For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?I agree with Fr. Lord. When we confess our sins to the priest we are forgiven and those sins are buried and we rise to a new life in Christ.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?Would you rather your spouse found out about it some other way? See my signature. I think it prudent to be open and honest with a potential spouse.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
You should have thought about that before fornicating. So a virgin would have every right to have expectations to marry the same. Just because you confess and are forgiven a sin of theft doesn’t mean that there isn’t an injustice there that has to be made up for by restitution. Now, the party from who you stole could forgive the debt but they don’t have to. In having fornicated you are depriving the prospective spouse of something they have a right to ... exclusive lifelong intimacy. So if you were to date a virgin, that person must be told that you’re not one so they can decide whether to forgive that debt. If a prospective spouse asks you, you have to give an honest answer and not lie. Lying could be grounds for annulment. If you lied and claimed you were a virgin, that’s misrepresentation that could have altered the person’s decision to marry you.
But let me pose this question --- would substantial error about the sɛҳuąƖ past of a spouse have been grounds for annulment before Vatican II? I know, nowadays, you can often get an "annulment" just for your jib having been cut differently than what your partner had in mind, but "back in the day"? If it would have been, can someone supply a source?.
1577. Is self-detraction, that is, the revelation of some real fault or defect, lawful?Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
(a) If there is question of faults or defects that are of a public nature and generally known, a disclosure made in a good spirit and in a proper manner, and from which beneficial and not harmful results can be foreseen, is lawful, and sometimes obligatory. Example: Balbus has calumniated his neighbors, and he now admits the fact, not to boast about or excuse it, but to make satisfaction; he does not repeat the details of his defamatory remarks, but merely states that he wishes to retract what he had no right to say; he has every reason to think that his present course will undo the harm caused by the defamation. Balbus does right in thus acknowledging his mistake.
(b) If there is question of faults or defects not generally known, the reasons for mentioning them should be more serious, unless the sins are of a trifling nature. Examples: Caius once served a term in jail for dishonesty, but he is now a decent citizen. His family would be scandalized and would feel disgraced, if they knew this. But Caius thinks it would be a suitable reparation to tell them of his former guilt. Caius is wrong. To speak of his past experience would only add the sin of scandal to the old one, and there are other ways in which he can do penance in further expiation of dishonesty. Claudius wishes to marry Sempronia, but the latter insists that there must be no secrets between husband and wife, and that he must give her complete and accurate answers on certain questions about his past career—for example, whether he has ever been drunk, whether he has ever wished to be drunk, whether he has ever had questionable relations with other women, etc. Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later. Titus has stolen a considerable sum, and, for the sake of getting advice and direction on how to make restitution, he consults a prudent friend who will regard his communication as confidential, just as if he were a confessor. Titus does not act against his own reputation by telling his case to this friend.
This is the question of self-detraction:
McHugh & Callan Moral Theology (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=5547):Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
Also if someone has viewed pornography intentionally even ONE time it should be disclosed. Why? Because pornography use by men has the similar effect against pair-bonding that pre-marital sex has on women. We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life. Every woman has a right to know if her potential spouse is a habitual self-abuser. That will ruin a marriage.If every trad followed your advice, then no trad marriage would ever happen again or... porn usage will be increasingly publicly normalized in trad circles because of the commonplace admission of committing the sin. I do not calumny trads when I say that 95% of trad men have viewed pornography "even one time" in their life. Multiple trad priests said that the #1 and #2 confessed sins from men in the twin sins of viewing pornography and self-abuse. Put yourself in their shoes: they have strong desires as young adults but moral qualms against fornication and adultery.
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...What about medical proof the fiancé's not impotent or the fiancée's a virgin?
Here's one solution to deal with non-virgin "non-disclosers" -- make sure you make it clear -- perhaps before witnesses and in writing -- that you would only marry a non-virgin, and that you'd divorce anyone who deceived you on this matter. Then if it comes out later that he lied, at least you'd have some chance of getting an annulment for his blatant misrepresentation and deception to procure the marriage contract. Such fundamental, cut-and-dried deception would clearly invalidate the marriage.That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?
This is the question of self-detraction:Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later.
McHugh & Callan Moral Theology (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=5547):Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
.See, I would want to actually read what Fr Lord said before going on what the OP said he said.
Fr. Daniel Lord was a Jesuit before Vatican 2. He lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He devoted his whole life to guiding young people. He wrote dozens of books and pamphlets on youth, marriage, and family life.
.
In addition to the spectacular Jesuit formation he received, he possessed a level of experience in the care of souls, and trust from his superiors, that no priest alive today could claim, let alone someone on an internet forum.
.
Go with what Fr. Lord says.
It's borderline misrepresentation, which is grounds for an annulment..
Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART I
Problem: I am engaged and looking forward to a very happy marriage. But there is one doubt in my mind that seems to cast a shadow over my happiness. Long before I met my fiance, I fell into sin with another person. This has long since been confessed and deeply repented. The doubt in my mind is whether I should tell my husband-to-be about this previous fall. Is such a confession necessary or even advisable for persons about to be married? I dread the thought of it; but do not want anything to stand in the way of our happiness.
Solution: It is neither necessary nor advisable to make a confession of your past life to the man you are about to marry. You made your confession through the priest to God, and your sin was forgiven. The only lasting effect the sin should have on your life is to keep you humble, grateful for the forgiveness you received, and more and more dependent on God’s help to remain good. But there is no reason for your revealing the past to anyone. Sometimes a man who wants to marry a girl tries to insist that she tell him whether she had ever in her life lapsed from virtue. This is an unjust demand, an uncalled for probing into the secret and sacred conscience of another. A girl has no obligation of making a personal confession even in the face of such demands. Indeed, she may even recognize in such demands a danger sign: they may be motivated by an excessively jealous spirit that would cause her great sorrow after marriage. Even in the case that a boy or girl in love might suggest that they make mutual confessions to each other, the idea should be resisted and rejected. Lovers and engaged couples should be content to be able to say to each other that they cherish the grace of God and freedom from sin above all other goods, and that they will be loyal to each other for the whole of their lives. Moreover, it is more important that they help each other to avoid sin in their own pre-marriage association than that they worry about their own or their partner’s repented past.
Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART II
Problem: We are several girls in our late teens who would like to disagree with an opinion you expressed several months ago. You said that a man had no right to ask a girl whom he wanted to marry whether she had previously fallen from virtue, and that the girl had no obligation of admitting anything about her past to her fiance. We think that if a man wants to know what kind of girl he is marrying he should be allowed to ask her about her past, and that she should honestly tell him. After all, it is important to a man to know that he is marrying a good girl.
Solution: We are in perfect agreement with the statement that it is important for a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. It is the purpose of the period of company-keeping to provide a man with assurance on this point, and equally so to provide the girl with assurance that he is a good man. By going together for several months, a man and woman can learn all they need to know about the ideals and moral characters of each other, if both are interested enough in this matter to look for and draw out from the other the spiritual and moral principles that are considered of greatest importance. A girl who lacks character and sound moral principles will not be able to hide her lack from a man who really considers such things necessary for a happy marriage. And a man who has not acquired solid virtue will clearly manifest his weakness to a girl who realizes that without it a happy marriage could not be hoped for. This testing of each other’s characters on the part of a boy and girl keeping company does not require open and complete revelations of each one’s past. We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves. themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them. It still remains possible, we believe, for a man to learn all he needs to know about a girl, even up to whether she has ever been a sinner or not, without asking direct questions or demanding revelations. And it is possible for a girl to learn through company keeping whether the man she is going with hates sin, loves virtue, and is willing to face the sacrifices and responsibilities involved. The sad thing is that so many are not interested in these supremely important matters.
It's borderline misrepresentation, which is grounds for an annulment.
That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you. On the other hand, the wisdom nowadays is that some women's hymens can remain intact after intercourse --- not to get too crude, but they "stretch" --- and that hymens can grow back together. Both would be more likely "if she'd only done it once or twice", as many claim. Being jaundiced as I am about any propaganda coming from the secularized world, and a world that cares nothing about premarital virginity, I suspect that the "conventional wisdom" is exaggerated (to help women concoct lies about themselves, and to "slap" men to whom such things are important), but not entirely false. Think of the non-Western cultures that demand premarital examination, and the consequences for women in those cultures who have lost or damaged their hymens through no fault of their own.
(my responses in italics with asterisks for ease of reading --- SM)
You can't tell me a spouse doesn't have a right to know these things about their spouse-to-be. How can you consent to something you don't know? If he's had lots of women in the past, it's highly likely in this age of DNA tests and the Internet that one of these women will come around seeking child support, or one of his bastard children will want to meet their dad. How would that not screw up a "good Catholic family" he started later with a virgin Catholic woman?
Think of all the explaining he'd have to do to his legitimate children -- of all ages. How they have brothers and sisters they hadn't met yet for some reason. Think of all the birds-and-bees discussions that would have to take place before the proper time.
***How true, how true! It absolutely tickles the you-know-what out of me, that DNA tests now allow paternity to be proven, as part of the larger picture of gaining knowledge of one's family tree and hitherto unknown distant relatives. You always know who the mother is, but as for the father... how many men have been duped into raising another man's child? Isn't that cuckolding in the extreme? That's why I say, birth control (and even more so, sterilization) allows both husbands and wives to make fools out of each other, because they can have all sorts of sɛҳuąƖ exploits without ever getting caught up, or having fear of unwanted pregnancies. But what about when it fails, or one or the other strays in a moment of recklessness and doesn't use the BC? A woman can always pass off the child as her husband's, barring any drastic difference in appearance (most of all an obvious racial one! --- "I can explain, dear, my family was Dark Irish!" :jester:) --- and the man who fathered the child, without paternity testing, is likewise scot-free.
Now here's a soap opera for you. Recently I got my son an AncestryDNA test, like the one I took myself about a year ago. Sure enough, my son is absolutely, positively, infallibly mine, but... lo and behold, in the past month or so, guess what, I've got a new cousin out there, that I'd never heard of before, and I know who all my first and second cousins are (or I thought I did!). The number of centimorgans (DNA markers, or something like that) is right on the cusp of his being my full-blood first cousin, or a first cousin once removed. IOW, he is the son of either one of my four blood uncles (more likely), or one of my male first cousins (less likely). Three of my four blood uncles had, ahem, issues with fidelity, one very much so. My male first cousins, all over the map, from relative chastity to absolutely whoremongery. Interesting family. The question "who could his father have been?" has been a huge topic of discussion with my parents the past few days. (I have long ago drifted apart from my extended family, that happens when people move, don't see each other, and die.) For us, it's merely a point of speculation. But think about the poor man who is my hitherto unknown cousin! In all likelihood, he's gone his whole life, thinking that his father is someone that he really wasn't! Talk about getting emotionally hit by a semi-truck! (My son knows it all, knows everything about "the birds and the bees" that it is possible to know --- very curious kid --- and I was able to use this as an object lesson in chastity, IOW, "keep it zipped!".)
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...
***You will never waste money on a good private detective. Without getting too specific, I had reason to hire a PI, as well as an attorney who obtained some information for me that, let's just say, I'm not supposed to know. It was to protect a family member. Cost me $450 in all, and boy oh boy, was it ever worth every penny! If you ever even think there's an issue that needs looking into, do it. Hire that PI. I know. How well do I know! And there was another incident in my life where I didn't hire a PI --- didn't want to spend the money (oooh, that's right, gotta save that money, don't spend that money) --- and I could have saved myself a lot of heartache, if I had hired one. It's water under the bridge now, but it could have saved not only me, but people I care about, a ton of suffering. Let me repeat. Hire that PI.
"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you. On the other hand, the wisdom nowadays is that some women's hymens can remain intact after intercourse --- not to get too crude, but they "stretch" --- and that hymens can grow back together. Both would be more likely "if she'd only done it once or twice", as many claim. Being jaundiced as I am about any propaganda coming from the secularized world, and a world that cares nothing about premarital virginity, I suspect that the "conventional wisdom" is exaggerated (to help women concoct lies about themselves, and to "slap" men to whom such things are important), but not entirely false. Think of the non-Western cultures that demand premarital examination, and the consequences for women in those cultures who have lost or damaged their hymens through no fault of their own.Oh bullshit. I've been hearing that crap about women "riding horses or playing sports" for decades. Almost no women riding horses and very few women play sports. Also, what kind of sports would break a hymen?
