What Gives?

[Nihil Obstat]

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



As crude as this comment is, it still allows for someone to restrict their search to virgins. Is this a correct interpretation?

-AK

You sound like either a high school student or a political science major. Am I correct? :smile3:

[Winchester]

ee cummings

 

she being Brand

she being Brand

-new;and you

know consequently a

little stiff I was

careful of her and (having

thoroughly oiled the universal

joint tested my gas felt of

her radiator made sure her springs were O.

K.)i went right to it flooded-the-carburetor cranked her

up,slipped the

clutch (and then somehow got into reverse she

kicked what

the hell) next

minute i was back in neutral tried and

again slo-wly;bare,ly nudg.       ing(my

lev-er Right-

oh and her gears being in

A 1 shape passed

from low through

second-in-to-high like

greasedlightning) just as we turned the corner of Divinity

avenue i touched the accelerator and give

her the juice,good

                              (it

was the first ride and believe I we was

happy to see how nice and acted right up to

the last minute coming back down by the Public

Gardens I slammed on

the

internalexpanding

&

externalcontracting

breaks Bothatonce and

brought allofher tremB

-ling

to a:dead.

stand-

;Still)

vroom vroom

[rachael]

[Augusta]

Augusta, thanks for your reply.

 

I think I understand more of the situation now. It's sad that your friends are treating your other friend like that. It's not fair or Christian.

 

I want to make one point that I think is crucial here, though.

 

There is a BIG difference between saying "I would like to marry a virgin." and "If they're not a virgin, I won't even consider it."

 

One is a preference, and the other is shutting the door on good people who have made mistakes. At the very least, it's my belief that everyone deserves a fair chance. I think Jesus loved that way.

 

To pass over someone without getting to know them on the sole basis of their sexual status seems presumptive. Again, that's just my feeling. 

 

It's as if the thought is, "Oh, you're not a virgin? I'm sorry. You don't qualify to be with me anymore."

 

Note: I am NOT trying to be mean here and my intentions are pure. I am just explaining what that feels like from the position of the person who has sinned. 

 

The way she states it is: "no sexual past" (clarified as: "with someone else"). She told me that it would bother her. She was careful to make it known that she wasn't trying to spite anyone or hold any sin against them, just that their sin hurt her. That's basically it. In general I think it's wrong to assume to know someone's reasons for setting such a criterion; worse is to make bad faith assumptions.

 

She was emphatic that it was not: "Oh, you're not a virgin? I'm sorry. You don't qualify to be with me anymore." You make it sound so callous and dismissive (just the way I read it, though). That's not her intent. And again, I don't think she should be ground into the dirt for the sole reason of having bad faith assumptions made of her by various people in her life.

 

In a way, I'm reminded of the people who say that a couple using NFP are "lesser Catholics." Or women who wear pants are "inferior to women who don't." Those things are going overboard into the territory of some kind of aggressive, group-enforced scrupulosity. People who state that virgins who wish to marry virgins are somehow to be despised fall into the same category. All three groups assume the worst, and then act on it, holding themselves as arbiters. The hypocritical and judgmental attitudes are abound.

 

 

-AK
 

So Augusta... what I am getting out of this is that there is some reason that your friend only wants a virgin, but it is a totally great Christian reason...but what is it??

 

And I agree that it is TERRIBLE that people would pray that she never finds someone, even if they question her motives, they are judging someone for perceived judging???? That's just silly.

The reason need not be "Christian." If "compatible with the Christian faith" counts as Christian, then yes, it is. My previous comments address it, but it's basically emotional and practical.

 

It is silly that people would do that. What annoys me is that many people here did similiar things. That disturbs me.

 

 

-AK

 

[Winchester]

Your friend should be less callous and dismissive.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_nEKkguXoQ[/media]

[Augusta]

It's carppy that your friend is being treated that way. But no one in this thread has acted in that manner. It was noted by a couple of people that the "I only want to marry a virgin" topic was hashed out here not too long ago and thus some of the responses are colored by that discussion. Largely because people who are not virgins were treated poorly, or talked down to. People haven't been saying it's bad to prefer or hope for marrying a virgin, but that we shouldn't be jerks and dweebs to those who are not. Again, I think you are reading negativity into posts where there is none.

 

It makes sense that there'd be left over resentment and anger from an argument if people were being treated or thought of poorly.

 

I don't think I'm reading negativity into posts, though. I stated in an earlier comment about the many assumptions people had made without asking for clarification first. It's absurd. I asked why the mistreatment of my friend happened, and then the assumptions start flying: that she's a he, that she is marrying someone just because they're a virgin, they're being anti-Christian, et cetera. If you could make a logical connection from my first post to any of those statements (and many others), I will... I don't know... Give you a cookie? That's it. Frankly, I don't need a prize, because there won't be a winner. That's why I'm annoyed. The attitudes I witnessed in real life I see reproduced here without much second thought.

