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

[PaulinVA]

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 don’t know. In my younger days I was know to lay hands on a car and pray it would start…

 

[Xantippe]

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

**I think Dalrock struggles with the idea that women are actual people and that his posters are people, too.

You may not notice this, being a guy, but the impression one gets over there is that women are evil fembots. I struggle to match the women (even the lousy ones) that I know in real life with their vision. I think the Dalrock guys just don’t understand women very well, even though that’s their thing.
**
**And I suspect that (although I haven’t read Dalrock’s archive) that Dalrock doesn’t understand 75% of what’s going on at his house. When women find themselves living in a repressive environment, they often respond by becoming devious and secretive. This is actually a very “traditional” model for women–if you know your husband is going to blow up about something and make life unbearable, you make sure he doesn’t find out. My mom would often tell us kids, “Don’t tell dad about blah blah blah.” As a kid, I found it rather disgusting as a relationship model and I’ve never kept a secret from my husband (although I don’t tell him about all my friends’ gynecological problems). My mom wasn’t any good at it, either, so a lot of the time, there’d be a blow up about when my dad discovered whatever it was that she’d been trying to hide. My dad is not that repressive, either, but there wasn’t a lot of money, they did not have a strong collaborative model at that point, and my mom had grown up in a household with a very unreasonable and selfish father, so my mom’s go-to survival method was to do what she wanted and hope my dad didn’t find out, even if that wasn’t the ideal way to deal with her particular husband. Lovely. I strongly suspect that that’s how a lot of women deal with hyper-patriarchal husbands and that a lot of the Dalrock “happy customers” are being given the mushroom treatment.

But, I also have to note that the Dalrock guys don’t sound that happy. So, I’m assuming that whatever they’re doing isn’t a success for them. It occurs to me that there may be a vicious circle at work–repress-discover secret “rebellion”-repress harder in response-discover yet more “secret rebellion”–repress even harder in response–divorce–go complain on Dalrock until the cows come home.

Why not avoid the whole thing by using a more collaborative decision-making model and then asking your spouse to stick to the decisions made? (That’s Dave Ramsey’s approach.)
**

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?

The Taliban also supports women saving sex for marriage. My enthusiasm for them is also very measured.

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

**It’s hard to hear any good thing your Dalrock guys say through the deafening misogyny.
**

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.

**Are you quite sure that following your model of choice yields better results?

I have my doubts–I suspect it produces brittle marriages with a surface appearance of acquiescence. Think Romania under Ceausescu–everything’s hunky dory until the coup.

**

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.

**If your future wife says, “Don’t do X–it’s a terrible idea!” I think (unless that there’s a life-threatening emergency that cannot be discussed at length) that you should stop what you’re doing and not go forward until there’s unanimous agreement that you should go forward. And that goes for both sexes.
**
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.

Yes.

Don’t think that a good marriage and a good wife means you always get your way and have the last word.

 

[MacQ]

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.

If that kind of “wondering” undermines a marriage, then it wouldn’t have been solved by sleeping around beforehand.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

Yes!

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.

**Yes. And also, the Church operates in a vast variety of different cultures. So there could never be a single “Catholic Guide to Dating” for all times and all places and all persons.

I for one wonder how helpful our American advice can be for the Filipino guys. They’re presumably navigating a totally different social environment with completely different rules.
**

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.

Yep.

 

[MacQ]

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.

]

There was nothing “indirect” about what I posted. It was intentionally blunt.
But the motive was to try to wake you (and the other person here who posts a lot of the same laments) up.
If you had a Dutch Uncle, that’s what he’d tell you. I really am hoping for the best for you.

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.]

There ya go. I’m so woebegone and it’s all the fault of the Church. As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that workin’ out for ya?
As long as you stay on the pity pot, you’re going nowhere. Get out and get involved in something outside yourself. Volunteer. Help someone else. Help build a Habitat house…anything. Learn to discuss topics other than you. Get some humor. Smile more. Stand up straight. Your life will change.

As for religion, a better take than the one you have would be actually embrace Catholicism…to be comforted by the love of God, and the fact that He certainly would rather you discover what love for others and yourself really is.