Oh bullshit. I've been hearing that crap about women "riding horses or playing sports" for decades. Almost no women riding horses and very few women play sports. Also, what kind of sports would break a hymen?Actually, your thoughts echo my own to a large extent --- I've had to roll my eyes at the "riding accident" scenario myself (just anecdotal, I've never heard anyone claim that) --- but that said, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt in certain cases. It's my understanding that the fragility of women's hymens varies widely. I do realize, also, that in less sɛҳuąƖly liberal times, many women felt the need to have a "cover story" to explain their lack of intactness to their husbands. Perhaps nowadays, that kind of bullshit, as you put it, isn't seen as being nearly as necessary.
Because pornography use by men has the similar effect against pair-bonding that pre-marital sex has on women. We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life. That will ruin a marriage.Take it from a former porn/self-abuse addict: the destruction of the man's natural attraction for women is NOT "for life". It bounces back within days and within months the porn-addled mindset, which usually causes fetishistic desires, is gone. Don't believe me? Look up the NoPorn and NoFap movements. Hundreds of thousands of secular men are fighting their battles with porn and self-abuse. Even science shows that the "rewiring" that porn does to the brain is undone when porn is no longer used. I also disagree that looking at pictures destructs pair-bonding, similarly to what fornication does to women. I think most any trad woman would prefer that her potential husband watched porn and self-abused thousands of times rather than fornicated with even one woman. I think men would agree in the opposite situation. Those priests are wrong on those points.
It's definitely something they need to know before committing to you for the rest of their lives. Omitting the truth can often be just as bad as lying.People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.
People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.Well, that may be true, but we are all our own free agents, we all have lives to live and try to make sure they turn out halfway right, and just for my part, I'd want to know, at least in broad brushstrokes, and I would both be willing to, and be willing to be expected to, paint my own broad brushstrokes. If I were single in the Eyes of God, and contemplating marriage, my intended and I would, at some point, be having the "now, there aren't going to be any 'Easter eggs' come up one of these days than neither of us expect, something or someone that could pop out of the woodwork, are there? --- anything that I'd want to know about now, instead of finding out later, right?".
People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.Priests don't get married. Cheers!
"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you.
Priests don't get married. Cheers!That's a Prot argument. Might as well ignore all moral theology about sex, since priests don't have sex, right? Hell, why listen to them on marriage at all? I want to divorce my haggard old wife and marry my hot young secretary.
Again, if in doubt --- or maybe even if there is no doubt --- just do yourself a favor, and hire that PI. If you don't, and it blows up in your face later,If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.She'd never know. If my investigation turned up nothing, no harm done. If it did turn up an unknown deal-killer, then better to know, and then move on. I would not have a problem in the world with being investigated, without my knowledge, by a potential spouse. In fact, in today's world, especially when people often marry someone they haven't known until they were in their twenties, thirties, forties, or even beyond, I think a woman who did not have me investigated, would be just a little naive. Wouldn't bother me in the least. If she never told me, then I'd never know (just to state the obvious). If she did tell me, I'd say "you didn't know me from childhood, I don't blame you in the least, shows me you've got a good head on your shoulders". Different people have a problem, or don't have a problem, with different things.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.It's a catch-22. If you marry a woman without investigating, then you risk marrying someone you wouldn't want to marry. But if you investigate a woman you intend to marry, then you run the risk of her not liking that you had her investigated.
It's a catch-22. If you marry a woman without investigating, then you risk marrying someone you wouldn't want to marry. But if you investigate a woman you intend to marry, then you run the risk of her not liking that you had her investigated.As I said above --- don't tell her. Private investigators don't go to the people they've investigated and say "hey, I investigated you". Who else is going to tell? The banker on whom you wrote the check to pay the PI? You don't find out anything, nothing comes of the investigation, then no harm done. Find out something, then you know.
I'd rather take the latter risk.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man."If he can't handle me at my worst, he doesn't deserve me at my best". Feminist BS.
A woman who would insist that a man believe her word, in this day and age, that she hasn't...
I know 2 priest who said, tell all. Also, the sin is forgiven by God,not forgotten by humans. Then there is STD's. There are some that men have no symptoms and the woman gets them. STD's that are hidden for awhile and then show for themselves. Answer is tell all!Name them. Also, give imprimaturs from traditional or pre-Conciliar bishops. Regarding STDs: there are tests.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.Sounds like there's something in your past that you wouldn't want a suitor to know about. Hm.........
OP here. I was mistaken about the authorship. It was not a Fr. Lord pamphlet but rather QUESTIONS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ASK BEFORE MARRIAGE by Donald F. Miller, C.Ss.R.I can't help but notice that this priestly advice consistently includes warnings about men who demand or insist to know the past of their potential spouses. I assume that this would also apply to women who would do the same (although they do not say this explicitly). It seems to me that if one were to willingly offer this information without provocation that would be a much different scenario.
Imprimi Potest: John N. McCormick, C.Ss.R, Provincial, St. Louis Province, Redemptorist Fathers November 20, 1961
Imprimatur: + Joseph Cardinal Ritter, Archbishop of St. Louis, November 24, 1961
Here is the relevant text:
Does a woman have a right to know that her fiance has same sex attraction but not acted on it?
Does a woman have a right to know that her fiance has had relationships with men in the past? She could be exposed to AIDS or other disease by marrying him.
How does a member of the Resistance get an annulment?Probably with a "Resistance tribunal"…
We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice..
By all means, yes, get a medical test to determine if your fiance has a venereal disease, have a PI look into whether they have an illegitimate child somewhere, ... but ... asking someone about what they confess in confession??! Seriously?? I couldn't imagine myself ever asking anyone such a thing, under any circuмstances. Is nothing sacred with you people?I would never advocate spouses "going to confession" to each other. That makes a mockery of what I'm talking about.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice.These are the words of someone who has been looking at porn, and has deluded himself (with the assistance of the enemy) into the false belief is that it's harmless.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice.well to be fair it looks like the priest said “can” not “absolutely will” which seems to have a lower burden of proof
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...Very good advice. People may have one "face" to their relatives and co-workers but have freely photograph themselves living a wild private life. A five or ten minute social media search could save years of misery.
"If he can't handle me at my worst, he doesn't deserve me at my best". Feminist BS.Marilyn Monore said that. She had three weddings, caused Joe DiMaggio to abandon his Faith, reportedly had 10-12 abortions and apparently was miserable for most of her adult life.
These are the words of someone who has been looking at porn, and has deluded himself (with the assistance of the enemy) into the false belief is that it's harmless.
A women is judged by her past, a man by his future.Afterall a man's virginity isn't going to put food on the table and pay the bills. Still if a virgin women demands a virgin husband that is fine, people have their preferences and baseline standards.
I would say it's a matter of justice. The goal of marriage is to raise Godly children and help your spouse get to heaven. There are certain topics that should be discussed before hand. Would you not discuss the crisis of the Church beforehand? If one spouse thought the new rites were valid and the other did not, and if their traditional priest got replaced by a NO priest (possible in SSPX) then there is now a huge problem of moving somewhere else for valid mass and Sacraments with disagreements between the spouses.I was a virgin woman when I met my husband (a virgin) and I was glad to have been with him. I admit, I would get paranoid and insecure if my husband was not a virgin.
Likewise a person's 'past' may be important to the other potential spouse. As a man I wouldn't be happy knowing my wife got deflowered by another man, has had sɛҳuąƖ relations with others, can't bond with me like previous partners, microchimerism and telegony, psychological imprint by the other partners and emotional baggage, etc and other worse things I won't mention.
That would be extreme cope. Also a women may desire her husband to be hers and hers alone (can't list reasons like above because I'm not a women).
I've heard it said.
Afterall a man's virginity isn't going to put food on the table and pay the bills. Still if a virgin women demands a virgin husband that is fine, people have their preferences and baseline standards.
Choosing not to discuss these things is foolishness, you do not want to marry the wrong person and end up in hell. If you find out something after getting married that bothers you a lot then it's going to make things unnecessarily harder, at the expense of your souls and your children's souls when it could have been easily avoided by taking before marriage.
James,
here is a Commentary on Canon 1083 from Woywood's two volume set:
pg. 651Quote1081. Error concerning the identity of the person with whom one wants to contract marriage, renders marriage null and void. Error concerning any quality of the persn, though such quality caused one to contract marriage, renders marriage invalid only in two cases: 1) If the error concerning a certain quality amounts to an error in the person; 2)If one contracts with a person whom he believes to be free, while in fact that person is a slave strictly so called (Canon 1083)
Not without reason does the Church warn her children to be on their guard and to act with caution and prudence before contracting marriage, since they must bear the consequences if they let themselves be deceived or make a mistake. The Church does not admit deception and mistake as invalidating reason of the marriage contract. The only mistake or error that is admitted by the Church as an invalidating cause of marriage is an error concerning the identity of the person whom one intends to marry....other deceptions and mistakes (e.g., as to wealth, position, character, etc.) do not invalidate a marriage.
I was a virgin woman when I met my husband (a virgin) and I was glad to have been with him. I admit, I would get paranoid and insecure if my husband was not a virgin.Good to have a woman's perspective on this, thanks. If you don't mind can you express more on what you mean by insecure and paranoid? You do not need to answer if you do not want to.
You're a retard. Nowhere did I say porn is harmless; and I don't view porn. In fact, I believe it should be outlawed and the producers and purveyors of it should be executed. Penalty should be retroactive, too, as it will eliminate a lot of the J problem in America.One thing I don't see mentioned enough is that watching porn makes you a cuck. You are literally self-abusing by watching another man have sex with a woman you find attractive instead of having her yourself. Literally cuck behaviour. Porn needs to be banned.
One thing I don't see mentioned enough is that watching porn makes you a cuck. You are literally self-abusing by watching another man have sex with a woman you find attractive instead of having her yourself. Literally cuck behaviour. Porn needs to be banned.
Good to have a woman's perspective on this, thanks. If you don't mind can you express more on what you mean by insecure and paranoid? You do not need to answer if you do not want to.Paranoid that the woman(s) that he was intimate with would come back and obsess over him. Over that he was secretly in contact with her. Insecure cause he might compare them to me.
For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?A person with a STD has a moral obligation to tell the truth to a potential spouse.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
I just heard a story about a teacher who passed around a dish of hard peppermint candies to his class. There was one unwrapped peppermint in the dish.
Once every student got a piece, the teacher took back the dish and obviously the unwrapped candy remained in the dish.
The teacher pointed out that those who didn't save themselves for marriage were like the unwrapped candy. No one would choose that on purpose -- unless they had no choice.
I just heard a story about a teacher who passed around a dish of hard peppermint candies to his class. There was one unwrapped peppermint in the dish.
Once every student got a piece, the teacher took back the dish and obviously the unwrapped candy remained in the dish.
The teacher pointed out that those who didn't save themselves for marriage were like the unwrapped candy. No one would choose that on purpose -- unless they had no choice.
That is shocking. Maybe it was an accident.
Disappointed that we have 2 (!) morally liberal cowards on CathInfo, who apparently believe in sex before marriage (?)
Downvoted for the quoted post above? Please explain how a Catholic in good standing could disagree with the quoted post.
I'm not one to complain about downvotes. But when I see a poll like "Is Abortion morally OK?" and 2 CathInfo members vote "Yes", it's going to get my attention. Because the acceptable number is ZERO.
they shouldn't just 'give up' as the more they continue the more the CONS column increases.I feel quite depressed thinking about this. I am a man with 1 previous partner (no emotional attachment to her, I've never had a gf or relationship), frankly I wouldn't marry a women with any past at all (when ever I find out a girl has had a past even to the smallest degree I immediately lose all interest), but at the same time I don't have much hope that a virgin women would want/accept me even if I could make up for it in other areas.
