Winchester Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I find this comment borderline butthurt. I have reported you to the Babby Brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Why do you want to desperately to be the one the break a hymen? I don't. Just the opposite. I cannot get my virginity back! I regret gving myself away before marriage more than anything. Let me tell you, this is something that stays with you for the rest of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 If it were taken completely literally (and in total exclusion from other possible intentions), then yes, it isn't a great standard (though not "terrible"). It is clear there is a confusion of terms and definitions. The one that I think many people try to convey (perhaps before being shot down) is metonymic after a fashion. What do I mean by this? People intend it to mean chastity and virginity, not just virginity. It is a straw man to suggest that people are only looking at that state in total seclusion, and not considering anything else, or are meaning something else concommitant with it. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when you say "virgin" it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and no longer has any real objective significance. That's one reason why people react in this way when someone says "I only want to marry a virgin." If, by virgin, you mean someone who hasn't engaged in any sexual activity, I'd ask where you draw the line - would kissing be okay? How much kissing? Would it be okay for the person to have dated other people? What I'm trying to illustrate is that even if you adopt the "chaste" definition of virginity, you still run into problems, because everyone has a different standard of what's chaste enough. It's bad to want to marry a 'virgin' so that you don't have to "share" your spouse with anyone else. This is because that statement is incredibly selfish and uncharitable. People are not toys to be kept or shared - you do not own the rights to your future spouse. Spouses offer themselves as a free gift to each other. Furthermore, it runs into the problem of alienating those who experience a conversion later in life. And the statement of not wanting to marry a convert automatically implies that those raised in the faith are better than converts. If you want to talk about being judgmental, I'd appreciate a less defensive tone. I know you're new, and I'm glad you're here, and I hope you stay a while. But you can't just run into a new community, ask a question, and act like they're stupid when they try to answer it. And the thing is, some statements and actions have automatic implications, regardless if you intend them. I'm not being judgmental. I'm telling you that when someone says they only want to marry a person who has been chaste their whole lives, on some level they are truly saying that people who have been chaste their whole lives are better than those who have not. That people who are chaste their whole lives are somehow better at being chaste than someone who has a conversion and is now living a life of chastity. That's not how virtue works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) For fun I keep an account at Catholic Match. I have read a lot of profiles. Quite a few have exclusionary clauses. Most are not rude enought to say "non-these need not apply" - but their preferences are definitely clear. I have read profiles of men who want their perspective brides to 1. be Italian 2. be Irish 3. be of Jewish descent 4. be mentally healthy 5. be Outgoing 6. be "Up" 7. Not be a recovering addict of any kind 8. be Well-educated 9. be a Brunette 10. speak with a "Country" Accent 11. be Tall 12. be shorter than 5'5'' 13. have traveled outside the country at least once 14. want to stay home with kids 15. be "Passionate about their career" (code for won't stay home) 16. be "active" (code for no fatties) 17. be a Virgin 18. be a non-virgin 19. be from a large family 20. be from a large, happy family 21. not have tattoos 22. not have piercings beyond the traditional 2 ear 23. be Black 24. be White 25. be Hispanic 26. be Indian (pacific) 27. Attend charismatic services 28. Attend TLM exclusively 29. be a convert 30. be a cradle catholic I could go on. the reality is all is fair in love and war. We all make choices in life. If you made a choice and lost your virginity, so what. Make good and go on. But you cannot blame people for what they are/are not attracted to. You cannot hold it against them because a choice you made took yourself out of the running in their book. I was aghast at a young man who really wanted to marry an Italian woman. Family tradition, so on and so forth. How unfair - especially because being Italian is not a choice. But the reality is he is not under a moral obligation to be attracted to non-Italians, and women can not demand that from him. It is not my fault for being a non-Italian, and it is not his fault that he wants to marry an Italian. Clearly he is intended for someone else. Edited January 29, 2013 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 3. be of Jewish descent On Catholic Match? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 To answer your question, yes, I think it is okay to say you don't want to marry someone with a mental illness. It is definitely not for everyone. Mostly, it's not about getting saddled with someone with a disability. We will all be disabled at sometime in our lives. It's about the fact that having a mental illness is a heavy enough cross that they also don't need to be crushed under the weight of being married to someone not patient enough to be a good spouse to them. I didn't go looking for someone with schizophrenia. That would be a weird fetish. I just had lots of experience dealing with the mentally ill, so I wasn't scared off when he told me he had it. Actually he thought I didn't know what the word meant or was dense when he told me and I said that's interesting, so what. On the other hand I have fallen on my head. If I had held out for a virgin, I would have missed out on the man God picked out for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 On Catholic Match? lol it happens. I know a few Catholics of Jewish descent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 17. be a Virgin With a capital V... there's a tall order. