Why am I still single at 31?

[djeter]

Which is why I prefaced my remark with “maybe”.

The point is that inability to handle lifelong celibacy is a very big (and very biblical) reason people get married instead of entering ordained or religious life. I find that is one factor that is seldom discussed in discerning married vs. celibate life.

There’s a range of meanings between celibacy abstention and chastity. We are all called to being chaste and if you need a reminder of what that means, Dawn Eden captures some of it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/30/dawn-eden%e2%80%99s-reasons-to-be-chaste-a-short-list/

dj

 

[1ke]

It makes me sad, because I did what I felt was the right thing and waited. But what did I get for it? I thought I would eventually have kids some day and honestly be able to tell them that I never went out partying, doing drugs, and sleeping around. But in all honesty, if I’d have known that it would get to this point, I would have gone out and had fun and been just like the rest of them. I feel that I have been a good person all my life and it has gotten me nowhere.

What do you get for it? NOTHING. That is because we do not do what is right in order to “get” something, but rather to please God. If your motivation is something other than pleasing God then you have the wrong motivation.

The reason to remain pure is not to “get” something from someone else, it is because God commands it of us. We are to practice chastity each according to his state in life. As a single person, you are called to abstinence from sexual relations. That is because God commands it as the proper use of our sexual faculties.

Your comment that since you haven’t “gotten something” for obeying God’s law you should have just gone out and committed sins is wrongheaded. And, as an attitude it probably manifests itself in your speech, actions, etc. Frankly it sounds very petty. Like you deserve a *prize *for refraining from sex. No, you are *expected *to refrain from sex. It’s not above-and-beyond behavior. It’s expected Christian behavior.

 

[KindredSoul]

Adding to the above (I had run out of space) there is one other exception where I think it is possibly justifiable to deny a repentant non-virgin one’s hand in marriage. If a virgin woman (or a man if you’re a woman) knew that you intended to save your virginity until marriage and that, on that same basis, you wanted to marry someone who had done the same, since she knew this prior to losing her virginity she literally did knowingly violate her chance to be with you, whom she knew on a personal level and yet whom she didn’t consider when she was out there doing her own thing. It’s the “sew my wild oats and then settle down with the person who I know is a reliable, religious virgin” ethic that makes the difference. Now, if one sensed that such a woman was genuinely and truly repentant, one might still give her a chance on the premise that she’s a changed person who, even if she didn’t respect him when she was having sex despite his wishes, might genuinely respect and love him now. I can see, however, why a person in such a situation might want to be cautious.

Again, the gender roles here can be reversed.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Norseman82]

What do you get for it? NOTHING. That is because we do not do what is right in order to “get” something, but rather to please God. If your motivation is something other than pleasing God then you have the wrong motivation.

The reason to remain pure is not to “get” something from someone else, it is because God commands it of us. We are to practice chastity each according to his state in life. As a single person, you are called to abstinence from sexual relations. That is because God commands it as the proper use of our sexual faculties.

Your comment that since you haven’t “gotten something” for obeying God’s law you should have just gone out and committed sins is wrongheaded. And, as an attitude it probably manifests itself in your speech, actions, etc. Frankly it sounds very petty. Like you deserve a *prize *for refraining from sex. No, you are *expected *to refrain from sex. It’s not above-and-beyond behavior. It’s expected Christian behavior.

Boy oh boy, and there are people who think virgins who want other virgins to marry are the ones who are mean-spirited and self-righteous…

Right or wrong, it is part of human nature to want to see your efforts amount for something, and that what the OP posted shows how the devil tempts people. At least in my posts (which some consider to be self-righteous) I will try to stand by my fellow virgins to try to fight off the enemy’s temptations and give them hope and try to rally to their aid; your above post is reminiscent of Solomon’s son who told the northern tribes “My father beat you with whips, now I will beat you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:11). Result? The northern tribes were lost unnecessarily. Remember, too, the story of the prodigal son: when the older son complained about not getting a kid goat, did the father get cranky and say “Shut up, you do what you do out of love for me and not to get a kid goat”? No, he didn’t, and he did not criticize the older son for complaining for what he said. Neither should you.

