Author Topic: America and courting 18-year-old virgins (Read 62898 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #645 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:04:26 PM »

Quote from: momofmany

I'm a hypocrite because I don't necessarily believe the way my husband and I went about things is the best way

What should you have done? Listened to your mother? Waited longer? How would that have made any difference?

If you think you were right to marry, then you can't say you did the wrong thing now. The only way you can say you aren't a hypocrite is to say you made a mistake in marrying your husband.

Here's the point - you apply modern worldly standards to your daughter - that if she tried to "do that to you" (do as you did with respect to you as you did with respect to your mother - marrying without your consent isn't doing anything to you - marrying against your wishes isn't doing you any wrong) - you would "kill" her. You obviously feel entitled to try to bind your daughter - even though you refused to be bound yourself.

If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.

Either that or you should concede you never should have married. Another thing 9 months is not a brief time.

Quote

I had a C-section with my first child. She did fine, I did fine, no long term consequences. By your logic I should believe that all C-sections are ok and necessary and the wisdom of such a procedure should never be questioned.

No, your analogy doesn't hold at all. Do you think having the C-section was a mistake? If you think it was a mistake then it would be fine to condemn it. Now I'm certain you don't think your marriage was a mistake. I'm certain that if you listened to your mother you probably wouldn't have married the man you did. But you turn around and say that you would "kill" your daughter if "she tried that on you." Well, if you condemned her harshly for making her own choice (which isn't doing anything evil to you) then you would definitely be a hypocrite, unless you believe your marriage was a grievous mistake and that you should have listened to your mother.

Quote

After all, I have never suffered any negative effects. I should not advocate or educate women about possible consequences of choosing an elective C-section. I have never suffered them myself.

There is nothing hypocritical or illogical about looking back at a decision, even one that didn't have a negative consequence, and think it wasn't the greatest idea and to counsel others not to take the same path.

So do you think your marriage was a mistake? Yes or no?

Quote

Only by the Grace of God and the fact my dh was raised by my awesome in-laws and is a spectacular Catholic man, did I not suffer the same fate as my mother and end up with a broken marriage.

Maybe you didn't suffer the same fate because you did the right thing and didn't listen to her. Because if you had not married the man you loved out of deference to your mother - it's quite possible things would have been much worse for you in another marriage.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #646 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:04:40 PM »

I want to thank the anonymous, emoting, gutless creature who gave me a thumbs down within one or two minutes. You proved my point.

See, two before my editing time is complete...

MaterDominici · « **Reply #647 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:07:15 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Now, do your duty and click the "thumbs down", knowing you have made a real difference :)

As you wish. :pop:

Should I really clutter up this thread with my thoughts about the "like" and "dislike"? ... probably not a good idea. I'll respond to you in that other thread.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #648 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:12:24 PM »

Quote

If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.

I see I garbled this line. What I meant is:

You think your marriage was right - so you think what your mother did was wrong, but you would "kill" your daughter if she does what you did.

You think you were right as the daughter, and now you think you would be right as the mother, even though those two positions are contradictory.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #649 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.

I see I garbled this line. What I meant is:

You think your marriage was right - so you think what your mother did was wrong, but you would "kill" your daughter if she does what you did.

You think you were right as the daughter, and now you think you would be right as the mother, even though those two positions are contradictory.

It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now. If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #650 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:26:23 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now.

She said she wouldn't approve of her daughter doing to her what she did to her mother.

She never said anything about reasons. If there really were different reasons for disapproving, there might be reason for her to disapprove now. But she didn't say that. She said that for doing what she did to her mother she'd "kill" her daughter. So did she make a mistake in marrying? Was her mother right?

Quote

If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.

You're talking about two different situations - when she's comparing the two situations and the only difference she specified is that she thinks she was right as a daughter and her mother was wrong but now she thinks she would be right as a mother but her daughter would be wrong.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #651 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:46:07 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: MaterDominici
It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now.

She said she wouldn't approve of her daughter doing to her what she did to her mother.

She never said anything about reasons. If there really were different reasons for disapproving, there might be reason for her to disapprove now. But she didn't say that. She said that for doing what she did to her mother she'd "kill" her daughter. So did she make a mistake in marrying? Was her mother right?

Quote
If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.

You're talking about two different situations - when she's comparing the two situations and the only difference she specified is that she thinks she was right as a daughter and her mother was wrong but now she thinks she would be right as a mother but her daughter would be wrong.

Very true, she wasn't specific as to what about her own actions she would disapprove of in her daughter.

