Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Daegus

The moral of this story is: modern women are insane.

There are still plenty of sane women in the world. It's a bit radical of a thought, but if I were a single guy looking for someone to marry, finding a woman who hasn't lost touch with her feminintiy would be more important than finding a Traditional Catholic.

Of course, the first goal would be to convert her, but I think that would be far easier than trying to work modernism out of a woman who is too deeply entrenched.

I decided to start a thread offshooting from this post of MaterDominici that can be found on page 9 of the thread in the Catholic Living in the Modern World subforum linked here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15641&min=80&num=10 .

How is it easier to convert a woman who is feminine and Novus Ordo or non-Catholic than working modernism out of a traditionalist women?

I seriously ask the question to learn details concerning it. Thank you to everyone who responds.

With all due respect, I do believe Mater's opinion on the matter is a bit far-fetched, if not quite ridiculous. It doesn't matter how feminine any woman is, it's unlikely that she'll convert to the True Faith. It has nothing to do with femininity or masculinity. It's about accepting the Truth as Christ has revealed it.

Sometimes, even if you manage to get a woman like that to convert to the Catholic faith, get baptized, etc., you'll find out that even though she has all that done she's still not really even a Catholic. I say this because even converts have ways of rejecting dogmas, end up being heretics and aren't even Catholic at all. That's the real problem. Sometimes these women couldn't possibly handle the idea of there being a "Newchurch" and the New Mess being questionable at least and completely invalid at best. They can't handle that certain things are mortal sins, can't handle this and that and so on.. Really the list goes on.

I'm not saying that there aren't any feminine women out there who wouldn't convert to the true faith in its entirety, just that the vast majority of them (feminine women) are not going to convert just because you're a shining example of virtue. The majority of them likely won't even really be interested in studying councils, Church Fathers, Popes, etc. They might like the externals like the Mass, but they usually don't care for the substance of the faith. This is the problem with many false traditionalists in groups like the FSSP and the SSPX especially. I see plenty of feminine women in the FSSP. How many of them reject at least 1 dogma or 2? Basically all of them. All of them accept the Newchurch and everything it teaches. That's a problem.

I would rather look towards women who are at least somewhat traditional because there's a much greater chance that they'll actually care about the Faith than someone who's not. It's easier to work out modernism and feminism out of someone who at least cares about the Faith and can be shown that the 2 aforementioned positions can not be reconciled with Catholicism than someone who's feminine and could end up not really even caring about the Faith that much.

With all due respect, my friend, there is a huge error in you logic. Here is what you say:

First of all, there's no error in my logic. This is your first mistake. Just because I didn't say something you agree with does not necessarily mean that my thinking is flawed. In fact, you said that there was an error in my logic and didn't expound upon that statement at all throughout your entire post. I found that to be problematic.

You have quite the negative outlook on conversions my friend.

If you were aware (which I have no doubt that you are) of what's been going on for the past couple of decades, Biblical accounts that most people will be going to Hell and the teachings of saints, Popes, etc. on the few that are saved, you would realize that this (my so-called negative outlook on conversions) is not for no reason. Most people (especially today) do not make sincere conversions. I did not, at any point in time posit that no one makes sincere conversions, just that most don't. It's true that most don't. You can tell by their fruits.

I assume most here are 'converts' to Traditionalism, including women. I think[/u] that a woman who is feminine will have an easier time converting to the Truth.

Therein lies the problem. You think but you do not know that a woman who is feminine will have an easier time converting to the Truth. What does femininity  in and of itself have anything to do with receptivity to the Truth? Nothing. Nothing at all. If it did you could similarly make the reverse case for masculinity because masculinity, in comparison to femininity, is conducive to the natural order of things (which I'm sure is the foundation upon the reason which you say that feminine women have an easier time converting than do non-feminine women). Being more masculine does not make one receptive to the Truth. If it did, then you could say that some of the most outrageous heresiarchs like Martin Luther and John Calvin were receptive to the truth. You could say that many of the American/Canadian men who died in World War I and II, despite being heretics, were receptive to the truth. You could also, conversely, say the notorious heretic Elizabeth I was receptive to the truth because she was feminine. Wrong. There's simply no solid proof you have, on any considerable scale, that being feminine or masculine somehow mysteriously makes one receptive to the truth.