 

[Norseman82]

so that the sin of, say, stealing practically looks like a virtue next to it.

But at least with stealing if someone steals an apple from the store one can go back and pay for it.

He must realize, however, that there is as much a psychological weakness on his part presently as there is a sensual weakness confined to the woman’s past.

Oh, great, more fuel for the “people who are religious have something wrong with them” crowd…

A non-virgin who currently practices chastity can still give herself 100%–yes, 100%–to her husband.

Sorry, but 100% of nothing is still nothing.

 

[Norseman82]

But it will have to be at His time which is when He will KNOW you are prepared to pick up the plow and you won’t be so as long as you are focused on this “problem”.

Oh really? How do you know this? Do you have some private phone line that entitles you to speak for God?

 

[Norseman82]

There’s a range of meanings between celibacy abstention and chastity. We are all called to being chaste and if you need a reminder of what that means, Dawn Eden captures some of it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/30/dawn-eden%e2%80%99s-reasons-to-be-chaste-a-short-list/

dj

But when you are unmarried, being chaste means being celibate, although there is more to successful celibacy than just the physical part.

 

[KindredSoul]

But at least with stealing if someone steals an apple from the store one can go back and pay for it.

By that logic, a person who wasn’t really all that repentant for stealing but who nonchalantly finds some way to pay for the stolen item is less guilty than someone who would give anything to restore their virginity, but for whom that just happens to be a physical impossibility. The latter person may be far more repentant, far more changed, but just because of a physical impossibility [presently] beyond his or her control he’s eternally marked as being more guilty. The latter may go on to be a saint, but by this sort of logic it would hardly matter; far better to be a much less saintly person but whose past sin happened to be something you could cover with money or some other material payment.

Oh, great, more fuel for the “people who are religious have something wrong with them” crowd…

If you think that’s remotely close to what I was saying, you are deliberately trying to think so. Nothing I said ever implied that I think there is something wrong with someone for wanting to live a Christian life, including remaining a virgin until marriage. But since when does being religious automatically translate to refusing to marry a fellow religious person who, at one time, was not religious (or as religious as now)? So if, for the sake of argument, I live a saintly life and remain a virgin, but am willing to marry a perfectly contrite non-virgin, am I less religious than the fellow who refuses to marry her no matter how repentant and regretful she may be over her past? Because if “religious” is directly equivalent to one’s unwillingness to marry someone who is a non-virgin, that’s what you’re implying.

Sorry, but 100% of nothing is still nothing.

I was saying that there is more than virginity that goes into the 100% of Marital sharing. In that context, if you sill hold to your claim in that case, you are saying that a non-virgin is not only a non-virgin, but that she is in fact “nothing”. It doesn’t matter if she is now so holy that she can heal major diseases just by praying for it, if she marries a man and gives herself 100% to him, that 100% is “nothing.” There is no way to phrase that and make the same point, if you actually consider your words carefully and if you consider them an appropriate response to my point, unless you are in fact saying the woman herself is nothing. And if that’s how you feel, why should a non-virgin not just commit suicide so far as you’re concerned? Evidently he or she is already condemned to Hell, because he or she will never be anything more than “nothing” compared to someone who never committed the sin of fornication, regardless of what other sins the virgin committed.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Norseman82]

But since when does being religious automatically translate to refusing to marry a fellow religious person who, at one time, was not religious (or as religious as now)?

On the other hand, since when does being religious mean you have to marry someone who you may not be compatible with?