Just a guess but I'm thinking the down thumbs came from a couple women with "a past." I suppose it could also be one of those "macho" types where they disagree because they see that the vast majority of women DO want a man with a past and do choose the men with no wrapper.
Disappointed that we have 2 (!) morally liberal cowards on CathInfo, who apparently believe in sex before marriage (?)
Downvoted for the quoted post above? Please explain how a Catholic in good standing could disagree with the quoted post.
I'm not one to complain about downvotes, especially just 1 or 2 of them. But when I see a poll like "Is Abortion morally OK?" and 2 CathInfo members vote "Yes", it's going to get my attention. Because the ONLY acceptable number is ZERO.
Just a guess but I'm thinking the down thumbs came from a couple women with "a past." I suppose it could also be one of those "macho" types where they disagree because they see that the vast majority of women DO want a man with a past and do choose the men with no wrapper.I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), I didn't enquire for then to clarify what they meant, but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her.
IntelligenceThe things you listed, they have different weights for men and women respectively. A women for example can easily make herself appear more beautiful then she actually is but men cannot do this. Also men are expected to have the wealth not women, so wealth in a women has less weight than wealth in a man.
Beauty
Health
Age
Wealth/income/career
Skills/talents
Personality/virtue/holiness
Virginity
Family/social support structure
etc.
If you're perfect, you can hold out for a perfect spouse. But in each area YOU are deficient, you have to be lenient in your choice of spouse as well. If you're a 5/10, you can't expect the universe to give you a 10/10 spouse. Frankly, you don't deserve it. Unless you're super healthy, rich, a renaissance man with dozens of skills, etc. then an ugly man could have a stable marriage with a 10/10 woman.
Also, for men, realize that hypergamy is a thing. If your wife could easily have done better than you, that's not a good foundation for a stable marriage. She's not dumb, especially if she has any female friends, and eventually she might be at least TEMPTED to try for another spouse, more in line with what she originally "deserved".
I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), I didn't enquire for then to clarify what they meant, but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her.That picture is brutal, doing the math she was 19 in 1958, so yeah women weren't much better back then. Reminds me of the movie Titanic, where the women is on her deathbed and instead of thinking about her husband she thinks of the hot guy who died she committed adultery with on her fiancé.
That picture is brutal, doing the math she was 19 in 1958, so yeah women weren't much better back then. Reminds me of the movie Titanic, where the women is on her deathbed and instead of thinking about her husband she thinks of the hot guy who died she committed adultery with on her fiancé.Pic related is why women are supposed to get married in their teens. Jews ruined everything.
Pic related is why women are supposed to get married in their teens. Jews ruined everything.Apparently the real numbers are much worse, i heard over 80% by 14.
Quote from: Änσnymσus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=58954.msg962165#msg962165) 11/12/2024, 12:13:51 AM
Half your list is stuff outside your control, like family, having an attractive face (unless you get surgery), intelligence, even health and aging is heavily effected by genetics, some guys go bald in their late teens for instance. Life's quite unfair, some people are simply more blessed by God than others, and the more you are given the more is expected from you.
I just heard a story about a teacher who passed around a dish of hard peppermint candies to his class. There was one unwrapped peppermint in the dish.
Once every student got a piece, the teacher took back the dish and obviously the unwrapped candy remained in the dish.
The teacher pointed out that those who didn't save themselves for marriage were like the unwrapped candy. No one would choose that on purpose -- unless they had no choice.
Disappointed that we have 2 (!) morally liberal cowards on CathInfo, who apparently believe in sex before marriage (?)
Downvoted for the quoted post above? Please explain how a Catholic in good standing could disagree with the quoted post.
I'm not one to complain about downvotes, especially just 1 or 2 of them. But when I see a poll like "Is Abortion morally OK?" and 2 CathInfo members vote "Yes", it's going to get my attention. Because the ONLY acceptable number is ZERO.
Just a guess but I'm thinking the down thumbs came from a couple women with "a past."
I suppose it could also be one of those "macho" types where they disagree because they see that the vast majority of women DO want a man with a past and do choose the men with no wrapper.
I wasn't one of the downvotes, but to be fair Matthew, I don't think the downvotes for that post necessarily equates to morally liberal cowards. It may just be that they were once more liberal or that they made a mistake in their past and would like to think that they wouldn't be passed over because of that.
Disappointed that we have 2 (!) morally liberal cowards on CathInfo, who apparently believe in sex before marriage (?)
Downvoted for the quoted post above? Please explain how a Catholic in good standing could disagree with the quoted post.
I'm not one to complain about downvotes, especially just 1 or 2 of them. But when I see a poll like "Is Abortion morally OK?" and 2 CathInfo members vote "Yes", it's going to get my attention. Because the ONLY acceptable number is ZERO.
I wasn't one of the downvotes, but to be fair Matthew, I don't think the downvotes for that post necessarily equates to morally liberal cowards. It may just be that they were once more liberal or that they made a mistake in their past and would like to think that they wouldn't be passed over because of that.Honestly a man's virginity is worth next to nothing compared to a woman's. No decent self-respecting male wants to be 2nd to his wife to another man, it's not acceptable. Modern society is heavily stacked against men in favour in women, from the dating market, from the job market, from the schooling opportunities. Pic related.(https://i.imgur.com/lRgcL3n.png)
You probably would agree, but the candy analogy (like so many others) is inadequate because one would hope that when searching for a potential spouse we get to know someone fairly well before making a decision that they are not worth it. Unless this thread is about asking someone their sɛҳuąƖ past on their first "date".
Honestly a man's virginity is worth next to nothing compared to a woman's. No decent self-respecting male wants to be 2nd to his wife to another man, it's not acceptable. Modern society is heavily stacked against men in favour in women, from the dating market, from the job market, from the schooling opportunities. Pic related.(https://i.imgur.com/lRgcL3n.png)Men's self-esteem and confidence are heavily attacked from a young age, through being told they are evil oppressors that need to treat women 'right' (simping) to being rejected for trying to be a good man by women who only want to sleep around with men out of their league. Men also don't have 'support' like women do, they don't talk about their problems/emotions but bottle it up. So if a man can provide for a family, even if he isn't a virgin, he is still in a much better position then most modern men, because most guys can't provide since unless you starting 'grinding' in your teens it's very difficult for a man to succeed in providing in their peak years (20s for youth). Both men and women can easily 'waste' themselves, men by not getting income by wasting their youth, women by wasting their youth whoring themselves. There is a clear difference in how men and women destroy themselves and waste their most valuable years. There are also many men who can provide yet women still don't want them. Even trad girls can have ridiculous romantic fantasies and other unrealistic expectations from Jєωιѕн propaganda, we're not all prince charming, and most guys do not have the confidence to be 'him' due to not receiving love, support, respect and validation from women, simply because they weren't handsome enough, or had self-esteem issues from other things. I am not surprised that users here have mentioned that their are many trad men who incapable, being trad does not make you immune to the issues in the world and larger society.
but the candy analogy (like so many others) is inadequate
I would say it's a very good analogy and I myself will keep it in my back pocket, the only difference to be more accurate would be that it's not all the same candy, some are better than others, but the principal still applies, nobody is going to select the unwrapped one if they can get the same thing wrapped... it devalues it... it might be your favourite candy though and you're willing to overlook that it's unwrapped, but if you had a choice nobody would prefer the candy be unwrapped.
God Bless
Why do you assume it would be a woman with "a past"? Why couldn't it have been a man with a past, who doesn't like hearing that Catholic women don't want a man with "no wrapper"?Can a man really be without a wrapper? Women have a hymen men do not. There isn't nothing tangible to prove a man's virginity, some will cope saying a women's hymen doesn't prove Virginty but history disagrees with you.
When you say "vast majority", do you mean including all worldlings? Or the audience here at CathInfo, where I would be surprised if the vast majority of Traditional Catholic women DO want a man with a past and do choose the men with no wrapper. It's hard for me to imagine truly Catholic women wanting that. Or, did you mean that the "macho" types incorrectly assume a Traditional Catholic woman wants a man with a past/no wrapper?
Line up 100 men and 100 women and the combinations of what people are looking for in a partner will be overwhelming different. This is why we teach our children to pray for help in finding the right spouse for them. There are so many stories of people praying a Novena and then finding the person they will marry.Line up 100 men and 100 women and 80 women will make 20 men their first choice, disrespecting the other 80 men and making them feel unwanted and settled for.:jester:
But also remember that once you find them and get married that working on and with the relationship never ends.
The things you listed, they have different weights for men and women respectively. ... Also men are expected to have the wealth not women, so wealth in a women has less weight than wealth in a man.
Still a handsome rich man will be able to get away with much more than someone is is merely above average. ... I think you are severely overestimate what a rich ugly skilled man can get...
Line up 100 men and 100 women and 80 women will make 20 men their first choice, disrespecting the other 80 men and making them feel unwanted and settled for.:jester:Maybe my friends were a rare group of women because they were not so superficial.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/464310137_8455479051230875_7370673010759472339_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0b6b33&_nc_ohc=cy3muI6lbZgQ7kNvgEiARBV&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&_nc_gid=A0DuSAwX_RjE-BwRo5IDwxx&oh=00_AYA9bQYfl9IiqjVKD2cv4EwLa1CQ1pgytbT2fpdlj8bK7A&oe=67395588)You would think he was already rich? Money doesn't make your face more appealing unless you get work done, it's cope. If a women doesn't like me but only is willing to settle because I can provide then the relationship is has a weak foundation and has a risk of adultery if someone handsome comes along and gives her 'feelings'.
Maybe my friends were a rare group of women because they were not so superficial.Your profile says you are 50, I assume your friends are a similar age? Women in the past were slightly better than modern girls when it comes to realistic expectations in men.
I think this immature idea among men, leads women to not want to marry at all. But what do I know.
Your profile says you are 50, I assume your friends are a similar age? Women in the past were slightly better than modern girls when it comes to realistic expectations in men.I've seen in my chapel, there is a taller conventionally handsome man who comes by rarely (probably lives far) but when he is here most of the ladies surround him.
You would think he was already rich? Money doesn't make your face more appealing unless you get work done, it's cope. If a women doesn't like me but only is willing to settle because I can provide then the relationship is has a weak foundation and has a risk of adultery if someone handsome comes along and gives her 'feelings'.
Maybe my friends were a rare group of women because they were not so superficial.
I think this immature idea among men, leads women to not want to marry at all. But what do I know.
Line up 100 women and 100 men and 80 men will make 20 women their first choice, disrespecting the other 80 women and making them feel unwanted and settled for.(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/jester.gif)
I think this immature idea among men, leads women to not want to marry at all. But what do I know.I think a lot of younger girls have Disney princess syndrome. This idea among men isn't immature, it's based on observations. A little bit of attention (interest) from a women can go a long way, because most guys never receive this.
It was a joke. Lighten up!I'm sorry, I am depressed.
I'm sorry, I am depressed.
I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), I didn't enquire for then to clarify what they meant, but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her.Recently I saw that people who attend the SSPX thought that dancing like ballroom was okay. When a woman dances with a man, the man puts his hand around her waist. Shouldn’t that be reserved for a married couple?
I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), I didn't enquire for then to clarify what they meant, but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her.
...And I agree with your statement. You should be dating to marry strictly. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time, leading the other person on (women can have this problem), getting into temptations and sin.
I've seen in my chapel, there is a taller conventionally handsome man who comes by rarely (probably lives far) but when he is here most of the ladies surround him.What we perceive I think sometimes is based on what we imagine, the problem with the imagination is that if you look at everything with a melancholy perspective, then that is what you notice. If you have a more positive attitude, then you will notice more positive things. Then to add to our own perspective. you have demons playing in your imagination as well.