The case that I'm making isn't that feminine women have an easier or harder time converting. Just that there is really no difference at all, and you haven't proven there to be one.

Case in point is my own wife. I met her outside of Church

As I've said before, personal anecdotes do not make for a strong case. That is only 1 case out of many. I don't doubt that your wife was an exception to the rule, but that's the whole problem. She is only an exception.

All of the girls at church where I'd gone were either hoochie-mammas and there because their parents forced them, or they were just bland, and unapproachable (for my own personal taste).

Here's another problem. Them being "hoochie-mammas" or there because of coercion or because you considered them to be bland doesn't prove anything. All of these things that you say are subjective, and don't mean very much in the grand scheme of this discourse.

I met my wife in college and the first thing which attraced me to her was her femininity. She liked dresses, (a good start  :wink:) and as I got to know her, she was effiminite from within. That is, she had a natural  'instinct', if you will, for knowing what her place is.

Again, this is not proof of anything. There are many women outside of the Church who are perfectly feminine that aren't receptive to the truth of God simply because they don't want to be. It has nothing to do with being feminine. Being feminine is the way things are naturally supposed to be. Them being feminine doesn't make them more receptive to truth. There's simply no substantial evidence of that, but much evidence to say the contrary.

And sometimes you find a woman like that to convert and find she truly is Catholic. Conversion isn't always the simplest of things. It takes time, and patience. The smart Catholic man will not marry her if he believes that he doesn't accept the faith in its entirety.

The major problem with what you're saying here isn't that you're wrong. It's that you're trying to make a case out of an anecdote, which doesn't prove anything. So what if "sometimes you find a woman like that to convert...."? That's not at all the case for the vast majority of people. That is what I'm saying. You also say "The smart Catholic man will not marry her if he believes that he[sic] will not accept the faith in its entirety". Unfortunately, the way you've worded this as if it's an absolute is really not always the case. You've also presented me with another problem. The vague notion of what constitutes "smart".  

Actually, I find the real problem is with non-converts pretending to believe in dogmas, yet actually failing to carry out a Catholic life.

Most people fail to carry out a Catholic life. That's why most people go to hell.

The convert, in this case, should have a strong leader to show her what truly is Catholic; and if she is feminine at heart, she will follow and respect the authority of the one who leads her.  A non-convert psudo-neo-trad would be much more difficult to deal with if she has been brainwashed to a certain point.

During the Protestant reformation, did you know that Martin Luther had many strong leaders that he could have listened to? He had many strong leaders like St. Robert Bellarmine who is now a Doctor of the Church that he could have listened to and yet he did not. The man (Luther) was clearly manly enough to be ordained to the priesthood (and being a priest is one of the manliest things one could possibly do), yet he fell into heresy despite having strong leadership to look up to. If it could happen to a priest, why can't it happen to a feminine woman?

Again Daegus, you're generalizing here. This isn't to say that what you've said isn't true, but what you've just mentioned is for all people not Catholic.

The reason why I'm generalizing is because exceptions to the rule don't prove anything.

I would rather look towards women who are at least somewhat traditional because there's a much greater chance that they'll actually care about the Faith than someone who's not. It's easier to work out modernism and feminism out of someone who at least cares about the Faith and can be shown that the 2 aforementioned positions can not be reconciled with Catholicism than someone who's feminine and could end up not really even caring about the Faith that much.

Again, you're young here. I dont' say this to discredit you, as you are (seem to be) a very knowledgable young man. I think thats great. You are very smart (objectively). But maybe your experience is still very limited with women.

Here's where I can see that you're being dishonest. If you weren't saying that I was young to discredit me, why would you even bring it up? s2srea, I'm no fool and I have to admit that that was very sly of you. You only brought up the fact that I'm young to discredit my arguments. You made that clear by suggesting that my experience with women could possibly be limited, which isn't even the point of this discussion at all. It's about what we know to be generally true about most people (women in this case). You should know better than that. You only worded the statement in the way you did just to make it seem like you weren't trying to discredit me, which, unfortunately is what you end up doing anyways by bring up an irrelevancy.

