Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on September 09, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
-
Here's a good one, that we heard about PERSONALLY and not on the Internet. A family member related this to us about one of her co-workers:
A young man was dating a young woman, and during their "dating years" they had a baby together. Her parents were strongly against her marriage to the young man. Apparently her desire to be married to the man wasn't very strong, as she seems to have gone along with their wishes for these past 3 years.
The child is now 3 years old. She now has a new boyfriend whom she is planning to marry.
Here's where it gets outrageous...
The young man wanted to marry her from the get-go, but the parents were against it. However, rather than just letting him go, he was taken to court and made to pay child support! He's been paying child support for these past 3 years, and will continue to do so FOR THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS.
And yes, that includes next year and onward, after the young lady in question gets married to her new boyfriend.
HOW in the world can that be considered justice?
If he is paying for the child's support, he should get full custody, not just visitation rights here and there.
But, as you can see, the world is VERY skewed in a feminist direction. It seems that the world is set against men. Men are at a distinct disadvantage today.
-
The decisive point here Matthew is that the girl's parents act as though it's perfectly fine to refuse marriage to the father of her baby. To show disrespect and contempt for the father of their grandchild.
They are shameless, and have raised a daughter without shame.
The young woman of course is responsible, but with parents like hers, it's not at all surprising she's doing what she's doing.
-
...
But, as you can see, the world is VERY skewed in a feminist direction. It seems that the world is set against men. Men are at a distinct disadvantage today.
Yes, Matthew. That sums it up.
The events which befell that unfortunate young man show the incredible grip which Feminism has over the legal system, and over society as a whole.
Feminists, and their male lackeys, have ensured that there is an obvious and undeniable bias against men.
That bias against men can only help to destroy the Christian concept of the family.
-
The decisive point here Matthew is that the girl's parents act as though it's perfectly fine to refuse marriage to the father of her baby. To show disrespect and contempt for the father of their grandchild.
They are shameless, and have raised a daughter without shame.
The young woman of course is responsible, but with parents like hers, it's not at all surprising she's doing what she's doing.
That is a very important point, Tele.
The girl's parents did not want her to marry the father of her own child!!!!!!!!
What?
What kind of parents are they?
How far away are those parents from any concept of normal morality?
Traditional Catholic teachings bring sanity to everything. When they are ignored, the result is madness.
-
The girl's parents did not want her to marry the father of her own child!!!!!!!!
What?
What kind of parents are they?
They don't have a traditional sense of honor. Just a bourgeois baby-boomer conception of it. So the idea of their daughter marrying someone they don't like is far more disconcerting to them than having their grandchild grow up without his father.
Unfortunately this attitude is not uncommon. There are many grandparents who want the son-in-law out of the picture for someone "better" or even to substitute themselves and be "dad again" - I've literally heard that said. - and the fact that a child won't be legitimate and won't grow up with their father doesn't phase them in the least. They have absorbed feminism into the marrow of their bones.
-
True. Feminism robs us all of a traditional sense of honor.
-
Yes, the man was considered worthy of "dating" their daughter, and his money is not too smelly...
This is a sad and tragic story. And repeated ad nauseam
It defies all decency.
-
Yes, the man was considered worthy of "dating" their daughter
Yes, they don't care about her purity - excellent point.
A lot of these parents don't really care about the reality, just the reputation.
And their concept of "reputation" doesn't depend on the appearance of moral virtue and responsiblity - no - odds are money is what matters to them.
-
Right, so the the man paying child support will have to find a girl with a job, if they want to have children. It's so wicked. And if he looses his job, she will have to support them so he doesn't get jail time.
-
Feminism is for men who don't want to do the hard work of being a manly man. I see in my own Country how the weak-willed soft lustful guys are actually pushing ladies into feminism. Being a patriarch requires lots of courage and diligence.
In a patriarchal society a man has to try hard to have access to a woman. He has to be worthy, have moral character and good reputation and be capable of raising a family or the girl and her family will reject him. If he wants a second wife or more he has to prove he can handle extra responsibilities. If he seduces and deflowers a girl he has to pay the price, if he visits an infamous house he has to keep it secret or own honor is lost.
But thanks to feminism a man for the first time in history can have it for free. because only an ''emancipated open minded'' woman can be cheap and easy to get. Why not be a couch potato and spend the whole day before TV while somebody else financially provides for him, sɛҳuąƖly satisfies him without him having to trouble himself with anything?
Long long age even a king had to pay a high price if he desired to add a wife to his harem, nowadays the lowliest guys can have easy access to lots of women. Also, a free modern woman will not disturb a man's ease and comfort by giving birth to babies, she won't require him to grow up and think seriously. she lets him stay immature and have fun, play video games everyday without worrying about anything.
Those male feminists hate pure women and they want to see all ladies impure and immodest. why? because culturally speaking (in my Country at least) a man who marries a virgin is obliged to be considerate and delicate in the beginning of marriage and put up with her inexperience treating her like a vulnerable fresh flower. But a modern godless man never has enough tolerance and patience for it. so he mocks pure girls.
I am not saying it is all men's fault. but males are also an important part of feminism movement.
-
In a patriarchal society a man has to try hard to have access to a woman.
Most still do have to try hard, only it's a different kind of trying that's required. That's the problem. Men who are motivated by emotion, by the desire for family often pay a huge penalty for it, men who are motivated by callous selfishness on the other hand often have a relatively free hand.
