Practically speaking, don't we need to "test drive the car before we buy it?"

[Xantippe]

Xantippe,
When I said it was possible to glean useful advice from the sites out there, you made a beeline straight for the trash pile and said “lookee here, see what I dragged out”. I see you’re still throwing out the baby with the bathwater there. There’s bathwater, no doubt, but there are babies in there somewhere, but you’d rather discredit the entire genre than admit it.

What’s good, I think can be found elsewhere.

I’ll give you credit for bringing up Athol Kay. But allow me to remind you that he got his start as a commenter on the men’s blogs and as a poster over at Talk About Marriage.

**I think he’s come a long way. He really does develop a lot over the course of his archives–I was looking at them a few months ago. I saw a number of later posts where he was correcting some views that he had previously held. **

Kay has done a tremendous amount of good though he does get criticized for being an atheist and for saying it’s okay as a last resort when all else fails to use divorce as the hammer to redirect a wayward spouse’s behavior.

**I think the problem is that the definition of “wayward” is pretty broad, but yes, it sounds like he does do a lot of good.

I think that there is a fatal flaw to his approach, in that the day inevitably comes when you can’t keep it up anymore. We’re not going to be 40 or 45 forever. The day will come when a spouse gets dementia or develops a terminal illness or becomes permanently impotent, and at that point, he can’t help you anymore with his transactional approach. It’s at that point that a more conventional religious approach (like you’d find on CAF) will be much more helpful.
**

Saving marriages (and thereby saving the children in those marriages) is a good thing from the Catholic point of view, is it not?

I have to say, I haven’t seen really anything remotely helpful on a randomly chosen Dalrock thread. It’s all women-the-evil-vixens-why-do-they-keep-the-precious-from-us?

I’ll summarize with is this: I’m firmly Catholic, I love my Catholicism and I’m glad I returned to it after my time in the wilderness. But … I think it’s a real shame that so much useful information for men about women, dating and marriage had to come from outside of the Church. That there is so much resistance to much of this information in Catholic and Christian circles.

**Some of the information is total garbage. For instance, the talk about hypergamy (in the sense that they use it) is frankly ridiculous. Yes, women do like to marry up. That is certainly true. But it’s just as true that, in general, women HATE sharing. Never, in my most desperate single days, would I have been willing to share a man, no matter what. So the manosphere talk about alpha men monopolizing young women is ridiculous loser talk. It just doesn’t work that way, particularly not among college educated middle class women. **

That to this day, the Church still isn’t that helpful to men who want to learn how to keep their wives engaged.

Probably not. And yet Catholics have GREAT divorce stats compared to other denominations. So we must be doing something right…

Nor is the Church that useful for helping men deal with rebellious wives.

**Married couples are going to have disagreements over major family decisions.

Framing that as “rebellion” is not going to be helpful on the ground.

When you have a wife of your own, you’ll have (hopefully) chosen a woman who is intelligent and virtuous. Hence, her opinion is worth listening to. If she is intelligent and virtuous, at least 50% of the time, she’s going to be right, and you’re going to be wrong. If you have the paradigm of treating her as a mutineer when she disagrees, you’re in for a rough ride. Don’t do that!**

**Since you already like Dave Ramsey, I’d encourage you to listen carefully to his marriage advice, because he has a very sound approach. **

Nor is the Church very helpful in translating what the Bible says about marriage to practical advice for men, let alone standing up well for it in the face of the feminist onslaught. There are some decent male Christian bloggers who are trying to fill that gap, take the good advice and put the Christian spin on it. But with many here on CAF and elsewhere, a lot of that is automatically discredited because the sources are considered anathema.

And because the particular advice is often lousy, particularly the hyper-patriarchal stuff, which sweeps under the rug that men sometimes screw up and screw up BIG.

I got married having a highly traditional Protestant view of marriage of the kind that your guys like (largely because my mom was rather childlike about money for many years). However, I’ve moderated my views, as I’ve been married for a 16 odd years and have picked up a lot of other peoples’ stories on the way. The average person (including the average male person) regularly does something really dumb. One of the great practical advantages of being married is that there’s somebody at home to say, hey, how about not doing that dumb thing? This can be either husband-wife or wife-husband–doesn’t matter which. When people go hyper-patriarchal (or hyper-matriarchal, for that matter), it’s like they take disable a safety switch. No longer is there a check on dad or mom–their stupidest ideas are allowed to run rampant. In a more egalitarian approach (which is pretty much what Dave Ramsey teaches with regard to money management in marriage, although I’m sure he’d hate the terminology), you’re much safer. In those marriages, both husband and wife need to be being stupid for a major stupid decision to be made.