I think most men would (or at least I would) reject a neo-Trad over a convert. A neo Trad has already been shown the faith, and rejects it in a way. A convert either accepts or rejects the faith. If she accepts, and is feminine already, I think that is much nicer. No having to deal with a NO convert who doesn't "get it" etc

What I find interesting about this particular quote is how you say that "a neo Trad has already been shown the faith" without really giving much thought to the notion that a convert would too. A convert should know all of the dogmas of the Church before even converting, putting them in the same position as the so-called neo Trad. You also say a convert either accepts or rejects the faith. That is true. But a neo Trad can do precisely the same thing, which kind of makes me wonder why you even said that.

Really, the whole problem I have with your argument is that you're saying that because a woman is feminine she'll be somehow predisposed to the truth, which is not at all correct. If so, most of the Mohammedan women (who are, sadly, more feminine than most western women today) would be predisposed to the truth, which they are not.

I believe this is an interesting verse which you should meditate upon.

2 Thessalonians 2:10

"And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying"

Daegus, just to get a better understanding of things from your point of view, what in your opinion constitutes femininity?

The understanding God writes upon the hearts of each and every female as to what her place is in the natural order of the universe in relation to everything else. This understanding is then put into practice (usually) by the female sex to constitute what is known as 'femininity'.

First of all, there's no error in my logic. This is your first mistake. Just because I didn't say something you agree with does not necessarily mean that my thinking is flawed. In fact, you said that there was an error in my logic and didn't expound upon that statement at all throughout your entire post. I found that to be problematic.

Daegus- I didn't say there was no error in your logic because I 'disagreed' with you. I said it because you were wrong. So if you need me to expound on where you went wrong, I will try my best. Before I do, however, please do not take my attempt at being cordial with weakness or error- I will be more upfront since you can't seem to tell the difference. Perhaps its a flaw in how I write when speaking of such things.

So let us go back:


" It doesn't matter how feminine any woman is, [therefore] it's unlikely that she'll convert to the True Faith.

Here is your erroneous logic expounded on.

You reason that:

A lady can be feminine.
It doesn't matter how feminine a woman is.
It is unlikely she'll convert to the True Faith.

What?? That makes no sense. Perhaps you should expand. You can't generalize like this. I'm no philosopher, but I know that is not logical.
 

If you were aware (which I have no doubt that you are) of what's been going on for the past couple of decades, Biblical accounts that most people will be going to Hell and the teachings of saints, Popes, etc. on the few that are saved, you would realize that this (my so-called negative outlook on conversions) is not for no reason.

Once again, we are not even speaking about the same thing. You're all over the place. The OP of this thread was not speaking about people going to Hell or anything of the sort. He was asking, if it was "easier to convert a woman who is feminine and Novus Ordo or non-Catholic than working modernism out of a traditionalist women?" Who's talking about how many will go to hell here?

Most people (especially today) do not make sincere conversions. I did not, at any point in time posit that no one makes sincere conversions, just that most don't. It's true that most don't. You can tell by their fruits.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Who are you to decide the sincerity of persons and their thoughts? Which people? How do you determine they are not sincere? By their fruits? Who are you to judge fruits? Are your fruits all good? I know they aren't- you yourself have come on this forum with issues you have struggled with. Does this make you a false convert? I wouldn't say as much.

Therein lies the problem. You think but you do not know that a woman who is feminine will have an easier time converting to the Truth.

And you know??[/b] lol I'm starting to believe you've been given the gift of vision into persons souls and thoughts.

What does femininity  in and of itself have anything to do with receptivity to the Truth? Nothing. Nothing at all. If it did you could similarly make the reverse case for masculinity because masculinity, in comparison to femininity, is conducive to the natural order of things (which I'm sure is the foundation upon the reason which you say that feminine women have an easier time converting than do non-feminine women). Being more masculine does not make one receptive to the Truth. If it did, then you could say that some of the most outrageous heresiarchs like Martin Luther and John Calvin were receptive to the truth. You could say that many of the American/Canadian men who died in World War I and II, despite being heretics, were receptive to the truth. You could also, conversely, say the notorious heretic Elizabeth I was receptive to the truth because she was feminine. Wrong. There's simply no solid proof you have, on any considerable scale, that being feminine or masculine somehow mysteriously makes one receptive to the truth.

You are wrong. A woman who is feminine would have an easier time converting to Traditional Catholicism than a butch who looks, acts, dreses, thinks like a Feminist. You disagree? If so, you are weak minded. In this day and age, a woman who exhibits feminine characteristics is would naturally have an easier time converting to Traditional Catholicism because Traditional Catholicism, in itself, demands she be feminine . It would be a HUGE hurtle which she wouldn't have to overcome.