By that logic, a person who wasn’t really all that repentant for stealing but who nonchalantly finds some way to pay for the stolen item is less guilty than someone who would give anything to restore their virginity, but for whom that just happens to be a physical impossibility. The latter person may be far more repentant, far more changed, but just because of a physical impossibility [presently] beyond his or her control he’s eternally marked as being more guilty. The latter may go on to be a saint, but by this sort of logic it would hardly matter; far better to be a much less saintly person but whose past sin happened to be something you could cover with money or some other material payment.

I was saying that there is more than virginity that goes into the 100% of Marital sharing. In that context, if you sill hold to your claim in that case, you are saying that a non-virgin is not only a non-virgin, but that she is in fact “nothing”. It doesn’t matter if she is now so holy that she can heal major diseases just by praying for it, if she marries a man and gives herself 100% to him, that 100% is “nothing.” There is no way to phrase that and make the same point, if you actually consider your words carefully and if you consider them an appropriate response to my point, unless you are in fact saying the woman herself is nothing. And if that’s how you feel, why should a non-virgin not just commit suicide so far as you’re concerned? Evidently he or she is already condemned to Hell, because he or she will never be anything more than “nothing” compared to someone who never committed the sin of fornication, regardless of what other sins the virgin committed.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

The point I am making is that they are not equal in that respect. That’s all.

 

[KindredSoul]

On the other hand, since when does being religious mean you have to marry someone who you may not be compatible with?

I agree, it doesn’t. That’s the point. A person doesn’t have to marry or refuse to marry a non-virgin woman in order to be religious, and one choice is no less religious than the other. A consequence of that is that religion cannot be cited as the source of that decision. There is nothing about being Christian whatsoever that requires me to avoid marrying a non-virgin if she is currently living an exemplary life, just as there’s nothing about being Christian that requires me to marry her if we’re incompatible. But such incompatibility, if it is her lack of virginity alone that causes it, does not spring from my religion, and I can only justify it on preferential grounds, not on religious grounds. It springs from my inability to put her past behind us, even if she is both repentant and thoroughly penitent, meaning she has done all that even God Himself expects of her to “make up” for her transgression. As long as I’m incompatible with her, we ought not marry. But that incompatibility is partly in my head, and not solely due to her flawed past. If she would change her past as readily as I would, and if this is for the right reasons on her part, it seems to me that we actually want the same things out of life, and are quite compatible after all, if not for my simply refusing to consider it. That she used to be having sex but is now chaste for all the right reasons, to me, is no more a real incompatibility than if she used to not want children but now wants as many as God wills. Compatibility is about the life we will have together in the here and now, and how much we see eye to eye, not about something in the past that she can’t change even though, if she is truly repentant, she probably would if she could.

I don’t think the man who refuses to marry a non-virgin is bad, sinful, or even mentally off-balance. I just think that such a man’s aversion to marrying a non-virgin, if she’s now chaste and sincerely religious, is similar to a phobia more so than really reflecting any real incompatibility (i.e. something that would make their personalities and lifestyles clash throughout their married life). We all have such aversions to something, so I’m not saying anything is wrong with such a man, but in this particular area a man might unfortunately end up marrying a virgin who has incompatibilities that really will manifest themselves in tangible ways, even though a non-virgin (but repentant) woman might have had so much in common with him that they’d barely even argue. To each his own, but I’d far rather marry the woman with whom arguments were less warranted than the woman who had never committed the particular sin of fornication. To me, a smooth marriage and perfect teamwork has far more to do with compatibility than the woman’s sincerely repented past.

The point I am making is that they are not equal in that respect. That’s all.

Alright. That does clear up a lot, and I’m glad that you don’t think virgins, despite their sins, are inherently superior to non-virgins who might have avoided some of the other sins and be living exemplary lives. As you might expect, I think it’s important to recognize that this can be said of any sin (a person who never lied has the high ground, in that respect, to someone who had), and regardless of virginity being more closely associated to marriage than lying or thievery, I simply disagree about that one aspect making or breaking spousal compatibility, for reasons stated above.