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…]

See…there ya go again…and you wonder why people read your posts and think you are using religion as a scapegoat. No one said you’re a “complete failure”…but people have pointed out that you’re using very misguided tactics. Not many women want to spend their time with someone bent on self-loathing. It gets pretty tiresome. I might point out that it is a form of arrogance (it’s all about me).
As for knowing you personally…well you’ve telegraphed a lot about yourself here. Let it help you. Unless you just came here to argue and defend your pity pot.

P.S.

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

http://andr3w321.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/kanye-west-on-books.jpg

Maybe a book club would help.

 

[Neildown]

I must agree that you guys are being harsh on Lost Wanderer. I disagree on a lot of what he’s saying but there’s no need for all the jibes. There is room for poking fun at one another but if you see yourself as the responsible adult here, trying to teach your hypothetical child how to fish, I think its a bit overzealous to push your child into the water as a joke, which is kind of what you’re doing.

Lost Wanderer - I don’t really know what your situation is and I won’t make presumptions, but what I do know is that in my own capacity as a never-had-a-girlfriend single male - if it is at all applicable to your situation - I would think twice before going after any girl who highly prioritizes physical beauty or sexual performance in a man. I may not have the personal experience, but I’ve been witness to a decent number of relationships, not to mention I’ve become a much more perceptive and objective person since the Harry Potter debates we had several years ago D).

Whilst you apparently are at odds with some of the Catholic community - to what extent I’ve no idea - it is definitely important for a long-term relationship to include highly prioritized similar spiritual/moral inclinations between spouses. I mean, you’re essentially looking for someone to be your mate for life - so I assume you’d probably prefer someone you can truly share yourself with, with whom you would be content sharing both the best and the worst of yourself with. Needless to say, its not a walk in the park trying to find someone like that, nonetheless someone with whom you believe you could work toward that goal. Most of this may or may not be preaching to the choir, but I consider it a relevant consideration towards your better interest in any case.

As long as you can see that intimate of a relationship as a legitimate probability with someone, I can’t say it would necessarily benefit either of you (from a purely sanitized but logistic perspective) to have sex before you’re reconciled as partners. Assuming you have a true devotion to one another there shouldn’t be any great concern over when you can participate - but of course we live in a hypersexualized culture which even I feel the effects of whilst living in the middle of nowhere. Culture no doubt does have an effect on people’s psyche, which I think older members here should be more mindful of. They didn’t grow up in a world where sex literally encompasses the senses from sun-up to sun-down without us even realizing it. Go through one day and count how many things - radio advertisement, TV, internet, music - how many things refer to sex, no matter how discreet, and you may be surprised. Turns out, sex is an effective advertisement even outside of pornography and prostitution.

That configuration didn’t exist 100 years ago, and was only beginning to take off just a few decades ago. There was sexual deviancy then of course, but not nearly in the sheer mass, number, quality, and availability that we’re exposed to every day. My generation is now exposed to it 24/7 and we are somehow expected to be reserved in our sexual acts and exploration. Worse off, this hypersexuality is sold to us as being normal rather than the result of business exploitation. We can’t just seclude ourselves from society and we cannot just ban sexual advertisement - at least not quite. A solution definitely needs to be reached there, but as far as increasing sexual activity goes, America’s youth are not the actual catalyst.

That said, I think there is more to this problem than meets the eye.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Well, no actually. It was YOUR definition of Wisdom that was YOUR heartbreak, YOUR prison and YOUR despair.

You have no idea what my definition of Wisdom entails. In fact, I doubt we are talking about the same “Wisdom” because mine got me out of heartbreak, out of despair and released from my prison, so I would suggest, despite your certainty, that we are NOT speaking of the same Wisdom.

The problem may just be that what you thought was Wisdom, even Catholic Wisdom was not what you surmised it to be.