I can name numerous women "trads" who still are, and act like, feminists- think of the recent debates with those from FE on here. C'mon man; think. Those very women called themselves trads, when you and I know that, by their very actions and words, they aren't.

So my point is is that if you were looking for a spouse and the 'trad' women you came in contact to were, at heart, still modernists and feminist, that meeting a woman who was not yet Catholic who was intrinsically feminine, by her very temperament and nature,  who would convert to the Faith and Church would be a much better choice. Remember, modernism and feminism are a part of each other. If a woman was feminist to the bone, or brainwashed as much, she is modernist to the bone; whether or not she went to the Tridentine  Mass.

The case that I'm making isn't that feminine women have an easier or harder time converting. Just that there is really no difference at all, and you haven't proven there to be one......

As I've said before, personal anecdotes do not make for a strong case. That is only 1 case out of many. I don't doubt that your wife was an exception to the rule, but that's the whole problem. She is only an exception.

Wow. So you ask for a case to prove my point, then go on to say that personal anecdotes do not make a strong case?? :confused1: Thats plain goofy. Theres not better way to prove a point than first hand experience. If you think otherwise, you're wasting everyones time, including yours; that or you are looking to argue because you're bored (which I very much think the case).

Here's another problem. Them being "hoochie-mammas" or there because of coercion or because you considered them to be bland doesn't prove anything. All of these things that you say are subjective, and don't mean very much in the grand scheme of this discourse.

They are not subjective, but objective observations based on my unbiased observations. It means very much, considering you didn't know the difference.

Again, this is not proof of anything. There are many women outside of the Church who are perfectly feminine that aren't receptive to the truth of God simply because they don't want to be. It has nothing to do with being feminine. Being feminine is the way things are naturally supposed to be. Them being feminine doesn't make them more receptive to truth. There's simply no substantial evidence of that, but much evidence to say the contrary.

And again, you are acting quite daft. How does that not prove anything. I'm not out to prove the Earth is the center of the universe, or not. I am stating what I know to be true. At least I have experience in this, you have nothing but your readiness for a debate wherever you can find it. I've told you before to relax, you should reconsider my advice, or you will leave yourself with no, or few, friends here. I've already provided my evidence for why there is evidence to a feminine woman being more receptive to the Truth above; the Truth demands it of her.

The major problem with what you're saying here isn't that you're wrong. It's that you're trying to make a case out of an anecdote, which doesn't prove anything. So what if "sometimes you find a woman like that to convert...."? That's not at all the case for the vast majority of people. That is what I'm saying. You also say "The smart Catholic man will not marry her if he believes that he[sic] will not accept the faith in its entirety". Unfortunately, the way you've worded this as if it's an absolute is really not always the case. You've also presented me with another problem. The vague notion of what constitutes "smart".  

The major problem with you, besides what's been pointed out, is that you're pointing out the obvious. I never said it was the case for the vast majority of people. I was providing an option based on (again) personal experience. Hey Daegus, guess what- THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.


I'm sorry I cant continue with the rest of your argument. Its simple to obtuse and ambiguous. I commend your attitude and effort to seek truth; unfortunately, I am not as interested in debating for debating's sake as you, apparently; though I find it important to point out that I'm the only one between the two of us who actually has any experience in this; you are speaking from an ignorant, or at least limited, point of view.

Daegus- I didn't say there was no error in your logic because I 'disagreed' with you. I said it because you were wrong. So if you need me to expound on where you went wrong, I will try my best. Before I do, however, please do not take my attempt at being cordial with weakness or error- I will be more upfront since you can't seem to tell the difference. Perhaps its a flaw in how I write when speaking of such things.

Let's get a few things straight. Is it a fact, that can be proven by anything other than anecdotes, that being more feminine contributes to conversion? No. You haven't proven it to be either.

" It doesn't matter how feminine any woman is, [therefore] it's unlikely that she'll convert to the True Faith.

Here is your erroneous logic expounded on.

You reason that:

A lady can be feminine.
It doesn't matter how feminine a woman is.
It is unlikely she'll convert to the True Faith.