Fun talk!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I believe if the lines of communication are open, you can know your compatibility without having sex. Chaste kisses can tell you a lot about if you have that kind of attraction to the person. I also have always had a general sense of the libido of any guy I’ve ever dated…you just do, even without sleeping together.

If one has never slept without anyone else, how do you know if you two are doing it wrong? I believe you learn together.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

If one has never slept without anyone else, how do you know if you two are doing it wrong? I believe you learn together.

I understand that, but one of the odds complications can be the ongoing curiosity. The wondering of what the roads not traveled would are like.

 

[Rau]

…
I’ll summarize with is this: I’m firmly Catholic, I love my Catholicism and I’m glad I returned to it after my time in the wilderness. But … I think it’s a real shame that so much useful information for men about women, dating and marriage had to come from outside of the Church. That there is so much resistance to much of this information in Catholic and Christian circles…

Good grief, the Catholic Church is not your one-stop shop for all of life’s practical and useful lessons and tips. But it may help you to discern the worthy tips from the unworthy!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I understand that, but one of the odds complications can be the ongoing curiosity. The wondering of what the roads not traveled would are like.

Real love isn’t just about the sex. In general, you have dated/known many people of the opposite sex, so when you find the one you marry, you’re very happy to have found someone that you really like to be in the same room with. I think that’s arguably more important because the sex could be amazing in our 20s and by our 40s, one or both of us may have medical issues that make sex infrequent/less amazing. A relationship that was built on physical intimacy after many “test drives” has a higher chance of failing than one that was built on enjoying each others’ company. There is a reason marriages have roughly a 50/50 chance of failing now. It’s been since people started “test driving”.

 

[Xantippe]

Good grief, the Catholic Church is not your one-stop shop for all of life’s practical and useful lessons and tips. But it may help you to discern the worthy tips from the unworthy!

Right.

Here are some non-upcoming titles from Ignatius Press:

The Catholic Guide to Auto Repair
The Catholic Guide to North American Birds and Wildlife
The Catholic Boy’s Big Book of Knots
Microsoft Windows for Catholics
How to Weather-Proof Your Catholic Home

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Right.

Here are some non-upcoming titles from Ignatius Press:

The Catholic Guide to Auto Repair
The Catholic Guide to North American Birds and Wildlife
The Catholic Boy’s Big Book of Knots
Microsoft Windows for Catholics
How to Weather-Proof Your Catholic Home

I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it!

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Real love isn’t just about the sex. In general, you have dated/known many people of the opposite sex, so when you find the one you marry, you’re very happy to have found someone that you really like to be in the same room with.

Obviously sex is not the end all be all of love. There are a lot of non sex qualities to a relationship and love.

I think that’s arguably more important because the sex could be amazing in our 20s and by our 40s, one or both of us may have medical issues that make sex infrequent/less amazing. A relationship that was built on physical intimacy after many “test drives” has a higher chance of failing than one that was built on enjoying each others’ company.

Hopefully no one builds a marriage mainly on physical intimacy as that would be like a building without a good foundation. My point is that there are important aspects that are difficult to know without experiencing it. But in fairness I can respect that there are more eternal considerations for your point of view. I think I will agree to disagree.

There is a reason marriages have roughly a 50/50 chance of failing now. It’s been since people started “test driving”.

The divorce rate is closer 40% and was decreasing though I fear a spike from empty nesters is in progress. There are a lot of factors that drove the divorce rate. Probably a separate thread but my short research into it makes me think it was that I the 60s and 70s divorce suddenly became a “practical” option plus the strong pressure for people to marry until the last few decades.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m a bit surprised this thread is still going on.

If it were necessary to have sex before marriage in order to choose a partner with whom we could expect to have a holy, fruitful, and entirely durable sacramental marriage, or if it were even an advantage that would make such a marriage more likely, do we really believe God would forbid sexual relations outside the bonds of matrimony?

The premise presumes that moral law with regards to marriage is perhaps arbitrary or even a barrier to a Christian seeking a suitable spouse. Is it possible that we accept this? Of all the rules that Our Lord chided other religious authorities for making too hard, for substituting heavy burdens of man for the law of God, why did He choose their permissiveness about divorce as something they should NOT allow, and yet did? Why would He say that Moses allowed them to write bills of divorce because of their hardness of heart? How was that law of Moses that Jesus criticized as directly contrary to God’s plan for marriage since Eden different from contemporary secular permission for “no-fault” divorce?