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augusta Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share Posted January 29, 2013 It didn't make him defective, or non-marry able. He also has Schizophrenia. That also wasn't a deal-breaker. Now if he had been a smoker, forget about it. I haven't suggested anything of the sort. Why do you assume my friend is thinking someone is defective? This is just judgmental. -AK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I haven't suggested anything of the sort. Why do you assume my friend is thinking someone is defective? This is just judgmental. -AK Are you not being judgmental by assuming that she is assuming you meant that? :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I haven't suggested anything of the sort. Why do you assume my friend is thinking someone is defective? This is just judgmental. -AK You're reading way too much into her statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zabbazooey Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I smell a thread closing or this getting moved to the Debate Table... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachael Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I smell a thread closing or this getting moved to the Debate Table... In the mean time, it's pretty entertaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augusta Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share Posted January 29, 2013 I want to marry a virgin for emotional and practical reasons, and at the moment it looks like that will happen in a few years. This is pretty much my friend's case. She would be bothered by a sexual past, so she states that she won't marry a man with one. If I could convey the amount of emotional abuse she has suffered, I'd be here for weeks. Things like "you're unChristian", "you're going to Hell", "you can't do that, that's a sin", "you're a coward", "you're anti-Christian", "I'm praying that you never find someone", "God hates you", et cetera. The people who made those comments use similar logic, arguments, and assumptions to some of the people on this thread. It's quite difficult to know that your close friend is in therapy due to the abuse she received from people at her church (Catholic, too), but it's also hard to stay calm when those kinds of people, making the same kinds of arguments, then have the nerve to call my friend "anti-Christian" due to her stated desire. If she ever decides to marry (not likely), she will forever have the comments of those "kind, loving Catholics" from her parish echoing through her head. All due to her "friends" thinking they're better because they can overlook or accept more. I have an honest, polite question, Augusta: if a man you truly connected with chose not to date you because of your weight, or the occasional grumpy mood, or the fact that maybe your house is a bit of a disaster sometimes, would you feel at peace with that? Let's look at a similar situation. A man says, "You're a good woman with a beautiful heart, Augusta, but I'm afraid I just can't be with someone who is prone to moodiness." Again, this isn't about me, it's my friend, but I'll answer anyway since our views are alike (hopefully it'll give some idea). Well, the temporal consequences of those things are minor, so it's not quite analogous in terms of gravity (but still valid, of course). That said, if someone did not like me entirely, why would I want him to date me? I can't get my head around it. If he doesn't really like me, it would be selfish of me to insist or to guilt him into it. Same goes for marriage: if someone can't love me entirely, due to my personality, views, appearance, fashion, whichever, why on Earth would I want that person to marry me? "I love you, and you mostly love me"? That's a recipe for disaster. What's worse is guilting people into marrying someone they're not entirely happy with. I cringe at the idea of a person, troubled by their partners actions (sexual, etc), at the altar essentially lying while saying the vows. There seems to be a concern with rejection and with unrequited love. As Karl Keating once said, "within easy driving distance, there are a hundred people whom you could marry and have an equally happy life with." I hear echoes of the soulmate theory; "they're perfect, except for this one thing" or "I would have missed out on the man God picked out for me." It doesn't work that way. I think the there are a lot of factors that cause people to lash out when someone says "I only want to marry a virgin like myself." I see the assumptions of bad faith, the holier-than-thou attitudes that they claim to renounce, and the strange perceptions of being arbiters of marriage partners. It's bizarre. If they kept to themselves, it would be okay, and my friend wouldn't be a shell of her former, happy self. Thank you for being polite. -AK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augusta Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 Are you not being judgmental by assuming that she is assuming you meant that? :| It makes no sense for someone to state that, especially after the comments I'd made theretofore, and it not be a directed statement. I'll let her clarify if she wishes. That said, if a statement is meant as tangential, it is best left out. -AK Important marriage filters: 1. Do I want to bang this person? 2. Can I stand this person? 3. If I have problems standing this person, does the urge to bang them outweigh that? As crude as this comment is, it still allows for someone to restrict their search to virgins. Is this a correct interpretation? -AK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts