Break up with my girlfriend?

[MarysLittleFlower]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have been taught the same thing consistently by several very holy and very intelligent priests.

Me too... Its correct

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Well. They are holy insofar as you know, but I will take that into consideration. A source would still be nice. That conclusion does not seem very logical on its face to me. The act of contrition itself says "I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin." There seems to be a clear distinction between sinning, and avoiding the near occasions of sin.

It is tough for me to believe that putting yourself in the position of a near occasion of sin is sufficient to be a mortal sin. Let's say a couple that are dating have dinner late at his house or her house, alone. That is a near occasion of sin. At the end of a nice dinner he goes home. No sleeping together. No making out. Etc. One of them is going to hell for that? Seems a bit extreme.

But if you have a source that says something to that effect, I could potentially be convinced.

I learned this from very authoritative sources too (that occasion of sin is a sin). I found a section on occaaions of sin from the Baltimore catechism. It even says being unwilling to avoid occasion of sin makes one not ready to confess. I was told its a sin to put yourself into the occasions because its a type of presumption. If something lead you to a mortal sin in the past its possible to do it again because we ARE weak. The Catechism explains in detail about the types of occasion of sin.. 

. 771. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?

A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?

A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: "He who loves the danger will perish in it"; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.

Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?

A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?

A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and 
4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?

A.

1. The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
2. The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
3. The things are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.

More here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

 

Also I don't know this website but they have some quotes: http://www.catholicessentials.net/occasionsofsin.htm

I would GREATLY recommend that you read the encyclical Casti Connubii on marriage. Have you ever read it? Its probably one of the most useful things to read about marriage for anyone. Just wanted to share our Legion of Mary group is reading it and everyone is really impressed. Its the authentic Catholic teaching on marriage (not our society's view)  and it could clarify a lot of things http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

 

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I trust the guidance of my pastors who are concerned for the state of my soul, and who have dedicated their lives to that paternal care of myself and my fellow parishioners and friends. I felt no need to ask Father for a catechism citation.

All that being fair, I am relatively confident that your proof can be found in the Summa. I am out right now so I cannot find it today.

The Summa might have it 

[MarysLittleFlower]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't disagree that it would be a sin, by the way. But I have trouble seeing how something like that could be a mortal sin.

Perhaps if the person put himself in the near occasion of sin with the express intent to eventually commit the mortal sin? Like - if you went over your girlfriend's house late at night hoping to get busy, but she kicked you out?

I think that for a sin to be mortal the action must be a grave matter - I am not quite sure how having a late dinner at your girlfriend's house would be up there with things like "Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like . . ."

It would seem like bad judgement, but I have trouble seeing how it is mortal . . .

The presumption part may be mortal perhaps? Just thinking out loud. Let's say a person commits fornication whenever he goes to.his girlfriends house for dinner. Then he says to himself "that's it! I won't do it anymore" yet still goes where he would be tempted, he is being very presumptuous of his strength or that God would give grace anyway. It could be like tempting God. That can be mortal? 

10 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

Actually, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 singles out fornication as a special class of sin.  He felt so strongly that he used the image of being united to a prostitute. Like the saying goes, when you sleep with someone, you sleep with everyone they slept with, and everyone they slept with, and so on, and so on.  And at Fatima, Mary said that more people would go to hell for "sins of the flesh" than any other sin.  One of the reasons this culture has sunk down the toilet is because people don't take this seriously.enough.  Sure, it happened in the past, but there used to be a sense of shame and guilt about it that kept society in check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghq-AOHQBR0

If you recall correctly, that was in response to one of your harsh insensitive mocking posts in order to get you to stop.

And it worked.

