My girlfriend lied about virginity

[Xantippe]

theplummer said:

“Maybe the Church should refuse to participate in marriage and subsequent fruits of the union until we regain OUR definition of marriage. Kind of a “hunger strike” if you will.”

I think you’re off-topic, but I have to bite. In the US today, 2 out of every 5 births are outside of wedlock. 7 out of 10 African American babies are born out of wedlock. 2 out of 3 American Indian babies are born out of wedlock, 1 in 2 Hispanic babies and about 3 out of 10 white babies. The average age for a US mother at birth of first child is about 25. The average age of a first time US bride is 26.

This is a total disaster and it’s very unwise to think that less marriage is the solution.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is a total disaster and it’s very unwise to think that less marriage is the solution.

In the secular sense, it is a disaster. In the legal sense (in the U.S.), marriage in many states has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage (no expectation of permanency, no expectation of children, no expectation of sex, no gender requirements in many states, etc.). Marriage is simply about tax benefits. So if the secular couple has few assets, why get married in the first place? What’s the point? I can foresee even fewer people getting married in the future.

 

[Xantippe]

New thread?

 

[theplummer]

theplummer said:

“Maybe the Church should refuse to participate in marriage and subsequent fruits of the union until we regain OUR definition of marriage. Kind of a “hunger strike” if you will.”

I think you’re off-topic, but I have to bite. In the US today, 2 out of every 5 births are outside of wedlock. 7 out of 10 African American babies are born out of wedlock. 2 out of 3 American Indian babies are born out of wedlock, 1 in 2 Hispanic babies and about 3 out of 10 white babies. The average age for a US mother at birth of first child is about 25. The average age of a first time US bride is 26.

This is a total disaster and it’s very unwise to think that less marriage is the solution.

Well, I disagree that it is off topic, and I will continue here because repeatedly the OP IS being cautioned about trusting her. My post follows those lines and is an important consideration to particularly the OP. Can he trust that she will never falter in her commitment, after the mood she made it in has passed? I’m not sure there are many whom can in this day, simply due to the appeal to the cultural Marxist culture we are forced to endure.

Cultural Marxism is very difficult to ward off simply because it appeals to our animal instinct that if it feels good, do it, and you need to simply get on your rationalization hamster wheel to justify it, and rest assured that NO ONE will hold you accountable for it, including the state.

As far as the point about out of wedlock births, I agree. However, is there really a difference between an out of wedlock birth & a child deprived of both parents through divorce? I don’t think there is.

Our faith is failing in marriage at the same rate as the national standard, which by all intensive purposes is at best a coin toss.

I believe that if the Church would make a radical move toward this direction, the popular vote and consensus would cause immediate change in the power the state wields upon its subjects and we could than start a positive move forward in repairing the damage that is being done to society. Not to mention the cost savings.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Maybe the Church should refuse to participate in marriage and subsequent fruits of the union until we regain OUR definition of marriage. Kind of a “hunger strike” if you will.

Well, I disagree that it is off topic, and I will continue here … is there really a difference between an out of wedlock birth & a child deprived of both parents through divorce? I don’t think there is.

Our faith is failing in marriage at the same rate as the national standard, which by all intensive purposes is at best a coin toss…

Yes, your political views are off-topic. Catholics who marry in the Church are required to marry legally:

***Can. 1071 §1. **Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at…

**2/ *a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law…

On top of that, let us not fall into cynicism. Do you really think a child would not care if his or her parents even tried to form a lasting family for him or her to grow up in? Please!! Yes, there is a huge difference between parents who marry and can’t stay married and parents who never married at all. Right intention and the attempt to do the right thing do count, they count for a lot, and they count to the persons who matter most: the children of the marriage. Do remember, too, that people who have been the innocent victims of divorce read your posts, not to mention those who are culpable for immorally divorcing their spouses, but who have since repented. They do not need to hear you spouting off that their efforts on behalf of their children were all for nothing. The charge is both unkind and untrue, and so has nothing to defend it.

