why I felt that way and go along with it. I think this goes especially for younger couples who are still liable to be finding their feet on relationships, so to speak. I know for a long time I didn’t really realize that other Christians believed in chastity and were ok with kissing before marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

Have you ever considered that anyone who takes emotional offense at what I say are the ones who aren’t taking said views seriously enough?

Many speak for moral integrity and think my jabs toward it are somehow an amoralist jest. That’s all well and true but I will say now, nobody on these boards has ever really the gall to dig deeper than that. They’re too busy nursing their ideological sensibilities and never wonder what else I could be getting at.

“Peace is never my profession. War is my profession. Should you fail at your job. I will not fail at mine.”

Likewise, it’s the same with a lot of other things. Chastity. Integrity. These are all things you set up for yourself. You want accountability? You’ll be held accountable. It is you who betrays your own conscience. And when you fail at that job, don’t expect the opposite to fail at theirs. It’ll be like expecting kerosene not to catch fire after you threw a torch at it.

And for the record? You give me way too much credit. Most guys around me have done worse to the point that they still hold me as the Nice Guy. Please think about that before getting personal with the sexual harassment implications.

Find better friends.

Oh, and grow up.

All these short cuts to getting physical stuff from women against their better judgment and consciences just mean that you wind up with a weak, damaged woman who resents you. Not much of a prize, that!

Do do a little research on “enthusiastic consent.” It’s a secular concept that could do you lots of good.

 

[Xantippe]

Lost Wanderer,

Here’s a piece on enthusiastic consent to get you started:

doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/

It has lots of non-CAF language and secular ideas on sex, but it is very good on enthusiastic consent. Dr. Nerdlove’s commentors are also very insightful on dating and relationships and how to be ethical in looking for love.

I think you’re suffering from this false binary idea that there are only two possible positions on sex:

1. Catholic ones
2. libertinism and Don Juanism

The truth is that there are lots of people who are neither ardently Catholic nor Don Juans, so those two options do not begin to cover all of the possibilities.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Find better friends.

Oh, and grow up.

Sorry but I tried talking like that before. I think I’ve shared enough with you to say how well that kind of attitude worked out. You can only do so much to scold yourself and others without realizing how much of mud hole you cast yourself in.

All these short cuts to getting physical stuff from women against their better judgment and consciences just mean that you wind up with a weak, damaged woman who resents you. Not much of a prize, that!

Oh so I’m to blame if a person realizes they can’t live up to their own standards? Because, really. That’s all I do. If Catholicism truly has any sense of fairness and accountability, one would think it goes both ways.

People wonder why hypocrisy is often a major complaint among lapsed Cafeterians like me. But you know, we’re practically just writing the answers on the wall. I for one only treat every person the way they treat themselves. It’s not just me versus one or even two girls here.

If a person looks down on themselves, I will see no need to treat them any differently.

If a person implores me to be selfless, I’d like to know what they’re giving up.

If a person requests that I be more chaste, they should at least have the honesty to maintain their own end of integrity.

If moralists want to live their lives free of any indecent behavior, you can bet my eyes are going to subject to them to the very scrutiny that they ask for.

Do do a little research on “enthusiastic consent.” It’s a secular concept that could do you lots of good.

Noted. But swear, I’m losing count of the many times you all have presumed my mind operates under a false dichotomy. I’m well aware of all the possibilities and things I can try out. It’s just that you and many others here react so vibrantly yet people wonder why I style myself so villainously on these boards.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh so I’m to blame if a person realizes they can’t live up to their own standards? Because, really. That’s all I do. If Catholicism truly has any sense of fairness and accountability, one would think it goes both ways.

**Well, ask yourself, what’s in it for you?

Option 1: You so crush the other person’s sense of self and conscience that they stick with you. Yay–you’ve acquired a crushed and wounded person!

Option 2: They muster the self-respect to RUN and you have to start the finding-and-crushing process all over again with somebody else.

Again, what’s in it for you?

If you really must be unchaste, find somebody to be unchaste with who is eager and happy about being unchaste. Is that really so difficult? And that’s essentially the message of the secular “enthusiastic consent” idea. If you want A and she wants not-A and neither of you can convince the other, be a grownup and keep on walking until you find somebody who wants A, too. Don’t try to bonsai another human being into the shape of your choice.

Bear in mind that for a number of us, this is not just theory cribbed from some dusty work of Catholic ethics–we’ve been on the receiving end of a physically coercive relationship and we have some insight into how that feels and what it does to a person.