I think a lot of younger girls have Disney princess syndrome. This idea among men isn't immature, it's based on observations. A little bit of attention (interest) from a women can go a long way, because most guys never receive this.I know a lot of young traditional women and they do not have Disney princess syndrome. Relationships are a complicated mess, because society forces a narrative that doesn't work for the majority of people. What we have is personality differences. Sanguine people might be more apt to look for physical attraction. Melancholics have a tendency to look for people who have beautiful thoughts. It really is immature to lump all people in the same group. God helps you find your mate, if that be God's will.
I'm sorry, I am depressed.:pray::pray::pray:
I think a lot of younger girls have Disney princess syndrome. This idea among men isn't immature, it's based on observations. A little bit of attention (interest) from a women can go a long way, because most guys never receive this.And more to the point is both sexes are having issue because media propaganda has influenced the world this way. Break out of the mold. Pray for your future spouse, and that God's will be done. Then use your will to become the best person you can be. If you find that when thinking on these topics you become depressed then take it to the confessional, because depression is a step toward despair.
Pic related is why women are supposed to get married in their teens. Jєωs ruined everything.Including changing canon law's minimum marriage age? 🤦♂️
Can a man really be without a wrapper? Women have a hymen men do not. There isn't nothing tangible to prove a man's virginity, some will cope saying a women's hymen doesn't prove Virginty but history disagrees with you.
I don't understand. :confused: I guess we need to define "boyfriend/girlfriend" & 'romanced'.
To me, there's nothing intrinsically contradictory between those words & "dating to marry strictly." If one goes on a few dates with someone, trying to discern whether they're compatible for marriage, they could be considered "boyfriend/girlfriend", & it could be considered a "romance." And it could be perfectly chaste.
If the statement: "I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), ... but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her" means they've committed sins against chastity, then say so directly. But the terms "boyfriend/girlfriend" & 'romanced' don't necessarily imply let-alone state that definitely. A man buying a woman roses could be considered being 'romanced'. And if you judged that girl to be meaning "committing sins against chastity with an SSPX raised member of the opposite sex", I think you committed a sin of rash judgment. You should indeed have " enquired for then to clarify what they meant."
I heard from a traditional Catholic girl that having a boyfriend/girlfriend is okay (SSPX raised), I didn't enquire for then to clarify what they meant, but it seems improper. I do not want a girl to compare me to other men who have 'romanced' her.Trads sometimes use the term "dating" due to social influence but they might mean "courting" or "dating to marry." I know the traditional idea is to only meet when there are chaperones and limiting the time they are together, the time they talk, etc. and trying to arrange equal times with each others family to get the feel of everything.
Why do you assume it would be a woman with "a past"? Why couldn't it have been a man with a past, who doesn't like hearing that Catholic women don't want a man with "no wrapper"?Typically women are the ones who don't want to be "judged" for having fornicated with multiple men and they often emote and get upset when the fact that most men don't want a woman with high numbers is brought up.
When you say "vast majority", do you mean including all worldlings? Or the audience here at CathInfo, where I would be surprised if the vast majority of Traditional Catholic women DO want a man with a past and do choose the men with no wrapper. It's hard for me to imagine truly Catholic women wanting that. Or, did you mean that the "macho" types incorrectly assume a Traditional Catholic woman wants a man with a past/no wrapper?
Men's self-esteem and confidence are heavily attacked from a young age, through being told they are evil oppressors that need to treat women 'right' (simping) to being rejected for trying to be a good man by women who only want to sleep around with men out of their league. Men also don't have 'support' like women do, they don't talk about their problems/emotions but bottle it up. So if a man can provide for a family, even if he isn't a virgin, he is still in a much better position then most modern men, because most guys can't provide since unless you starting 'grinding' in your teens it's very difficult for a man to succeed in providing in their peak years (20s for youth). Both men and women can easily 'waste' themselves, men by not getting income by wasting their youth, women by wasting their youth whoring themselves. There is a clear difference in how men and women destroy themselves and waste their most valuable years. There are also many men who can provide yet women still don't want them. Even trad girls can have ridiculous romantic fantasies and other unrealistic expectations from Jєωιѕн propaganda, we're not all prince charming, and most guys do not have the confidence to be 'him' due to not receiving love, support, respect and validation from women, simply because they weren't handsome enough, or had self-esteem issues from other things. I am not surprised that users here have mentioned that their are many trad men who incapable, being trad does not make you immune to the issues in the world and larger society.
This 100%. One thing I'll add is that someone (I think AnthonyPadua) posted some girl (some flavor of Protestant but she was spot on on this issue) talking about "pron" for women and how it is different from "pron" for men.Non-spicy Romance novels = softcore pron
Men get visual stuff but women get books/short stories and words and emotional tinglings that warp her perception of reality by reading romance novels, usually the "spicy" kind. This warps her perception of what a partner should be much like the visual "pron" warps a man's perception of what a partner should be. Both sides indulging in their respective garbage are making it near impossible to form a good and natural bond with someone due to their warped perception. Men will want women who are "hot" and will satisfy their base urges meanwhile women will want men who give them the thrilling roller coaster ride that their novels portray.
This 100%. One thing I'll add is that someone (I think AnthonyPadua) posted some girl (some flavor of Protestant but she was spot on on this issue) talking about "pron" for women and how it is different from "pron" for men.I think it's important to note that both men and women like both visual and emotional stimulation but in different ways.
Men get visual stuff but women get books/short stories and words and emotional tinglings that warp her perception of reality by reading romance novels, usually the "spicy" kind. This warps her perception of what a partner should be much like the visual "pron" warps a man's perception of what a partner should be. Both sides indulging in their respective garbage are making it near impossible to form a good and natural bond with someone due to their warped perception. Men will want women who are "hot" and will satisfy their base urges meanwhile women will want men who give them the thrilling roller coaster ride that their novels portray.
It's not a secret that most women (in general) prefer a man with "experience" and view men without it
lol seriously? where are you getting this from? There are women on these forums, any of them here today or when they were young wanted a guy who had slept around (so called 'experienced') first? I'm calling bull, you should put that to the test asking on this forum, I would be surprised if such were true.Yeah I would think that 'real' traditional women prefer a man with no experience or emotional baggage, as a previous lady poster said. And as others have said, a man can make up for it in other ways but he should still accept he may get rejected for it. Still; no hymen no diamond, no seal no deal.
God Bless
lol seriously? where are you getting this from? There are women on these forums, any of them here today or when they were young wanted a guy who had slept around (so called 'experienced') first? I'm calling bull, you should put that to the test asking on this forum, I would be surprised if such were true.In general, this includes secular and worldly women. The rest of my post explains this, maybe you missed that part. Real life experience and hearing women, in general, talk are only part of where I get that from. I would assume that most, maybe even all, women on here would not like a guy with a lot, or any, "experience."
God Bless
What we perceive I think sometimes is based on what we imagine, the problem with the imagination is that if you look at everything with a melancholy perspective, then that is what you notice. If you have a more positive attitude, then you will notice more positive things. Then to add to our own perspective. you have demons playing in your imagination as well.
And more to the point is both sexes are having issue because media propaganda has influenced the world this way. Break out of the mold. Pray for your future spouse, and that God's will be done. Then use your will to become the best person you can be. If you find that when thinking on these topics you become depressed then take it to the confessional, because depression is a step toward despair.How to be positive when you are depressed? Also I have had temptations of despair. I feel like I'm stuck in a negative feedback loop with little hope (I do have some hope, just i feel blind sometimes). I don't see how I could speak to a priest about this, even posting this anonymously is difficult (even though the forum owner can still see..:'(). I do recognise my sufferings and temptations is helping me to grow but I just feel so weighed down and low energy all the time.
How to be positive when you are depressed? Also I have had temptations of despair. I feel like I'm stuck in a negative feedback loop with little hope (I do have some hope, just i feel blind sometimes). I don't see how I could speak to a priest about this, even posting this anonymously is difficult (even though the forum owner can still see..:'(). I do recognise my sufferings and temptations is helping me to grow but I just feel so weighed down and low energy all the time.I used to have this issue as well. Everything would seem so hopeless, but by making little efforts, things improved. The easiest thing to do is to keep saying Hail Mary's until the feeling passes. Also finding good healthy distractions from you thoughts, help. Do you have a hobby?
How to be positive when you are depressed? Also I have had temptations of despair. I feel like I'm stuck in a negative feedback loop with little hope (I do have some hope, just i feel blind sometimes). I don't see how I could speak to a priest about this, even posting this anonymously is difficult (even though the forum owner can still see..:'(). I do recognise my sufferings and temptations is helping me to grow but I just feel so weighed down and low energy all the time.Ahh. This question is a hard one to answer. What you're going through also accurately describes me.
Do you have a hobby?I don't have any hobbies as I don't find anything enjoyable. What is a hobby anyway?
If you find that this depression keeps you roaming the internet at night (I am making a guess), then just give your self a bedtime and stick to it. If you fail confess how many times you missed it. Or you can do this with any vice that is connected to the depression. It could be getting out of bed at a certain time. It could be too much snacking. It could be making your bed every day. I hope you get the idea.
Ahh. This question is a hard one to answer. What you're going through also accurately describes me.Thanks.
But if I may suggest to you, anon, one time, my priest told me that if I ever was anxious or depressed, I needed to read the Sermon on the Mount. It is not long and says everything one needs to hear—and everything one would want to hear, too!
I must say that it does help me. Sometimes, Our Lord’s words bring tears to my eyes. No one before or since spoke like Him. They speak directly into our hearts.
I, like you, really struggle with sadness and ridiculous temptations, and I am quick to try and escape the trials and suffering God gives me. The worst part is I end up suffering anyway, and usually, I make things worse.
I sympathize with you, which does not account for much now, but I will pray for you.
Speaking of which, prayer is good for the both of us. The rosary always helps.
Sometimes advice or suggestions like this do not sink in when I hear it because it sounds too easy.
Unfortunately, personally speaking, I become resentful of it and those that say it to me. But the hard truth is that THEY’RE RIGHT. Haha.
One of the things I reflect upon is Jesus’s Passion and how alone He was during all of it. God truly is with those suffering like we do. It doesn't *feel* like God is close in these moments but gaze upon the Crucifix when times are hard and think about Jesus.
Hang in there, friend. God bless you, and Our Lady keep you.
(I'm going to go take my own advice now.)
😊👍
I don't see how I could speak to a priest about this,
I don't have any hobbies as I don't find anything enjoyable. What is a hobby anyway?Did you find anything enjoyable when you were younger? Did you like playing a sport? Did you like learning interesting things? Did you like building things with legos? Did you like fishing?
I still do my daily routine but exercise is not making progress as I have no motivation to push my self, and while I exercise I just want it to be over.
Did you find anything enjoyable when you were younger?
Video games, and just doing stuff, children enjoy most things. I no longer enjoy video games and most things.
Did you like playing a sport?
I don't play sports and have zero desire to play a sport, plus that costs money. I did not play sports when younger as my parents could not take me.
Did you like learning interesting things?
Vain curiosity, most stuff doesn't have any real use.
Did you like building things with legos?
Maybe for an hour.... legos are expensive and I am no longer a child.
Did you like fishing?
I was never taught how to fish.
I know your motivation is really low. I know it is hard. Sometimes as we get closer to God there is no satisfaction with this world.
I don't feel satisfaction from most things, seeing the disagreements between Catholics on defined doctrine also makes things worse.
You need to be meeting all your needs, physical (food and exercise), psychological (learning about self), and spiritual (learning about God). The hardest to do is the psychological and spiritual, because the demons know your weaknesses and will use them against you.
I don't think it's possible to have my needs met without a wife and children.
Please make sure you can get to confession from a valid priest, communion from a valid priest, and then say Hail Mary's for all other attacks. The more Graces you bring down, the more you will be able to fight the demons.
I do. Another thing that bothers me is that I go to an SSPX, so I worry that if I were to meet a women and open my heart to her, only to find that she believes the new rites of ordination to be valid that would very painful. Because if my priests were to be replaced by NO ministers then I would have to move locations, so I would need my wife to be on the same page.
Some people seem to think that the process of courtship is enjoyable and if it doesn't work out, but if you are rejected or find that people are incompatible, that really sounds horrible to me and not enjoyable at all. Why would you want to get to know someone only to find you are not compatible, some people no have issues putting themselves out there and going through this (necessary) process, but people like myself hate stuff like that and that emotional pain that comes with it.
