I'm worried I'm trying to date for the wrong reasons

  • Thread starter Thread starter DarkLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xantippe said:
…I don’t want to sound like I’m shoving you toward the altar, but the only things that you mention that give me concern are a) lack of desire and b) health problems that will make it harder to parent.
Click to expand...
Lack of desire per se is a lesser issue I think than is the concern expressed by the OP that she might feel resentment and a sense of being used by a loving husband.
 
Rau said:
Lack of desire per se is a lesser issue I think than is the concern expressed by the OP that she might feel resentment and a sense of being used by a loving husband.
Click to expand...
I mean, that’s directly stemming from the whole “lack of desire” issue. It’s not like it’s a separate thing - it’s whether someone, without desiring to have sex with another individual, could nonetheless consent to it on a regular basis without feeling somewhat resentful of the duty. (I think this is likely different from someone who wants to have sex, but doesn’t always want it at the same time or with the same frequency as the other person. Again, the married women I’ve spoken to generally desire to have sex with their husbands, unless something else is wrong.)
 
Last edited:
DarkLight said:
I mean, that’s directly stemming from the whole “lack of desire” issue. It’s not like it’s a separate thing - it’s whether someone, without desiring to have sex with another individual, could nonetheless consent to it on a regular basis without feeling somewhat resentful of the duty.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I was wondering.
 
There is another path, but it’s a difficult one. You can find a close male friend who is the same boat. He could be mentally ill, and not up to the challenge of marriage and kids and working full time. Or he could be experiencing SSA, or he could be considering the priesthood. You could live with him as a roommate/companion for many years. You will never be accepted into the usual society.

Or you could wait and see if somebody special comes along who really wants to understand you. He will have to be an impeccable Catholic, so it’s probably best if you’re truly Catholic in all your beliefs. You could get married.

If you’re single, you will occasionally find really good female friends, but as you said, they’re more focused on their families. They have very little time for single friends, and their kids have to be incorporated into your get togethers. You could find other single women to hang out with, but often they will be on the fringes of society: mentally ill, or bitter from a divorce, or depressed. They don’t always have interests besides complaining.
 
Last edited:
Most of my friends are female, I’m trying to date to find a wife. Unfortunately, either I get too attached to them or vice versa. There’s no silver bullet for what you’re going through, and I wish I could offer more advice, but I am the wrong person to do it. You seem like a very serious person, a very brave one at that, and if you think you’re trying to date for the wrong reasons, at least you know it. I’ve not had a girlfriend since 2009. I want to get married and have kids eventually, but I didn’t want it to be with someone I’ve only known for a few months.
 
adamhovey: re: you getting too attached or vice versa. That’s because, on average, men and women can’t be friends. If you don’t fall into the categories I mentioned, and are an ordinary man, my suggestion is don’t be friends with women. Either date them, or leave them alone. A long dating relationship, though, is a good idea.

I recently cut off a male friend’s friendship when I realized that I wasn’t helping him one bit towards what needed to be his goal. According to me, that is. He wrote that I couldn’t possibly know what he needed. Well, such a man, with his flirty ways, needed a wife. Female friends are just a distraction to men, in my opinion. They take away energy from your stated purpose at the very least. They worry your future intended and you will have to dump them when you meet a good potential woman to date.

Look to Gavin McInnes online for some advice here.
 
DarkLight said:
I mean, that’s directly stemming from the whole “lack of desire” issue. It’s not like it’s a separate thing - it’s whether someone, without desiring to have sex with another individual, could nonetheless consent to it on a regular basis without feeling somewhat resentful of the duty
Click to expand...
I believe there is a distinction - though that’s a person by person thing. The “desire” you speak of come from one’s personal sexual response (libido). But even with that in neutral, one can submit with love to the one who loves you, and recognise that there is no basis for resentment. To the contrary - you know that your husband loves your and desires you. That is a positive. You experience reward at being able to show him intimacy. That is positive.

Of course, if one finds they lack even desire for physical closeness/ intimacy (not directly sexual), or find that they react negatively to the idea of closeness (or sexual intimacy), then the degree of difficulty rises again. If the whole experience is negative - then I agree resentment could follow.
 
Last edited:
There have been lots of times when my husband desired sex and I don’t; unless there are circumstances that would make sex unpalatable to me (menstration, stomach bug, etc) I try not to reject him. I have never regretted choosing to give my body to my husband. However, it takes a great husband to understand he might have to work a little harder to make sure his wife is happy in her submission.

The times I’ve been resentful of my husband’s needs (not just sexual needs) have been because I didn’t feel emotionally connected to him and/or I didn’t feel like my needs were being met. That kind of mental score keeping, over the long term, will kill a marriage.