When I was a naive late-teenager (19), I had a physically pushy much older boyfriend (35/36) who had technically honorable intentions (he wanted to marry me). It didn’t work out for him. I eventually pursued Option 2 and spent 2+ years of not dating and slowly recovering my self-respect and equilibrium. That was 20 years ago, and looking back, now that I’m older than he was at the time, I realize that a mature adult has no business pursuing a relationship with someone who they have major insoluble disagreements about the nature of the relationship. The adult thing to do in the face of insoluble disagreements is to keep on walking and to keep going until you find somebody who wants what you want.

This applies to lots of other areas besides physical affection, of course–it would apply to a zealous vegan, a person who wanted no children ever, and so many other situations where there are incompatible desires.
**

Noted. But swear, I’m losing count of the many times you all have presumed my mind operates under a false dichotomy. I’m well aware of all the possibilities and things I can try out. It’s just that you and many others here react so vibrantly yet people wonder why I style myself so villainously on these boards.

Well, I don’t see you entertaining third options. It’s either chastity or seduction/coercion. There are other options.

 

[Xantippe]

Lost Wanderer,

There may be cross-cultural factors in play, but here in the US, the dynamic you describe would be a red flag for the future health of the relationship. In a healthy relationship, things develop pretty organically, without the need for either party to drag the other toward physical affection.

If a woman likes you and loves you and sees a future with you, you won’t have to be physically pushy–she’ll be affectionate with you because she loves you and wants to be close to you and she feels safe with you.

If she doesn’t like you, love you, or trust you, what’s the point, anyway?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well, ask yourself, what’s in it for you?

Option 1: You so crush the other person’s sense of self and conscience that they stick with you. Yay–you’ve acquired a crushed and wounded person!

Option 2: They muster the self-respect to RUN and you have to start the finding-and-crushing process all over again with somebody else.

Again, what’s in it for you?

Am confused. First you suggest I consider a third option but are giving me only two. What about these other options?

Option 3: Said person runs but is only haunted not so much me but the exposure of her own loathsome hypocrisy and self-deceit. Sounds like a woman even Mr. Nice Guy would get sick of.

Option 4: She realizes the lies she’s been telling herself and finally comes to terms with her own promiscuity. It’s as you say, find someone who is just as promiscuous. The thing is they’re not all honest about it.

You ask me what’s in it for me. To think it’s about physical coercion is to fall for an illusion that people are responsible for the personal failings of others besides themselves.

If getting married is the way for me. Okay. If earlier than that. Okay. What’s not okay is for people to say no when their own morality is but a sham. Who recognizes the person who cannot even recognize herself?

That’s what I’m in for. And since we’re talking personal experience, I’ll have you know that my Option 4 already happens on occasion.

It’s easy to feel secure about getting a straight yes or no. But from my own history of self-loathing and self-denial, it’s really not as clear. That’s why I for one would only respect a boundary as much as the other person respects it herself. Don’t blame me for walking through when the brick turns out to be a mere phantom.

 

[Xantippe]

Am confused. First you suggest I consider a third option but are giving me only two. What about these other options?

**It’s a different thing. I’m gaming out what are the two likely outcomes of the physically pushy approach when violating the other person’s conscience.

The three things was the list comprised of 1) chastity 2) coercion/seduction and 3) enthusiastic consent as dating strategies, so it’s a different list. (Of course, it is possible to have an option combining chastity AND enthusiastic consent, which is the best of both worlds.)
**

Option 3: Said person runs but is only haunted not so much me but the exposure of her own loathsome hypocrisy and self-deceit. Sounds like a woman even Mr. Nice Guy would get sick of.
**
That’s the crushing and wounding that I was referring to. **

Option 4: She realizes the lies she’s been telling herself and finally comes to terms with her own promiscuity. It’s as you say, find someone who is just as promiscuous. The thing is they’re not all honest about it.

**It’s possible that A) she lives happily ever after after this sort of “conversion”.

It’s also possible that B) she will be so crushed and filled with self-loathing and regret that she will lose hope for something better, perhaps permanently. I’m not sure you are in the best possible position to tell the difference between A) and B).

The potential for doing harm to another person is enormous.

Why take the risk?
**

You ask me what’s in it for me. To think it’s about physical coercion is to fall for an illusion that people are responsible for the personal failings of others besides themselves.

If getting married is the way for me. Okay. If earlier than that. Okay. What’s not okay is for people to say no when their own morality is but a sham. Who recognizes the person who cannot even recognize herself?

**Why don’t you leave them alone and let them figure that out for themselves?

Again, I suggest reading Dr. Nerdlove.
**

That’s what I’m in for. And since we’re talking personal experience, I’ll have you know that my Option 4 already happens on occasion.