Boy, and here I thought I could be depressing! :laugh1:It's ok, I've been feeling much better the last few days.
God gave us life so we could live it, guys. Yes, you're going to get frustrated, disappointed, and hurt, sometimes very badly, but that just makes the joys all the more precious. And no, I'm not married, I'm still searching and know what you're experiencing.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's cheesy and trite, but there's also some truth in these lyrics:
The Rose - by Bette Midler + lyrics - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxSTzSEiZ2c)
The power dynamic, intimacy reduced to a teacher-pupil relationship, everything she learned, learned from other men, other men that probably didn't had to commit as much as hubby to get access to the same intimacy he is experiencing, and sometimes he gets even less than said gentlemen, people like this usually marry the first girl that gave them attention (because of low self-esteem, and never have been noticed before, they fear loneliness so they grab onto the first glimpse of attention and never let go), and the girl in question is usually settling, and I'd say there could be much more to addThere is also the cases of STDs, both men and woman can have these but women are more are risk then men.
Oh bullshit. I've been hearing that crap about women "riding horses or playing sports" for decades. Almost no women riding horses and very few women play sports. Also, what kind of sports would break a hymen?Obviously, this poster has never been in ranch country, nor knows much about where beef comes from, nor has ever watched barrel racing. If one has ever been to a horse show (check out your county fair sometime) you would find that the vast majority of participants in equestrian events (with the possible exception of polo) are women.
If one has ever been to a horse show (check out your county fair sometime) you would find that the vast majority of participants in equestrian events (with the possible exception of polo) are women.Verifiable facts :cowboy: ^^^
Men should demand a physical exam to verify virginity and ladies should demand a lie detector to see if he's looked at pornography.
A man with past porn use is as bad as a woman with a "history". Prove me wrong, and explain why.They are both bad/mortal sin. However, porn use is not as bad a woman with a sɛҳuąƖ history. Not even close.
Both are damaged goods, which will affect their current sɛҳuąƖ relationship (marriage).
Both will compare their spouse, have unrealistic ideals, have difficulties with their expectations/performance, etc.
A man with past porn use is as bad as a woman with a "history". Prove me wrong, and explain why.Those 2 things are not even close... A woman with 1 partner is far more damaged than a man who has self abused from porn hundreds of times.
Both are damaged goods, which will affect their current sɛҳuąƖ relationship (marriage).
Both will compare their spouse, have unrealistic ideals, have difficulties with their expectations/performance, etc.
I think you're biased because you're a man.I am a man, but it's really not the same. Just the difference in intimacy alone is massive, let alone the physical damage. There is a reason a woman has a hyman but a man does not.
Both men and women should get a physical exam that includes sɛҳuąƖ health before marriage. As for horse riding resulting in torn hymen, there are many other events that can tear the hymen. Ever been in a car accident? Had a bad fall of any sort? It needn’t be sports related. If the couple don’t trust each other enough to be truthful about the past and demand an internal exam and a lie detector test, that’s a sign they should not get married. Taking a physical should be for ensuring good health going into the married life, not to test whether the person is a liar. Who wants to marry a person who suspects you of having secrets?Tests aren't necessary, you should be able to trust your partner, they shouldn't lie. A man who used to watch porn is nothing like a woman who has once fornicated. Not only the intimacy, nor only the physical difference, but also the power dynamic/psychological difference.
The power dynamic, intimacy reduced to a teacher-pupil relationship, everything she learned, learned from other men, other men that probably didn't had to commit as much as hubby to get access to the same intimacy he is experiencing, and sometimes he gets even less than said gentlemen, people like this usually marry the first girl that gave them attention (because of low self-esteem, and never have been noticed before, they fear loneliness so they grab onto the first glimpse of attention and never let go), and the girl in question is usually settling, and I'd say there could be much more to add
Taking a physical should be for ensuring good health going into the married life, not to test whether the person is a liar. Who wants to marry a person who suspects you of having secrets?These states are contradictory.
These states are contradictory.Statements*
No woman wants to marry a man who looks at gαy or pedo porn.Except the plethora of women teachers who prey on their little boy students.
Test! A woman/married had a child born to the marriage, had a foul odor and was treated and it came right back to her like a boomerang. Because her husband had a STD. He had no symptoms. This is how it can go. He thought he was hiding but he was found. Women can have infections and 25% will not have symptoms. Then there are those who think a condom works. No way!! Both of you are to be tested!
My sister married a man she knew in school. They married. Son born, next, sister had genital herpes. Next baby had to be delivered C-section because of that. C-section is major surgery!! My sister caught on after several years. She was ignorant that genital herpes was an STD. Her doctor told her, that what she had was common and that was it!! My sister's marriage was annulled, he lied from the start!! He thought he could keep a secret before they married. He was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
When you marry, there are no secrets. All your cards you show!!
He was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before marriage and never told anyone. He kept a secret, a lie.So if a woman or man lied about being a virgin, is that grounds for annulment?
He was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before marriage and never told anyone. He kept a secret, a lie.
He was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ before marriage and never told anyone.So? ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity isn't an impediment to marriage. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity a form of lust, and committing a sin of lust isn't an impediment.
So? ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity isn't an impediment to marriage. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity a form of lust, and committing a sin of lust isn't an impediment.But a person may have chosen not to marry them if they knew. If a woman lied to me about being a virgin I would seek an annulment because I never would have married her if I knew.
But a person may have chosen not to marry them if they knew. If a woman lied to me about being a virgin I would seek an annulment because I never would have married her if I knew.
Can. 1102 (https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docuмents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_IV.) §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.
§2. A marriage entered into subject to a condition about the past or the present is valid or not insofar as that which is subject to the condition exists or not.
§3. The condition mentioned in §2, however, cannot be placed licitly without the written permission of the local ordinary.
Canon 1092
(1983 CIC 1102)
[Regarding] a condition once imposed and not revoked:
1.° If it concerns the future [and is] necessary or impossible, or of turpitude, but not contrary to the substance of marriage, it is considered as not applied;
2.° If it concerns the future [and is] against the substance of marriage, it renders [marriage] invalid;
3.° If it concerns the future [and is] licit, it suspends the validity of the marriage;
4.° If it is about the past or the present, the marriage will be valid or not insofar as the condition exists or not.
If I was tricked into marrying a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ manThen you have terrible gαydar…
Then you have terrible gαydar…I was speaking theoretically. I have a pretty good gαydar. My lesbometer is excellent.
when someone turned out to be otherwise, it was always a shock to him.Sodomy is the highest degree of lust, and only God's grace keeps us in a state of grace.
Sodomy is the highest degree of lust, and only God's grace keeps us in a state of grace.Only God’s Grace keeps us in a state of grace, period. Wouldn’t bestiality or with a corpse be even worse? Not that they aren’t all odious in God’s sight and entirely against nature. The least intelligent animals don’t stoop so low.
Wouldn’t bestiality or with a corpse be even worse?That's a type of sin against nature.
But a person may have chosen not to marry them if they knew. If a woman lied to me about being a virgin I would seek an annulment because I never would have married her if I knew.Are you, yourself, a virgin?
Are you, yourself, a virgin?Does a man's virginity pay the bills?
Does a man's virginity pay the bills?What kind of question is that? :fryingpan: Bills have nothing to do with virginity.
Are you, yourself, a virgin?Isn’t this a bit too personal for CathInfo?
Does a man's virginity pay the bills?Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your standards.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your standards.A man's virginity is not equal to a woman's.
A man's virginity is not equal to a woman's.Then going back to the topic, a man should reveal that he is not a virgin to his prospective virgin wife.
What kind of question is that? :fryingpan: Bills have nothing to do with virginity.There are plenty of virgin men who won't make good husbands as they can't provide for a family. I'm saying a man's virginity has little to do with his ability to be a good father and husband.
That's a type of sin against nature.Where does self-abuse fall here?
St. Thomas gives this ranking (II II q. 154 a. 12 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A12THEP1) ad 4), in ascending gravity.
I think he means this ranking:
1. "uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another"
2. "sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed"
3. "not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circuмstances"
4. "bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed"
Then going back to the topic, a man should reveal that he is not a virgin to his prospective virgin wife.I agree. The woman is allowed to have preferences. I am the other poster btw. I am not a virgin (1 previous partner) but I would NEVER marry a woman with ANY sɛҳuąƖ experience. It's just absolutely disgusting.
A man's virginity is nothingBetter let your virgin girlfriend be the judge of that.
There are plenty of virgin men who won't make good husbands as they can't provide for a family. I'm saying a man's virginity has little to do with his ability to be a good father and husband.
On the other hand a woman's virginity is extremely valuable and important. It directly correlates with the chance of divorce and adultery. It determines whether the offspring is tainted by other mans DNA (previous partners), it also greatly effects the woman's psychology, expectations, pleasure and satisfaction. It also undermines the husband's greatly as well as his authority. He is the head of the house, yet his wife gave herself/was taken by another man, for less than marriage. What an absolute dishonor, an extreme disrespect. A man being second to another man to his own wife.
Goodness gracious me! Some of you people seem to be unable to fathom the differences in men and woman! A man's virginity is nothing, he doesn't even have a hymen. But a woman being a virgin has always been a necessity throughout history. The two are incomparable. While it's certainly not ideal for the man to not be a virgin, for a woman, a lack of virginity is a deal breaker.
Really think about why rapists would get the death penalty (wasted/ruined a woman) and fornicators were forced into marriage (because who would marry this non-virgin woman?).
Then going back to the topic, a man should reveal that he is not a virgin to his prospective virgin wife.The situation was if a man or woman lied about being a virgin. Likely the scenario was to impress the virgin spouse into marrying them. The end of the story is to be honest about your past .
I agree with all of this.Woman can use porn as well.
Nevertheless, I don't want men to think that using porn is nothing. Having a history of porn use affects the man psychologically. Not to mention that porn use goes along with self abuse, and that does affect a man's ability to render the marital debt to his wife later. A man really is damaged goods, depending on how long and what kind of porn he used. I've heard horror stories of men being impotent while "being with" a 10 (a "dime", a supermodel) due to past porn use. He can't perform with a real woman.
Maybe porn use is worse, for a man, than having a single human female partner.
-a man
I agree. The woman is allowed to have preferences. I am the other poster btw. I am not a virgin (1 previous partner) but I would NEVER marry a woman with ANY sɛҳuąƖ experience. It's just absolutely disgusting.Says the guy who helped make another woman's previous sɛҳuąƖ experience "absolutely disgusting". :facepalm:
Where does self-abuse fall here?That's what St. Thomas calls uncleanness, effeminacy, or softness.
That's what St. Thomas calls uncleanness, effeminacy, or softness.
Those are not the same thing.II-II q. 154 a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A11THEP1) co.:
the sin of "uncleanness" (immunditiæ) which some call "effeminacy" (mollitiem [lit. "softness"]).
It would have been called onanismOnanism isn't exactly masturbation.
Have these threads been soaked with egalitarianism the last 6 months?This. Female virginity is not equal to male virginity. It's much greater. Even the claim of porn is an exaggeration.
I agree with all of this.I used to watch porn, I've never had any issues with impotency. It's only when people start using extreme material to please themselves does it become a problem. As more 'vanilla' content does not get them going. Thanks to God I never went that far.
Nevertheless, I don't want men to think that using porn is nothing. Having a history of porn use affects the man psychologically. Not to mention that porn use goes along with self abuse, and that does affect a man's ability to render the marital debt to his wife later. A man really is damaged goods, depending on how long and what kind of porn he used. I've heard horror stories of men being impotent while "being with" a 10 (a "dime", a supermodel) due to past porn use. He can't perform with a real woman.
Maybe porn use is worse, for a man, than having a single human female partner.
-a man
I agree with all of this.Also I forgot to mention, a man can undo much of the damage from porn by quitting. Of course his memories of xyz content may be a source of temptation for him so he needs to try and forget, to let it go.