I don’t think I have to keep making the following clarification, but gender roles in this post are reversible, as before.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Norseman82]

I agree, it doesn’t. That’s the point. A person doesn’t have to marry or refuse to marry a non-virgin woman in order to be religious, and one choice is no less religious than the other. A consequence of that is that religion cannot be cited as the source of that decision. There is nothing about being Christian whatsoever that requires me to avoid marrying a non-virgin if she is currently living an exemplary life, just as there’s nothing about being Christian that requires me to marry her if we’re incompatible. But such incompatibility, if it is her lack of virginity alone that causes it, does not spring from my religion, and I can only justify it on preferential grounds, not on religious grounds. It springs from my inability to put her past behind us, even if she is both repentant and thoroughly penitent, meaning she has done all that even God Himself expects of her to “make up” for her transgression. As long as I’m incompatible with her, we ought not marry. But that incompatibility is partly in my head, and not solely due to her flawed past. If she would change her past as readily as I would, and if this is for the right reasons on her part, it seems to me that we actually want the same things out of life, and are quite compatible after all, if not for my simply refusing to consider it. That she used to be having sex but is now chaste for all the right reasons, to me, is no more a real incompatibility than if she used to not want children but now wants as many as God wills. Compatibility is about the life we will have together in the here and now, and how much we see eye to eye, not about something in the past that she can’t change even though, if she is truly repentant, she probably would if she could.

I don’t think the man who refuses to marry a non-virgin is bad, sinful, or even mentally off-balance. I just think that such a man’s aversion to marrying a non-virgin, if she’s now chaste and sincerely religious, is similar to a phobia more so than really reflecting any real incompatibility (i.e. something that would make their personalities and lifestyles clash throughout their married life). We all have such aversions to something, so I’m not saying anything is wrong with such a man, but in this particular area a man might unfortunately end up marrying a virgin who has incompatibilities that really will manifest themselves in tangible ways, even though a non-virgin (but repentant) woman might have had so much in common with him that they’d barely even argue. To each his own, but I’d far rather marry the woman with whom arguments were less warranted than the woman who had never committed the particular sin of fornication. To me, a smooth marriage and perfect teamwork has far more to do with compatibility than the woman’s sincerely repented past.

Alright. That does clear up a lot, and I’m glad that you don’t think virgins, despite their sins, are inherently superior to non-virgins who might have avoided some of the other sins and be living exemplary lives. As you might expect, I think it’s important to recognize that this can be said of any sin (a person who never lied has the high ground, in that respect, to someone who had), and regardless of virginity being more closely associated to marriage than lying or thievery, I simply disagree about that one aspect making or breaking spousal compatibility, for reasons stated above.

I don’t think I have to keep making the following clarification, but gender roles in this post are reversible, as before.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

The “unChristian” part I wrote about earlier refers to all those people who jump all over the virgins who want to marry a fellow virgin. Some people can handle the inequality (although that raises a separate issue of whether they are then turning their back on a fellow virgin and leaving him/her “out in the cold”), others cannot.

However, two points:

1. You mention that you don’t consider a man who refuses to marry a a non-virgin mentally off-balanced, yet you go on to call it a phobia???
2. You speak about virginity being more closely associated with marriage than lying or thievery. Well, one must realize that the difference between a man and woman living as husband and wife versus as brother and sister is sex, so in that respect the sexual issues (like virginity) are in fact closer than thievery.

And I sure hope that the only choice we have is between an argumentative virgin vs. a peaceful non-virgin.

And yes, I agree that it holds true regardless of gender.

 

[KindredSoul]

1. You mention that you don’t consider a man who refuses to marry a a non-virgin mentally off-balanced, yet you go on to call it a phobia???

