Are Traditional Women too Choosy with Men?

[wallflower]

Mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives who say such things are simply not thinking it through from a Cathollic perspective. They are fully capable of erring on the topic too. Many of them have no choice but to accept it or be resigned to it because that's the only example they've seen. But they will not find peace or happiness in this.  

Perhaps not but...hey, I've heard it from old Catholic women raised in the countryside of an isolated island back in the 1920's and 1930's. Female virginity is valued, male's not much. These were women from the old days, not "liberated" ones as those of today. If they had a bias, it was a bias of old.

Of course they were wrong from a moral perspective but this example shows how religion, even hardcore Catholicism imbued in the culture, often cannot speak louder than corrupted nature. Unfortunately so, yes, but such is the way of things.

Right, but that's why I said not all ideas that are traditional are traditional Catholic. The double standard has been around since when...the beginning of time? It doesn't make it right though.

Women are more forgiving and tolerant but it's not because male impurity before or after marriage is less important it's because it's in their nature. They are naturally more forgiving, more of-the-heart, more about unconditional love. They also don't have much choice in the matter, being dependent on men the way they are. In the same vein that children, thank God, are so forgiving having two fallen parents to contend with, so women have to be long-suffering to be under the leadership of fallen men. It doesn't mean you can mine that for all it's worth, giving yourself slacker standards than you give them. That never ends well. As we see now with "liberated" women who won't take it anymore and have become just as lenient and destructive in their own sexual habits. They are following your lead. So if it is THAT bad for women to be lax in this way, that's precisely why it is just as crucial that men set a good example of leadership.

People get stuck on the idea that their daughter coming home pregnant is the worst thing in the world and that's why they "protect" their daughters more, it's a more visible consequence, the more short-sighted problem; but they aren't thinking it through that those sons are also going to be leaders of families and of societies, they will be responsible for many souls entrusted to their care -- how is their virtuous formation not just as critical?? Especially in an area that gives them the most trouble? If they fail to be able to control themselves and save themselves, how can they possibly save anyone else? It makes no sense at all to pretend their virtue isn't as valuable.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think Vetus is arguing for "right," so much as "normal."  KingTheoden suggested that this situation is a "chastisement" on our times, but it is as it always was.

[OCLittleFlower]

I think some women are too choosy, and some aren't choosy enough.  Personally, I think that if you find someone who is a Trad Catholic with good morals, who works a good job, and who you get along with alright and whose company you enjoy -- that should be enough.  And I'll throw in "not ugly," just to be kind.  But looks fade.  And most women have a better grasp of that one than most men.

As far as the male virginty topic -- I value it, very much.  Who wants used goods?  Not I, that's for sure.  Who wants nasty diseases?  And the arguement that more experenced men are better -- well, I doubt it.  Experence with other women could actually lead to issues once the man marries -- the things that his ex liked might not be to his wife's liking.  Much better to learn together, I think.

I buy pretty much everything used if I can.  So I like used goods.  They are much better value.

Nasty diseases?  These are relatively rare.  A small minority of very promiscuous and ignorant people have them and most of the time they are related to drug use not simply hetrosexual sex.

Are more experienced soccer players, gardeners, poker players, acrobats and masseurs better at what they do?  Yes, of course they are.  It stands to reason that a person who has had sex with other partners is (more often than not) going to have got better at it with practice.

Now certainly I can understand why a woman might place a very high value on having an exclusive man, like having a one off dress or handbag that no other woman can ever own, but let's not pretend that virgins know how to press all the right physical buttons, because it simply is not true.

While AIDS is rare, other diseases are less so.  There are an estimated 19 million new STD cases in the United States alone each year.  (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm)  Yes, most of these illnesses aren't deadly, but do you really want to try it out?   

Hopefully, it one marries for life, a virgin -- of either sex -- will have the time to figure it out.  Women are all very different creatures.  Even when it comes to romance -- things one woman finds romantic might mean nothing to another.  Men who have had "experence" tend to try things that have worked in the past -- but which might not be to the liking of the girl he is with.  But, because his past experence has told him that it works, he is going to get all indignant, saying, "Oh but my last girlfriend liked it."

Personally, all this stuff about experence just seems to be defending immoral behavior.  That isn't something I'd expect to see on a Trad forum.

[wallflower]

I don't think Vetus is arguing for "right," so much as "normal."  KingTheoden suggested that this situation is a "chastisement" on our times, but it is as it always was.

In that case I would use the word "common". "Normal" gives it an air of legitimacy which it does not deserve.

[Parmandur]

I don't think Vetus is arguing for "right," so much as "normal."  KingTheoden suggested that this situation is a "chastisement" on our times, but it is as it always was.

In that case I would use the word "common". "Normal" gives it an air of legitimacy which it does not deserve.

That's fair.

[drummerboy]

Although the wage of sin is death, not all sin is the same. Do you sometimes relativise lies and covetousness? Of course you do.

It's just a matter of prudence and intelligence to able to understand these sexual behaviours as they always have been down in history. Virtue should be encouraged, yes, but fornication is not the end of the world. I'd be satisfied if most people would eventually get married and have kids.

They come in 6th in the order of God's commandments.

They're important but there are things that are more important.

Although the wage of sin is death, not all sin is the same. Do you sometimes relativise lies and covetousness? Of course you do.