I have no idea how you managed to put those 3 things together. That's not even a logical progression. In fact, 1 doesn't matter in relation to 2 and 3 because 1 does not contribute to salvation. 2 is a true statement when it is not separated from 3, which you've done for reasons unknown to me. Just because I either said or implied the 3 things you've put together, that doesn't mean that they can somehow be put together as a logical progression.

Let's suppose I said this.

I really like trains and believe they can be great pieces of work. While I do find trains to be wonderful, one problem I have with trains is that they're not quite as fast as airplanes. Trains also lack the stately presence that planes have. Because the mechanics of planes and trains are vastly different, I suppose we could say it's unlikely that a train will ever be like a plane in speed or size and the like.

If I did to my own statements what you did to mine, I suppose we'd end up with something like this.

"I just made an unreasonable argument full of faulty logic. Here is how I think

1) I like trains and believe they can be great pieces of work
2) I say trains aren't as fast as airplanes
3) I say trains don't have the same kind of presence that planes do
4) I say it's unlikely trains will ever be like planes in terms of speed or size

That is not logic, that is absurd!"

The problem with doing that is that my statements were not even intended to be a logical progression. You'd just be reading into it to interpret things that aren't there. What I said was literally a collection of opinions that I believe in because of what I know with regards to the little number of people saved.

What?? That makes no sense. Perhaps you should expand. You can't generalize like this. I'm no philosopher, but I know that is not logical.

It's not going to make sense because it's a nonsensical argument you've created and attributed to me.

Once again, we are not even speaking about the same thing. You're all over the place. The OP of this thread was not speaking about people going to Hell or anything of the sort. He was asking, if it was "easier to convert a woman who is feminine and Novus Ordo or non-Catholic than working modernism out of a traditionalist women?" Who's talking about how many will go to hell here?

You can't say the topic of conversion has nothing to do with Hell in any way, whether we're explicitly talking about it or it's being intimated. I was talking about Hell because most people end up going there for not converting. That's the topic of the discussion. Conversion. Hell relates to conversion. The afterlife relates to conversion. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to expect that I would bring that up. I personally don't believe it's easier to convert a woman who is feminine out of the Novus Ordo/non-Catholicism than converting a false traditionalist. I believe the degree of femininity makes no real difference.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Who are you to decide the sincerity of persons and their thoughts? Which people? How do you determine they are not sincere? By their fruits? Who are you to judge fruits? Are your fruits all good? I know they aren't- you yourself have come on this forum with issues you have struggled with. Does this make you a false convert? I wouldn't say as much.

If most conversions were sincere, most people would not be going to Hell. That is a mere fact. It is perfectly logical. People who truly convert don't end up sending themselves to Hell in the end.  

And you know??[/b] lol I'm starting to believe you've been given the gift of vision into persons souls and thoughts.

This has nothing to do with looking into other people's souls. It has to do with analyzing what we already know and making general judgments based on that.

You are wrong. A woman who is feminine would have an easier time converting to Traditional Catholicism than a butch who looks, acts, dreses, thinks like a Feminist. You disagree? If so, you are weak minded.

Let me just repeat what you might as well have said to me, and tell me if you think it's reasonable for you to have said such a thing.

1) You're wrong.
2) A woman who is feminine would have an easier time converting to Traditional Catholicism just because I said so.
3) If you disagree with me you're weak minded because you're weak minded

There's no logic in this. I don't see why you feel the need to call me weak minded just because I don't agree with your opinion (and that's all it is by the way, an opinion. Not a fact.)

In this day and age, a woman who exhibits feminine characteristics is would naturally have an easier time converting to Traditional Catholicism because Traditional Catholicism, in itself, demands she be feminine . It would be a HUGE hurtle which she wouldn't have to overcome.

Being a good mother demands a woman be feminine. If she is not, she will not be a good mother because good motherhood DEMANDS it. Does being a good mother predispose a woman to the truth? Not necessarily.

I can name numerous women "trads" who still are, and act like, feminists- think of the recent debates with those from FE on here. C'mon man; think. Those very women called themselves trads, when you and I know that, by their very actions and words, they aren't.

I think it's great that you can name false traditionalists who act like feminists. I also think it's great that we both recognize that there are an innumerable amount of those types over at Fish Eaters. The problem is that that's not relevant.