One feature of my Wisdom is that I am solely responsible for the way I interpret truth and act as a result, because when all is said and done my will is mine alone. When I mess up, I pay the piper; not look around for someone else to blame for putting me into this mess. A “second opinion,” if it merely entails finding another party to take responsibility for whatever befalls me next, will merely serve the same function as the first opinion - another convenient scapegoat to blame when things don’t work out as I assumed were promised by “the second opinion.”

This is how personal growth takes place. I learn from my mistakes and move forward with the understanding that there will be much more to be learned, lived and, even, suffered. That is why it is a journey travelled by “faith.”

The Wisdom I know has not revealed herself to me all at once. We are on a process of discovery with the understanding that my responsibility is one of learning and growing.

I have never been led by Wisdom to presume that I “know it all” and then can blame the “all” I thought I had fully grasped and mastered for letting me down. In fact, one of the clearest bits of knowledge I have is that I don’t know a whole lot and that learning will come “hard” whenever I jump the gun and make presumptions about what I have already learned.

It is my “self” that is the principle endeavor of faith - what I will become is the final end towards which I aim. I am on a journey, a process of becoming my “self” in God.

It is not as if my “self” is fully formed at the instant I became “a Christian,” and then I simply had to move forward with this perfected self in absolute blissful security. The presumption has alway been that I am being transformed by all that happens to me every day of my life. Sometimes, Wisdom is a close and a certain guide clearly showing me what I need to know and sometimes Wisdom backs away letting me stumble and take a fall because that was the lesson that I needed to learn and how to learn it was to “let it happen.”

The crucial piece is “openness” to the truth - a kind of fluid balance between readiness to see the significance of events, people and circumstances and a patient restraint that there is always more to it.

This is the aspect that makes me very suspicious about what you “thought you knew” about Catholicism as if you had access to and possession of the whole of Wisdom and have found it wanting. It is that very conception of Catholicism that strikes me as misconceived to begin with.

No doubt you have convinced yourself that you were a fully mature Catholic endowed with complete knowledge of “the faith.” I just don’t think it happens that way, at all. Coming to Wisdom is a hard fought battle - and finding “excuses” to give up are easy, but going on in the face of difficulty is precisely where character is forged. It is that character that is the important thing, after all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right. Unlike you though, I’m not exactly the one playing consultant.

This is the point at which, I suspect, there is a deep misunderstanding.

I am not saying that you ought to continue along the same path you were on, aimed at the same trajectory. What I am saying is that you may have misconceived that trajectory and that taking an opposite course to the first may be just as much an error precisely because you are determining your current course based on the error of the first. You may be being played like a ping pong ball precisely because you are disposed to being redirected by the intensity of your emotional state.

My “consultation” is reserved to merely making a few observations by a neutral third party based upon your posts. I have no intention to “run your life” because, as I said in my previous post, we are solely responsible for our own lives.

My observations were given in “good faith” thinking that they might be helpful. Perhaps, I erred in pursuing them to the extent I have and only you know why you have reacted to them in the way you have.

Again, I leave it fully to you to do as you will, because in the end, it is your life. I have nothing more to add. I sincerely hope you find that which is true “bliss” and not expend too much time, energy or grief chasing what turns out to be chimeras with only a superficial resemblance to bliss.

 

[john1513]

“You also ditch the car in 10 years for a newer model.” - Jason Evert

People and sex are not like cars, in that we can grow and change. “Test driving” a person for sex now is foolish to predict what they will be like in 10, 20, 50 years. Marriage and love are more than the sexual act itself, unfortunately our society doesn’t understand this and it’s why a large portion of marriages end in divorce (often repeatedly).

Before getting married couples should have a clear understanding of what marriage is, most adequately defined by the Catholic Church: with God, for life, open to children, loving and serving the other unconditionally. If one or both parties are not interested this, then they should look for other potential spouses or reevaluate their goals. If marriage is just based on pleasure, emotions, or social status, do not expect a permanent relationship as all these things can drastically change over time.

Thank you for bringing up this topic as I believe parents do not discuss this with their children and it contributes to an extraordinarily high divorce rate in western culture.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

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.

I am not at all surprised that people with no faith are not even considering that there is anything to debate. I am surprised, instead, that Christians are engaging in a debate about this. When did this even become a matter of debate among Christians, and why?