So, can you submit sexually without feeling resentful? Yes, if you feel loved, respected and fulfilled in the relationship. Sex, initially, may be more of a gift to your spouse than a mutual passion but that’s ok. It can be a starting place for growth.

Marriage is a ministry. Both spouses challenge the other to grow and it’s probably one of the best benefits of the marriage partnership. On Earth no one will know you as intimately as your spouse. Sex is a gift from God for marriage. It sounds like, for you, a healthy and enjoyable sex life is something your husband will need to minister to you. To help you understand any reasons for resistance, to love and respect your body as the gift from God that it is, and to help you do the same.
 
@DarkLight are familiar with the term demisexual? From AVENwiki:
A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone.
Click to expand...
I’m not suggesting getting hung up on a label but the description is useful and seems like a possibility.

I’ve also wondered if the attitude toward women of the religion you grew up in factors in. For example a friend of mine didn’t grow up in a super religious home but her father was very abusive to her mother and the reason her mom stayed with him is because she had children and couldn’t leave. This twisted things for my friend; having a child was something that could potentially trap her. IIRC the religion of your childhood had very specific expectations of women, wives, and mothers. I’ve read enough about fundamentalist types to know I would want to know that oppression wasn’t part of the wife/motherhood package. Unfortunately there are Catholics who imitate or embrace some of those toxic fundamentalist ideals, so when looking for a man who is an orthodox Catholic I now feel like they have to be vetted one step further: Is their orthodoxy something that has morphed into something that isn’t even Catholic anymore?

Also, did you like children when you were a child? I know adults who didn’t like kids when they were one and they either don’t have children or didn’t really like their kids until they reached a certain age.
 
DarkLight said:
Most of my interests are dominated by men, and most parish groups that would be around my age tend to be focused on men. I’m not adverse to male friends but it does have additional complications that make the kind of real closeness that I want more difficult.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it might help to look at this the other way around . ( though maybe not. 😦 )

" the kind of real closeness that I want with a woman "

^ keep the above in mind.

“Most of my interests are dominated by women”

That really sucks . Because, you know, I want real closeness with women.

" and most parish groups that would be around my age tend to be focused on women. "

And that really sucks . Because , you know , I want real closeness with women.

Do you see something wrong with this picture?
“Real isn’t how you are made,’ said the Skin Horse. 'It’s a thing that happens to you. " – The Velveteen Rabbit.

It seems to me that , commonly , speculations concerning love in the present or future tense are decidedly problematical because , objectively , in the present and future tense, and standing alone, in isolation , both love , and sex , ARE actually UGLY.

As the Skin Horse ( allegorically ) explained in The Velveteen Rabbit , love, and sex, BECOME BEAUTIFUL.

— Or maybe they do not become beautiful.
DarkLight said:
I think it could be hard for me not to feel “used” in such a scenario.
Click to expand...
I think if you continue to think of relationships as transactional, in the John Locke " social contract " scheme, whether the relationship in question is shockingly x-rated , or simon pure cerebral, with a man ( whom you don’t really seem to give much credit ) or with a woman ( whom you seem to give far too much credit ) , I am pretty confident you WILL be disappointed.

To quote the Skin Horse again ;

" by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. "

That is true. Like it or not.
 
It’s definitely something I’d considered - I did grow up in a religion where marriage meant certain things. The woman was pretty much entirely responsible for housework and childcare, while the man pretty much got to dictate how things worked.

As I recall, I never particularly liked infants, but I tend to start liking kids around kindergarten age or so.

