Author Topic: Concupiscence of men versus women (Read 20150 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #80 on:** March 15, 2012, 02:02:46 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

First of all. Wallflower- if you do not respond to Telesphorous' incoherent, all over the place, only understandable to Tele, dissection of your post, we all understand why. It hurt my head reading such a removed from reality response.

No s2rea, now you're making the same sort of vague pronouncements about the substance of the post that wallflower and raoul typically make. It's a common tactic here, when the substance can't be addressed, the response is hand-waving with a heavy dose of contempt and personal attack.

Quote

Actually you have. Given time, you might even lose credibility with yourself. I think that's what we're all waiting, and hoping, for.

No, because everyone here knows I'm not making up what happened.

Quote

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, is not the same as knowing you're telling the truth. And, frankly, I'm not so sure I'm ready to even give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Not wanting to believe me doesn't mean you don't believe me.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #81 on:** March 15, 2012, 02:04:11 PM »

Quote

It's a ludicrous statement - the FACT that you don't retract it and admit that it's ludicrous proves that there's no arguing rationally with some women.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #82 on:** March 15, 2012, 02:06:47 PM »

The next time any supposedly "traditional" Catholic woman starts talking about the "double standard" - you can bring these points up:

Quote

St. Thomas Aquinas said that the adultery of women was a more serious sin than the adultery of men.

Women who lied about being virgins before their marriage in Old Testament times would be put to death. Formerly in the Catholic Church, women who lied about being a virgins before their marriage could find their marriages annulled because of an 'error of person"

Telesphorus · « **Reply #83 on:** March 15, 2012, 02:16:12 PM »

Quote

In past times, when morality was the rule, it was common for a young woman to be a virgin until the wedding. If she was not, she knew that she should inform the groom because he could well consider the lack of virginity an error of person.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k012rpAnnulments_Stretenovic.html
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id515.html

Quote

In a case of divorce husband and wife are judged on a par with each other, in the sense that the same things are lawful or unlawful to the one as to the other: but they are not judged on a par with each other in reference to those things, since the reason for divorce is greater in one spouse than in the other, although there is sufficient reason for divorce in both. For divorce is a punishment of adultery, in so far as it is opposed to the marriage goods. Now as regards the good of fidelity to which husband and wife are equally bound towards each other, the adultery of one is as great a sin against marriage as the adultery of the other, and this is in either of them a sufficient reason for divorce. But as regards the good of the offspring the wife's adultery is a greater sin against marriage than the husband's wherefore it is a greater reason for divorce in the wife than in the husband: and thus they are under an equal obligation, but not for equal reasons

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5062.htm

Raoul76 · « **Reply #84 on:** March 15, 2012, 02:35:53 PM »

SpiritusSanctus said:

Quote

You were mistreated, yes.

Are you sure about that Spiritus?

That's how I saw it at one time, but maybe I just fell for his victim act. The way he's been carrying on, having seen more of his personality, I am not sure at all of that -- I would rather suspect the opposite is true, that he intimidated people and they wanted him gone. If he was even a little bit like this at the time, or if this kind of bullheadedness and selfishness was even latent, then his perception of those events is not how they really happened.

One contradiction: He gets angry if you suggest the girl was flirting with him without intent to marry, saying she was too good for that. But then he says, like on page 7 of this thread, that he could have had sex with her if he wanted.

I know he will say I'm misrepresenting him, because I didn't word it EXACTLY like he did -- as if it's possible to keep all of this straight -- but that is the gist.

Nothing about this story makes sense, he barely had any contact with the girl, it's all just a bunch of glances. Who knows what the glances meant? Who knows that his interpretation of the glances is accurate? It is clear now that Tele is seriously delusional, and when I say "delusional" I don't mean it as some kind of schoolyard taunt -- I really mean delusional, taking his fantasies for reality.
Saying as he just did that "everyone" sees he's telling the truth is just complete delusion.

Do you really think the women at the church envied him and the girl, or that they all were attracted to him? He has a completely exaggerated vanity. Right away, the fact that he thought this girl would run away with him despite having no money, when she is very engaged in the arts, goes to college, etc. is unrealistic off the bat. That is why he keeps harping on the feminist theme -- he goes berserk because he can't have what he wants, so he blames it on feminism instead of just accepting that this girl is not the one for him.

Choose another girl who has less money, is a simpler Catholic and who is more likely to live in a cabin, how about that? But no, he wants the glamour girl. He WILL have the girl he wants. The priest WILL apologize to him. No comprehension of abnegation, no humility, just a giant temper-tantrum-throwing baby who wants it all his own way. And if he can't have it, he will take revenge on those who he feels thwarted him, at least verbally.

See how he calls me delusional here? He always calls other people what he himself is. So when he thinks others are jealous of him, what do you think is really going on? It is very likely that he is really JEALOUS OF THEM. He feels shut-out, not part of the inner circle, poor, that life has treated him unfairly; now he has developed a massive chip on his shoulder. I think it's very probable that his attraction to this girl is that she is rich, refined, artistic, she represents a world he feels shut out of and that he wants to attain. He tries to blame the failure to woo her on feminism, but what does that really have to do with anything? Feminism is not even an issue here, it's just something Tele brought in to justify himself.

For him it is feminist influence for people to be against a 32-year old marrying an 18-year old -- and maybe it is, in certain cases -- but how do we know that was really the problem? How do we know that this girl wouldn't marry another 32-year old, just not Tele? Her father thought Tele was a bad match, and if he acted anything like this, you can see why. But then if someone like wallflower disagrees with him about marrying younger women, he uses this to justify himself. He reads everything through the lens of "Does this justify me or not?" That is why he spreads massive confusion. Many, many times I've seen people say that he is giving them a headache or turning their minds to mush -- he really does talk like a Modernist now. He weaves a tangled web of truth and untruth that is impossible to sort, because "truth" for him fluctuates according to his own interests; like with Luther, Modernists, you get the picture.