I agree that impurity is serious, is probably the most common sin leading to hell, and that fornication has that added part of a physical union with another that is not found with other impure sins. However - I have never heard the idea that if someone sleeps with a person they sleep with everyone they have slept with. Is that a saying or actual teaching of the Church? Do you know or anyone else? But if a man marries a woman and she committed fornication before, he is not sinning being with her because they are married..? I understand that it does mean something for her that she has had the physical union with someone else before and that is significant and does effect her husband but it seems you are saying more. There's no more fornication in marriage? Can you explain to me? Thanks 

Before when you said "contaminated" I thought you said like the soul is contaminated and that made no sense to me because God forgives. Maybe I misunderstood and you were saying something else. Maybe i criticized a true idea in which case i'm sorry. But I'm still unclear what you mean and where this idea is from    maybe others here are wondering too 

Edited December 13, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Peace]

6 hours ago, beatitude said:

Now, this may not be applicable to you. Maybe you are no longer struggling with chastity. I know couples who used to have this problem but who then managed to repair their situation. In that case there is no pit to fall in - you've bridged it. I think it's just a question of being honest with yourself about your weaknesses.

Beyond that, I don't feel qualified to give dating much advice. I'm a single woman in a secular institute and all my dating experiences just pointed me in the direction of consecrated life. However, I think that "Does she make me want to be holier and more loving, and do I have the same inspiring effect on her?" are good questions to ask - they get to the heart of the matter, and they're fair, because you don't have to be with Ms Perfect (or be Mr Perfect yourself) for the answer to those questions to still be 'yes'.

I think that I will face temptation in any dating relationship that I am in, whether I am dating Ms. Chastity Divine or Ms. Harloty Hoe. Granted, it would be better for me to date Ms. Chastity Divine, but I still have the usual male hormones. The temptation and opportunities to sin are going to be there, because I don't think that there are too many women in this day and age that bring their father or older brother along with them on dates. But I would not take that situation, in and of itself, as a calling for me to join a convent. I think that I can still pursue marriage, but will need to be more diligent and proactive concerning things like chastity. I think that is possible.

[Lilllabettt]

10 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

 

If you recall correctly, that was in response to one of your harsh insensitive mocking posts in order to get you to stop.

And it worked.

Hey phatmass, here's the thread where my "mocking" posts occurred. I encourage peeps to read and decide for themselves. in case you're interested, Norseman suggests I marry a gay dude as a religious duty on page 3.  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/137040-homosexuality-disorderedif-you-speak-a-foreign-language-please-read-this/?page=1  Good stuff.

 

[Peace]

Marys - thanks for the reading suggestion. I will check it out.

16 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Hey phatmass, here's the thread where my "mocking" posts occurred. I encourage peeps to read and decide for themselves. in case you're interested, Norseman suggests I marry a gay dude as a religious duty on page 3.  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/137040-homosexuality-disorderedif-you-speak-a-foreign-language-please-read-this/?page=1  Good stuff.

 

I wonder what place/culture Norseman grew up in, and if that has anything to do with his mode of thinking.

[Lilllabettt]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

I think that I will face temptation in any dating relationship that I am in, whether I am dating Ms. Chastity Divine or Ms. Harloty Hoe. Granted, it would be better for me to date Ms. Chastity Divine, but I still have the usual male hormones. The temptation and opportunities to sin are going to be there, because I don't think that there are too many women in this day and age that bring their father or older brother along with them on dates. But I would not take that situation, in and of itself, as a calling for me to join a convent. I think that I can still pursue marriage, but will need to be more diligent and proactive concerning things like chastity. I think that is possible.

I think part of the response might be because you seemed kinda casual when you admitted that you had fallen into unchastity. Most people fall in this area, in one way or another -- but the difference for a committed Catholic is there should be some genuine horror after the fact. Like, you did something with this girl that has imperiled her soul. How would you feel if she loses her salvation because* she met you? 

You said something like "we should cut it out, right?" and "we should at least try to do what we know is right." If you really do realize how serious this sin is and have a firm purpose of amendment, I would expect something more like "I'm sorry this happened, and it won't happen again." 