Part of the issue here too is the flip side of the question. As in, is marriage actually going to help me get to the sort of companionship I want? There’s certainly an advantage to marriage when it comes to companionship, but I’m not entirely sure it would be what I’m looking for.
kesa82 said:
And that really sucks . Because , you know , I want real closeness with women.
Click to expand...
A better way to put it is I want real closeness with someone, and I feel like I’d prefer it without the sexual dimension. But with mostly men around, it’s much more likely that the sexual dimension is going to develop, and it tends to mess things up if it’s onesided - or if he marries someone else. It’s much harder to develop a long-lasting non-sexual relationship with a man than with a woman, whereas relationships with men tend to turn into either someone wanting more or someone having to cut it off.
kesa82 said:
I think if you continue to think of relationships as transactional, in the John Locke " social contract " scheme, whether the relationship in question is shockingly x-rated , or simon pure cerebral, I am pretty confident you WILL be disappointed.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the thing for me - sex would be an extra thing to give to get a friend. Friendship should be given for friendship, and romantic love for romantic love. I know I’m putting that badly, but it seems more that in order to have a relationship where I can express and receive friendship it has to be one where the romantic dimension is present as well, even if I don’t really care that much about that side.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
@DarkLight are familiar with the term demisexual? From AVENwiki:
A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone.
Click to expand...
Yes – you’ll will have to be very careful in vetting a man. There are men who portray themselves as pious and devout-- yet believe they have the “authority” to physically punish the wife. The sin of pride – engulfs their heart and soul – that they make themselves "judge-jury-executioner of punishment. Because of the laws against spousal abuse – some of them may not carry through hitting the wife – but they lust in the “power/domination” over the wife.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Walking_Home said:
Yes – you’ll will have to be very careful in vetting a man. There are men who portray themselves as pious and devout-- yet believe they have the “authority” to physically punish the wife. The sin of pride – engulfs their heart and soul – that they make themselves "judge-jury-executioner of punishment. Because of the laws against spousal abuse – some of them may not carry through hitting the wife – but they lust in the “power/domination” over the wife.
Click to expand...
I have a habit of talking about women’s rights and treatment, especially in the Church. I was running errands today in camo jeans and a tank top. And I got tired of doing my hair and had it shaved (I think it looks very nice). I’m pretty sure most of that sort of traditionalist would run screaming.
 
Rau said:
Shaved? That may keep traditionalists away from your door. 😃
Click to expand...
It’s not completely gone, but “shaved” is a pretty accurate descriptor. I actually think it’s a nice balance - I have a very soft face naturally and the ultra-short hair helps me not look too girlish.
 
This is what lies beneath the piety/devoutness of “traditionalist culture”. It creates/draws in young men/men with the inclination to abuse and sets up women to land in the hands of said men.

The quotes below are from “traditionalist” sites.
More than just a case, and it’s simple in principle. A temporal authority must ultimately have recourse to physical punishment, else it isn’t really a temporal authority. If trads ‘put their money where their mouth is’ then it’s clear the husband has the right to strike his wife, again, assuming commensurability to the offence. It is revolutionary and anarchical to deny that he has this right and can exercise it in justice. One could go into a great deal more detail discussing the circumstances in which it would be called for and the proper limits on the husband’s rights in this respect (since we are not Roman pagans who believe in an unlimited patria potestas), but that’s unnecessary and diversionary at this time, when it is actually the principle that’s being rejected.
Click to expand...
The one below is from a “traditionalist” woman.
It is not possible in our society to recreate the traditional practice of family life that included an understanding of the authority of the head of the family involving a husband having recourse to corporal punishment for a disobedient wife. Even if a modern husband and wife agreed between themselves that this was right, the husband could only do it as long as the wife agreed to it. She would always have the option of calling in the law if she changed her mind. The wife has the final say under current conditions so it is not an true exercise of the husband’s authority.

A time and place in which virtually every authority relationship was enforced with corporal punishment is so different from our own, I am not sure that we can even imagine it. Corporal punishment was accepted in civil law, military law, in religious life, in education, and, of course, in domestic life. There was also a different attitude to authority and to hierarchy.
Click to expand...
 
The body wants sex to make babies, and some people let this desire rule their lives.

Find a mate that you can love as a person and the intimacy issues can be worked out.

My understanding is your feelings about babies change when you have one of your own, things are much less gross 🙂
 
Its ok if u feel youre not called to the vocation of marriage. None of us will be married in heaven. I would suggest praying to see the direction God is leading u to do with your gifts/talents/time if remaining single is His will for u.

God bless
 
I have to say I’m a little unsure of the whole “call” idea. I think some people definitely do have a distinct calling that they get. But I’m not sure that’s a universal experience. When I grew up everyone was really big on finding your calling in life, and I feel like for a lot of people it wasn’t meaningfully different from just plain old figuring out what you wanted and were suited for, only dressed up in spiritual language and catastrophized if you were wrong.
 
Have you ever gone on a “come and see” weekend with a religious order? If nothing else you would have a weekend retreat. The only expense is travel to and from the house. Might be worth some google time to find one or two that are do-able for you.

If one does a Catechism search on the word “vocation”, it is pretty clear that we all have a vocation. Not everyone will respond to their vocation, I am now 95% certain that my vocation was to religious life. As I did not become Catholic until after my marriage, it was a vocation that I never considered.

My husband feels that had he been raised Catholic, he would have also been called to religious life.

No catastrophizing, we have a strong, companionable marriage of almost 30 years, we love our children and now see our son as a good man (our second died very early).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top