No, failure at marriage is not a coin toss. Although no-fault divorce laws do create innocent victims of divorce, divorce does not “just happen,” falling on the prepared and the unprepared equally, like a statistical strike of lightning. This fatalistic attitude does a great deal of damage, particularly coming from Catholics!

At any rate, there is no reason to believe the OP is not fully aware of the questions that prudence requires him to ask prior to contracting marriage. His struggle is more with how to go about answering the questions, not what the questions are. On the latter, he seems to be well-instructed and sensible. Let this thread be about questions he raises, at any rate, and not about questions you feel inclined to raise. If you want to start a discussion about your questions, start your own thread.

 

[Xantippe]

the plummer said:

“Well, I disagree that it is off topic, and I will continue here because repeatedly the OP IS being cautioned about trusting her. My post follows those lines and is an important consideration to particularly the OP. Can he trust that she will never falter in her commitment, after the mood she made it in has passed? I’m not sure there are many whom can in this day, simply due to the appeal to the cultural Marxist culture we are forced to endure.”

Eh–what does “cultural Marxist culture” have to do with anything?

“Cultural Marxism is very difficult to ward off simply because it appeals to our animal instinct that if it feels good, do it, and you need to simply get on your rationalization hamster wheel to justify it, and rest assured that NO ONE will hold you accountable for it, including the state.”

You keep using that word–I don’t think it means what you think it means.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

“I believe that if the Church would make a radical move toward this direction, the popular vote and consensus would cause immediate change in the power the state wields upon its subjects and we could than start a positive move forward in repairing the damage that is being done to society. Not to mention the cost savings.”

Eh–people are voting. They are voting with their out-of-wedlock births–that is what they are choosing.

 

[DaisyNJesus]

Dear opening poster.
I thought about your situation.
I used to be like you when I were much younger. I valued virginity very much and looked down on people who had lost their virginity. That was before I ever fell in love and experienced the huge temptation and the struggle of being pure especially if the boyfriend is always pushing. That is very difficult.
Truly, people who have not been tested don’t know. They can be arrogant, and I know I used to be.

Well, besides all that: what happend is that I actually fell in love with a man who was slightly older than me, and who had lived very secular life for many years before coming into the church. I was so fascinated with this person, with his character and his way of speaking, his imagination. All in all he was just a wonderful person whom I enjoyed being with and found attractive. And suddenly the fact that he was not virgin like me, it was no big deal.
Why? Because I knew that he was living pure now and had been for a long time. I knew he was honest and serious about his faith. And I knew he was not looking at dirty movies or in any way enjoying the memory of his own impurity.
That is very important.

I am sure your girl friend both loathes the fact that she has done stupid things, and she avoids even thinking about it because she does not like to think about it. It gives her no pleasure.

Now. Please do not reduce her to her virginity. A woman is so much more than a virginity ot not-virginity.
I think she must have really liked you since she lied to you in order to be accepted by you.
In fact, I am not sure you deserve her at all, inspite of her moment of weakness.
Or maybe you two are just not right for each other.

I say this because you should not be with her if you can not accept her. When you join together, her past will become yours and vice versa, your futures belong together too.

I hope that when the shock has passed, you will see the reality of who she is now and that a stupid moment in the past does not change her, but only maybe contributed to her being a humble and good person she is now.
We all know that perfect people are really insufferable

Look life happens. If it does not happen to you just like that, you will experience shame and guilt at some other point some how. All people do, even more often than they realize.

I wish you peace

 

[pianistclare]

There is a HUGE difference between and out of wedlock birth and a child “deprived of both their parents through divorce”.

To think that a child who does not know his father, never will know his father, and has no identity due to said absent father is a far cry from those fathers who parent separately from the mothers due to divorce.

This is indeed, another thread and irrelevant to the OP at this juncture.
I believe he stated that he believes in purity, virginity, and that he and his girlfriend are not intimate.

If you want to change the culture, change the mindset of people regarding premarital sex. The Church is constant on what she teaches about this.