Of course this is the internet and I don't expect you to be all dramatic and contrite, and maybe you are a little ashamed (quite right too) about admitting to this stuff, so I assumed you described it in kind of a joking casual way. But I can def see other people reading what you wrote and coming away with the impression "this guy does not  get it."  Which, if that is true and you do not get it, you should not be with this girl.

 

*Yes, I know its ultimately her choice to sin, but something I like to pray for is that no one I cross paths with goes to hell as a result of a choice they made in interacting with me. whether that is unchastity, lack of forgiveness, scandal, or if somebody one day mugs me, kills me, whatever.***

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

I wonder what place/culture Norseman grew up in, and if that has anything to do with his mode of thinking.

Polish? Chicago?

Poland is a strongly Catholic country. Polish folks probably value virginity more than the average American. But idk if the contamination stuff is a Polish thing. I've met my fair share of "virgins only need apply" type guys (guess I had never-been-kissed stamped on my forehead???), but they were icky, not Polish.

[Peace]

28 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I think part of the response might be because you seemed kinda casual when you admitted that you had fallen into unchastity. Most people fall in this area, in one way or another -- but the difference for a committed Catholic is there should be some genuine horror after the fact. Like, you did something with this girl that has imperiled her soul. How would you feel if she loses her salvation because* she met you? 

You said something like "we should cut it out, right?" and "we should at least try to do what we know is right." If you really do realize how serious this sin is and have a firm purpose of amendment, I would expect something more like "I'm sorry this happened, and it won't happen again." 

Of course this is the internet and I don't expect you to be all dramatic and contrite, and maybe you are a little ashamed (quite right too) about admitting to this stuff, so I assumed you described it in kind of a joking casual way. But I can def see other people reading what you wrote and coming away with the impression "this guy does not  get it."  Which, if that is true and you do not get it, you should not be with this girl.

*Yes, I know its ultimately her choice to sin, but something I like to pray for is that no one I cross paths with goes to hell as a result of a choice they made in interacting with me. whether that is unchastity, lack of forgiveness, scandal, or if somebody one day mugs me, kills me, whatever.***

I see. Some folks on here wanted me to be like "Dear Phatmassers: I have committed a grave sin against the Lord. Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, I have imperiled my own soul and the soul of an unsuspecting young woman. And for this I truly hate myself."

Well. I went into a box, confessed my sins to a person I barely even know, asked for forgiveness, and stated to God that I resolve not to commit the same sins again in the future. An adult does not typically do such a thing unless he realizes that he did something wrong. I don't know what else to tell you.

I did not literally say "Look here baby. Cut that stuff out OK? We good? OK. Let's go to MacDonald's."

LOL. Give me some credit. The conversation was a bit more serious than that.

[Era Might]

McDonalds? A baller on a budget. I like it. Make sure she doesn't supersize.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I did not literally say "Look here baby. Cut that stuff out OK? We good? OK. Let's go to MacDonald's."

Yeah, I guessed not.

Just saying that is how it could be read and prolly how whats his face read it. you know. the real name guy.  It's a Big Deal and your post did not exactly communicate the idea that it's a Big Deal. 

Also - no offense intended - but to me the fact that you went to Confession doesn't itself carry weight. I know too many people for whom this seems to be an empty ritual, a la Sunday Mass attendance, and not reflective of any internal conviction or understanding on their part. I say seems. God knows. 

anyway good luck with this chick. If you stick with her there's a decent chance you will be her salvation or damnation. If you have to be one or the other make sure its the former not the latter. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I tend to be more understanding of things like premarital sex than I am of other behaviors that Catholics consider mortal sins.

In contrast, for many reasons I have a hard time understanding watching pornography. Among other problems, porn sets up very unrealistic expectations of what sex is all about between a loving married couple. 

But, premarital sex has at least two components. The negative component is lust, not a good thing for many reasons including that it is something that historically has led thousands of people to do things they later regretted. 