 

[CaliLobo]

I’ll summarize with is this: I’m firmly Catholic, I love my Catholicism and I’m glad I returned to it after my time in the wilderness. But … I think it’s a real shame that so much useful information for men about women, dating and marriage had to come from outside of the Church. That there is so much resistance to much of this information in Catholic and Christian circles. That to this day, the Church still isn’t that helpful to men who want to learn how to keep their wives engaged. Nor is the Church that useful for helping men deal with rebellious wives. Nor is the Church very helpful in translating what the Bible says about marriage to practical advice for men, let alone standing up well for it in the face of the feminist onslaught. There are some decent male Christian bloggers who are trying to fill that gap, take the good advice and put the Christian spin on it. But with many here on CAF and elsewhere, a lot of that is automatically discredited because the sources are considered anathema.

Isn’t that the conundrum that today’s church faces? The Bible was written when arranged marriage was the only norm. Since the Bible and the early church predated romantic dating, how well-equipped is the church, and its unmarried clergy, to handle issues of romantic dating and romantic marriage??

Protestant churches, which do have married clergy, have tried hard to attempt to interpret the Bible on dating, with mixed results.

EasterJoy:

The premise presumes that moral law with regards to marriage is perhaps arbitrary or even a barrier to a Christian seeking a suitable spouse. Is it possible that we accept this? Of all the rules that Our Lord chided other religious authorities for making too hard, for substituting heavy burdens of man for the law of God, why did He choose their permissiveness about divorce as something they should NOT allow, and yet did? Why would He say that Moses allowed them to write bills of divorce because of their hardness of heart? How was that law of Moses that Jesus criticized as directly contrary to God’s plan for marriage since Eden different from contemporary secular permission for “no-fault” divorce?

Humans aren’t really biologically wired to be monogamous to one partner for the rest of their lives, although we like to believe we are. Otherwise, polygamy would NOT have been the norm in ancient times.

Humans are definitely not biologically wired to stay married in God’s eyes to a partner who has abused or left them.

Humans are definitely NOT wired to wait before satisfying their sexual needs. Otherwise, more people would be virgins before marriage.

Humans are wired to be capable of having sex without commitment or love. This is why most of the time, humans have sex early on in the relationship. Most humans do not have, in your opinion, ridiculous debates on whether they need to test drive before buying it. They’ve already test driven long ago because it is biologically natural for them.

So yes, there is something harsh, arbitrary, and ridiculous about Christian teachings on sex and marriage, when you look at it from a biological perspective.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

What’s good, I think can be found elsewhere.

Like where? Please share…

I think that there is a fatal flaw to his approach, in that the day inevitably comes when you can’t keep it up anymore. We’re not going to be 40 or 45 forever. The day will come when a spouse gets dementia or develops a terminal illness or becomes permanently impotent, and at that point, he can’t help you anymore with his transactional approach. It’s at that point that a more conventional religious approach (like you’d find on CAF) will be much more helpful.

This is precisely why there needs to be a conversation regarding the quality of married life for a man before that. If a good man remembers the good his wife did for him even when she was not feeling it, he’s going to be loyal to her. Like my father is fiercely loyal to my mother because my mother chose love as an action even when she was not feeling it. My mother is definitely not a doormat, she gave as good as she took. But she always believed in my father and her most feared words to us kids growing up were “wait til your father gets home”. So there is no mystery about my father’s loyalty to my mother. She earned it. In spades. Even though she was a handful at times for my father. So get to that age when sex is in the past, when things like dementia and diabetes are the big issues, what happens then and how husbands and wives feel about it is in large part built on the foundation of what went before. I have no worries about my parents’ mental state then.

I have to say, I haven’t seen really anything remotely helpful on a randomly chosen Dalrock thread.

So Dalrock has nothing remotely helpful to say? You said it, I didn’t.

In Dalrock’s last two posts, he takes a feminist writer to task for saying that saving sex for marriage is a terrible idea, really bad advice for young women. Only happens to be the very topic of this thread. Since you believe Dalrock has nothing remotely helpful to say, I’m going to have to assume that you support this woman over Dalrock. Oh wait, you do support saving sex for marriage? Coulda fooled me there. Okay then what’s not at least somewhat helpful about calling people out who don’t support that?