 

[theplummer]

Yes, your political views are off-topic. Catholics who marry in the Church are required to marry legally:

***Can. 1071 §1. ***Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at…

**2/ **a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law…

On top of that, let us not fall into cynicism. Do you really think a child would not care if his or her parents even tried to form a lasting family for him or her to grow up in? Please!! Yes, there is a huge difference between parents who marry and can’t stay married and parents who never married at all. Right intention and the attempt to do the right thing do count, they count for a lot, and they count to the persons who matter most: the children of the marriage. Do remember, too, that people who have been the innocent victims of divorce read your posts, not to mention those who are culpable for immorally divorcing their spouses, but who have since repented. They do not need to hear you spouting off that their efforts on behalf of their children were all for nothing. The charge is both unkind and untrue, and so has nothing to defend it.

No, failure at marriage is not a coin toss. Although no-fault divorce laws do create innocent victims of divorce, divorce does not “just happen,” falling on the prepared and the unprepared equally, like a statistical strike of lightning. This fatalistic attitude does a great deal of damage, particularly coming from Catholics!

At any rate, there is no reason to believe the OP is not fully aware of the questions that prudence requires him to ask prior to contracting marriage. His struggle is more with how to go about answering the questions, not what the questions are. On the latter, he seems to be well-instructed and sensible. Let this thread be about questions he raises, at any rate, and not about questions you feel inclined to raise. If you want to start a discussion about your questions, start your own thread.

Point taken, I can clearly see I’m not welcome here, so I’ll move along quietly.

OP, good fortune be to you in whatever you and our Lord decide for you.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I highly recommend that you read this link… even though some popular books might say this, I think that traditional Catholic teaching would not be that supportive. catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

The criticism is of Theology of the Body by Christopher West, which I believe was reviewed by Church authority and found free of doctrinal error.

West probably felt the need to go into more details because frankly these questions face people a lot and they need to be answered so that souls have peace of mind.

We should not be shy or bashful about discussing sexuality or more embarrassing sins in an adult manner.

 

[Estevao]

Yes, your political views are off-topic. Catholics who marry in the Church are required to marry legally:

***Can. 1071 §1. ***Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at…

**2/ **a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law…

Why should we follow this? I mean the bishops don’t enforce Canon Law 915 when it comes to giving communion to pro-abortion “catholic” politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry, so why should we the laity really care about this canon law?

 

[Estevao]

The criticism is of Theology of the Body by Christopher West, which I believe was reviewed by Church authority and found free of doctrinal error.

West probably felt the need to go into more details because frankly these questions face people a lot and they need to be answered so that souls have peace of mind.

We should not be shy or bashful about discussing sexuality or more embarrassing sins in an adult manner.

Yes Christopher West is pretty keen on watering down the TOB with the water of our sexualized culture. In one recent book he claimed that sex fiends are closer to holiness than people who live chastely, and this book was the title of a recent speaking tour he did, so it wouldn’t surprise me that Mr. West would want to get real explicit when it comes to justifying sodomy for married couples.

I have heard a story about him when he was talking with some man at a restaurant who admitted having a porn addiction to him, and West pounded against the table and shouted out so everybody around them could hear “I will NOT let you stay a slave to pornography!”.

Is that the kind of way that we should not be bashful about discussing sexuality, by shouting it aloud to a restaurant that somebody is a porn addict?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Why should we follow this? I mean the bishops don’t enforce Canon Law 915 when it comes to giving communion to pro-abortion “catholic” politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry, so why should we the laity really care about this canon law?

This is a conversation that my husband and I just had, actually. How does one believe in god but not take it seriously? How do you really believe that there is a god out there, and not do your best to follow every law to the letter?

We both know many casually religious people, but it confuses us. I can’t imagine believing that an all-powerful being created me, gave me this wonderful life with all of the people I love in it, and is watching everything I do, every thought I have, and judging me based on all of it to determine where my immortal soul will spend eternity…and not being the most devout, strict, committed person in the world to this being.

 

[Contarini]

Yes Christopher West is pretty keen on watering down the TOB with the water of our sexualized culture. In one recent book he claimed that sex fiends are closer to holiness than people who live chastely, and this book was the title of a recent speaking tour he did, so it wouldn’t surprise me that Mr. West would want to get real explicit when it comes to justifying sodomy for married couples.