However, unless you have an arranged marriage where you don't meet your partner before the wedding, if you fall in love with someone, unless you have a full-time chaperone or fall into the "Duggar idiocy" of not even kissing before marriage, you are almost certainly going to have times of temptation. But, premarital sex is different from prostitution or picking up a random woman in a bar and having sex with her.

If you love someone, particularly if you love them enough that you want to marry them, you also want to show them physical affection as a way of expressing your love for them. It is not pure lust. Your physical affection is a giving thing, not something primarily for your own pleasure, but to try to express nonverbally how much the person means to you and is becoming a part of you emotionally.

However, "understanding" is not the same as condoning. For a practicing Catholic I am not condoning premarital sex. I am simply saying that I have more empathy for the physical temptation that results from loving someone versus pure lust. In fact, I think it is a good thing if a couple who are engaged or seriously dating are physically attracted to each other, because it means that they are more likely to have a better physical relationship after marriage. A marriage where one partner is not sexually attracted to the other partner is headed for problems.

I think St. Paul understood love very well, but because St. Paul was so obviously called to the celibate life, I feel that he sometimes is less than emphathetic of the real conflict that results when you love someone enough to seriously consider marriage.

A person of faith learns to develop enough self-control to keep themselves from acting on impulses they will regret later. This lesson of sexual self-control is very important, because I think it is a rare person who is married for 50 years who never ever finds another person sexually attractive. Even if a person of faith is in a situation where it would be easy to have extramarital sex, they learn not to act on any feelings they may have, and if necessary remove themselves from the situation. I think that people who would say that couples who are seriously dating should have chaperones or never be alone aren't giving enough credit to the power of faith and religious belief in controlling our behavior.

Rather than judging others or assuming the worst, wouldn't it be more loving for Phatmassers to say "I understand the temptation--I've been there. I'll pray for you." Most of us here are adults and we don't need other Phatmassers to act like stern parents. Leave the judgement to God--He is the ONLY one who truly understands what is in our hearts--both the good and the bad.

OT--I'm still cracking up at the advice that Lilli should have married a gay man to help him control his homosexual urges. As I've posted many times before, I was clueless enough to marry a "closeted" gay man, and it hurt our marriage in many ways other than just sex. Even if I wanted to be (which I don't!), I couldn't be a man, so I could not satisfy my ex-husband's sexual needs. I still haven't forgiven myself for my cluelessness in marrying my ex, because it meant that I gave up my chance for a lifetime, happy, marriage. Yes, I dated after my divorce, but I never met anyone who even came close to being the right person to marry. I am now older and sick, and as my mother has so "lovingly" told me, "What man would ever want you?"

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Yeah, I guessed not.

Just saying that is how it could be read and prolly how whats his face read it. you know. the real name guy.  It's a Big Deal and your post did not exactly communicate the idea that it's a Big Deal. 

 Fair enough.

7 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Also - no offense intended - but to me the fact that you went to Confession doesn't itself carry weight. I know too many people for whom this seems to be an empty ritual, a la Sunday Mass attendance, and not reflective of any internal conviction or understanding on their part. I say seems. God knows. 

Hmm. Is it an empty ritual for you? I would guess that only 10% of Catholics go to confession a single time each year. I don't really see how someone can go before God, ask for forgiveness and state that they resolve no longer to commit sin, and view it as an empty ritual. I mean - if you view it that way why even go in the first place? At least from my view it would take some serious cojones to go before God and essentially lie, when you don't really mean what you say.

But maybe that is the way that a convert such as myself looks at it. Perhaps if you grew up Catholic you might just look at it as just another day in the office . . .

7 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

anyway good luck with this chick. If you stick with her there's a decent chance you will be her salvation or damnation. If you have to be one or the other make sure its the former not the latter. 

Thanks. I don't really think so though - see the asterik in your previous post. If I sin, it is because I choose to sin. Nobody can make me do it. . .