There's something else to consider. In the past women were expected to marry. This meant that pairing off would naturally occur within a reasonable time frame, and it also encouraged society to ensure that young men could find employment, otherwise there wouldn't be husbands for their daughters.
As it stands now it really is harder for the typical man to get a decent woman. Certainly to find a woman worth marrying.
When men are accused of "not trying" one should ask whether perhaps many have been robbed of the incentive.
A man can be training to be a brain surgeon and still struggle to find a decent woman. Most women today are just incredibly shallow. Catching them is like catching a bird. And they are bird-brained.
-
The decisive point here Matthew is that the girl's parents act as though it's perfectly fine to refuse marriage to the father of her baby. To show disrespect and contempt for the father of their grandchild.
They are shameless, and have raised a daughter without shame.
The young woman of course is responsible, but with parents like hers, it's not at all surprising she's doing what she's doing.
That pretty much sums it up.
The father of the child is morally responsible for the care of the child, but it seems that he wanted to do his best to fulfill that duty in the best ways possible. I wonder if he fought for custody. In most states he would have no chance unless the mother was breathtakingly unfit.
-
Feminism is for men who don't want to do the hard work of being a manly man. I see in my own Country how the weak-willed soft lustful guys are actually pushing ladies into feminism. Being a patriarch requires lots of courage and diligence.
In a patriarchal society a man has to try hard to have access to a woman. He has to be worthy, have moral character and good reputation and be capable of raising a family or the girl and her family will reject him. If he wants a second wife or more he has to prove he can handle extra responsibilities. If he seduces and deflowers a girl he has to pay the price, if he visits an infamous house he has to keep it secret or own honor is lost.
But thanks to feminism a man for the first time in history can have it for free. because only an ''emancipated open minded'' woman can be cheap and easy to get. Why not be a couch potato and spend the whole day before TV while somebody else financially provides for him, sɛҳuąƖly satisfies him without him having to trouble himself with anything?
Long long age even a king had to pay a high price if he desired to add a wife to his harem, nowadays the lowliest guys can have easy access to lots of women. Also, a free modern woman will not disturb a man's ease and comfort by giving birth to babies, she won't require him to grow up and think seriously. she lets him stay immature and have fun, play video games everyday without worrying about anything.
Those male feminists hate pure women and they want to see all ladies impure and immodest. why? because culturally speaking (in my Country at least) a man who marries a virgin is obliged to be considerate and delicate in the beginning of marriage and put up with her inexperience treating her like a vulnerable fresh flower. But a modern godless man never has enough tolerance and patience for it. so he mocks pure girls.
I am not saying it is all men's fault. but males are also an important part of feminism movement.
True
-
The decisive point here Matthew is that the girl's parents act as though it's perfectly fine to refuse marriage to the father of her baby. To show disrespect and contempt for the father of their grandchild.
They are shameless, and have raised a daughter without shame.
The young woman of course is responsible, but with parents like hers, it's not at all surprising she's doing what she's doing.
That pretty much sums it up.
The father of the child is morally responsible for the care of the child, but it seems that he wanted to do his best to fulfill that duty in the best ways possible. I wonder if he fought for custody. In most states he would have no chance unless the mother was breathtakingly unfit.
Many states are 50/50.
-
Here's a good one, that we heard about PERSONALLY and not on the Internet. A family member related this to us about one of her co-workers:
A young man was dating a young woman, and during their "dating years" they had a baby together. Her parents were strongly against her marriage to the young man. Apparently her desire to be married to the man wasn't very strong, as she seems to have gone along with their wishes for these past 3 years.
The child is now 3 years old. She now has a new boyfriend whom she is planning to marry.
Here's where it gets outrageous...
The young man wanted to marry her from the get-go, but the parents were against it. However, rather than just letting him go, he was taken to court and made to pay child support! He's been paying child support for these past 3 years, and will continue to do so FOR THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS.
And yes, that includes next year and onward, after the young lady in question gets married to her new boyfriend.
HOW in the world can that be considered justice?
If he is paying for the child's support, he should get full custody, not just visitation rights here and there.
But, as you can see, the world is VERY skewed in a feminist direction. It seems that the world is set against men. Men are at a distinct disadvantage today.
Instead of just letting him go?
It is his child, there is no letting him go. He has an obligation to support the child and has rights as the child's father. It is not up to the grandparents to "let him go" there are legal ties between him and the child. In general the courts will not bastardize a child.
You are arguing he should not support his child because things did not work out with the mother? Every man should have full custody because he pays child support?
I believe there is a great deal of bias against men at times in family court, especially when dealing with unscrupulous women. Not knowing more info on this case, a man having to pay child support for his child born out of wedlock doesn't seem like one of them.
You are painting him as a victim here. He fathered a child out of wedlock. A man engaging in relations with a woman of child bearing age married or unmarried needs to be open to the possibility that he will be paying child support for 18 years and possibly more in some cases. A man supporting his children is right.
Her not marrying him and the attitude of women towards marriage is a different issue.
-
The Court systems are extremely biased.
There probably isn't a woman in the country who has to worry about a man getting her pregnant, taking her baby, and making her pay child support (with the threat of prison if she doesn't pay HIM) while he starts a new family with a different woman.
The closest story that is anything like that I can think of is that old Jane Wyman movie set in Cape Breton Island. Johnny Belinda.
We've come to the point where women have the police guaranteeing that men must support them and their children without reciprocal obligations on their part.
They can go from man to man, being impregnated, and collect money from all of them, while honoring none of them. This is not a natural situation at all, it depends heavily on the police and the ignorance of young men who think that most women today are really monogamous, and willing to commit for better or worse.