I have heard a story about him when he was talking with some man at a restaurant who admitted having a porn addiction to him, and West pounded against the table and shouted out so everybody around them could hear “I will NOT let you stay a slave to pornography!”.

Is that the kind of way that we should not be bashful about discussing sexuality, by shouting it aloud to a restaurant that somebody is a porn addict?

Good tip: if I am ever in a restaurant with Mr. West, I will be very careful what personal revelations I make. . . .

 

[Estevao]

Dear opening poster.
I thought about your situation.
I used to be like you when I were much younger. I valued virginity very much and looked down on people who had lost their virginity. That was before I ever fell in love and experienced the huge temptation and the struggle of being pure especially if the boyfriend is always pushing. That is very difficult.
Truly, people who have not been tested don’t know. They can be arrogant, and I know I used to be.

Well, besides all that: what happend is that I actually fell in love with a man who was slightly older than me, and who had lived very secular life for many years before coming into the church. I was so fascinated with this person, with his character and his way of speaking, his imagination. All in all he was just a wonderful person whom I enjoyed being with and found attractive. And suddenly the fact that he was not virgin like me, it was no big deal.
Why? Because I knew that he was living pure now and had been for a long time. I knew he was honest and serious about his faith. And I knew he was not looking at dirty movies or in any way enjoying the memory of his own impurity.
That is very important.

I am sure your girl friend both loathes the fact that she has done stupid things, and she avoids even thinking about it because she does not like to think about it. It gives her no pleasure.

Now. Please do not reduce her to her virginity. A woman is so much more than a virginity ot not-virginity.
I think she must have really liked you since she lied to you in order to be accepted by you.
In fact, I am not sure you deserve her at all, inspite of her moment of weakness.
Or maybe you two are just not right for each other.

I say this because you should not be with her if you can not accept her. When you join together, her past will become yours and vice versa, your futures belong together too.

I hope that when the shock has passed, you will see the reality of who she is now and that a stupid moment in the past does not change her, but only maybe contributed to her being a humble and good person she is now.
We all know that perfect people are really insufferable

Look life happens. If it does not happen to you just like that, you will experience shame and guilt at some other point some how. All people do, even more often than they realize.

I wish you peace

Okay so if I’m to understand you here, it would appear that if one wants to get a wife or a husband, one should not really care about chastity? I mean, the problem with trying to live chastely in our degenerate culture is that you have to avoid a lot of people and situations, and this necessarily makes you less interesting to women than men like this charming secular man you’ve married, who has spent time with other people and women, learning the ways of the world and how to attract women.

Furthermore, it appears that while people like OP are in the library studying or whatever to avoid sexual temptation, in all likelihood, their future spouse will be out there cavorting with charming secular people having lots of sex like OP’s girlfriend did, so really, what’s the point in following the narrow path if all you’re going to get is a wife or husband who didn’t really care enough about their conscience and our Lord to live chastely, and whom they will not even “deserve” in the first place?

(although according to you single people who attempt to follow our Lord Jesus Christ and live chastely instead of getting into romantic relationships and into situations of opportunity for hot sex with charming secular men or women, they don’t know what sexual temptation really is so they should just shut up )

So basically, chastity is unimportant, what is important for attracting people is being charming and having lots of sexual experience, is this the thrust of your post?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is such a tough issue. I am really, really against the idea of marrying known liars. I can’t really think of much that tops marrying a liar in risk, or potential long-term pain that could be caused. But, on the other hand, it is understandable why she lied, and the details of her history are really none of his business. My knee-jerk reaction is to say “dump her”…but then I remember that my husband did almost the exact same thing in reverse.

My husband, also terrified of being judged, looked down on, or rejected lied to me about being a virgin when we first started dating, except that he told me that he did have sexual experience, when in reality, I was his first kiss. He came clean several months later and we laughed, and hugged, and moved past it. I forgave him for lying, because I really saw that he was a very good person and lied out of fear of rejection by someone he really liked. Your girlfriend could very well be the exact same.