Which is it? You support sex before marriage or you support Dalrock against that?

And yet Catholics have GREAT divorce stats compared to other denominations. So we must be doing something right…

28% is GREAT? Excuse me?

It might be better than Protestant or non-religious rates, somehow you think that is worth celebrating but I say one in four still sucks, no two ways about that.

And because the particular advice is often lousy, particularly the hyper-patriarchal stuff, which sweeps under the rug that men sometimes screw up and screw up BIG.

So you’re saying men are not allowed any mistakes. I shouldn’t be allowed to lead because I might make mistakes. I get it.

I got married having a highly traditional Protestant view of marriage of the kind that your guys like (largely because my mom was rather childlike about money for many years). However, I’ve moderated my views, as I’ve been married for a 16 odd years and have picked up a lot of other peoples’ stories on the way. The average person (including the average male person) regularly does something really dumb. One of the great practical advantages of being married is that there’s somebody at home to say, hey, how about not doing that dumb thing? This can be either husband-wife or wife-husband–doesn’t matter which. When people go hyper-patriarchal (or hyper-matriarchal, for that matter), it’s like they take disable a safety switch. No longer is there a check on dad or mom–their stupidest ideas are allowed to run rampant. In a more egalitarian approach (which is pretty much what Dave Ramsey teaches with regard to money management in marriage, although I’m sure he’d hate the terminology), you’re much safer. In those marriages, both husband and wife need to be being stupid for a major stupid decision to be made.

Most major decisions were made by my father. But I do recall two very important decisions in which my mother had the last word. Plenty of conflict either way. So major decisions can be tough if there is disagreement. I fully get that.

 

[Rau]

…

Humans aren’t really biologically wired to be monogamous to one partner for the rest of their lives, although we like to believe we are. Otherwise, polygamy would NOT have been the norm in ancient times.

Humans are definitely not biologically wired to stay married in God’s eyes to a partner who has abused or left them.

Humans are definitely NOT wired to wait before satisfying their sexual needs. Otherwise, more people would be virgins before marriage.

Humans are wired to be capable of having sex without commitment or love. This is why most of the time, humans have sex early on in the relationship. Most humans do not have, in your opinion, ridiculous debates on whether they need to test drive before buying it. They’ve already test driven long ago because it is biologically natural for them.

So yes, there is something harsh, arbitrary, and ridiculous about Christian teachings on sex and marriage, when you look at it from a biological perspective.

Is that a serious perspective? Biologically speaking, humans are wired to look after “number one” - to cheat, to steal, to fornicate, to kill. Biologically speaking, no moral code is required whatsoever. Go beyond biology to “sociology”, and some restrictions might seem worth consideration. Move along another notch to “children of God”, and perhaps a few more considerations come to mind.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Good grief, the Catholic Church is not your one-stop shop for all of life’s practical and useful lessons and tips. But it may help you to discern the worthy tips from the unworthy!

The bolded there is the point I’ve been making all along. There are nuggets worth keeping even in the dark corners. Catholic discernment can help to keep the good stuff and toss the rest.

Here are some non-upcoming titles from Ignatius Press:

The Catholic Guide to Auto Repair
The Catholic Guide to North American Birds and Wildlife
The Catholic Boy’s Big Book of Knots
Microsoft Windows for Catholics
How to Weather-Proof Your Catholic Home

Nice, that. Way to denigrate my point. Woo hoo …

Marriages and families are so crucial to the future of the Church that a lot of words are devoted to it and related topics in the Bible. They get studied like very few other words do. Some of those words actually include advice. So since the Church sacrament of matrimony makes a man responsible to the Lord for his family and makes him accountable to the Lord for the care and love that he shows his wife and children, wouldn’t it be in the Church’s interest to help him maintain his marriage and family? Wouldn’t be in the Church’s interest to have a husband who gets his wife and knows how to make space in his life for her? 28% sucks, remember? That’s too many divorced Catholics and too many children affected by those divorces. I know a lot of people who came from broken families or who live in them now. Which is why my prayer is always for the children when their parents are having issues.

On the other hand, auto repair, birds and wildlife, knots, Microsoft Windows, meh … none of these are pertinent to the future of the Church. Nowhere near the same thing and you know it. I may disagree with you frequently, but it’s rare you make a dumb post in response, but that definitely was one. You’re more intelligent than that and I expect better from you.