It’s easy to feel secure about getting a straight yes or no. But from my own history of self-loathing and self-denial, it’s really not as clear. That’s why I for one would only respect a boundary as much as the other person respects it herself. Don’t blame me for walking through when the brick turns out to be a mere phantom.

That sounds really rape-y.

 

[DarkLight]

Lost_Wanderer…here’s the thing. Hypocrisy doesn’t mean just failing to live up to your own standards. The only people who fail that test are saints and the worst of sinners. But if the result of failing to live up to those things, if it’s despair and self-loathing…something’s gone very wrong. Something has happened that is fundamentally unChristian, because Christ did not come to save those who never sin.

That’s not faith, that’s not love. That’s heartache and legalism, and it destroys people just as surely as any sin, perhaps even more so.

There are those of us who were pushed and manipulated far past where we would have ever gone. There are women like me who weren’t sure, who froze and panicked and didn’t know if we could leave with a man’s hands all over us. And there are plenty of people who would say we were just promiscuous, that all the cries of abuse were just regretting it in the morning.

It hurt, and it still hurts like hell some days. And the man who did that was a manipulative man who took advantage of a woman who’d been taught to stay “nice” and not make a scene. But matters of guilt aside, the past is the past. We aren’t Christian to hang on to the past - we’re a church of broken people in need of saving, not perfect people looking out on the world to condemn it. Those who do so are just as broken as the rest of us.

Lost_Wanderer, from what I’ve seen of your posts, and maybe I’m reading in…but you can be more than what you think you are, if you’ll give the world a chance. And give yourself one.

 

[Xantippe]

Lost_Wanderer…here’s the thing. Hypocrisy doesn’t mean just failing to live up to your own standards. The only people who fail that test are saints and the worst of sinners. But if the result of failing to live up to those things, if it’s despair and self-loathing…something’s gone very wrong. Something has happened that is fundamentally unChristian, because Christ did not come to save those who never sin.

That’s not faith, that’s not love. That’s heartache and legalism, and it destroys people just as surely as any sin, perhaps even more so.

There are those of us who were pushed and manipulated far past where we would have ever gone. There are women like me who weren’t sure, who froze and panicked and didn’t know if we could leave with a man’s hands all over us. And there are plenty of people who would say we were just promiscuous, that all the cries of abuse were just regretting it in the morning.

It hurt, and it still hurts like hell some days. And the man who did that was a manipulative man who took advantage of a woman who’d been taught to stay “nice” and not make a scene. But matters of guilt aside, the past is the past. We aren’t Christian to hang on to the past - we’re a church of broken people in need of saving, not perfect people looking out on the world to condemn it. Those who do so are just as broken as the rest of us.

Lost_Wanderer, from what I’ve seen of your posts, and maybe I’m reading in…but you can be more than what you think you are, if you’ll give the world a chance. And give yourself one.

Yes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The three things was the list comprised of 1) chastity 2) coercion/seduction and 3) enthusiastic consent as dating strategies, so it’s a different list. (Of course, it is possible to have an option combining chastity AND enthusiastic consent, which is the best of both worlds.)

What I’m really saying is why do you think it’s so impossible that certain scenarios will play out where the guy isn’t the real villain?

What if tactics you feel that are coercive aren’t so much coercive but can be anything to a self-defense mechanism to even a call to something bigger? If someone I know wants to be Miss Chastity, I’m going to let her have it! She obviously won’t mind me watching her behavior for anything contrary because really, I’m sure she already does it to herself.

And yet, I’m suddenly the bad guy because the girl can’t admit to her own sexual failings. I repeat: Where’s this accountability that this Church preaches so much? I’m not even caring about sex here. I just want to know: How is this fair?

That’s the crushing and wounding that I was referring to.

I repeat: a person’s own failure is my fault… why? If you think I’m imagining seduction tactics and temptation, you might need to take a second guess. Should someone play a chastity card, I expect them to run the whole deck. Not just waving a fake copy in my face so that I won’t notice the foul play on the board. Honestly, I used to expect getting better treatment if others did it before me but some good that did me!

It’s not like you’re suggesting hypocrites should go scot free are you? Isn’t this the sort of permissiveness that bred the sex abuse scandals? People who don’t hold up to morals they proceed to trumpet in other people’s faces shouldn’t cast blame on those who criticize them for failing. It feels like trying to justify bishops moving offending priests when they should be defrocked (and jailed).

The potential for doing harm to another person is enormous.

Why take the risk?