It's just a matter of prudence and intelligence to able to understand these sexual behaviours as they always have been down in history. Virtue should be encouraged, yes, but fornication is not the end of the world. I'd be satisfied if most people would eventually get married and have kids.

What you would be satisfied with is not relevant.  What does the Church teach?
Fornication is grave matter and can be a mortal sin.  That is worse than the end of the world.  It is the destruction of a soul. 

The attitude you display in this thread does not encourage virtue.  You repeatedly give the message that sexual sins (of straight men) are not a big deal.

Among mortal sins, sins of lust are traditionally considered some of the least grave.  Among the sins of lust, fornication is the least harmful, particularly simple fornication.  That doesn't take away from fornication being evil, but it is less evil than, say, masturbation.  Or contraception.  Or many other sins taken lightly in our culture.  Vetus is right.

I stand by all this.  If you read about the Desert Fathers, the first monks, you will catch on that monks would occasionally sneak to town for a visit to the local brothel.  Now these Fathers were strict, and even then, this sin was seen as a sin, who seek God's pardon and go on with life, like who just had a weak moment.  They didn't raise a huge fuss about compared to other sins.

[kingtheoden]

Par,

I was unclear in my writing: by chastisement, of course I don't mean the normal interpersonal realities (awkwardness, wanting something more, envious/competitive natures.)  Rather, I'm refering to a particular break down in marriages happening.

Am I speaing from some personal frustration?  Of course I am.  But beyond that, Canon has made reference to the lack of weddings and objectively the stats don't lie.  We are not having a high rate of Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, or Marriages- Novus Ordo or Tridentine.  This does not auger well, at least on the medium term.

With that said, James writes that there will be a noticable wave coming and I hope that is true.  Personally, I think there will be a period of incredibly rapid conversion after things get really bad materially.

[wallflower]

Am I speaing from some personal frustration?  Of course I am.  But beyond that, Canon has made reference to the lack of weddings and objectively the stats don't lie.  We are not having a high rate of Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, or Marriages- Novus Ordo or Tridentine.  This does not auger well, at least on the medium term.

Maybe it depends on where you are? Places like St Mary's or Post Falls have a wedding or two nearly every weekend through the spring/summer months.

[kingtheoden]

Again, I want to add also that none of this is justification for impurity.  I pray to Our Lady, to Saint Joseph daily for purity and chastity and that the wife God has prepared for me will soon be revealed.

I would be lying were I to say that following the Way is all giggles, smiles...'Catholic and Enjoying It' Mr. Rogers version of life.  It's pretty tough, and the roughest is the completely weird gyrations of will of the fairer sex.

[CollegeCatholic]

Par,

I was unclear in my writing: by chastisement, of course I don't mean the normal interpersonal realities (awkwardness, wanting something more, envious/competitive natures.)  Rather, I'm refering to a particular break down in marriages happening.

Am I speaing from some personal frustration?  Of course I am.  But beyond that, Canon has made reference to the lack of weddings and objectively the stats don't lie.  We are not having a high rate of Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, or Marriages- Novus Ordo or Tridentine.  This does not auger well, at least on the medium term.

With that said, James writes that there will be a noticable wave coming and I hope that is true.  Personally, I think there will be a period of incredibly rapid conversion after things get really bad materially.

Has the Church ever had a matchmaking service?  My assumption is that the culture more or less forced people into marriage at a younger age.  When a high school education was about the highest the average person could aspire to (realistically) and a wage could support a family, what else is there to do?  Nowadays you are expected to go to university or college, an additional four years onto life/development, and then get a low-pay entry level career.  Combine that with the financial difficulties and realities of starting off as a young person, running off to marriage makes a bit less sense.  And, tack on that Americans seem to be more mobile than ever, you have the loss of tight-knit communities that I imagine were part of the past (I know my parents, and my grandparents all met and lived within the same couple block radius; heck my mom lived literally a block down the road from my father, and this was but 25 years ago!).  Think even earlier when young men started making "a living" at earlier ages, it makes sense marriages occurred earlier.

That said, we don't have a high rate of baptisms and other sacraments because the Faith has imploded in the world.  Look at the Novus Ordo church - allegedly about 25% of Catholics in the USA attend Mass on a weekly basis.  25%!  There has been little growth, practically, in practicing Catholics, so of course the sacraments have stagnated.  Compound to that the utter and absolute failure of the NewChurch to transmit the Faith, and it's wholly unsurprising that sacraments have stagnated.

And that the traditionalists suck at this as well is unsurprising.  As much as I love the Society, it is admittedly hard to "win" converts from the Novus Ordo, given the state of things.  I was strongly sympathetic with them, but even then it took the ever-so-slight nudging of a friend to help me jump the boat to them.  And their locations are rarely if ever convenient.  And they are the "best" to go with.  The FSSP oftentimes shares a church with a bunch of NOers, and the ICKSP is mostly in the Midwest (I love the Midwest, don't get me wrong, but apparently others don't?), and that's IF the local ordinary let's a token traditionalist in, which even nowadays is a crapshoot.

And, to be honest, I don't see much "campaigning" by the trads going on.  I mean, sure I see some pamphlets here and there in some of the more conservative/neo-con Catholic places, but it's not like they go about promoting "the cause", so we're slowly gaining people.  It's good compared to the NO, which is apparently hemmoraging people, but objectively, it's probably not that strong. 

tl;dr - Church isn't in the business of match-making.  Catholics suck at retention and evangelizing, NO and Trad.  We need PR people.