 

[chevalier]

What is necessary is general compatibility, understanding of what marriage entails, the maturity and the magnanimity to understand that in marriage one can’t have his or her own way and put the other spouse first, a lack of focus on oneself and one’s own needs only.

Besides, it doesn’t need to get too technical, nor is there any imperative like high performance etc. because it isn’t sport.

 

[Xantippe]

Since the Bible and the early church predated romantic dating, how well-equipped is the church, and its unmarried clergy, to handle issues of romantic dating and romantic marriage??

**Thanks to confession, Catholic clergy are very well-acquainted with the pains of marriage. Retrouvaille is very much respected as a help for troubled marriages, and it’s Catholic.

I suspect that the problem areas are pretty much what they’ve always been: money, in-laws and kids.

Oh, and this is where I put a plug in for engaged couples doing a personal finance class together, for instance Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University (9 weeks).
**

Protestant churches, which do have married clergy, have tried hard to attempt to interpret the Bible on dating, with mixed results.

Yes, I’ve been reading the archives at No Longer Quivering. It sounds like the “courtship” model as implemented in those communities is kind of a disaster.

Humans aren’t really biologically wired to be monogamous to one partner for the rest of their lives, although we like to believe we are. Otherwise, polygamy would NOT have been the norm in ancient times.

**Polygamy couldn’t have been the norm in ancient times, because there simply aren’t enough women to go around. Look at modern Islamic countries–only the very wealthy are able to be polygamous. I encourage you to read Proverbs–now that I’ve looked at it as an adult, I’m realizing that it was intended largely as propaganda for monogamy. Even in those days, polygamy was getting less and less workable as an option.
**

Humans are definitely NOT wired to wait before satisfying their sexual needs. Otherwise, more people would be virgins before marriage.

**Humans are definitely NOT wired to resist food. And yet here I am, 5’2" and 230 pounds.

I guess I’d better resisting, eh?
**
Humans are wired to be capable of having sex without commitment or love. This is why most of the time, humans have sex early on in the relationship.

**

???

That’s a pretty new phenomenon, where it exists. I suspect it comes from contemporary women having very little leverage in relationships so they’ve got to get a foot in the door fast, whether they really want to or not.

**

So yes, there is something harsh, arbitrary, and ridiculous about Christian teachings on sex and marriage, when you look at it from a biological perspective.

You are forgetting a very important biological fact–BABIES.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Isn’t that the conundrum that today’s church faces? The Bible was written when arranged marriage was the only norm. Since the Bible and the early church predated romantic dating, how well-equipped is the church, and its unmarried clergy, to handle issues of romantic dating and romantic marriage??

Protestant churches, which do have married clergy, have tried hard to attempt to interpret the Bible on dating, with mixed results.
.

Arranged or romantic, God’s laws do not change.

Don’t make assumptions that the clergy have no idea about dating temptations. I know of many priests who dated prior to entering the priesthood. I also know of one whose wife died and he became a late in life priest. He has grown children!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You are being driven by the specters of your old self, even as you run away from them.

Oh I love those specters. What preoccupation were you talking about again?

Convincing yourself that that narrative is the true one is your only concern because by indulging it you thereby flatter the boldness of your incursion into the land of the titans.

Sorry Greek, your interpretation of my own hero’s journey is that of an outsider. You are in no position to persist in your position of how I came to be. You are an NPC that doesn’t even offer a quest or trigger a flag event. Yet, here you are presuming to be in my adventuring party.

Geez louise, and they tell me to keep dreaming.

Perhaps because at least some of “the very folk” you speak of do not consider age their mark of infallibility, but rather experience as the teller of the all too fragile fallibility of human beings - which, in case you’ve forgotten, includes you.

Your experience is your experience. I’ve clearly reiterated this not just to you but even to those I don’t have a severe disagreement with.

I realize someone at the precipice of a bold new venture needs to psyche themselves into going forward and you certainly don’t need someone standing on the sidelines pompously shaking their head.

Believe me, that is the last thing I intended.

Yeah well, you better stop now because you’re really good at giving that impression.

You know what “it sounds like” and deep down you know the truth. The question is whether you have the courage to find the truth rather than “following your bliss.” Ultimately, the two are identical, but it takes experience to distinguish the between authentic bliss and apparent bliss. But, I’ve learned that such learning is an intensely personal one.

Oh so you do get some of it but since you know it’s so personal, that only means you really shouldn’t presume much about your level of experience against mine.

Unfortunately, it is unwise to cut off a source of truth merely because of what you think that source signifies.