 

 

-AK

Your friend should be less callous and dismissive.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_nEKkguXoQ[/media]

 

Would you like to clarify that remark? What assumptions is it based on?

 

 

-AK

people have said these things to her? :( that's awful! seriously, i hope she punched those people. :|

 

 

this.

 

She's not a violent person. The damage was already done though, and I don't think there needed to be any more. Let's just say she'll never hear the usual quotes about "forgiveness" or "love" the same. She didn't deserve the treatment she got. Even by a huge stretch of the imagination. I'm trying to find what the precedent was.

 

 

-AK

Word ... that's why I've been staying out of VS.  And now this!

 

Ok --- venting done :).

 

Augusta -- welcome to PM!  I do think that someone who desires that their bride or husband-to-be is a virgin is ok, as long as the person does not automatically condemn those who are not.  As others have said there is so much more to chastity than just the physical part, and it is quite possible for someone who had fallen into sin to be perfectly chaste for decades.

 

Having said that -- if it is that important to you, so be it.  It is your right to choose your mate as you see fit.  :)

 

(and I just finally read the REST of the thread ... it really should read "if it is so important to your friend ... etc."

 

Yes, it is important to her, and not out of selfish idealism, either. What bothers me is that people think she hasn't thought it through, as though she's too immature to know the ramifications.

 

 

-AK
 

[IcePrincessKRS]

 

 

 

 

I don't think I'm reading negativity into posts, though. I stated in an earlier comment about the many assumptions people had made without asking for clarification first. It's absurd. I asked why the mistreatment of my friend happened, and then the assumptions start flying: that she's a he, that she is marrying someone just because they're a virgin, they're being anti-Christian, et cetera. If you could make a logical connection from my first post to any of those statements (and many others), I will... I don't know... Give you a cookie? That's it. Frankly, I don't need a prize, because there won't be a winner. That's why I'm annoyed. The attitudes I witnessed in real life I see reproduced here without much second thought.

 

 

-AK

 

 

 

The way you accuse us of "bad faith assumptions" says otherwise. I have known most of the people posting in this thread for years, some of them for over a decade. I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that you are misinterpreting posts.
 

 

I'm trying to find what the precedent was.

 

 

-AK

 

Then I guess you'll have to ask the people who were rude to your friend.

[Augusta]

OK. I get where she's coming from. It's reasonable.

 

My only concern is that by saying "I will not under any circumstances marry x sort of person" she could really miss out on someone wonderful, you know? My position is more like "I PREFER xyz but I'm going to keep my heart and mind open to see who God brings into my life."

 

It's a lot easier, I've found, to let God bring a couple together instead of trying to force what we think is best for us.

She's thought it through. She's an adult, and can accept the consequences of her decisions. As she has said in the past, it's better for her to not marry than to marry someone she isn't happy with. Again, the Karl Keating quote above.

 

Again, I know you're here for your friend. I would just be sad if she lost her chance at her perfect man because she limited herself, that's all.

She's likely going to miss out on everyone now, perfect or not. The irony is that her friends, due to demanding that she not limit her choices, have left her in a terrible state, unwilling to marry at all.

 

 

And there's no fewer choices than zero.

 

 

-AK

[Augusta]

The way you accuse us of "bad faith assumptions" says otherwise. I have known most of the people posting in this thread for years, some of them for over a decade. I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that you are misinterpreting posts.

I don't think "many assumptions people had made" is suggesting that all comments are assumptions, or that said assumptions are bad faith ones, or that everyone has made bad faith assumptions. Again, the first page of comments had little to do with my original post, and many of those comments made assumptions that suggested less than acceptable or kind motivations. E.g. suggesting that my friend's decision is "harsh and unforgiving" and reduces "someone to the sum of their sin." That was a bad faith assumption. There was no basis for it, and the least they could have done was ask further questions, rather than concluding that she had the worst possible intentions. Again: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/126739-what-gives/?p=2537929
 

 

Then I guess you'll have to ask the people who were rude to your friend.

Rudeness is too kind a word.

 

 

-AK

[IcePrincessKRS]

I don't think "many assumptions people had made" is suggesting that all comments are assumptions, or that said assumptions are bad faith ones, or that everyone has made bad faith assumptions. Again, the first page of comments had little to do with my original post, and many of those comments made assumptions that suggested less than acceptable or kind motivations. E.g. suggesting that my friend's decision is "harsh and unforgiving" and reduces "someone to the sum of their sin." That was a bad faith assumption. There was no basis for it, and the least they could have done was ask further questions, rather than concluding that she had the worst possible intentions. Again: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/126739-what-gives/?p=2537929
 

 

Rudeness is too kind a word.