I’m sincerely sorry, but I genuinely think phobia’s are relatively normal, aren’t they? Almost everyone I know has one, even if only minor in some cases. I myself have a phobia of spiders. So I honestly see no conflict between normalcy and possessing a phobia (even if overcoming the phobia may be in the person’s best interests). Also, I’m not sure I’d call it a phobia, per se, but it was more a comparison–I said “similar”. But even if my being arachnaphobic makes me abnormal, clearly I still couldn’t have meant it as an insult when I myself have a phobia.

1. You speak about virginity being more closely associated with marriage than lying or thievery. Well, one must realize that the difference between a man and woman living as husband and wife versus as brother and sister is sex, so in that respect the sexual issues (like virginity) are in fact closer than thievery.

I do agree that sexual issues are closer…but to me, the only way it will impact my compatibility (the quality of life she and I can objectively have together) would be if these are sexual issues that are still persisting, by her own current volition and beliefs. If she is still fornicating, or wouldn’t mind fornicating, or thinks it isn’t sinful when I meet her, then yes we’re probably incompatible and this would make a bigger obstacle to me than if she had a problem with some other sin. Again, it’s more about how well we can get along and make a good Catholic family together than what mistakes she has or hasn’t made. If I trust her, as she is now, to be faithful to me and to the Church, I do not believe her lack of virginity will objectively harm our marriage. The attitude that led her to lose it would, but obviously I’m talking about a woman who no longer has such an attitude and genuinely regrets ever having it. That’s key.

And I sure hope that the only choice we have is between an argumentative virgin vs. a peaceful non-virgin.

Sorry about the way that sounded

I didn’t mean to make it sound that way; but I do believe it’s possible that there may be a repentant non-virgin woman whose personality and desires are at least somewhat more compatible with a fellow than the virgins he may know. In other words, if he is willing to leave her past sins behind her, due to more similar personalities and goals may have a more harmonious life, even if only slightly, than he would have with the most sexually innocent virgin he knows. A lifetime of better harmony, even if only a tiny bit slightly better, would for me outweigh the mistakes of the past. But then, the only way the mistakes of the past would come into the picture for me at all would be if the non-virgin’s past caused her to have some measurable difference from the virgin, as in her present behavior/personality/goals and the virgin’s present behavior/personality/goals are noticeably different, and it is clearly due to the non-virgin’s past, with the non-virgin’s resulting personality simply being incompatible with mine as well as that personality being a direct result of her past. Only then would I say her lack of virginity was directly responsible for our being incompatible, and even then it’s not simply the thought of her not being a virgin that has caused it.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Angels_Heart]

I cannot jude you bu try to be alittle more outgoing .And by the way I am a little older than you and in the same situation .Non smoker non drinker etc.

 

[CountrySinger]

I know how you feel, because that was me not too long ago. I’m a 28 year old single woman, who just recently got a serious boyfriend after 4 years. He is 35 non-denomentional Christian. I was at the point where I felt worthless, and other people didn’t help with that. I knew there was something wrong with me, since I wasn’t married. It is easy to get bitter and cynical after a long time of being alone. And I had just been rejected as well. So I was really miserable to say the least. I would drink to kill that pain, and most nights I would cry myself to sleep.

Warning Sappy Section Skip if don’t want to read
Then I met him through mutual friends. He is everything I could hope for. He has a good job, highly educated, kind, funny, and he thinks I’m pretty. He knows he wants to get married, and he doesn’t want to wait to get married (he’s a virgin so I can’t blame him). I think it will be like with my older brother (who was 32 when he got married), who met a girl, was engaged after 6 months, and married on their one year anniversary of the day they met. After six years and three kids, they are still going strong. I wouldn’t mind getting married right away.
Sappy Part Done

I would advise to also let your friends know you are looking. It’s doesn’t cost anything, and most people should know the people you are being set up with. I tried everything: Catholic Match, Ava Maria, Match.com, evil matchmakers, Eharmony, personal ads, Craigslist, etc. And nothing more than a bad dinner. Also getting out of a rut is good. I moved from Salem, Oregon to the Seattle area. It shook things up, and forced me to change. And meet new people. wink

Good luck, it is vicious out there.