If living a holy life was something our fallen nature allowed us to do without the intervention of grace, let alone instinctually lead us to do, what would the point of the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Our Lord been, exactly? Of course this is what people are going to do, if left to their own devices, as so many of us have determined to keep ourselves.

We had all gone astray like sheep,
all following our own way;
But the LORD laid upon him
the guilt of us all.
Isaiah 53:6

*Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?..As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”*John 6:60, 66-69

The question is not whether or not a Christian may decide that it is OK to have pre-marital sex as a necessary part of choosing a spouse. That is forbidden, it is beyond question, and it doesn’t matter how popular it becomes to believe otherwise. This part of Christian ethics is not subject to change. This is what believers are bound to accept as unchangeable moral law, even if they struggle to keep it.

We aren’t here to condemn anyone for failing and repenting. We aren’t given the right to judge anyone else, but are forbidden from doing so. We are bound, however, to maintain the teaching of moral law that our faith requires. We cannot abdicate our duty to maintain the truth a Christian is bound to believe on the word of a biologist who is telling us absolutely nothing about human nature that the ancients did not know.

 

[Joe_5859]

I just have to say, I find it a little tiring that people continue to trot out the “What can celibate priests/bishops possibly have to tell us about dating and marriage?” meme.

First, I’m a married man and I agree with them. I also have plenty of Catholic male friends who are married and agree with them, too. So if you don’t want to take the advice of the priests, then why not listen to us?

Second, I would be willing to bet that from the vantage point of the confessional, many priests have a lot more insight into marriage than I do as a guy who has been married nearly ten years. They deal with lots of married couples. My experience is predominantly localized to my own experience.

Third, sexual morality is part of the natural law written into our human hearts. You don’t need to be married to know and understand it. You just have to be human.

Fourth, sexual morality is clarified by the light of Divine Revelation. And our priests and bishops are generally more qualified on that front than any of us.

But if dismissing Catholic sexual ethics out of hand as being somehow invented by celibate single guys makes you feel better, then I cannot stop you. I’ll just point out that the people in this thread who take issue with what the “unmarried guys’ club” of Catholic priests say about this are themselves unmarried. And it seems to be the married people on this thread that agree with those old priests. Make of that what you will.

 

[on_the_hill]

Microsoft Windows for Catholics

They have that?! But I thought it was a sin for us to use Microsoft products?

 

[MacQ]

I just have to say, I find it a little tiring that people continue to trot out the “What can celibate priests/bishops possibly have to tell us about dating and marriage?” meme.

First, I’m a married man and I agree with them. I also have plenty of Catholic male friends who are married and agree with them, too. So if you don’t want to take the advice of the priests, then why not listen to us?

Second, I would be willing to bet that from the vantage point of the confessional, many priests have a lot more insight into marriage than I do as a guy who has been married nearly ten years. They deal with lots of married couples. My experience is predominantly localized to my own experience.

Third, sexual morality is part of the natural law written into our human hearts. You don’t need to be married to know and understand it. You just have to be human.

Fourth, sexual morality is clarified by the light of Divine Revelation. And our priests and bishops are generally more qualified on that front than any of us.

But if dismissing Catholic sexual ethics out of hand as being somehow invented by celibate single guys makes you feel better, then I cannot stop you. I’ll just point out that the people in this thread who take issue with what the “unmarried guys’ club” of Catholic priests say about this are themselves unmarried. And it seems to be the married people on this thread that agree with those old priests. Make of that what you will.

 

[MacQ]

This is the point at which, I suspect, there is a deep misunderstanding.

I am not saying that you ought to continue along the same path you were on, aimed at the same trajectory. What I am saying is that you may have misconceived that trajectory and that taking an opposite course to the first may be just as much an error precisely because you are determining your current course based on the error of the first. You may be being played like a ping pong ball precisely because you are disposed to being redirected by the intensity of your emotional state.

My “consultation” is reserved to merely making a few observations by a neutral third party based upon your posts. I have no intention to “run your life” because, as I said in my previous post, we are solely responsible for our own lives.