-
The Court systems are extremely biased.
There probably isn't a woman in the country who has to worry about a man getting her pregnant, taking her baby, and making her pay child support (with the threat of prison if she doesn't pay HIM) while he starts a new family with a different woman.
The closest story that is anything like that I can think of is that old Jane Wyman movie set in Cape Breton Island. Johnny Belinda.
We've come to the point where women have the police guaranteeing that men must support them and their children without reciprocal obligations on their part.
They can go from man to man, being impregnated, and collect money from all of them, while honoring none of them. This is not a natural situation at all, it depends heavily on the police and the ignorance of young men who think that most women today are really monogamous, and willing to commit for better or worse.
Tele I agree with the bias, it's why I said the part about unscrupulous women.
Unless he is raped the man is voluntarily having relations with her. Matthew's example was not a situation where they were married.
Women are also conned by men, marrying and having children with men who they believe will be faithful.
There are men who have do what you describe. They fight for custody of the child and will say false things about the mother to win it or continually harass her with the system. I've known a few situation where men have done it to honest woman as basically an extension of his mom or the child's grandmother. The grandparents basically raise the child then.
-
This bias happens with abortion as well. A father has no right to save his own child, because the heart of the feminist reactionary we have these days is that women can kill their own children. What a truly sick world we live in. No matter though, the Chinese, Islamic, and Latin peoples will replace Western Man very soon because they don't give these "rights" to women (besides the one-child policy in China).
-
Instead of just letting him go?
It is his child, there is no letting him go. He has an obligation to support the child and has rights as the child's father. It is not up to the grandparents to "let him go" there are legal ties between him and the child. In general the courts will not bastardize a child.
You are arguing he should not support his child because things did not work out with the mother? Every man should have full custody because he pays child support?
.
The parents convinced the man not to marry her.
The man tried to do the right thing.
They had no qualms about taking his money.
Now that the mom is getting re-married, he is still stuck with payment.
It's wrong to make a criminal out of a man who did not attempt to evade responsibility. It thwarts his future.
-
The parents convinced the man not to marry her.
The man tried to do the right thing.
They had no qualms about taking his money.
Now that the mom is getting re-married, he is still stuck with payment.
It's wrong to make a criminal out of a man who did not attempt to evade responsibility. It thwarts his future.
As usual we have a case of bad parents here.
-
Notwithstanding the woman and her value system, men should not allow themselves to become entangled with these kind of women. It's very important for men to maintain a high moral standard and not become involved in any way, shape or form of sɛҳuąƖ dalliance with any woman before marriage.
Know yourself.
Know the people in your lives.
But always maintain standards.
-
I'm not making excuses for the young lady, she's clearly a moral reprobate and someone who has no qualms about using other people.
And I'm not excusing this wicked system which was constructed by evil people. The purpose is CLEARLY to destroy the family structure legally and as part of the larger overall society plan.
This story is played out thousands of times per year.
-
This is a good example of why chastity is very important and we need to promote and live this virtue. Not only is this person haveing problems with his ex-girlfriend. But he will continue to have to deal with this situation for a long time. The one who suffers the most is the child. How can his father give him effective moral guidance when the mother and father live in different households? And if he feels treated unfairly and gets into a fight with the mother who suffers the most - not the mother - not the father - it is the child.
We need to pray for them all
:pray: :pray: :pray:
-
The young man wanted to marry her from the get-go, but the parents were against it.
I wonder how they could do it. American girls don't need paternal permission for marriage. They can do anything they like as soon as they are 18. So maybe it was she herself who disliked this man.
-
The young man wanted to marry her from the get-go, but the parents were against it.
I wonder how they could do it. American girls don't need paternal permission for marriage. They can do anything they like as soon as they are 18. So maybe it was she herself who disliked this man.
Well, it's not as complex as you think. Her parents raised her to think that it's normal to go with men you don't really want to marry, and to even have a child by him, until a better man comes along.
She liked him enough to have his baby. But her parents, instead of telling her to do the right thing, didn't want the father of the child married to the mother.
What it shows you is that there is absolutely no sense of honor among such parents, rather the corrupt values of suburban feminism.
-
I don't agree with the main thought here, I beleive a man should support his child no matter if he is married to the mother or not. It's a sin for him not too. The child is still his family and he has an obligation to provide. The state becoming involved is another issue. Fact remains that he choose to have a child with a woman he was not married to. The main point of the OP post seems like it's upset that he has to support the child while not married to his mother.
It could also be that she applied for public assistance like medical care or food stamps, and the state requires she files for child suppor or else she can only get benefits for the child, not for herself. (Remember it was conservatives who were the ones behind the surge in child support enforcement offices and more aggressive child support enforcement laws.)
As far grandparents something else I've seen is the amount of control a woman in the family wants to keep over children that are not hers. If the daughter marries the father the maternal grandmother (of the child) loses a great deal of influence over both of them. I've seen very aggressive women on both sides, the maternal and paternal grandmothers. I'm sure we all know of cases where the paternal grandmother was behind a custody fight. The "father" fights and fights for custody and the child ends up living with his parents. This isn't to discredit the relatives who are really filling in and raising a child that isn't theirs out of necessity, but there are many grandmothers playing mommy when their daughter is the mom and capable of caring for the child.
I'm no fan of adoption how it is now, but I've heard (from an adoptive mother, not something I read, so take it with a grain of salt) with adoptions often the reason why the child cannot be adopted is because the paternal grandmother doesn't want the son to sign off. The mother and father or for it, but they paternal grandmother isn't, and the son won't go against his mother.