[Lilllabettt]

16 minutes ago, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

However, unless you have an arranged marriage where you don't meet your partner before the wedding, if you fall in love with someone, unless you have a full-time chaperone or fall into the "Duggar idiocy" of not even kissing before marriage, you are almost certainly going to have times of temptation. But, premarital sex is different from prostitution or picking up a random woman in a bar and having sex with her.

[...]

A person of faith learns to develop enough self-control to keep themselves from acting on impulses they will regret later. This lesson of sexual self-control is very important, because I think it is a rare person who is married for 50 years who never ever finds another person sexually attractive. Even if a person of faith is in a situation where it would be easy to have extramarital sex, they learn not to act on any feelings they may have, and if necessary remove themselves from the situation. I think that people who would say that couples who are seriously dating should have chaperones or never be alone aren't giving enough credit to the power of faith and religious belief in controlling our behavior.

1. I'm against calling it the Duggar idiocy. I do not fall into the category of person that does not want to be kissed prior to marriage but I did give it serious thought. And I know people who do fall into this category and they are not idiots. Life choices, we all make them. I myself would 100% rather be derided by the world as an idiot vs. commit a mortal sin. Which ---people who do not kiss-- they have made that choice as well, and I respect that.

Also, as someone who embraces chaste kissing and who is not chaperoned ever, I can be totally honest in saying I have never been tempted to have premarital sex, at least not to the point that there was more than a snowballs chance in hell of such a thing coming to pass. There are a lot of steps between chaste kissing/cuddling and premarital sex. I 

2. Your second paragraph is 100% correct. The point is that for Peace faith and religious belief were not enough,at least a few times. you are right self-control is learned. It is hard enough to do that learning when both people are committed to making the effort, with their whole hearts. Peace has doubts about whether the girl has that commitment. thus caution is warranted. 

[Era Might]

51 minutes ago, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

OT--I'm still cracking up at the advice that Lilli should have married a gay man to help him control his homosexual urges. As I've posted many times before, I was clueless enough to marry a "closeted" gay man, and it hurt our marriage in many ways other than just sex. Even if I wanted to be (which I don't!), I couldn't be a man, so I could not satisfy my ex-husband's sexual needs. I still haven't forgiven myself for my cluelessness in marrying my ex, because it meant that I gave up my chance for a lifetime, happy, marriage. Yes, I dated after my divorce, but I never met anyone who even came close to being the right person to marry. I am now older and sick, and as my mother has so "lovingly" told me, "What man would ever want you?"

Thanks for your post. This is one area where I think Christianity (and maybe religion in general) really lacks insight. A lot of posters have focused on the nature of "dating" in a Catholic context, which I understand and don't begrudge people to live life as they think best, but I can't understand the view of marriage and relationships in general where the purpose is to make a lifelong decision, because people not only change, but they HAVE to change if they're going to grow. To me, your personal example is a success story, NOT a failure...you realized how clueless you were, and I think that's the only way to make any progress in life, because we discover our ignorance in the bad mistakes we made. The way I read Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, when he speaks of marriage, is in the same context as when he speaks of "give your cloak as well" and "go two miles instead of one." It's a standard of relationship where you serve each other, not because either of you are perfect, but because if you don't commit to working out this relationship, then you've defeated the nature of relationship? So I understand that on an enlightened spiritual level, and I definitely think it's important, if two people are going to  strive for something like that, to have a common spiritual understanding. But to apply this enlightened ideal to the mass of humanity and make it not just a universal principle, but something that you will go to hell for if you don't live up to it, discredits it to me. Personal enlightenment is the work of a lifetime, so I can't really buy into a religion where relationship is the be-all-end-all, and basically if you make a very human and practically unavoidable mistake of marrying the wrong person, that you have to suffer it out for the rest of your life. I don't think either premarital sex or the collapse of marriage is due to any special depravity in modern men, but just in the fact that collectively we have become individuals in ways that we never were before, and don't live through institutions like marriage the way we had to before. Marriage, in a social sense, is mostly just economics and personality matching...I think to see it as a spiritual ideal is to overthink it. But, this is just one aspect of the problem I have with religion, and Christianity in particular, the idealization of unnecessary suffering. I don't see anything wrong in you getting remarried or in Peace having premarital sex...maybe it will help him avoid a stupid decision, maybe not, but the only way to live life is to find out. And I think once you have that experience, you come to an englightenment not on any ideal religious ground, but on simple human ground...once you've had sex enough times, you get the gist of it, and you realize what it is and what it isn't. Same with marriage, in my non-Catholic opinion.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Era Might