Nevertheless, I don't want men to think that using porn is nothing. Having a history of porn use affects the man psychologically. Not to mention that porn use goes along with self abuse, and that does affect a man's ability to render the marital debt to his wife later. A man really is damaged goods, depending on how long and what kind of porn he used. I've heard horror stories of men being impotent while "being with" a 10 (a "dime", a supermodel) due to past porn use. He can't perform with a real woman.
Maybe porn use is worse, for a man, than having a single human female partner.
-a man
.No really. A real partner means pair bonding. While I'm not sure how much barrier contraction negates this, a man having multiple real partners is a greater risk for long term relationship than porn use. Key word is multiple. And at least with porn there isn't (or shouldn't) be an emotional connection compared to having a girlfriend. So that's less for the woman to worry about.
Maybe porn use is worse, for a man, than having a single human female partner.
-a man
Woman can use porn as well.Yeah and if she violates herself, breaks her hymen, takes her own virginity, I may not marry her.
Says the guy who helped make another woman's previous sɛҳuąƖ experience "absolutely disgusting". :facepalm:Because men and woman are not equal. A man being second to his own wife... Yikes. You can't say the man had such an emotional experience losing his virginity like a woman, it's just not the same. Unless he is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ but that is completely different.
Says the guy who helped make another woman's previous sɛҳuąƖ experience "absolutely disgusting". :facepalm:Sorry I misread what you said. I did not do so. She was already a whore, she had 4 other men before me. I should not have assumed that she was a virgin. She was 18...
Sorry I misread what you said. I did not do so. She was already a whore, she had 4 other men before me. I should not have assumed that she was a virgin. She was 18...And obviously I do regret fornicating. I also regret using porn when younger. If I had know that these things were sins then I would never have done them. Secular + novus ordo is a disaster. It could have been so much worse for me, but thankfully God was still preventing me from damaging myself too much. But I can't deny that I would have less damage and be better off if I never did these things. Good thing I am a man so I can make up for my mistakes.
So I increased her damage by fornicating, but did not 'waste' her by taking her virginity because it was already gone.
And obviously I do regret fornicating. I also regret using porn when younger. If I had know that these things were sins then I would never have done them. Secular + novus ordo is a disaster. It could have been so much worse for me, but thankfully God was still preventing me from damaging myself too much. But I can't deny that I would have less damage and be better off if I never did these things. Good thing I am a man so I can make up for my mistakes.My husband and I were virgins and I have considered a non-virgin man but i think he'd have to compensate in other areas. I wouldn't be able to deal with another woman or him having feelings for her(s). Matthew mentioned this in a post. It's definitely a risk to take a non-virgin man for me because I would feel like I might not be good enough (jealousy), that woman might come back in his life again (drama), he might compare me to her, etc. I want to feel like I'm the only woman in my husband's life.
I really don't think women understand how men feel about their 'experience'. I have described it somewhat but I have not seen woman provide arguments to why a man being a non-virgin is a deal breaker (not talking about multiple partners).
Onanism isn't exactly masturbation.Ipsation
IpsationNice content except for this cringe feminist quote by a heretic.
https://www.catholicmodesty.net/purity
To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.” Archbishop Fulton J Sheen
This is nonsense no difference from that born again virgin crap. Once a woman has lost it it is gone and not coming back.
There are also virgins by desire - women who have lost their physical virginity but desire it back by spiritual means.
This is nonsense no difference from that born again virgin crap. Once a woman has lost it it is gone and not coming back.Ultimately, it is a physical barrier that can degrade naturally due to manual labor or physical exercise. Virginity is esteemed for spiritual reasons, rather than physical ones. A woman can keep her hymen but be a prideful, horrible person.
What is done is done. Repentance is the most important aspect. Men and women have different psychologies. Fornication for men is different for women. For women it is usually because there is an absence of genuine male presence in her life. For a man, it can be jealousy over the "conquests" of other men, abuse of women, bestial lust and selfishness.It doesn't matter why you lost your virgnitity. It means your options for potential spouses might be limited. That's why it's best to be honest about your past so that someone has the means to be able to deal with it and make an informed decision for what they're signing up for. I get that the past is the past, but that doesn't change the facts that you're not a virgin. Guilt-tripping someone especially men to just forgive an forget someone's past is not going to end well.
There are also virgins by desire - women who have lost their physical virginity but desire it back by spiritual means.
Ultimately, it is a physical barrier that can degrade naturally due to manual labor or physical exercise. Virginity is esteemed for spiritual reasons, rather than physical ones. A woman can keep her hymen but be a prideful, horrible person.I've noticed non-virgins saying what you're saying here because that's what they can cope with. There are many people who keep their virgnities sacred, and those people can have many options because they're attractive or high-value. They want to save themselves for one person and that says alot about their character. Saying that a woman can be a virgin and be a horrible person is exactly what a butt-hurt non-virgin would say to guilt trip people into accepting non-virgins as normal.
I've noticed non-virgins saying what you're saying here because that's what they can cope with. There are many people who keep their virgnities sacred, and those people can have many options because they're attractive or high-value. They want to save themselves for one person and that says alot about their character. Saying that a woman can be a virgin and be a horrible person is exactly what a butt-hurt non-virgin would say to guilt trip people into accepting non-virgins as normal.No one is denying that Virginity is esteemed and preferable. However -
It doesn't matter why you lost your virgnitity. It means your options for potential spouses might be limited. That's why it's best to be honest about your past so that someone has the means to be able to deal with it and make an informed decision for what they're signing up for. I get that the past is the past, but that doesn't change the facts that you're not a virgin. Guilt-tripping someone especially men to just forgive and forget someone's past is not going to end well.THIS ^^^
Ultimately, it is a physical barrier that can degrade naturally due to manual labor or physical exercise. Virginity is esteemed for spiritual reasons, rather than physical ones. A woman can keep her hymen but be a prideful, horrible person.That's complete cope. See
Similarly with circuмcision
For in Christ Jesus neither circuмcision availeth any thing, nor uncircuмcision: but faith that worketh by charity. Galatians 5:6
A foreskin is just a prepuce. There is a greater spiritual dimension.
There are plenty of virgin men who won't make good husbands as they can't provide for a family. I'm saying a man's virginity has little to do with his ability to be a good father and husband.Pairbonding, psychology and DNA is not merely a physical barrier. The hymen can act as a proof of virginity in most cases. But the meme no hymen no diamond, isn't really about the hymen, but what it represents and implies.
On the other hand a woman's virginity is extremely valuable and important. It directly correlates with the chance of divorce and adultery. It determines whether the offspring is tainted by other mans DNA (previous partners), it also greatly effects the woman's psychology, expectations, pleasure and satisfaction. It also undermines the husband's greatly as well as his authority. He is the head of the house, yet his wife gave herself/was taken by another man, for less than marriage. What an absolute dishonor, an extreme disrespect. A man being second to another man to his own wife.
Goodness gracious me! Some of you people seem to be unable to fathom the differences in men and woman! A man's virginity is nothing, he doesn't even have a hymen. But a woman being a virgin has always been a necessity throughout history. The two are incomparable. While it's certainly not ideal for the man to not be a virgin, for a woman, a lack of virginity is a deal breaker.
Really think about why rapists would get the death penalty (wasted/ruined a woman) and fornicators were forced into marriage (because who would marry this non-virgin woman?).
Foreskin keeps the penis clean and greatly effects sɛҳuąƖ satisfaction for both the man and the woman.
A foreskin is just a prepuce. There is a greater spiritual dimension.
No one is denying that Virginity is esteemed and preferable. However -Yes and woman who were raped don't lose their chastity either. However as a man I don't care about that, what's important to me is whether or not a lady has done certain things with other men or not, regardless of her freewill. I PRESUME that most Catholic men are like me. Some men will overlook a past, but I wouldn't, even though I am not a virgin myself.
Augustine says (De Virgin. xi): "Nor do we praise virgins for being virgins, but, because their virginity is consecrated to God by holy continency.
Back to Aquinas!
Question 152. Virginity
Reply to Objection 1. Men have from their birth that which is material in virginity, namely integrity of the flesh and freedom from venereal experience. But they have not that which is formal in virginity, namely the purpose of safeguarding this integrity for God's sake, which purpose gives virginity its character of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. xi): "Nor do we praise virgins for being virgins, but, because their virginity is consecrated to God by holy continency."
When I became Catholic, a man who wasn’t a virgin was a deal breaker when considering a spouse. Even as a Protestant I understood how important virginity was, but becoming Catholic I understood better the spiritual aspect of it.Do you think it's a deal-breaker for most Catholic girls?
Do you think it's a deal-breaker for most Catholic girls?I know a few girls from one large trad family. They made it a dealbreaker for two guys that were trying to date them.
Do you think it's a deal-breaker for most Catholic girls?I’ll be honest I am not sure, but I would probably say no, it’s not a deal breaker for most, just some.
I know a few girls from one large trad family. They made it a dealbreaker for two guys that were trying to date them.It’s better to not marry at all than to marry poorly.
The girls are now in their thirties and still single.
Enough said.
It’s better to not marry at all than to marry poorly.Is that Catholic teaching? The bible does says it's better to marry than to burn with lust.
Is that Catholic teaching? The bible does says it's better to marry than to burn with lust.It's an allowance not an order.
It's an allowance not an order.But if those ladies were called to the married life then those men could have been the ones that God intended for them to marry and save their souls.
9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
2 Corinthians 12:9
Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.
1 Corinthians 10:13
I know a few girls from one large trad family. They made it a dealbreaker for two guys that were trying to date them.How old were the guys and girls at the time? Did the guys end up finding someone else? And did the guys have a lot of 'past' or just 1 or 2 'mistakes'? Do the girls regret their choice?
The girls are now in their thirties and still single.
Enough said.
But if those ladies were called to the married life then those men could have been the ones that God intended for them to marry and save their souls.I’ve thought about this before. One should always be open to God’s direction. At the same time we need to set our ideals about our potential marriage partners based on what we understand will most likely lead to a holy marriage. Feelings of romance aside, we’ve got to look at it pragmatically and make our lists of must haves/can’t haves. The Holy Ghost gives us wisdom and other various helps to make good choices for ourselves in every stage of life.
It’s better to not marry at all than to marry poorly.Thats a judgment for a priest and not a woman to make.
I’ve thought about this before. One should always be open to God’s direction. At the same time we need to set our ideals about our potential marriage partners based on what we understand will most likely lead to a holy marriage. Feelings of romance aside, we’ve got to look at it pragmatically and make our lists of must haves/can’t haves. The Holy Ghost gives us wisdom and other various helps to make good choices for ourselves in every stage of life.
What’s a girl to do? Set aside her ideals just because a trad guy came along and wanted to marry her? That just doesn’t seem wise to me. If these women are prayerful, chaste, god fearing virgins do they need to sit there and wonder if they blew it because they didn’t detect Gods leading? Or are they being led by God in the ideals that they set? By ideals I’m not taking about money, looks and all that.
I was a young adult convert and entered the Catholic “dating” scene at the age of 25 (I think). It took me a couple years, but I didn’t have to settle on my deal breakers. Looking back I’m sure glad I didn’t! I didn’t marry the first trad that came along and riddle my mind with doubt and anxiety about “what if I screwed up.” I trusted God to bring me a good spouse or be content staying single my whole life.
I’m not saying a man who is not a virgin can’t be a good spouse. I’m sure many of them are! But it was a no for me.
We don’t know anything about these 2 30 year old virgins except for they rejected 2 men for not being virgins. I do think it’s presumptuous to think they are sitting there feeling like they had their chance and blew it. You’d need to know more before saying “enough said” like the end goal is to just be married, nevermind to who.
Is that Catholic teaching? The bible does says it's better to marry than to burn with lust.Its her made up teaching.
This right here is why we need to bring back arranged marriage in some capacity and stop letting women decide things for themselves.Seems like she made a good choice to me.
To be sure they have free will, and ultimately make the final decision, but their fathers and priests will know better.