 

 

-AK

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has made assumptions about your friend. Comments have been made in very generic terms about how SOME people react or think. You are the one applying those comments to your friend.

[MissyP89]

She's thought it through. She's an adult, and can accept the consequences of her decisions. As she has said in the past, it's better for her to not marry than to marry someone she isn't happy with. Again, the Karl Keating quote above.

 

She's likely going to miss out on everyone now, perfect or not. The irony is that her friends, due to demanding that she not limit her choices, have left her in a terrible state, unwilling to marry at all.

 

 

And there's no fewer choices than zero.

 

 

-AK

 

I don't know. I like to believe that healing is possible for anyone at any time, no matter what the situation or how long the wounds have been there. God's grace is wonderful. And good priests and surrounding herself with people who DO support her helps so much. I would hope that someday soon she is able to find healing and peace.

 

Many people have been betrayed and deeply wounded by supposed "friends." It takes time, but there is hope after that. Continue to support her.

 

As to the rest of this conversation, her choice -- and its consequences -- are hers and I wish her well.

 

Stay around for a while after this discussion, if you can, and try to get a better feel for the way we interact and how our discussions progress. 

[PhuturePriest]

I'm late to the party, but I like talking, so I'll give a proper response for the fun of it!

 

Would my wife preferably be a virgin? Of course. In a preferred world, everyone would be a virgin before getting married. But that's not always the case. I would love my wife no matter what she had done in her past, and hopefully she would feel the same way as I am not a virgin. Virginity is preferred, but if you really can't marry someone because they made mistakes, you have no place getting married, and you should set yourself for the same standards, because I guarantee you have made mistakes, too. Is my virginity something that is rightfully meant to belong to my future wife? Heck yes it is. But I'm not Doctor Who and I can't get into a Tardus and go back in time, so that train has left the station. We are all broken. We have all made mistakes. You don't love someone because they are perfect; you love someone in spite of their imperfection. If you are looking for a perfect spouse, you had better be praying you are called to the Priesthood or religious life, because that's the only way you will get one. If you truly love someone, virginity should not be on the list of your top priorities. Chastity should be.

Edited January 30, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Augusta]

if you really can't marry someone because they made mistakes, you have no place getting married

Is your comment as judgmental as it sounds, or have you mistyped?

 

 

-AK
 

 

P.S. In case you didn't know, my friend was on the receiving end of comments just like the one you have written above, and it is has left her emotionally scarred (she's in therapy). If people just minded their own business...

 

ETA: P.P.S. I recommend reading over the whole thread first. It would have likely saved you the time of typing a comment.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Augusta

[rachael]

Oh my.

[iheartjp2]

I got into a spirited debate with a friend on facebook after sharing a piece written by Rachel Held Evans (not Catholic but an awesome Christian commentator). Just thought I'd add my two cents from the discussion:



...[W]hile chastity is to be valued, virginity is not since it only tells you that they've had sex, not what type of person they are. Maybe someone who IS a virgin wouldn't be had opportunity presented itself. Maybe someone who IS a virgin would cheat on their spouse after they got married if the opportunity presented itself. Instead of focusing on what someone has or hasn't done, why not focus on what type of person they are. Isn't that what matters more from both an ideological AND practical standpoint?

It strikes me as illogical to hold virginity so high. Virginity shouldn't be praised in itself and CERTAINLY lack thereof should not be despised because virginity until marriage is a component of chastity, which is a component of the Church's teaching on sexuality which is a component of the entirety of Church teaching, which includes mercy, forgiveness, and people changing through grace. To chip off a piece of a beautiful statue, no matter how beautiful, and then praise that one chip, even for the sake of the statue, would be nonsense. Virginity might be convenient for not having memories linger, if any at all, it might be preferable to having someone who's had other sexual partners (which strikes me as insecure), but it isn't all that it's cracked up to be by the Faithful Conservative Catholic[TM] crowd.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the [TM] phrase).

What strikes me as so disgusting is that the whole concept fuels the double standard between men and women concerning virginity today and has fueled it throughout history. A man could just as easily lie and say he's a virgin. There are even some men who aren't virgins who have some warped view of what virginity is (ie. oral or anal? that's not sex!).

:lies:

 

A woman, though, bears physical proof of her virginity unless she gets her hymen restored. Believe it or not, it's a surgical procedure that's growing in popularity because of this whole fiasco, and it's sick.