Spouse and Tele bring up good points, despite her upbringing she could have chosen to marry him.
We are assuming here he is a good man, and there isn't a serious reason why they didn't want her not to marry him. It's an internet board so we don't know. I know when I became engaged to my former husband, it was relatively quickly after meeting him, several people told me If you are pregnant don't marry him, and a friend from childhood added in that he would marry me. Of course in my brilliant mind :laugh2: I didn't see their warning, instead became defensive and upset they thought I was a slut. They saw things I didn't though.
That said I am aware of the culture of not marrying "the baby's daddy." I remember one day picking up my son from daycare and one of the teachers and 2 other mommies were talking about their children's father and how they refused to marry him :( like it was some kind of joke. I knew the one father superficially from us using the same daycare, he was a young hard working lawyer and a nice man, I thought it was very sad.
-
Instead of just letting him go?
It is his child, there is no letting him go. He has an obligation to support the child and has rights as the child's father. It is not up to the grandparents to "let him go" there are legal ties between him and the child. In general the courts will not bastardize a child.
You are arguing he should not support his child because things did not work out with the mother? Every man should have full custody because he pays child support?
.
The parents convinced the man not to marry her.
The man tried to do the right thing.
They had no qualms about taking his money.
Now that the mom is getting re-married, he is still stuck with payment.
It's wrong to make a criminal out of a man who did not attempt to evade responsibility. It thwarts his future.
But the child is still his. I don't understand what her remarriage has to do with his obligation to support his family.
If we are upset about this, we should be even more outraged when after having children while married, a woman files for divorce and the man is ordered to pay child support. That was a woman that made a promise to be with him and was legally bound to him when he had children with her.
This woman was not married to him and choose to have a child with her to begin with. I don't see with her having a new boyfriend, husband, or remaing single play a part in changing his moral obligation to support his child.
I think we should be upset that she refuses to marry him assuming he is a good man and that whole mentality of rejecting marriage and choosing to have children out of wedlock.
-
But the child is still his. I don't understand what her remarriage has to do with his obligation to support his family.
If we are upset about this, we should be even more outraged when after having children while married, a woman files for divorce and the man is ordered to pay child support. That was a woman that made a promise to be with him and was legally bound to him when he had children with her.
This woman was not married to him and choose to have a child with her to begin with. I don't see with her having a new boyfriend, husband, or remaing single play a part in changing his moral obligation to support his child.
I think we should be upset that she refuses to marry him assuming he is a good man and that whole mentality of rejecting marriage and choosing to have children out of wedlock.
So obviously she's a 'swinger' correct?
-
Well, it's not as complex as you think. Her parents raised her to think that it's normal to go with men you don't really want to marry, and to even have a child by him, until a better man comes along.
You really hit the nail on the head here. This is the mentality of so many woman, even those that marry, always looking for what they believe to be a better offer.
What I don't understand is why the men are attracted to woman like this in the first place?
-
But the child is still his. I don't understand what her remarriage has to do with his obligation to support his family.
If we are upset about this, we should be even more outraged when after having children while married, a woman files for divorce and the man is ordered to pay child support. That was a woman that made a promise to be with him and was legally bound to him when he had children with her.
This woman was not married to him and choose to have a child with her to begin with. I don't see with her having a new boyfriend, husband, or remaing single play a part in changing his moral obligation to support his child.
I think we should be upset that she refuses to marry him assuming he is a good man and that whole mentality of rejecting marriage and choosing to have children out of wedlock.
So obviously she's a 'swinger' correct?
My point is he has moral obligation to support his child.
As far as her "swinging" she was not married to him when he choose to have a child with her in the first place. She isn't divorcing him or breaking their marriage vows. They both fornicated, as far as your jab using the swinging word, why would he expect chastity from her or her from him?
Placing him as the victim here and blaming it all on her isn't really accurate. They both did a terrible selfish thing to the child's life to begin with This thread is almost like she is the only one that did wrong and the wrong started when she refused to marry him.
-
My point is he has moral obligation to support his child.
As far as her "swinging" she was not married to him when he choose to have a child with her in the first place. She isn't divorcing him or breaking their marriage vows. They both fornicated, as far as your jab using the swinging word, why would he expect chastity from her or her from him?
Placing him as the victim here and blaming it all on her isn't really accurate. They both did a terrible selfish thing to the child's life to begin with This thread is almost like she is the only one that did wrong and the wrong started when she refused to marry him.
Yes she would be in the wrong for not marrying the father of her child, as long as he is not an abuser and he was in the wrong too but you know a lot of young people are blown into this sɛҳuąƖ lifestyle by our popular culture celebrating it and flashing images of it on the screen.
Yes she was a swinger.
-
My point is he has moral obligation to support his child.
As far as her "swinging" she was not married to him when he choose to have a child with her in the first place. She isn't divorcing him or breaking their marriage vows. They both fornicated, as far as your jab using the swinging word, why would he expect chastity from her or her from him?
Placing him as the victim here and blaming it all on her isn't really accurate. They both did a terrible selfish thing to the child's life to begin with This thread is almost like she is the only one that did wrong and the wrong started when she refused to marry him.
Yes she would be in the wrong for not marrying the father of her child, as long as he is not an abuser and he was in the wrong too but you know a lot of young people are blown into this sɛҳuąƖ lifestyle by our popular culture celebrating it and flashing images of it on the screen.
Yes she was a swinger.