I know a few girls from one large trad family. They made it a dealbreaker for two guys that were trying to date them.
The girls are now in their thirties and still single.
Enough said.
Not to mention the irony that you are disappointed a virgin lady would prefer not to marry a non-virgin man when you have the same preference. You regret having fornicated before marriage and that should be enough, and yet you refuse to give the same allowance to your prospective spouse. That’s fine, you can and should have your preferences, but don’t get upset about being on the other side of the fence.So there is obviously disappointment for any man. But there is something else which your female brain is not good at understanding, and this is the common good question. In history, it has always been more more important that a woman be a virgin. Marriage is something which serves more than a womans preference. It is for the common good of the Church and society. So its a question of WHATS BEST.
I’m sure more men are virgins than woman. It shouldn’t be that hard to find a virgin man.There is some truth that men more men are virgins these days, however those same men are committing many unnatural sins in private, so it kind of is irrelevant. and cancels itself out.
It’s her made up teaching.
I have never seen a specific church teaching that says one is to marry poorly instead of not marrying at all. Have you?
Not so ironically I agree with you a woman needs to be under the council of her father or priest. My dad is not Catholic, and these are matters I DID talk about with to my spiritual director at the time. He is the one who told me I’m better off to be single if I can’t marry well. I didn’t get the impression it was his blanket advice, but advice based on his knowledge of me. And that’s why I say I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for most women, just some.
Tons of people read this board, and it would be a shame for a young person to come in here and get the impression a man’s virginity isn’t important, or shouldn’t be considered when looking for a spouse.
With all that said, I’m now behind on dishes so it’s time to exit this topic. I wish you well in your pursuit of a spouse (if you are unmarried).
PS the posts in the last couple pages siding with my position that are anonymous aren’t me. ;)
There is some truth that men more men are virgins these days, however those same men are committing many unnatural sins in private, so it kind of is irrelevant. and cancels itself out.I don't know why you assume women can't do the same thing.
I don't know why you assume women can't do the same thing.Why are you assuming that I am assuming ?
Perhaps the time has come for much more parental involvement in the courting and marriage process.Good analysis and glad someone agrees with me.
The c-sickness scam has adversely affected the mental and social health of society. Younger Gen Z’s are suffering not from serial concubinage and too much sex on the brain, but the opposite. Years of lockdowns have left older teens and young adults with “failure to launch” syndrome. They don’t know how to socialize without phones. They aren’t leaving the nest, convinced they cannot ever find remunerative work, establish their own home much less own one, they cannot afford to marry, or to support a spouse and raise children.
Catholic parents and priests should step in and assist the young in becoming adults.
I’m not suggesting arranged marriages as in, “You WILL marry this person or you’re out of the will,” type of arrangements, rather, parents and priests should play a more significant role in facilitating choosing career paths and healthy relationships leading to good marriages and Godly offspring, not just focusing on religious vocations alone. A healthy society needs both.
Why are you assuming that I am assuming ?You think sins of the flesh (private) is going to cancel out a virgin man? Well you didn’t mention the same thing for a woman because everyone assumes mostly men do them.
You think sins of the flesh (private) is going to cancel out a virgin man? Well you didn’t mention the same thing for a woman because everyone assumes mostly men do them.The same is true of women.
And a virgin man is still a virgin even if he has done sins of the flesh
You think sins of the flesh (private) is going to cancel out a virgin man? Well you didn’t mention the same thing for a woman because everyone assumes mostly men do them.The effect of unnatural sins is grave too.
And a virgin man is still a virgin even if he has done sins of the flesh in private.
I’m sure more men are virgins than woman. It shouldn’t be that hard to find a virgin man.And how many of those virgin me can provide are mature and can lead? Unlike the woman, the man has much more that is expected of him. This is another reason why a man's virginity is less important.
There is some truth that men more men are virgins these days, however those same men are committing many unnatural sins in private, so it kind of is irrelevant. and cancels itself out.It doesn't. A women sleeping with a man is much worse than a man self abusing. In terms of 'damage' (not looking at sin here).
The priest may have been trying to soften his blows to you when he said that.The problem with this is most modern people are not ok with age gaps. So the man waiting makes it harder to get a younger girl due to feminist brainwashing.
There are some women who should not marry it is true. And because men have more options and can wait longer, its better sometimes for them to wait. Find someone more stable.
Perhaps the time has come for much more parental involvement in the courting and marriage process.I know several older men and women 25+ who won't be getting married. For the woman it's because they are old and unattractive, for the men it's because they don't have money and/or are unattractive and balding. The problem is the priests recommend that people get married past 25 due to "brain development" (which is a meme for woman). This is fine for the men but for woman it's terrible advice.
The c-sickness scam has adversely affected the mental and social health of society. Younger Gen Z’s are suffering not from serial concubinage and too much sex on the brain, but the opposite. Years of lockdowns have left older teens and young adults with “failure to launch” syndrome. They don’t know how to socialize without phones. They aren’t leaving the nest, convinced they cannot ever find remunerative work, establish their own home much less own one, they cannot afford to marry, or to support a spouse and raise children.
Catholic parents and priests should step in and assist the young in becoming adults.
I’m not suggesting arranged marriages as in, “You WILL marry this person or you’re out of the will,” type of arrangements, rather, parents and priests should play a more significant role in facilitating choosing career paths and healthy relationships leading to good marriages and Godly offspring, not just focusing on religious vocations alone. A healthy society needs both.
The problem with this is most modern people are not ok with age gaps. So the man waiting makes it harder to get a younger girl due to feminist brainwashing.Age gaps are only a thing because men feel like they deserve a younger woman since they may have been rejected by their female peers when they were younger.
Age gaps are only a thing because men feel like they deserve a younger woman since they may have been rejected by their female peers when they were younger.No it's because woman develop earlier and faster then men. It's because men need to be mature, lead and provide. It's takes much longer for a man to be ready to get married than a woman. The woman should ideally get married at around ~18. But at 18 most males are nowhere near ready to marry and become fathers and husbands.
No it's because woman develop earlier and faster then men. It's because men need to be mature, lead and provide. It's takes much longer for a man to be ready to get married than a woman. The woman should ideally get married at around ~18. But at 18 most males are nowhere near ready to marry and become fathers and husbands.Very, very well said.
So yes men do deserve a younger woman, not because they got rejected (women usually prefer older men) but because after building themselves up from nothing why would they pick a woman their age who was unwilling to support the and be around when they needed it most. Ladies you do not get to wait around at the finish line for a prince. The prince will pick a cute young virgin. Not an old lady.
Very, very well said.I am starting to think that the ladies will reject a prince if he isn't a virgin, or is not tall enough etc... You would think that Catholic girls are less picky than secular girls, seems that they are more picky.
Glad I'm not the only one with sanity on this forum.
I am starting to think that the ladies will reject a prince if he isn't a virgin, or is not tall enough etc... You would think that Catholic girls are less picky than secular girls, seems that they are more picky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6rZpk53nUcThat was a great sermon, thanks for sharing. I wonder if Fr. will get scolded for his words against the Novus Ordo?
Sermon starts at the 40 minute mark(ish) and continues with the priest touching on courtship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6rZpk53nUcInteresting what he says about "you've eating your cake". Frankly I would never be happy knowing another man "ate my cake", so yes for a woman being a virgin is so absolutely important it is no wonder that it was always accepted as a necessity before jews and freemasons took over society
Sermon starts at the 40 minute mark(ish) and continues with the priest touching on courtship.
That was a great sermon, thanks for sharing. I wonder if Fr. will get scolded for his words against the Novus Ordo?The majority of his sermons are like this; old school SSPX.
Interesting what he says about "you've eating your cake". Frankly I would never be happy knowing another man "ate my cake", so yes for a woman being a virgin is so absolutely important it is no wonder that it was always accepted as a necessity before jews and freemasons took over societyYou continue to brush aside the fact that you took the cake of another man/ate the cake of your future wife.
Any man who hates women as much of this fellow does must have ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies.I haven't seen any hate against women here.
You continue to brush aside the fact that you took the cake of another man/ate the cake of your future wife.No I've never taken a woman's virginity so you are mistaken.
Any man who hates women as much of this fellow does must have ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies.femcel?
Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Can we just follow catholic history?You know there are other “things” a woman can do and still be a virgin.
There used to be virginity tests for brides before their weddings. This was for obvious reasons. Assurance of paternity, psychological fitness to be a wife, etc... no such thing for men. That's because, while gravely sinful, sɛҳuąƖ activity does not so corrupt the psychology of men as it does women. This is in fact why there is no such thing as male virginity. Male saints are not styled "virgins" in the Church's liturgy, but "confessors."
Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Can we just follow catholic history?That's so crooked.
There used to be virginity tests for brides before their weddings. This was for obvious reasons. Assurance of paternity, psychological fitness to be a wife, etc... no such thing for men. That's because, while gravely sinful, sɛҳuąƖ activity does not so corrupt the psychology of men as it does women. This is in fact why there is no such thing as male virginity. Male saints are not styled "virgins" in the Church's liturgy, but "confessors."
That's so crooked.This read like AI. And I doubt the info you have posted, a woman not a virgin...
The word “virgin” comes from Latin virgo, which literally meant “maiden” or “young woman who has not had sex.” The root is specifically gendered female, so it was never naturally used to describe men. There wasn’t an equivalent single word in Latin or Greek that specifically meant “a man who has never had sex” in the same way. There's a title "Widow" for female saints, you simply don't call a man that either, even though holy men in history certainly lived a holy widowed life after their wives passed away (good example St Therese's father).
Male celibate saints are honored for their chastity, self-control, and asceticism without usually the formal “virgin” label. The reason male saints aren’t often officially called “virgin” saints is mostly historical and linguistic tradition, not because men can’t or don’t take vows of virginity.
Also how on earth can you even test a man's virginity? Biologically impossible. To a woman it's not accurate either because lots of things like horse riding and such can ruin the "test". The idea of virginity tests for brides before their weddings in medieval Europe is mostly a myth—at least in the form that it's popularly imagined today. While virginity and chastity were highly valued in certain social and religious contexts during the Middle Ages, especially for noblewomen, systematic or formal "tests" of virginity before marriage were not a widespread or institutionalized practice in medieval Europe.
1. Cultural and Religious Emphasis on Virginity2. No Standardized or Medical "Virginity Tests"
- Virginity was especially emphasized for noble or royal women, primarily for political and dynastic reasons (e.g., ensuring legitimate heirs).
- The Church upheld virginity as an ideal, especially for women entering religious life.
- For the general population, however, virginity was less stringently monitored, particularly in peasant or working-class communities.
3. Wedding Night Rituals Were Sometimes Monitored
- There is no consistent evidence of a medical or physical examination of brides to prove virginity before marriage.
- The hymen, often mistakenly believed to be a "proof" of virginity, was not well understood in medieval medicine. The idea of using it as a test comes much later.
- The concept of a "test" in the way people imagine today (e.g., invasive exams) is more closely tied to modern myths and colonial or 19th-century practices, not medieval European norms.
4. Legal and Ecclesiastical Concerns
- In some noble courts, it was customary to display bed linens with bloodstains from the wedding night as evidence of consummation and assumed virginity.
- This was more a social and symbolic ritual than a reliable or scientific test.
- In certain cultures, especially in the upper classes, attendants or witnesses might even be present outside the room to confirm the marriage had been consummated.
5. Mythologizing and Misunderstanding
- Church courts were more concerned with consent, consummation, and impediments to marriage than virginity itself.
- If disputes arose—such as accusations of fraud or impotence—then physical examinations might be ordered, but these were rare and typically part of legal proceedings, not pre-wedding rituals.
- Many modern ideas about "virginity testing" stem from Orientalist, colonial, or Victorian-era sources, which projected such practices onto the "backward" past to contrast with their own sense of progress.
- Popular culture, romanticized medieval fiction, and pseudohistory have exaggerated or distorted these ideas.
My points are:
1. Just because the Church doesn't celebrate/mention males' chastity as much as women's, it doesn't mean it's not an important virtue for men, or you should by any mean think it's less of a sin for men to violate chastity.