The thing that makes me hesitate though, is that she keeps coming clean a little at a time. That strikes me as almost cruel-either she needs to move on from her own history and let it drop, or come out with it all at once. But continuing to reveal more every time you get comfortable with her last revelation is manipulative.

I think that the two of you would do really well to sit down with a priest or a counselor and make sure that you are on the same page as far as what should be disclosed. Then you need to take some time and consider if she is a really honest, good person who had a serious lapse of judgement when she lied, or if she is in general a person who will not hesitate to lie out of self-preservation. This is not something that anyone on these boards can decide for you. Only you know your girlfriend, the nature of your relationship, and how you feel about her. Take some time and really think and consider all of your options and the implications of each.

Just remember, if you do choose to forgive, you cannot hold her past mistakes-both her sexual history and her lying, against her in the future.

 

[Estevao]

This is a conversation that my husband and I just had, actually. How does one believe in god but not take it seriously? How do you really believe that there is a god out there, and not do your best to follow every law to the letter?

We both know many casually religious people, but it confuses us. I can’t imagine believing that an all-powerful being created me, gave me this wonderful life with all of the people I love in it, and is watching everything I do, every thought I have, and judging me based on all of it to determine where my immortal soul will spend eternity…and not being the most devout, strict, committed person in the world to this being.

This thought came to me last night, thinking about the few devoutly religious people I know who still take an interest in popular culture like sports and movies and Justin Bieber, Beyoncé, et al…I mean, how the heck to people still care about these things when we have to look forward to an eternity of bliss with God in heaven, and we have to work to build up the Church and save souls from an eternity of Hell away from God? What is the interest in these things when we have a Bible and Catechism to study and souls to save?

 

[EasterJoy]

This is such a tough issue. I am really, really against the idea of marrying known liars. I can’t really think of much that tops marrying a liar in risk, or potential long-term pain that could be caused. But, on the other hand, it is understandable why she lied, and the details of her history are really none of his business. My knee-jerk reaction is to say “dump her”…but then I remember that my husband did almost the exact same thing in reverse…

Martha Stout, an expert on sociopathic and manipulative personalities, has a Rule of Threes when it comes to lies. One lie may be misunderstanding, and two lies may be a serious mistake. When you have caught the person in three lies, take it as a serious possibility that you are dealing with a serious liar.

That does not mean you do not respect or love the person. It does not mean that you judge the person or presume to label the person. It does mean that you do not place that person in a position of trust. If another lie comes, you ought to have seen it coming.

Marriage is the ultimate chosen position of trust. Still, we all know that it is extremely tempting to lie in order to make ourselves look better to someone we want to impress more than anything in the world. If that first experience of lying doesn’t break a person of that temptation, however, that is a red flag. To be caught lying by someone you want to find you trustworthy is a bitter pill for a person who values integrity at all! If the first instance leads to a self-disclosure because the person who lied could not live with herself or himself, though, that is not a bad sign. Maybe such persons will prove too weak to live in integrity, but at least they have emotions that will charge them when they lack integrity.

 

[Xantippe]

Estevao said;

“I mean, the problem with trying to live chastely in our degenerate culture is that you have to avoid a lot of people and situations, and this necessarily makes you less interesting to women than men like this charming secular man you’ve married, who has spent time with other people and women, learning the ways of the world and how to attract women.”

Eh–how many different “people and situations” does one need to avoid to live chastely?

I didn’t realize chastity required digging oneself a deep hole and climbing inside and hoping that a prospective spouse finds you there.

“Furthermore, it appears that while people like OP are in the library studying or whatever to avoid sexual temptation, in all likelihood, their future spouse will be out there cavorting with charming secular people having lots of sex like OP’s girlfriend did, so really, what’s the point in following the narrow path if all you’re going to get is a wife or husband who didn’t really care enough about their conscience and our Lord to live chastely, and whom they will not even “deserve” in the first place?”

At least based on her current account, the OP’s girlfriend was not “out their cavorting with charming secular people having lots of sex.”

There is a middle ground between the two–one can chastely socialize and date, and many good Christian people do exactly that.