I agree with you 100% apart from the swinger comment. They had a chance to make the situation correct and for the child to have a stable home instead of a broken one.
-
What I don't understand is why the men are attracted to woman like this in the first place?
A lot of men are strangely attracted to single moms. They like to feel like a hero, regardless of whether or not the mother was a victim of abandonment, or just had morning regret over who she was intimate with.
I have seen situations where the man was genuine, and ended up getting burned later after the Mom basically took advantage of his kindness.
I also know of situations where the man got bored and left to find the next damsel in distress. Oddly enough, in one case, the man still has his ex-girlfriends daughter one weekend a month. I guess he loved the child more than the Mom.
There were several times that I saw guys wearing these shirts when I worked at the bar. :facepalm:
(http://i.tfcdn.com/img2/68syaEAAY9oez8qQWFCQWJSaw5BRUlJgpa-fmZuul5FfUpJfkJmsl5yfq59ZDBRLTE_V98gvCQGJ6luaGZiZGMdnZAIA/fyVMtP8A)
-
I agree with you 100% apart from the swinger comment. They had a chance to make the situation correct and for the child to have a stable home instead of a broken one.
Yes but isn't that the consequence of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution?
-
I agree with you 100% apart from the swinger comment. They had a chance to make the situation correct and for the child to have a stable home instead of a broken one.
Yes but isn't that the consequence of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution?
I don't know? Victorian society had children that were born out of wedlock too.
-
I don't know? Victorian society had children that were born out of wedlock too.
But not nearly as bad as today's sick society.
-
From my own experiences:
Baptist minister marries is sister to a fellow. The sister lost her husband 1 1/2 months prior to the wedding. SHe quickly jumps into relationship with new guy she knew somewhat. He, though no fault of his own, is divorced, his wife publicly cheating on him, including blasting it all over FB,etc. Said minister is a strict fundie and has preached mucho om marriage,etc. Yet marries them.
Said minister and others are boycotting Star bucks for "supporting the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda", yet are ardent GOP supporters and no have no issues with contraception.
Lady I work with, divorced and in id-30's, remarreid a guy on his 2nd or 3rd marriage. Both are evangelicals. He has largely draiend their weranings and resources to pay for his 2 adult girls, one that stole a dope dealers money and now said gang is prowling often around their home. A yr ago, poof, he finds out he has another grown duaghter in NH. He is now occ shelling out bucks to help her out. Co-workers goes on and on about how she and huby are saved and she now has two kids, late in life, with him.....She has infected whole office with crud, yet never fails to vaccinate her kiddies. One is aged 4 and has some really disturbing mental/behavioral issues. Co-worker has nearly 20 yrs with the state and feels she cannot afford (likely, cannot) to quit, so the kiddes get shuffled off to daycare and Govt schools. Hubby works 1 1/2 hrs away from home daily, that is one way, folks. he comes home and she has to handle all child issues, inclduing some days spending 1/3 or more handling it on company time. Hubby? no second job for her to stay home, no reducing their living (nice house, gadgets,etc) and he spends his free time goofing off and of course, at church.
Well, here we have a disconnect between "believers" and practice, life.
hey, got a chapter now for a book love to write (if I were smartr enough, eh Eth?)..the Book? How Protestants and Evangelicals are screwing up the world and are Hypocrites.
-
oh and kids in story #1? not adjusting well, as dad is not cold in ground and now, new dad is in house with his 2 kids, part of time.....Plus, she is a shopaholic and new hubby makes 1/2 what old one did, yet the spending continues. Makes other women uncomfortable.
The adulteress? remarried, gaining weight by binge drinking with "conservative republican" new hubby and lfaunting adultery all over
As Baptist beleive in the "local new testement church", she can pick up and go any other baptist church that would have her, no authority to squash her.....she left some yrs ago from the other church..
and yes, not really a Church, using generic name for story ease.....
These are the divided mind people that have power and run the show in my area...indicitive of many.....
-
The protestants I knew growing up were not like that. It was even to the point where their held to a belief so strongly they lost their sense, like remaining with a husband where children were subject to sɛҳuąƖ an physical abuse. My childhood pastor never spoke of divorce or affairs in my presence either. I've always been shocked at how free people are discussing those things in front of children.
The plain protestants I know are really not like that and I see another extreme with them. They encourage spouses to abandon the other if one of them was married before. I don't speak for every plain church but the one I visited encouraged this. I have a hard time a couple married for 20 years with 9 kids should break up their home. If it is an adulterous relationship then IMO having them live as brother and sister would be the solution and better for the children. I guess that is still the appearance of evil though? They do speak freely of divorce though in front of children. I was put off at how they were asking me questions about my marital status, and circuмstances of my son's birth within 30 seconds of shaking my hand and right in front of my son. They wanted far more details than just knowing that I was single. :detective:
-
They are odd about what is discussed publicly, many are anti-drinking and will not use even a word close to swear word, yet they allow alot. My mtoher, a Baptist until 1964, notes that they place things in boxes, sɛҳuąƖ morality is in a box of its own and not related to anything else. Hence, a coupling of "once saved, always saved" with contraception,etc.....
In their midst, I cannot joke a lot nor have a beer, but if I was "saved" anythign else seems fine, just make a show of repenting and since there is no priest/mediator, one can go through motions.
Mother grew up with a lot of "everything is sinful", but that never seemd to include sex. My uncle, now an athiest, said one time (WARNING< BLUNT LANGUAGE) "Geesh, we were in church all day and night Sunday, could not do anything else other then go to church or screw".