[Lilllabettt]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

 Fair enough.

Hmm. Is it an empty ritual for you? I would guess that only 10% of Catholics go to confession a single time each year. I don't really see how someone can go before God, ask for forgiveness and state that they resolve no longer to commit sin, and view it as an empty ritual. I mean - if you view it that way why even go in the first place? At least from my view it would take some serious cojones to go before God and essentially lie, when you don't really mean what you say.

But maybe that is the way that a convert such as myself looks at it. Perhaps if you grew up Catholic you might just look at it as just another day in the office . . .

Thanks. I don't really think so though - see the asterik in your previous post. If I sin, it is because I choose to sin. Nobody can make me do it. . .

I came through RCIA myself. One of the people in my class missed Mass like a month post-Easter vigil; she wanted to go to a baseball game. She shrugged and said "guess I'm a bad Catholic." God knows what the story really was. I know somebody else who came through RCIA and believes strongly that gay sex is morally acceptable and abortion is just sending a baby back to God.  So -- RCIA -- that's no sign to me. your mileage may vary. I know like a handful of people who go to Confession like they do a drive thru, either because of tradition or because its something their social group does. 

RE: your last line, I  decided I didn't need to put another asterisk to explain again that someone can not literally be another person's salvation or damnation. But you can most def be the occasion of another person's salvation and damnation. Be the occassion of this chick's salvation and not her damnation. OK? I just skipped the asterisk this time.  

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I came through RCIA myself. One of the people in my class missed Mass like a month post-Easter vigil; she wanted to go to a baseball game. She shrugged and said "guess I'm a bad Catholic." God knows what the story really was. I know somebody else who came through RCIA and believes strongly that gay sex is morally acceptable and abortion is just sending a baby back to God.  So -- RCIA -- that's no sign to me. your mileage may vary. I know like a handful of people who go to Confession like they do a drive thru, either because of tradition or because its something their social group does. 

Fair enough.I still tend to think that objective action is more determinative of one's state of mind than what one professes. I could come on here and write a thousand page essay on how remorseful I am, but if I do not go in there and repent as God instructs, what does that tell you? Same thing with guys who profess how much they love their wives, and then beat them or cheat on them, etc. You know where their heart lies based on what they do, not by what they say.

I think the fact that someone goes into the box and confesses as God instructs tells you a lot more about the person than how "sorry" he may appear to seem when he speaks.

15 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

RE: your last line, I  decided I didn't need to put another asterisk to explain again that someone can not literally be another person's salvation or damnation. But you can most def be the occasion of another person's salvation and damnation. Be the occassion of this chick's salvation and not her damnation. OK? I just skipped the asterisk this time.  

Fair enough. I certainly I do not want to lead someone into sin. That was a part of having the "let's cut it out baby" talk in the first place.

35 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I don't see anything wrong in you getting remarried or in Peace having premarital sex...maybe it will help him avoid a stupid decision, maybe not, but the only way to live life is to find out. And I think once you have that experience, you come to an englightenment not on any ideal religious ground, but on simple human ground...once you've had sex enough times, you get the gist of it, and you realize what it is and what it isn't. Same with marriage, in my non-Catholic opinion.

What about sleeping with 10 different women in 10 different days. Anything wrong with that?