My observations were given in “good faith” thinking that they might be helpful. Perhaps, I erred in pursuing them to the extent I have and only you know why you have reacted to them in the way you have.

Again, I leave it fully to you to do as you will, because in the end, it is your life. I have nothing more to add. I sincerely hope you find that which is true “bliss” and not expend too much time, energy or grief chasing what turns out to be chimeras with only a superficial resemblance to bliss.

I have to compliment you for your thoughtful, wise and articulate posts on this thread.
And your patience.

:bowdown:

 

[Xantippe]

I just have to say, I find it a little tiring that people continue to trot out the “What can celibate priests/bishops possibly have to tell us about dating and marriage?” meme.

First, I’m a married man and I agree with them. I also have plenty of Catholic male friends who are married and agree with them, too. So if you don’t want to take the advice of the priests, then why not listen to us?

Second, I would be willing to bet that from the vantage point of the confessional, many priests have a lot more insight into marriage than I do as a guy who has been married nearly ten years. They deal with lots of married couples. My experience is predominantly localized to my own experience.

Third, sexual morality is part of the natural law written into our human hearts. You don’t need to be married to know and understand it. You just have to be human.

Fourth, sexual morality is clarified by the light of Divine Revelation. And our priests and bishops are generally more qualified on that front than any of us.

But if dismissing Catholic sexual ethics out of hand as being somehow invented by celibate single guys makes you feel better, then I cannot stop you. I’ll just point out that the people in this thread who take issue with what the “unmarried guys’ club” of Catholic priests say about this are themselves unmarried. And it seems to be the married people on this thread that agree with those old priests. Make of that what you will.

Yes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you had a Dutch Uncle, that’s what he’d tell you. I really am hoping for the best for you.

Nope, I don’t. I have Dutch friend who, fortunately, isn’t as obnoxious. As a blunt person myself, I will tell you even she has more right to the attitude because she knows me personally. Her means of communicating with me isn’t restricted to an anonymous board for religious people.

Oh but you? You are a piece of work with the following assumptions:

There ya go. I’m so woebegone and it’s all the fault of the Church.

Ignorant of sarcasm. Check.

As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

Ignorant of post where I said I’m doing better with little Church interference. Check.

As long as you stay on the pity pot, you’re going nowhere. Get out and get involved in something outside yourself. Volunteer. Help someone else. Help build a Habitat house…anything. Learn to discuss topics other than you. Get some humor. Smile more. Stand up straight. Your life will change.

False presumptions that I’m a socially inept nerd who doesn’t get out more and whine about his situation in front of other women. Check.

So far, you and several others here so easily misled yourselves on who I am and what my situation actually is. You’re proving why I have less faith in online boards when it comes to solving problems. You tell me to get out. You tell me to interact. All the while, I’ve already told you that I already am doing these things.

You think I haven’t learned anything but in fact I have and so much more. And by more, that includes how much of this religion actually doesn’t fit what I discovered myself to be. I am not some Peace Corps person but a Warcraft person. I’d sooner hang out at a club or at Starbucks than the local soup kitchen.

That’s who I am and if you’re going to retort and say I’m still the proverbial prodigal son, you’re all just proving my point. You’re adding to the serious doubts I have on re-elevating the position of faith in my life. Sounds to me like it’s all fine to tell someone to figure it out on their own until they do something a religion ends up completely disagreeing with.

One feature of my Wisdom is that I am solely responsible for the way I interpret truth and act as a result, because when all is said and done my will is mine alone. When I mess up, I pay the piper; not look around for someone else to blame for putting me into this mess. A “second opinion,” if it merely entails finding another party to take responsibility for whatever befalls me next, will merely serve the same function as the first opinion - another convenient scapegoat to blame when things don’t work out as I assumed were promised by “the second opinion.”

Your definition of blame needs work. Using your logic, Edison ‘blamed’ all the other 1000 methods that failed to give him the lightbulb.