Though salty, he is a bit right....I know of fundies that cannot even play games or baord games. One fundy that said it sas immoral on Sunday for a group pf Christian men to get together and watch football.
My uncle, Mom's brother, to this day goes to a Fundy baptist church, minister is a Bob Jones grad, who never preaches on gluttony (wife is rather obese) and everything is a sin. Uncle then goes out in middle of woods to smoke, only drinks when out of town and plays his guitar and sings only when in Fl for winter or on the road elsewhere.......
Are we then really surprised that the feminist sees this lopsided life and wants to "liberate" the women..........
Though said Prots are going along with it by their destructions of marriage, contraception,etc.....
-
The protestants I knew growing up were not like that. It was even to the point where their held to a belief so strongly they lost their sense, like remaining with a husband where children were subject to sɛҳuąƖ an physical abuse. My childhood pastor never spoke of divorce or affairs in my presence either. I've always been shocked at how free people are discussing those things in front of children.
The plain protestants I know are really not like that and I see another extreme with them. They encourage spouses to abandon the other if one of them was married before. I don't speak for every plain church but the one I visited encouraged this. I have a hard time a couple married for 20 years with 9 kids should break up their home. If it is an adulterous relationship then IMO having them live as brother and sister would be the solution and better for the children. I guess that is still the appearance of evil though? They do speak freely of divorce though in front of children. I was put off at how they were asking me questions about my marital status, and circuмstances of my son's birth within 30 seconds of shaking my hand and right in front of my son. They wanted far more details than just knowing that I was single. :detective:
I see them saying 2 different things, 2 sets of standards, one that comes down if a relative or some other circuмstance. Some Prots will admit that for adultery, a couple can seperate-ok, fine for awhile, but now they take it as a green light forre-marriage and start whittling down in other areas as well. Some divorce if a partner is in a mental ward or sick.
-
What I don't understand is why the men are attracted to woman like this in the first place?
Most young men are naive about women. And probably a lot of older men too.
And there aren't a lot of innocent women around. Once a woman is corrupted commitment becomes extremely difficult for her.
It's born out by marriage statistics.
-
There are a few sites out there by men about marriage crisis, would not advocate them to read as they are at times nasty and not Catholic in outlook.
Matter of fact, some yrs ago, had a friend that made me his administrator on his computer, a buddy system if you will and I took those sites off unknown to him as they were very negative.
Not sure if women have sites, but it is now the "fruit" of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution and the like since.....we all know the drill on that....
Know and have known of, several women that were attractive, friendly, intelligent and professional and were old maids at 35, 40 and up. No spouse ever.
Bear in mind, the women had to work, no spouse and at 30+, could not live at home and off daddy. Not at least, in this culture of ours. Could in other parts of world, amish,etc....
Now, welcome to age 40, no hubby and child bearing, should she find someone, is almost out......plus, no guy wants a 40 yr old gal on date #1 or 2 planning a wedding......
Again, these women, most of them, were not running around like Gloria Steinem or something....they were not all :really-mad2: :fryingpan: most of the time nor having Burning Bras parties or anything.
If single, would myself have asked perhaps, or not...but, would have considered it.
Have a high school friend I talk to occ, he is in same boat, is 41 1/2 yrs old and no prospects now....all younger women that have nothing in common with him past the physical attraction to start, perhaps, but no depth or, the age thing in our culture is a big deterrant. Again, some cultures, not as big a deal........
Hard to talk about things too much, when she is nearly half your age....besides the intial looks, one has to have something in common and even in strong Catholic circles, sometimes not enough....heaven, literally, help the fellow and gal that cannot find a trad partner and then, things really get iffy in the NO world, some good, some fair, some :shocked:
-
Hard to talk about things too much, when she is nearly half your age
I don't agree with that.
-
Hard to talk about things too much, when she is nearly half your age
I don't agree with that.
I didnt say this was true 100% of the time, no, not at all and find that likely lessend in other cutlures-ie, Hispanic, where often women are more mature then there gringa counter-parts and also, more liberal on age, willing to marry older men and no, not for money, or green card either....
so, no, not 100% of time.....
Do you care to expand on why you "don't agree with that" at all? or, best to keep private?
-
"don't agree with that" at all?
Depending on your personality, it may be a lot easier to speak to a younger woman than an older woman. Especially one who is more open to guidance.
-
true, know a guy that is now married to Columbian, that wa a severe hispno-phile and would not even try, hard, to talk to whites, he being one of them. Tried to intro him to good, soild Catholic ladies, and he was not interested.
he was bigoted to whites like himself, but to lead into a response to your point.
he was charming, successful and was not willingto talk to women that were not ready made to get marreid, have a family and hard core trad. I tried to get him to understand that most people are not and to divide the closed minded and go for those open to the Fide and/or Traditionalism. Many are, heck, he and I were raised largely in NO.
The gal he married? he at marriage was aged 45 and she around 34. Catholic, yes, wanting a family, yes....but she attend Mass at a NO, spanish, but still, NO.
I can relate sometimes to younger people, but after awhile, the cultural reference and experiences we are from birth so tied to, often come forward.
I grew up in the 70's and 80's, so too my wife, who is 10 months older. We click more on things. Her niece is one of those exceptions in younger women, but still, talk to her long enough and you would feel some disconnect, possibly. too many yrs and experiences different.....then again, some older women, too much baggage, whether they know it or not....even w/o kids.....