 

[Alexandra]

Your letter could have been written by my husband before we met. I was a blind date of his best friend. The friend and I didn’t hit it off, but he and I did. He was 29 and I was 33. He had been on one date in his life. He called to ask me out and I knew. I KNEW that if I went out with him that we would get married. Not that I would trap him into marriage, but that it would just happen. Turned out that he was afraid to call me because he KNEW that if he did that we would get married. We dated for two weeks then got engaged. We were married three months later and have now been married for 21 years. Neither one of us, at our ages, expected to find someone who had not been married before. It was all in God’s timing. Don’t despair.

 

[ac_claire]

I know how you feel, because that was me not too long ago. I’m a 28 year old single woman, who just recently got a serious boyfriend after 4 years. He is 35 non-denomentional Christian. I was at the point where I felt worthless, and other people didn’t help with that. I knew there was something wrong with me, since I wasn’t married. It is easy to get bitter and cynical after a long time of being alone. And I had just been rejected as well. So I was really miserable to say the least. I would drink to kill that pain, and most nights I would cry myself to sleep.

Warning Sappy Section Skip if don’t want to read
Then I met him through mutual friends. He is everything I could hope for. He has a good job, highly educated, kind, funny, and he thinks I’m pretty. He knows he wants to get married, and he doesn’t want to wait to get married (he’s a virgin so I can’t blame him). I think it will be like with my older brother (who was 32 when he got married), who met a girl, was engaged after 6 months, and married on their one year anniversary of the day they met. After six years and three kids, they are still going strong. I wouldn’t mind getting married right away.
Sappy Part Done

I would advise to also let your friends know you are looking. It’s doesn’t cost anything, and most people should know the people you are being set up with. I tried everything: Catholic Match, Ava Maria, Match.com, evil matchmakers, Eharmony, personal ads, Craigslist, etc. And nothing more than a bad dinner. Also getting out of a rut is good. I moved from Salem, Oregon to the Seattle area. It shook things up, and forced me to change. And meet new people. wink

Good luck, it is vicious out there.

Glad to hear about this, CS.

 

[whatevergirl]

Your letter could have been written by my husband before we met. I was a blind date of his best friend. The friend and I didn’t hit it off, but he and I did. He was 29 and I was 33. He had been on one date in his life. He called to ask me out and I knew. I KNEW that if I went out with him that we would get married. Not that I would trap him into marriage, but that it would just happen. Turned out that he was afraid to call me because he KNEW that if he did that we would get married. We dated for two weeks then got engaged. We were married three months later and have now been married for 21 years. Neither one of us, at our ages, expected to find someone who had not been married before. It was all in God’s timing. Don’t despair.

This is a wonderful love story–thanks for sharing with us. God bless your marriage!

 

[PPeterson]

to OP, sorry you are feeling down. I’d reccomend just going ahead and using some kind of dating service.

to Norseman82, it’s well worth the moderator email and most likely banning I am going to get to tell you that in your postings in this thread you’re acting like a total d-bag. lol. some people act different in real life than on the internet, so i’m sure you could be cool in real life so whatever.

 

[Norseman82]

to OP, sorry you are feeling down. I’d reccomend just going ahead and using some kind of dating service.

to Norseman82, it’s well worth the moderator email and most likely banning I am going to get to tell you that in your postings in this thread you’re acting like a total d-bag. lol. some people act different in real life than on the internet, so i’m sure you could be cool in real life so whatever.

I don’t care what you think. Jeremiah got thrown down a well for telling it like it was, so if the worst I am subject to is being called a “d-bag”, I’m getting off easy.

 

[PPeterson]

good point. but there’s also the chance that my comments had more to do with you seeming like the kind of person who goes around comparing himself to Jeremiah than with being someone who “tells it like it is.”