See this is exactly what is wrong with the approach you’re all using on me. Yes I ‘blame’ Catholicism if by blaming, I highlight a method that doesn’t work for me. You cry out ‘Oh but you must’ve done it wrong!’ Really? What’s the right way to do it then? Be yourself? Figure it out on your own?

Frankly I do this but all of sudden there’s shock and horror when that little trip takes me down the wrong conclusion. It’s absurdity like this that give me reason to put less stock on online ‘advice’ (both religious and secular variety) and put more into myself. (Isn’t that your MO too?)

Again, I leave it fully to you to do as you will, because in the end, it is your life. I have nothing more to add. I sincerely hope you find that which is true “bliss” and not expend too much time, energy or grief chasing what turns out to be chimeras with only a superficial resemblance to bliss.

Indeed, I’ll keep going on my merry way. But frankly, even you admit that your commentary is lacking in the ‘personal knowledge’ department. That’s why I don’t see why you claimed to know better and make obscure justifications such as age and experience.

They have that?! But I thought it was a sin for us to use Microsoft products?

Indeed. It’s also a sin to listen to Oprah or consult anything that sounds like Hollywood, New Age, or was written by a card-carrying supported of the Democratic party.

Lost Wanderer - I don’t really know what your situation is and I won’t make presumptions, but what I do know is that in my own capacity as a never-had-a-girlfriend single male - if it is at all applicable to your situation - I would think twice before going after any girl who highly prioritizes physical beauty or sexual performance in a man.

My point really, in all of this, is that I want the whole library. I don’t want any thought police (formal, informal, or worst, self-appointed) telling me what I can and cannot look up on the subject of sex and dating. I’m a do-what-it-takes kind of guy. If something doesn’t work, I try something else. That includes the Catholic way.

This is really my point about lack of guilt-tripping. People here can say what they want but I have never been condemned to the gates of hell or imply that I’m diving into the maw of Satan for not taking the advice of secular sources. Instead, it’s usually the Catholics who opt for guilt-tripping and inducing moralistic anxiety. For the sexually laid back, all I mostly get is, “Give it a try! It’s all on you! You do whatcha gotta do.”

I’m even beginning to suspect that the posters here are wholly blind to the condemnation of any dating and romance resource that doesn’t bear the Christian label. The sweeping condemnation of PUA approaches is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[josh987654321]

chastityproject.com/2014/06/busted-three-myths-people-use-promote-premarital-sex/

Myth 1: “You should have sex with the people you date because you wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first.” It is true that one would not buy a car without test driving it. It is also true that cars are objects, and that a person who owns a car is supposed to use it. But people are not cars. We’re not objects. A married person is not supposed to use his or her spouse. A married person is supposed to participate in “total mutual self-giving” (CCC 1644), and to exemplify the “absolute and unfailing love” God has for us (CCC 1604). The need for a test-drive, when the quest is for a car, exists because we have to see that the means (a car) serves its purpose. The need for a test-drive, when the quest is for a spouse, is a myth, because a person who treats a spouse like a means to an end is a person who doesn’t love.

:clapping:

“If they do it with you, they’ll do it to you.”

 

[Hopey]

My point really, in all of this, is that I want the whole library. I don’t want any thought police (formal, informal, or worst, self-appointed) telling me what I can and cannot look up on the subject of sex and dating. I’m a do-what-it-takes kind of guy. If something doesn’t work, I try something else. That includes the Catholic way.

This is really my point about lack of guilt-tripping. People here can say what they want but I have never been condemned to the gates of hell or imply that I’m diving into the maw of Satan for not taking the advice of secular sources. Instead, it’s usually the Catholics who opt for guilt-tripping and inducing moralistic anxiety. For the sexually laid back, all I mostly get is, “Give it a try! It’s all on you! You do whatcha gotta do.”

I’m even beginning to suspect that the posters here are wholly blind to the condemnation of any dating and romance resource that doesn’t bear the Christian label. The sweeping condemnation of PUA approaches is just the tip of the iceberg.