So, you are right somewhat, but would be a rare exception possibly. That said, I am very un-A personality and cannot effectively flirt to save my life...more quiet and reflectory, will talk when needed, but often ,the guy at the party that is more studying and observing.....hence, not tops on the "catch" list anyway, if I was single...perhaps, you are the reverse and would have easier time then I.....
(maybe a "top catch" if I was rich or with the 60+ and up crowd :laugh1: )
-
Tiffany, while I understand what you say about a father having responsibility for his child, and agree he should help provide support for the child, there is an institution set up to provide for child support. It's called marriage, and the child's mother refused it. So while I can see the man conceivably being required to spend money on the child himself, I can't see how it's just that he should be required to give money to the mother and she does not have to give any account as to how it is spent.
When society gives women the option to collect money from their children's fathers without marriage, enforced at gunpoint, then it is a powerful incentive for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the young woman.
-
Tiffany, while I understand what you say about a father having responsibility for his child, and agree he should help provide support for the child, there is an institution set up to provide for child support. It's called marriage, and the child's mother refused it. So while I can see the man conceivably being required to spend money on the child himself, I can't see how it's just that he should be required to give money to the mother and she does not have to give any account as to how it is spent.
When society gives women the option to collect money from their children's fathers without marriage, enforced at gunpoint, then it is a powerful incentive for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the young woman.
Though I agree, what is said man runs off,even while in marriage? Ideally, the Catholic state would work hand in hand w/Church to put pressure for support, but in the end, Catholic state or not, what remedy would we have for the father that books on his family? also, people are fallen and human, yes, they conceive out of wedlock and no, not always good idea to marry these 2 post-fornication, pre-birth, so, what remedy then? Would have to have some Govt institution w/policing powers set up of the man or women refuses to do their duty to their child....you mnake them, you support them...
BTW, when my state centralized collections-and we knew it was going to be a mess and it was-we had a lot of people, usually men, though occ women, arrested or pressured that HAD paid, but the switching of systems,etc, they fell through.......as a deputy sheriff,I and my fellows, had a unpleasant task of doing civil process serving, court room deputy,etc and ahd to see this first hand....a real unfair, friggin' mess.....
-
Hard to talk about things too much, when she is nearly half your age
I don't agree with that.
I didnt say this was true 100% of the time, no, not at all and find that likely lessend in other cutlures-ie, Hispanic, where often women are more mature then there gringa counter-parts and also, more liberal on age, willing to marry older men and no, not for money, or green card either....
so, no, not 100% of time.....
Do you care to expand on why you "don't agree with that" at all? or, best to keep private?
It's another consequence of feminism that the older man younger woman marriage is looked down upon. We should be encouraging our young women to many good men. There are advantages of an older man too as far as stability, maturity, things like that. It's an ungodly attitude that we see age as a "defect" and would discourage a young woman from marrying an good man that is significantly older than her.
I doubt ignorance of his generation's pop culture would be a negative from the man's point of view. Raised in a Christian home without tv or secular music many people are ignorant of their own generation's pop culture.
I think this is a Western Nothern American thing and another destructive attitude against traditional family life.
-
Tiffany, while I understand what you say about a father having responsibility for his child, and agree he should help provide support for the child, there is an institution set up to provide for child support. It's called marriage, and the child's mother refused it. So while I can see the man conceivably being required to spend money on the child himself, I can't see how it's just that he should be required to give money to the mother and she does not have to give any account as to how it is spent.
When society gives women the option to collect money from their children's fathers without marriage, enforced at gunpoint, then it is a powerful incentive for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the young woman.
Though I agree, what is said man runs off,even while in marriage? Ideally, the Catholic state would work hand in hand w/Church to put pressure for support, but in the end, Catholic state or not, what remedy would we have for the father that books on his family? also, people are fallen and human, yes, they conceive out of wedlock and no, not always good idea to marry these 2 post-fornication, pre-birth, so, what remedy then? Would have to have some Govt institution w/policing powers set up of the man or women refuses to do their duty to their child....you mnake them, you support them...
BTW, when my state centralized collections-and we knew it was going to be a mess and it was-we had a lot of people, usually men, though occ women, arrested or pressured that HAD paid, but the switching of systems,etc, they fell through.......as a deputy sheriff,I and my fellows, had a unpleasant task of doing civil process serving, court room deputy,etc and ahd to see this firs hand....a real unfair, friggin' mess.....
It's sad our society is not full of mostly strong stable families and large extended families. Depending on the economic situation of the society (excluding things like war, famine) a woman in that situation could easily very be supported by her extended family and then possibly her sons when they were grown. I think it's shameful on churches now that Christian women in that situation must fend for themselves.
Bless you for dealing with that..I can't even imagine.
-
Very well said, today, what would be the result if a chubby, middle class white guy like me marrying (if I were single) a 22 yr old? me at age 41?
Most women would wonder when they found out I was not rich (hence worldy thinking)
They would wonder why I am "robbing the cradle" (assuming, I MUST be a pervert, she desperate or something kooky about me, maybe, immature with women my own age, again, worldy thinking).
Belloc must want a "trophy wife" (assumes again, I have some wealth and /or status to assuage, assumes too, the woman is a knock out and maybe really somewhat plain, overweight,etc).
We put a lot of stress on age and generations, backed up by pop culture to re-enforce this.
300 yrs ago, all men and women wore largely, same clothing or style at least and listened to same music and same religion, art, etc by and large.
It is hard and a show stopped for most people to think:
-hey, age is not important
-they must have something that transcends age
-he is not over the hill and she is young enough to have a family (not easy when your peers are your age)..