Marrying against her mother's wishes? -- probably
Marrying an older man? -- possibly, buy why?
Marrying within 9 months? -- doubt it, but I could see why modern parents wouldn't be especially happy about this (they would be wrong, of course)

momofmany · « **Reply #652 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:08:11 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

What should you have done? Listened to your mother? Waited longer? How would that have made any difference?

If you think you were right to marry, then you can't say you did the wrong thing now. The only way you can say you aren't a hypocrite is to say you made a mistake in marrying your husband.

Here's the point - you apply modern worldly standards to your daughter - that if she tried to "do that to you" (do as you did with respect to you as you did with respect to your mother - marrying without your consent isn't doing anything to you - marrying against your wishes isn't doing you any wrong) - you would "kill" her. You obviously feel entitled to try to bind your daughter - even.

Again, I will say, the I will 'kill' my daughter was in jest.
I have no idea what my reaction will be to who my daughter chooses to marry. There are way too many variables to predict.

I'm not going to go into details about my early relationship with my husband, my mind-set at that time or my relationship with my mother. That is way too much detail for an internet forum, especially a public one.

I do not regret my marriage, I do regret, in some ways, the way we went about it, as they say hindsight is always 20-20. Although, I wouldn't have the children I do now if we had changed things and they are obviously something I do not regret.

momofmany · « **Reply #653 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:14:45 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Marrying against her mother's wishes? -- probably
Marrying an older man? -- possibly, buy why?
Marrying within 9 months? -- doubt it, but I could see why modern parents wouldn't be especially happy about this (they would be wrong, of course)

Age alone isn't an impediment but I don't see it as a benefit necessarily as a stand alone when I know nothing else about the man.
Marrying in 9 months? Depends on what was going on those 9 months on whether or not it was not a good idea. 9 months from the first time you set eyes on someone to marrying? 9 months of 'courtship' after years of being aquainted or friends,? 9 months of an email relationship? 9 months of modern 'dating' and breaking up and getting back together again?

Not to mention the variable of the individuals. 9 months of talking about the things that matter or talking about vapid, senseless things. 9 months of prayer and discernment or 9 months of acting like they are in heat?

There isn't a formula for marital success.

Matthew · « **Reply #654 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:29:07 AM »

I was going to say it reminds me of campaigning against public school after I personally went there for 12 years -- knowing that home school would have been better for my mind and my soul, and how close I came to losing my soul because of public school.

But then I remember that Telesphorus' main objection was "Yes, you can say that you had a close call, but you basically have to say you REGRET the thing in question..."

And I thought, "Yes, I can easily cut myself off from public school now, and say that I regret it, etc. so there's no problem there. It's different from the case of a marriage, where a person -- someone close to you, who you still love -- is involved. Especially when that marriage has resulted in X number of children, who you also love.

But then I realized: how is it any different? Public school made me what I am today, for better or worse. God used everything in my life -- yes, even my sins -- to form me into the man I am today. Who's to say that I wouldn't have lost my soul or ended up in a bad marriage if I had gone to St. Mary's, KS like Thomas A. Nelson wanted to pay my way for when I was 12? What if I HADN'T been too scared to go, and my parents hadn't been so loathe to "miss me"? What if I had been homeschooled? My mom didn't discover homeschooling until I was about to enter 11th grade, but that's when the trouble starts, isn't it?

After all, my personality was one of those that does well "against the grain". I was used to not having friends; I wasn't one to have a group of friends and be influenced by them. By being in public school, I was first introduced to computer programming, which is the way I'm supporting my family today. I was introduced to many types of people that I otherwise wouldn't have been. In short, I would have been more sheltered in homeschool, and exposed to lots of worldly trad. Catholics in St. Mary's. (We all know worldly Catholics are more dangerous than worldly pagans! At least with pagans you have your defenses up when you're around them...)

Nevertheless, I see that most kids WOULD be better off not going to public school. After all, they wouldn't be going there in the 80's and early 90's like I did. Kids have cell phones now, which makes it easier to bully, arrange dates, etc. Girls are dressed more immodestly in 2011 than they were in 1985.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #655 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:39:05 AM »

When I said I would have been more isolated in homeschool, I was speaking about my particular situation, not homeschooling in general.

Just like the SSPX can see what Rome had in mind with their "agreement" by looking at the FSSP today (Look mom! No ~~hands~~ bishop!), I can see exactly what my homeschooling experience would have been like by looking at my 3 siblings' experience.

My home was light on the discipline -- always has been. That's a big strike against homeschooling right there. Number 2, our home was very, very light on the socializing. We pretty much had each other for friends and that was it. Any outside friends (one or two mainly) came over to our house and basically became part of our isolated family. That was the extent of our socializing or "going out". This wasn't our parents' fault, BTW. It was our choice.