Because it’s a risk that’s going to be there regardless of whether or not I say anything. Intervention is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that I’m spared someone’s own dishonesty with themselves because I know from personal experience these are the people everyone likes the least.

Why don’t you leave them alone and let them figure that out for themselves?

And have myself dragged down whenever I encounter a corked woman suffering from self-esteem and self-righteous issues? Apparently I need to remind you that even a single individual can have a larger socio-environmental impact (especially if they’re that particular brand of toxic).

Again, I suggest reading Dr. Nerdlove.

Ah but like many gurus, he too believes in the power of personal perception.

What makes you think I’d disagree?

That sounds really rape-y.

Only if the wall was actually real.

 

[Xantippe]

What I’m really saying is why do you think it’s so impossible that certain scenarios will play out where the guy isn’t the real villain?

What if tactics you feel that are coercive aren’t so much coercive but can be anything to a self-defense mechanism to even a call to something bigger? If someone I know wants to be Miss Chastity, I’m going to let her have it! She obviously won’t mind me watching her behavior for anything contrary because really, I’m sure she already does it to herself.

And yet, I’m suddenly the bad guy because the girl can’t admit to her own sexual failings. I repeat: Where’s this accountability that this Church preaches so much? I’m not even caring about sex here. I just want to know: How is this fair?

**I don’t know that the Church is that big on teaching “accountability.” Not that accountability is a bad thing, but I don’t hear a lot about it from Catholic sources. I have heard the term, but primarily from Protestants.

I don’t quite understand what you mean in this section, but it also sounds really rape-y.

If you are hearing no, or not hearing an enthusiastic yes or enthusiastic cooperation—STOP whatever it is you are doing.

Also, this isn’t about being “fair” or carefully apportioning blame, it’s about being ethical and treating other people decently. And this is something that even a lot of totally secular people understand. (I think enthusiastic consent is one of the better things to come out of modern secular morals.)

**

I repeat: a person’s own failure is my fault… why? If you think I’m imagining seduction tactics and temptation, you might need to take a second guess. Should someone play a chastity card, I expect them to run the whole deck. Not just waving a fake copy in my face so that I won’t notice the foul play on the board. Honestly, I used to expect getting better treatment if others did it before me but some good that did me!

It’s not like you’re suggesting hypocrites should go scot free are you? Isn’t this the sort of permissiveness that bred the sex abuse scandals? People who don’t hold up to morals they proceed to trumpet in other people’s faces shouldn’t cast blame on those who criticize them for failing. It feels like trying to justify bishops moving offending priests when they should be defrocked (and jailed).

**???

You get to coerce and abuse women because sex scandals.

That’s…original.

**

Because it’s a risk that’s going to be there regardless of whether or not I say anything. Intervention is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that I’m spared someone’s own dishonesty with themselves because I know from personal experience these are the people everyone likes the least.

And have myself dragged down whenever I encounter a corked woman suffering from self-esteem and self-righteous issues?

That’s a really rude term.

Apparently I need to remind you that even a single individual can have a larger socio-environmental impact (especially if they’re that particular brand of toxic).

**So, you are the caped crusader, protecting the world against a growing plague of too-chaste women?

Okey-dokey.**

Ah but like many gurus, he too believes in the power of personal perception.

What makes you think I’d disagree?

Only if the wall was actually real.

Once again, that sounds really rape-y.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That’s not faith, that’s not love. That’s heartache and legalism, and it destroys people just as surely as any sin, perhaps even more so.

But that’s my point. When a woman holds herself up to something she knows is going to hurt her, why should I and others be blamed for when it happens? What you’re not addressing is the these standards are of their own making.

Kudos to them if they finally realize that and I don’t have to walk through their imaginary walls just to prove the point.

There are those of us who were pushed and manipulated far past where we would have ever gone. There are women like me who weren’t sure, who froze and panicked and didn’t know if we could leave with a man’s hands all over us. And there are plenty of people who would say we were just promiscuous, that all the cries of abuse were just regretting it in the morning.

I’m sure you believe this also goes the other way. I’ve been manipulated by women. Just because none of the manipulation involved anything sexual doesn’t mean it wasn’t as bad. I’ve been duped. Deceived. But the worst part, I knew I was being fed lies and I ate those lies simply because I believed more lies that said I was a perverted creep and deserved to be caged like one. In my eagerness to respect boundaries, I wound up tearing down my own and those vipers only swarmed in bringing in more poison.