As for looking to other sources besides Catholic or Christian, one must be prudent and judge what they are saying/doing/promoting. You judge their advice against the 10 commandments. Is this urging of fornication something that goes against God’s commandments? If so, why?
When we start accepting just anything and not judging it appropriately, we stand to be mislead on a path that will get us into places we do not want (fornication reaches the level of mortal sin = us being worthy of hell).
This is from a blunt woman, wife and mother who has been treated like a car before. I am not a car (object). Neither are you nor your future spouse.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

When we start accepting just anything and not judging it appropriately, we stand to be mislead on a path that will get us into places we do not want (fornication reaches the level of mortal sin = us being worthy of hell).

As I keep repeating, I tried this before. It doesn’t work with me. Once I start judging things by the standards of something else besides yours truly, I devolve into a codependent thinker. Ten Commandments. Fear of God’s judgment. These are things I’ve grown sick of ruling in my life so I gave them the boot.

That’s my journey of self-discovery. That’s what I learned when I finally started living a life instead of worrying whether or not I was a sick, hyper-sexual human begin. Honestly, among Catholics here, I see a culture that will stigmatize me the same way it stigmatizes those who openly practice any other alternative lifestyle. The only reason why I’m still here is that these people implore me to hold out and not lose hope for what the Faith still has to offer. (So far though, I’m really not impressed and I sooner feel like some here would wish me failure just so I could convert back to their style of thinking.)

You don’t want to be reduced to an object by a man? I don’t like being reduced to a non-functioning life form by a set of rules. Secular or religious. (Oddly enough, seeing women as ‘objects’ gave me a better sense of how to talk to them and get better ideas on what goes on in their heads. You may despise it and rightly so but I know what helps me.)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to bed. Had a pretty nice evening with friends. (Then again, that seems so hard to believe for the internet strangers blasting at my posts.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your definition of blame needs work. Using your logic, Edison ‘blamed’ all the other 1000 methods that failed to give him the lightbulb.

No, actually, what needs work is your interpretation of my logic.

My logic is that IFF (if and only if) Edison was the kind of person who habitually “blamed” things by seeking to point the finger of responsibility at those things, then he would blame the 537th as he did the 536th because that would be the entrenched logic of blame under which he operated. This does not entail Edison was, indeed, THAT kind of person, only IF he was.

I see no evidence that Edison was the kind of person to portion out blame to external ideologies for his lack of success, so using him on your behalf just doesn’t work because apportioning blame is precisely what you have done in this thread, so it wouldn’t be surprising to find you doing the same to the second opinion as you did to Catholicism, Edison notwithstanding.

By pointing the finger of blame squarely at “Catholicism” it would appear that you, in fact, operate under the presumption that some ideological monolith is the responsible party to blame for your failures, which is evidence that you do look around for scapegoats and when you are let down by the second opinion you will follow the same pattern of “finding blame” with it as you did the first. The fact that you can’t see this as your MO doesn’t bode well, as far as holding my breath goes.

You see, if Edison worked on the assumption that truth was grounded in reality he wouldn’t resort to blame for his failures, but would learn from what didn’t work and move on in a relentless attempt to figure out specifically what didn’t work and why. He wouldn’t construct gigantic ideological caricatures to burn in effigy. As far as I know, he didn’t, which is why Con Ed doesn’t work for you.

This is why your tirades just seem foreign to me. Even presuming a few higher points on the IQ scale in your favour, balanced by my likely having a few more years of experimental (read experiential) data-collecting to my benefit, it would never even enter into my, admittedly rather limited brain, that I had figured out “Catholicism” to the point that I could simply dismiss it as a misconceived monolithic ideology because I HAD mastered it to the point that I could reasonably reassure myself that it was merely that.

First of all, that would presume I had a sufficient degree of competency with and knowledge of Catholicism to make an adequate judgement. In effect, that possibility would give me the same pause as thinking I had sufficient competency to judge the adequacy and completeness of truth itself because my grounding principle is that truth and Catholicism are symmetrically related, i.e., ultimately they confirm each other completely. To understand the truth is to understand Catholicism and to understand Catholicism is to understand the truth. In other words, you “can’t have one without the other.”