2. Answer to the original OP question, rather than asking if it's your "right," how about have some trust in each other, so that by the time you call someone your potential spouse you should know what you both would like to know already.
2. Answer to the original OP question, rather than asking if it's your "right," how about have some trust in each other, so that by the time you call someone your potential spouse you should know what you both would like to know already.Don’t tell someone to have some “trust”. I don’t know if you’re aware of the current state of marriages, it’s very bad. If a woman lies about being a virgin but they listen to your advice to have some “trust” then that just supports the narrative to “believe all women”. Lemme guess you’re still looking for your Prince Charming because you seem bitter and jaded. If this was about doing a virginity test on a man, I bet you wouldn’t say anything.
while gravely sinful, sɛҳuąƖ activity does not so corrupt the psychology of men as it does women.sɛҳuąƖ activity doesn't corrupt human psychology; that makes it sound like coitus, even within the proper context of marriage, is a psychological illness.
This is in fact why there is no such thing as male virginity.Apoc. 14:4 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=4-#x):
These are they who were not defiled [coinquinati, masculine plural adjective in St. Jerome's transl.] with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
Male saints are not styled "virgins" in the Church's liturgy, but "confessors."Sure, but the Martyrology says things like:
At Rome, holy Philip Neri, founder of the Congregation of the Oratory, famous for his virginity, his gift of prophecy, and his wondrous works.
he [St. Dominic] preserved without stain his virginityI count the phrase "his virginity" 15× in the Breviary's biographies.
sɛҳuąƖ activity doesn't corrupt human psychology; that makes it sound like coitus, even within the proper context of marriage, is a psychological illness.He means that woman psychology changes by each man they sleep with.
Do you mean to say that there is no male equivalent of female intactness (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/82876/1787)?
Apoc. 14:4 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=73&ch=14&l=4-#x):Sure, but the Martyrology says things like:I count the phrase "his virginity" 15× in the Breviary's biographies.
He means that woman psychology changes by each man they sleep with.Fornication, yes.
Both men and women should follow the 10 commandments. Both should be pure at marriage. Is there really a difference between a man breaking the 6th and 9th commandment and a woman breaking those commandments?Yes this has been posted numerous times. The temporal consequences for sɛҳuąƖ sins is much greater in women than for men. A man is the head of the household, his wife having a previous male his a huge problem for his authority. Also physical, emotional, and psychological damage the woman has taken, not to mention the DNA of other men the children will inherit. And the lack of ability to pair-bond.
Yes this has been posted numerous times. The temporal consequences for sɛҳuąƖ sins is much greater in women than for men. A man is the head of the household, his wife having a previous male his a huge problem for his authority. Also physical, emotional, and psychological damage the woman has taken, not to mention the DNA of other men the children will inherit. And the lack of ability to pair-bond.The consequences might be worse for women, but does that mean the sin is any less?
The consequences might be worse for women, but does that mean the sin is any less?Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men are the gatekeepers of marriage.
Should a woman want to marry a man who has sinned with women?
Is it really true that men don't have physical, emotional , or psychological damage when they have multiple partners? Are we even able to measure this? Is it more based on certain temperaments?
Pair bonding is not Catholic. It's a construct based on evolutional psychology. Unmarried people can pair bond according to this theory.:facepalm: Pair bonding has to do with hormones, emotions and human psychology. It's not a construct, but science. God designed all of this to work inside matrimony. It can also work outside of matrimony, but this would be sinful.
Matrimony is Catholic. It's the only bond that matters.
The consequences might be worse for women, but does that mean the sin is any less?Ladies men are serial fornicators who constantly seek female-attention due to stunted emotional development. They have negative feminine traits themselves (duplicity - e.g. have affairs) unless they learn to snap out of it and be a real man. Just like correcting a limp wrist.
Should a woman want to marry a man who has sinned with women?
Is it really true that men don't have physical, emotional , or psychological damage when they have multiple partners? Are we even able to measure this? Is it more based on certain temperaments?
Ladies men are serial fornicators who constantly seek female-attention due to stunted emotional development. They have negative feminine traits themselves (duplicity - e.g. have affairs) unless they learn to snap out of it and be a real man. Just like correcting a limp wrist.What a disgusting comment. You know women can cheat as well. These days, it's the girls losing their virginities at an earlier age compared to their peers. Bitter old hag.
Pair bonding is not Catholic. It's a construct based on evolutional psychology. Unmarried people can pair bond according to this theory.Well fornication is not Catholic yet it still happens. And when someone loses their virginity outside of marriage, that has consequences when they find their spouse.
Matrimony is Catholic. It's the only bond that matters.
What a disgusting comment. You know women can cheat as well. These days, it's the girls losing their virginities at an earlier age compared to their peers. Bitter old hag.Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4
:facepalm: Pair bonding has to do with hormones, emotions and human psychology.
Can you quote any Catholic sources for this?Of course there is not a Catholic source. The science is new. The science came after Vatican 2. There hasn't been theologians discussing the matter.
The consequences might be worse for women, but does that mean the sin is any less?Why do you keep going on and on when this has already been discussed?
Should a woman want to marry a man who has sinned with women?
Is it really true that men don't have physical, emotional , or psychological damage when they have multiple partners? Are we even able to measure this? Is it more based on certain temperaments?
Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men are the gatekeepers of marriage.This is true, even though it takes 2 to do both it's no difficulty for a woman fornicate, she can literally order any man on delivery through an app. But this is not the case for marriage for men. And fornication will depend on his looks.
Pair bonding is not Catholic. It's a construct based on evolutional psychology. Unmarried people can pair bond according to this theory.Pair bonding is a chemical connection that occurs. It's a real thing due to the biology that God made. It has nothing to do with evolution which is a heresy. Matrimony is a spiritual bond, but the body also has physical bonds which are important as a person is both body and soul.
Matrimony is Catholic. It's the only bond that matters.
Ladies men are serial fornicators who constantly seek female-attention due to stunted emotional development. They have negative feminine traits themselves (duplicity - e.g. have affairs) unless they learn to snap out of it and be a real man. Just like correcting a limp wrist.It takes no effort for the woman to fornicate. If a man fornicates a woman is also involved. Guess what? The average woman today has way more partners than the average man. Interesting you say a man can snap out of it, a woman cannot do the same, what I mean is that the damage is done because woman are less rational.
Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4On the contrary it still has the death penalty of the soul, and in most cases it's the child that get the death penalty if you know what I mean. If woman couldn't murder their children fornication would be much less.
The immoral are only lucky it doesn't carry the death penalty like it used to. And Jesus Christ said "Go and sin NO MORE" to the woman caught in adultery ( John 8:11).
Jesus Christ was more than familiar with the rope ...
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)
Can you quote any Catholic sources for this?It does not take a Catholic source to understand that woman become attached to their partners...
Why do you keep going on and on when this has already been discussed?This is true, even though it takes 2 to do both it's no difficulty for a woman fornicate, she can literally order any man on delivery through an app. But this is not the case for marriage for men. And fornication will depend on his looks.I've been wondering the same thing. Maybe she's projecting her own issues. It's such a weird thing to be this obsessed on this topic unless maybe you're unmarried and you want to find a spouse, i don't know.
It takes no effort for the woman to fornicate. If a man fornicates a woman is also involved. Guess what? The average woman today has way more partners than the average man. Interesting you say a man can snap out of it, a woman cannot do the same, what I mean is that the damage is done because woman are less rational.Women will be more selective with who they fornicate with (guy has money, status, or looks) but men could literally do it to anything (I'm not saying they do) because of their high sex drive.
Guess what? The average woman today has way more partners than the average man.I don’t think so. :facepalm:
I don’t think so. :facepalm:Women undervalue their body count, men overvalue it.
Women will be more selective with who they fornicate with (guy has money, status, or looks) but men could literally do it to anything (I'm not saying they do) because of their high sex drive.And the woman choose the best they can get which makes them have unrealistic expectations. None of these attractive men will commit, because they have options. It takes no effort for a woman to have insecure legs. It is said that the man does the woman and not vice versa putting it mildly.
I don’t think so. :facepalm:It's literally true. Most guys have little to no experience with the ladies. While a majority of girls riding the chad carousel due to dating apps. Like the other poster said, me will sleep with almost anyone while woman are picky. The woman will still sleep with the attractive men while the average/unattractive guys are invisible.
On the contrary it still has the death penalty of the soul, and in most cases it's the child that get the death penalty if you know what I mean. If woman couldn't murder their children fornication would be much less.Your post is perfect and quotable. Thank you.
And the woman choose the best they can get which makes them have unrealistic expectations. None of these attractive men will commit, because they have options. It takes no effort for a woman to have insecure legs. It is said that the man does the woman and not vice versa putting it mildly.
It's literally true. Most guys have little to no experience with the ladies. While a majority of girls riding the chad carousel due to dating apps. Like the other poster said, me will sleep with almost anyone while woman are picky. The woman will still sleep with the attractive men while the average/unattractive guys are invisible.
That's why we see data that claims most men are single while most woman are not.
You're right. It's counter-intuitive, because superficially, your first thought is, "It takes two to tango". But the male tango partners are the top 5%, whereas many guys are left out altogether. So yes, each "notch on the woman's bed post" represents a male fornication as well -- but it's all the same men!You don't seem to understand what average means. The average women has more partners than the average man. It does not matter that the same men are fornicating.What matters is that the majority of women have more exp than the men, in fact it's far far more experience. It's a massive imbalance. And from a man's point of view, a woman with even 1 prior partner is no good for marriage.
Also, "averages" are deceptive because Chad skews the numbers.
Something about the term “pair bonding” makes me cringe every time I see it. It just sounds so… scientific? It’s hard to find the right way to describe it. It just seems like it lowers the marital act to something almost animalistic.It's just you.
Something about the term “pair bonding” makes me cringe every time I see it. It just sounds so… scientific? It’s hard to find the right way to describe it. It just seems like it lowers the marital act to something almost animalistic.If two virgins got married, they would have the best "pair-bonding". If two virgins with some experience that didn't lead to sex got married, it would be second best, and so forth. The point is that's why you should intend to date for marriage and not lead people on because humans catch feelings You don't even have to have sex to pair bond, it can even be talking to the opposite gender for long periods of time not intended for marriage. Even a virgin can catch feelings if they don't end it with an unsuitable person quickly. A pair is two people and marriage is one man one woman for life. It's designed that way. When people started having relationships with others before marriage, you have to deal with the exes, their drama, jealousy, and inadequacy.
If two virgins got married, they would have the best "pair-bonding". If two virgins with some experience that didn't lead to sex got married, it would be second best, and so forth. The point is that's why you should intend to date for marriage and not lead people on because humans catch feelings You don't even have to have sex to pair bond, it can even be talking to the opposite gender for long periods of time not intended for marriage. Even a virgin can catch feelings if they don't end it with an unsuitable person quickly. A pair is two people and marriage is one man one woman for life. It's designed that way. When people started having relationships with others before marriage, you have to deal with the exes, their drama, jealousy, and inadequacy.More specifically there is a chemical reaction that occurs doing sɛҳuąƖ intimacy that causes pair bonding. This chemical reaction is weaker for each successive partner.
>Women know damn well what they got up to all that time. It became a rite of passage for women to squander all their opportunity in life with the assurance that they could support themselves and find a man later anyway
Yeah it's normalized for women to ride the CC until their late 20's/early 30's THEN start looking for a provider.
The internet revealed what a scam that is. Guys who would've been betabux in the past are realizing they're being asked to pay top dollar for what prior men got for free. It's an insult. Any man with dignity and self respect would say "no" to that.
Love requires sacrifice. Men sacrifice a lot when they become the primary breadwinner of a family. They dutifully clock in at a job they may not particularly like and work more hours than they may like to for +30 years because other people are depending on them.
The least women could do is sacrifice their 10 years of Chad chasing and CC riding to show their future husbands some respect, and be able give them something private and exclusive instead of something public and common (i.e. less valuable) that multiple other men already had at a lower price of entry.