So we would be the poster child for how homeschool creates isolated kids with a a very UN-broad horizon. Our world didn't extend beyond the borders of our town -- the same town we were born in. We never traveled anywhere EVER, not even "on the cheap".

Which is why, to this day, my mom thinks that living in a low-income neighborhood equates to being in fear for her safety. In my hometown, the demographics are such that this is true. In the low-income parts of my hometown, there are drug deals, etc. Yet in the small town that I live close to today (pop. 1000), there are shacks that look like they're going to fall over, completely run-down, but they're populated by different people. You don't feel afraid for your life. I never could have imagined a place like that when I still lived in my hometown.

Matthew

momofmany · « **Reply #656 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:18:17 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

When I said I would have been more isolated in homeschool, I was speaking about my particular situation, not homeschooling in general.

Just like the SSPX can see what Rome had in mind with their "agreement" by looking at the FSSP today (Look mom! No ~~hands~~ bishop!), I can see exactly what my homeschooling experience would have been like by looking at my 3 siblings' experience.

My home was light on the discipline -- always has been. That's a big strike against homeschooling right there. Number 2, our home was very, very light on the socializing. We pretty much had each other for friends and that was it. Any outside friends (one or two mainly) came over to our house and basically became part of our isolated family. That was the extent of our socializing or "going out". This wasn't our parents' fault, BTW. It was our choice.

So we would be the poster child for how homeschool creates isolated kids with a a very UN-broad horizon. Our world didn't extend beyond the borders of our town -- the same town we were born in. We never traveled anywhere EVER, not even "on the cheap".

Which is why, to this day, my mom thinks that living in a low-income neighborhood equates to being in fear for her safety. In my hometown, the demographics are such that this is true. In the low-income parts of my hometown, there are drug deals, etc. Yet in the small town that I live close to today (pop. 1000), there are shacks that look like they're going to fall over, completely run-down, but they're populated by different people. You don't feel afraid for your life. I never could have imagined a place like that when I still lived in my hometown.

Matthew

I think your thoughts on homeschool vs. public school in generalities and in your own personal situation highlights a way that some of us are talking past one another.

Some folks here are looking at finding a spouse as an objective truth. Girl is Catholic, boy is Catholic, boy is at least 18, girl is at least 18. Done. That is all that matters.

Others, including myself, are looking at finding spouse more subjectively.

Matthew · « **Reply #657 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:23:55 AM »

That brings up a good point --

Why aren't ALL marriages today contracted between an 18 year old female and a male 3-4 years older ("The Ideal")?

Is the "conspiracy" of priests, parents, etc. THAT pervasive and powerful? Or is 18 more of a "minimum age" as some have said?

Is each "late marriage" (where the girl is older than 18) a case of somebody interfering with God's will?

EITHER most 18-year-olds aren't ready ("mature enough") to get married here in 2011, or the "conspiracy" alleged by Telesphorus transcends traditional group, nation, race, etc.

Because it's a fact that marriages involving 18-year old females are a small fraction of the marriages contracted...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #658 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:27:04 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

But then I realized: how is it any different?

Because marriage is a sacrament - a source of grace, and public schooling is something that's bad.

There's a huge difference.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #659 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:32:36 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

That brings up a good point --

Why aren't ALL marriages today contracted between an 18 year old female and a male 3-4 years older ("The Ideal")?

All marriages today? You mean all traditional Catholic marriages, or all marriages? Why is marriage delayed? All marriages today: because of feminism. Marriage among traditionalists? Because of influence of feminist customs on society.

A better question would be why do so many parents believe their daughters should have a college education as a matter of course rather than marrying?

Quote

Is the "conspiracy" of priests, parents, etc. THAT pervasive and powerful? Or is 18 more of a "minimum age" as some have said?

They obviously act to prevent early marriages, and they do so to be in conformity to the broader society. Let's put it this way - there's obviously a "conspiracy" in the SSPX to make young women believe they must have their father's consent to talk to men - a "praxis" - now that's a conspiracy - a conspiracy to refuse to teach that it's up to the child - not the parents - once the child reaches majority. Yes, that's an outright conspiracy to hide the truth.

Quote

Is each "late marriage" (where the girl is older than 18) a case of somebody interfering with God's will?

EITHER most 18-year-olds aren't ready ("mature enough") to get married here in 2011, or the "conspiracy" alleged by Telesphorus transcends traditional group, nation, race, etc.

I don't call social trends a conspiracy per se - but social trends today are clearly evil - and those social trends are clearly the reason for delayed marriage - for the veritable taboo against early marriage.

Quote

Because it's a fact that marriages involving 18-year old females are a small fraction of the marriages contracted...

And that is supposed to mean what? Why should we judge whether something is good or bad on that basis?