Believe me, I still see quite a few others who think like I used to. Poor saps who think they’re meant to suffer because they lost the cosmic lotto. Man or woman, I don’t see any shame when my actions only turn out to be a reflection of how people treat themselves. Forcing myself to give them the pep talk they’ll just turn down has already proven to be a waste of time.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t know that the Church is that big on teaching “accountability.” Not that accountability is a bad thing, but I don’t hear a lot about it from Catholic sources. I have heard the term, but primarily from Protestants.

Actually the whole sacrament of confession is really just ritualized accountability. But since you agree that accountability is important, I would think that you should admit that women who don’t live up to the standards they ask for are lacking in the integrity department.

If you are hearing no, or not hearing an enthusiastic yes or enthusiastic cooperation—STOP whatever it is you are doing.

What you don’t understand is that this is no longer an issue of yes or no to sex (as I keep repeating). As with any conversation on rules, I only listen as long as there are not rule-breakers hiding behind my back or under the table.

???

You get to coerce and abuse women because sex scandals.

That’s…original.

No, I get to remind people what happens when accountability is tossed aside even though I’m abused for being the only one held up to it.

Also, this isn’t about being “fair” or carefully apportioning blame, it’s about being ethical and treating other people decently. And this is something that even a lot of totally secular people understand. (I think enthusiastic consent is one of the better things to come out of modern secular morals.) Once again, that sounds really rape-y.

Decently? How is allowing someone to dictate rules they don’t follow considered ‘decent’? That’s just another form of abuse. You’ve just swapped rape for dictatorship! From my experience, the secular crowd aren’t too fond of HR managers who don’t follow their own rules.

Like it or not, it is about appropriating blame. That’s what happens when you create boundaries and rules.

So, you are the caped crusader, protecting the world against a growing plague of too-chaste women?

No, just women who pretend they are.

 

[DarkLight]

But that’s my point. When a woman holds herself up to something she knows is going to hurt her, why should I and others be blamed for when it happens? What you’re not addressing is the these standards are of their own making.

Are there any standards you believe in that aren’t of their own making? This hurt, what I’m trying to say is the hurt you’re seeing is a separate thing that’s not a necessary result of these standards.

I’ve done things I’m not proud of, certainly. Not too long ago I lost my temper at a good friend and said some nasty things that I really wish I hadn’t said. But I’m not planning on beating myself up over it - I apologized to my friend and I’ll take it to confession. I rather try not to lose my temper like that, but I’ll bet it’s going to happen again.

And that’s how I approach chastity. If I were to fall to temptation and do something I shouldn’t, it wouldn’t be something I’d sit around beating myself up over. It would be something I wouldn’t approve of, and I would try not to do it again. It wouldn’t mean that I don’t believe in chastity. It wouldn’t even make me a hypocrite, because I’m still holding up

Kudos to them if they finally realize that and I don’t have to walk through their imaginary walls just to prove the point.

Why do you feel the need to prove the point? What does it matter to you? Most people are trying to live their lives, not to show off their chastity. It has nothing to do with you, so why not move on?

I’m sure you believe this also goes the other way. I’ve been manipulated by women. Just because none of the manipulation involved anything sexual doesn’t mean it wasn’t as bad. I’ve been duped. Deceived. But the worst part, I knew I was being fed lies and I ate those lies simply because I believed more lies that said I was a perverted creep and deserved to be caged like one. In my eagerness to respect boundaries, I wound up tearing down my own and those vipers only swarmed in bringing in more poison.

This happens, certainly. Manipulation, deception…these are all bad things.

Believe me, I still see quite a few others who think like I used to. Poor saps who think they’re meant to suffer because they lost the cosmic lotto. Man or woman, I don’t see any shame when my actions only turn out to be a reflection of how people treat themselves. Forcing myself to give them the pep talk they’ll just turn down has already proven to be a waste of time.

People tend to live up or down to what’s expected of them. You can see it most clearly in children - children that are stereotyped as lazy or troublemakers don’t work as hard or act up more.

No one’s asking anyone to give pep talks here. What we’re asking is very much what Christ taught - treat others as you would yourself be treated. I’d much rather another person look past where I don’t meet my own or someone else’s standards and encourage me to do better, so that’s how I’m going to treat other people. As I’ve mentioned, I’m not perfect at that either - but I’m damn well going to try because it makes my corner of the world much nicer to live in.

Have a look at some of my threads. I know the type of people you’re talking about - stuffy proud people looking in scorn at a girl who dares wear a too-short skirt, talking overmuch about how “humble” they are and how much time they spend serving God. Broken people who don’t realize they’re broken and as in need of a Savior as the rest of us. It’s a hell of a way to live, and I’m glad I got out…and I’m glad for good Christian friends who were willing to be kind and not judge a young woman with anger against faith and an openly homosexual life.