Also, it’s a mistake to think that secular people are invariably out there having lots of fun. Look at the Santa Barbara shooter–he was a pretty secular guy and very well off, and yet he was lonely and sad and figured that everybody but him was out there having fun.

Note to young people: it’s not true that you are the only person who is ever lonely or sad or bored.

youtube.com/watch?v=ijZRCIrTgQc&feature=kp

“This thought came to me last night, thinking about the few devoutly religious people I know who still take an interest in popular culture like sports and movies and Justin Bieber, Beyoncé, et al…I mean, how the heck to people still care about these things when we have to look forward to an eternity of bliss with God in heaven, and we have to work to build up the Church and save souls from an eternity of Hell away from God? What is the interest in these things when we have a Bible and Catechism to study and souls to save?”

Oh my gosh that’s terrible.

I guess it’s time for all the Catholic magazines and websites to fire their movie critics and for the Catholic pro football players to quit their jobs, and for the Catholic music teachers to quit, etc.

A good movie is good as a dozen good sermons. I’m not up on things lately, but I suggest watching Kieslowski’s Blue (a little sex at the end) or his Dekalog (it’s a series of short films, with each one devoted to one of the Ten Commandments). Brideshead Revisited is also a fantastic film and there are many others. I like Breach (the one about the FBI traitor). Most movies are garbage, but for that matter, so are most books.

Also, who over 12 is into Justin Bieber? He’s strictly a tween phenomenon, isn’t he?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Estevao said;

“I mean, the problem with trying to live chastely in our degenerate culture is that you have to avoid a lot of people and situations, and this necessarily makes you less interesting to women than men like this charming secular man you’ve married, who has spent time with other people and women, learning the ways of the world and how to attract women.”

Eh–how many different “people and situations” does one need to avoid to live chastely?

I didn’t realize chastity required digging oneself a deep hole and climbing inside and hoping that a prospective spouse finds you there.

“Furthermore, it appears that while people like OP are in the library studying or whatever to avoid sexual temptation, in all likelihood, their future spouse will be out there cavorting with charming secular people having lots of sex like OP’s girlfriend did, so really, what’s the point in following the narrow path if all you’re going to get is a wife or husband who didn’t really care enough about their conscience and our Lord to live chastely, and whom they will not even “deserve” in the first place?”

At least based on her current account, the OP’s girlfriend was not “out their cavorting with charming secular people having lots of sex.”

There is a middle ground between the two–one can chastely socialize and date, and many good Christian people do exactly that.

Also, it’s a mistake to think that secular people are invariably out there having lots of fun. Look at the Santa Barbara shooter–he was a pretty secular guy and very well off, and yet he was lonely and sad and figured that everybody but him was out there having fun.

Note to young people: it’s not true that you are the only person who is ever lonely or sad or bored.

youtube.com/watch?v=ijZRCIrTgQc&feature=kp

“This thought came to me last night, thinking about the few devoutly religious people I know who still take an interest in popular culture like sports and movies and Justin Bieber, Beyoncé, et al…I mean, how the heck to people still care about these things when we have to look forward to an eternity of bliss with God in heaven, and we have to work to build up the Church and save souls from an eternity of Hell away from God? What is the interest in these things when we have a Bible and Catechism to study and souls to save?”

Oh my gosh that’s terrible.

I guess it’s time for all the Catholic magazines and websites to fire their movie critics and for the Catholic pro football players to quit their jobs, and for the Catholic music teachers to quit, etc.

A good movie is good as a dozen good sermons. I’m not up on things lately, but I suggest watching Kieslowski’s Blue (a little sex at the end) or his Dekalog (it’s a series of short films, with each one devoted to one of the Ten Commandments). Brideshead Revisited is also a fantastic film and there are many others. I like Breach (the one about the FBI traitor). Most movies are garbage, but for that matter, so are most books.

Also, who over 12 is into Justin Bieber? He’s strictly a tween phenomenon, isn’t he?

Xantippe, I’m sorry to be off topic, but could you please use the quote function instead of saying, "He said, " Your posts are sometimes hard to follow.

Just press the quote button on the bottom right, and then type into the box.

Sorry for going off topic.