It can crawl its way back if it really wanted to. I’m just tired of sticking to one brand of truth now.

So this is about a heartbreak?

Some of us “condescending senior citizens” have been through more (including heartbreaks) than we care to remember.

Some of you have been through two World Wars, doesn’t mean I should go through the same. Neither does it mean it should give you a right to think you know better unless you can prove it.

And by prove it of course, I mean provide me the service I ask. I’m sick of Aesop-style provisos and loopholes.

You have no idea what you are talking about when you disparage senior citizens, most have been through more than you can imagine.

I don’t know how many more times I have to establish this: I don’t care how old you are or what you’ve been through. It gives you no authority over my own freedom.

You will be fortunate to be in our shoes one day, if you make it. Which is why I said, get back to us in ten years - a little wiser and, hopefully, a little closer in age.

Again, no thanks. You claim to have suffered much yet how much more if I had continued to do exactly as you have said, worrying about the present. If I didn’t know any better, I would’ve suspected you of wishing the entire world population would age faster… and closer to death.

You think I don’t know but just because I don’t have as many years on this planet as you all are doesn’t mean I’ve seen enough.

Read the parable of the prodigal son. We are not all merely older brothers, but, at the same time, we are not the father in the parable. He had sufficient faith in the son not to argue or try to stop him. Some of us who have been prodigals simply don’t want our brothers to live through life in the pig sty, which is why we raise our concerns.

Yeah. Passive-aggressive suggestion that I’m the Prodigal Son who needs to lend an ear to his elders.

Like I haven’t heard that before. Yet since I was soooo confident in what older people had to say about my pursuit, I wound up making the pursuit even more difficult.

In the end, however, it IS your life. You know the nature of the good, of “bliss,” as you call it. Unfortunately, after a life of misidentifying “bliss,” I have become a little more cautious about my tendencies to go chasing after bliss. I prefer Wisdom.

Right. Unlike you though, I’m not exactly the one playing consultant. That’s you. Your definition of Wisdom was my heartbreak, my prison, and my despair. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna look for a second opinion. At least doctors are professional enough to know patient are entitled to this.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Just sayin’…it’s not hard to see why you can’t get a date. And it ain’t your religion.

Let me just say something too: You’re obnoxious.

There. Much better than the indirect side-comment you just posted. It really goes to show how, as ugly as my religious bashing gets, it really draws out the ugliness in its defenders.

And boy do I like it.

Newsflash: There’s hardly anyone walking around who hasn’t been shot down by someone they thought they were in love with. You’re just not that special.

Yes, I’m not so special. I live a sad life gazing at my belly button. Thanks for demonstrating the kind of talking down I used to give myself when I was such a humble acolyte to this religion.

You know it’s really hard to regain faith in a world view that I still give a chance too when people like you remind me of why I don’t take it seriously anymore. Making some presumptions that I’m a complete failure who uses religion as a scapegoat without even knowing me personally is a low that even rivals a sex-abusing priest.

P.S.

Your little jab about being self-absorbed reminded me of something:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Unrequited love is pretty much the human condition–until you find requited love.

Do forgive me if my own personal disaster led me to believe I’m above unrequited love and its baggage of cliches. Half of the recent responses have been decent but the fact that it’s been mixed by condescending and presumptive responses on my situation reminded me why I took such a huge break from these forums.

I came back with the very hopes that, as others have said, I should give Catholicism a chance. Unfortunately, it seems CAF posters are still more intent on screwing that chance up. The only good thing I’ve been getting out of these exchanges is some begrudging admission that it’s still all up to me and that I have found more answers living my life regardless of what Catholics believe.

 

[pensmama87]

Regarding the Church offering specific advice on dating:

I said this in the other thread about women not just saying “I’m not interested,” but I think it bears repeating here. We live in a society. Until very, very recently, that society did pretty much just fine with explaining and setting expectations for dating and marriage rituals. These were explicitly taught to children, and most of them had no problem getting them to work well enough that they ended up with a spouse.

If the Church is going to take this over (because like a lot of other things in secular culture, secular culture decided it was going to just throw out all of the rules because it thinks rules are bad and never, ever helpful), keep in mind that we’re talking about the Church. Its slow response to things is both a feature and a bug.

People complain all the time that the Church is too invasive in other people’s day to day lives. So the response here is…to make them actually invasive? That doesn’t make sense to me. There are a lot of variations in perfectly moral ways of living. But yeah, those variations look small compared to secular culture’s vision of anarchy.