So my point is is that if you were looking for a spouse and the 'trad' women you came in contact to were, at heart, still modernists and feminist, that meeting a woman who was not yet Catholic who was intrinsically feminine, by her very temperament and nature,  who would convert to the Faith and Church would be a much better choice. Remember, modernism and feminism are a part of each other. If a woman was feminist to the bone, or brainwashed as much, she is modernist to the bone; whether or not she went to the Tridentine  Mass.

You know, the real problem I have with the idea that one should look outside of the Church for women who are feminine is you seem to be falling under the unproven and, (in my opinion) mistaken notion that these women will suddenly be convinced that they need to convert just because they're feminine. I don't see the reasoning behind that. I don't agree with that notion.
 

Wow. So you ask for a case to prove my point, then go on to say that personal anecdotes do not make a strong case?? :confused1: Thats plain goofy.

I never asked you for a personal anecdote because personal anecdotes don't prove anything.

Theres not better way to prove a point than first hand experience.

Yes there is. They're called facts. It is a fact that most people will not convert to the Catholic faith because it is a fact that most people do not receive the love of the Truth. Most people do not convert to the Catholic faith because they love the world more than they love God.

If you think otherwise, you're wasting everyones time, including yours; that or you are looking to argue because you're bored (which I very much think the case).

It appears as though you're getting frustrated with debating with me. Perhaps this is because you thought that I would just agree to everything you said or something of the sort, I'm not sure. I think it is incredibly rude of you to assert that I want to argue just because I'm bored. I wanted to give my opinion and I did. If you don't like my opinion, you don't have to agree with me, but please don't begin to accuse me of things that are not true.

They are not subjective, but objective observations based on my unbiased observations. It means very much, considering you didn't know the difference.

You said that the women outside of your Church were either "hoochie-mommas" or they were forced to go there or they were bland. Bland is subjective terminology that means nothing. What you consider bland is not bland to everyone. I have no idea what a "hoochie-momma" is according to you. When it comes to them being forced, I have no idea of how you can know that unless you asked them.

And again, you are acting quite daft.

Here is a classic example of someone who gets upset just because someone disagrees with them online.

How does that not prove anything. I'm not out to prove the Earth is the center of the universe, or not. I am stating what I know to be true.

Your collection of anecdotes don't prove anything because anecdotes don't refute the general rule. Anecdotes aren't proof.

At least I have experience in this, you have nothing but your readiness for a debate wherever you can find it. I've told you before to relax, you should reconsider my advice, or you will leave yourself with no, or few, friends here. I've already provided my evidence for why there is evidence to a feminine woman being more receptive to the Truth above; the Truth demands it of her.

Now I can see that you're getting incredibly flustered over the fact that I'm disagreeing with you. You go from calling me daft, to saying that I have no experience to this and that.. I'm not even angry at you. I'm perfectly calm. In fact, I'm quite disappointed that you're getting noticeably upset at me that you feel the need to call me names, when you're the one who helped me when I was in need of a talking to for my belligerence.  

The major problem with you, besides what's been pointed out, is that you're pointing out the obvious. I never said it was the case for the vast majority of people. I was providing an option based on (again) personal experience. Hey Daegus, guess what- THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.

The reason why I'm pointing out the obvious is because you're trying to use anecdotes to disprove what you yourself refer to as "the obvious". The case for the vast majority of people is that most will not convert to the Faith because most do not receive the love of the truth.

I'm sorry I cant continue with the rest of your argument. Its simple to obtuse and ambiguous.

You're only saying that because you disagree with me and you can't prove me wrong. You're trying to assert your opinions as fact, and rarely, if ever, does that work in a debate. You can call my arguments obtuse and ambiguous all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you're not making a strong case.

I commend your attitude and effort to seek truth; unfortunately, I am not as interested in debating for debating's sake as you, apparently; though I find it important to point out that I'm the only one between the two of us who actually has any experience in this; you are speaking from an ignorant, or at least limited, point of view.

If you didn't expect/want me to debate you, you should not have responded to my initial post on the thread. What you're trying to say is that I can't have an opinion (which is rooted in a general truth) because my experience with women is limited. This is not a good argument.

Of all people, I would not have expected you to read into me what I have not written.  

Let's get a few things straight

No... I'll let you find someone else to bicker with. Have a blessed Sunday. Please pray for me.

Well said CS- I hope those words are heard...