So, as I am not rich, not that attractive at all (hey, i am honest and fine with that) and largely introvert, I would really get a lot of labels if at age 41 I started wanting to court a 22 yr old......
There also may be a tinge of jealousy, when over the hill Henrietta is not chosen as is younger Sally.....much like men half my age would easily shed the few flabby pounds I can, even with 1-2 weeks of only veggies and lean meats...for me, not happening....lost a lot over last 2 yrs, not happpening on that residual flab....so, henrietta might be prowling for her own Ashton Kutcher and the roles reversed.....
-
Tiffany, while I understand what you say about a father having responsibility for his child, and agree he should help provide support for the child, there is an institution set up to provide for child support. It's called marriage, and the child's mother refused it. So while I can see the man conceivably being required to spend money on the child himself, I can't see how it's just that he should be required to give money to the mother and she does not have to give any account as to how it is spent.
When society gives women the option to collect money from their children's fathers without marriage, enforced at gunpoint, then it is a powerful incentive for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the young woman.
Though I agree, what is said man runs off,even while in marriage? Ideally, the Catholic state would work hand in hand w/Church to put pressure for support, but in the end, Catholic state or not, what remedy would we have for the father that books on his family? also, people are fallen and human, yes, they conceive out of wedlock and no, not always good idea to marry these 2 post-fornication, pre-birth, so, what remedy then? Would have to have some Govt institution w/policing powers set up of the man or women refuses to do their duty to their child....you mnake them, you support them...
BTW, when my state centralized collections-and we knew it was going to be a mess and it was-we had a lot of people, usually men, though occ women, arrested or pressured that HAD paid, but the switching of systems,etc, they fell through.......as a deputy sheriff,I and my fellows, had a unpleasant task of doing civil process serving, court room deputy,etc and ahd to see this firs hand....a real unfair, friggin' mess.....
t
It's sad our society is not full of mostly strong stable families and large extended families. Depending on the economic situation of the society (excluding things like war, famine) a woman in that situation could easily very be supported by her extended family and then possibly her sons when they were grown. I think it's shameful on churches now that Christian women in that situation must fend for themselves.
Bless you for dealing with that..I can't even imagine.
exactly, it was a protestantized industrial society that has in part led to today......teh amish, living a life that was given to them by Catholics, or more apt, kept by them post"reformation"...though the no buttons, wear black or grey thing not.....good enough reasons, but we dont need to go that extreme....
my mother, a self described "christian feminist" argues that there is reason for women,then to get educations and jobs, though have noted to her, that impulse is a cause of problems........the amish woman has family, neighbors and often a farm and/or buisness she can rely on.....like Patty Duke in Harvest of Fire, hubby died, she had kids and extended community to help w/farm....
-
Tiffany, while I understand what you say about a father having responsibility for his child, and agree he should help provide support for the child, there is an institution set up to provide for child support. It's called marriage, and the child's mother refused it. So while I can see the man conceivably being required to spend money on the child himself, I can't see how it's just that he should be required to give money to the mother and she does not have to give any account as to how it is spent.
When society gives women the option to collect money from their children's fathers without marriage, enforced at gunpoint, then it is a powerful incentive for the kind of behavior we're seeing from the young woman.
Though I agree, what is said man runs off,even while in marriage? Ideally, the Catholic state would work hand in hand w/Church to put pressure for support, but in the end, Catholic state or not, what remedy would we have for the father that books on his family? also, people are fallen and human, yes, they conceive out of wedlock and no, not always good idea to marry these 2 post-fornication, pre-birth, so, what remedy then? Would have to have some Govt institution w/policing powers set up of the man or women refuses to do their duty to their child....you mnake them, you support them...
BTW, when my state centralized collections-and we knew it was going to be a mess and it was-we had a lot of people, usually men, though occ women, arrested or pressured that HAD paid, but the switching of systems,etc, they fell through.......as a deputy sheriff,I and my fellows, had a unpleasant task of doing civil process serving, court room deputy,etc and ahd to see this firs hand....a real unfair, friggin' mess.....
It's sad our society is not full of mostly strong stable families and large extended families. Depending on the economic situation of the society (excluding things like war, famine) a woman in that situation could easily very be supported by her extended family and then possibly her sons when they were grown. I think it's shameful on churches now that Christian women in that situation must fend for themselves.
Bless you for dealing with that..I can't even imagine.
I know do disability cases and see the same things, different angle and duties........a real mess. Biggest destroyer of economy is divorce, no families, breakdown of faith and family.....
-
my mother, a self described "christian feminist" argues that there is reason for women,then to get educations and jobs, though have noted to her, that impulse is a cause of problems........the amish woman has family, neighbors and often a farm and/or buisness she can rely on.....like Patty Duke in Harvest of Fire, hubby died, she had kids and extended community to help w/farm....
I would be marked off your list, have never seen that movie. :laugh1:
I'm curious about the Amish getting their culture from Catholics? They are anabaptists? Is it because they came from Europe?
-
Moral obligation to a child isn't just about money. The man in question (who appears to be the more honorable parent) will be paying support for a child, when in turn he might not be allowed much influence in the child's life, and no power over his upbringing. The law holds him to his financial obligation, but expects him to forgo his fatherly one.
The mother can marry anyone, and that man will likely have more control over the child's life, and could make tons of money, but the father still has to pay...his role is reduced to a paycheck and some novelty outing every other weekend. He wanted to create a proper family and the mother gets to just turn away.
The parent who cares the most is always the one who has to suffer the most consequences.