Should I shoot down Cupid?

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by Paddy1989

You have to go out more and be more assertive, also you must be open to the fact that most likely the woman you get is secular minded, as long though as she understand's and respect's your faith on issue's like pre marital sex and contraception etc. For women sitting there and waiting for a lad this is their biggest mistake, i'm not saying they should be the assertive one although if you have it in you to do it then go for it however at least give lad's signal's that you are interested in them, alot of eye contact and even smiling usually is enough to get any man even the shy one's to gather up the confidence to talk to you if they are interested.

I wouldn't advise the whole internet thing to be honest, just attend social place's like bar's, club's etc and just start up a random conversation with a woman like you would do to any lad if you were out, you should be able to tell from her body language though how comfortable she is and just keep working it from there, it really isn't difficult as long as she is interested. My point is that too many just complain about it but logically how will that change anything?

Agreed Internet dating to me was a waste of money and a way for my female dates to try and get a free meal hoping Mr. Perfect would sweep them off their feet. Just get out there and start talking to women.

[exoflare]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Agreed Internet dating to me was a waste of money

Which websites are you talking about?

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Paddy1989

You have to go out more and be more assertive, also you must be open to the fact that most likely the woman you get is secular minded, as long though as she understand's and respect's your faith on issue's like pre marital sex and contraception etc. For women sitting there and waiting for a lad this is their biggest mistake, i'm not saying they should be the assertive one although if you have it in you to do it then go for it however at least give lad's signal's that you are interested in them, alot of eye contact and even smiling usually is enough to get any man even the shy one's to gather up the confidence to talk to you if they are interested.

I wouldn't advise the whole internet thing to be honest, just attend social place's like bar's, club's etc and just start up a random conversation with a woman like you would do to any lad if you were out, you should be able to tell from her body language though how comfortable she is and just keep working it from there, it really isn't difficult as long as she is interested. My point is that too many just complain about it but logically how will that change anything?

I am going for the more assertive option, thankfully.

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by exoflare

Which websites are you talking about?

Probably the wrong one

but Christianmingle, match, eHarmony.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Probably the wrong one

but Christianmingle, match, eHarmony.

GaiaOnline and deviantART are sites which not good for dating.

[ShanaA1984]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

So how has being a Catholic changed that, do they offer more services for singles? or are there at least more people your age there?

Like I said before, my parish is located on a university campus so in one respect there are more sigles there or if they are not single they are at least in my age group, and during the school year there are a lot of activites geared toward the students most of which are for singles and regular parishoners are welcome to attend some of them. But some things like our young adult ministry single people like myself are really just an after thought.

For the record I also have had no luck with dating websites all of the men interested in me or that I was matched with were mid 40's to 50's, divorced, seprated, or never had been married at all (which rasies a red flag in my book) and to be honest at 28 I am not looking for a guy going thru a mid-life crisis who will likely leave me in the end.

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by ShanaA1984

Like I said before, my parish is located on a university campus so in one respect there are more sigles there or if they are not single they are at least in my age group, and during the school year there are a lot of activites geared toward the students most of which are for singles and regular parishoners are welcome to attend some of them. But some things like our young adult ministry single people like myself are really just an after thought.

For the record I also have had no luck with dating websites all of the men interested in me or that I was matched with were mid 40's to 50's, divorced, seprated, or never had been married at all (which rasies a red flag in my book) and to be honest at 28 I am not looking for a guy going thru a mid-life crisis who will likely leave me in the end.

Yeah ooooh...that's not good.
My women were all flakes, everything went great and then "Oh I can't do this." and it makes me want to pull an Al Pacino.
No offense but I think cause there are so many women out there who are just looking to get free dates and a meal ticket, they burn out good guys and all that are left are the mid 40-50 divorced/sep/nvr married types.
Sorry to see net dating hasn't worked out for you, but selfishly I'm relieved cause I'd hate to be the only one who struck out on e-dating.

[Paddy1989]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

I am going for the more assertive option, thankfully.

Fair play . Dress well, smell nice, treating a woman in a gentlemanly manner also greatly increase your chance's. Being assertive and Catholic mean's though that most women you talk to are not going to be compatible as many of them do not value or respect Catholic teaching, some will though, these are the women you must go for but if you go on the basis of probability, it is much easier to find a good woman like this if you look for her rather than wait for her so good on you

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Paddy1989

Fair play . Dress well, smell nice, treating a woman in a gentlemanly manner also greatly increase your chance's. Being assertive and Catholic mean's though that most women you talk to are not going to be compatible as many of them do not value or respect Catholic teaching, some will though, these are the women you must go for but if you go on the basis of probability, it is much easier to find a good woman like this if you look for her rather than wait for her so good on you

Problem is, I need to learn on how to be a proper gentleman since I haven't been taught to be one.

[ShanaA1984]

Flakey women anger me a little because they then give a bad name to those of us who are not looking for a man to slove all our problems but for a life mate and partner.

[exoflare]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Probably the wrong one

but Christianmingle, match, eHarmony.

[Paddy1989]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Problem is, I need to learn on how to be a proper gentleman since I haven't been taught to be one.

I think in our secular society most men are taught not to be and it doesn't help that some women make such a thing impossible however we as men are called to such a thing. If one hold's true to Catholic moral value's then striving to be a gentleman should be natural. I think though a small text from John Henry Newman below hit's the spot pretty well to give you an idea:




[i]t is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;--all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honours the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

Not that he may not hold a religion too, in his own way, even when he is not a Christian. In that case his religion is one of imagination and sentiment; it is the embodiment of those ideas of the sublime, majestic, and beautiful, without which there can be no large philosophy. Sometimes he acknowledges the being of God, sometimes he invests an unknown principle or quality with the attributes of perfection. And this deduction of his reason, or creation of his fancy, he makes the occasion of such excellent thoughts, and the starting-point of so varied and systematic a teaching, that he even seems like a disciple of Christianity itself. From the very accuracy and steadiness of his logical powers, he is able to see what sentiments are consistent in those who hold any religious doctrine at all, and he appears to others to feel and to hold a whole circle of theological truths, which exist in his mind no otherwise than as a number of deductions.

[28562]

Am I the only one who read this thread and realizes that Ohio and Indiana are not that far from each other?

Just sayin...

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Paddy1989

I think in our secular society most men are taught not to be and it doesn't help that some women make such a thing impossible however we as men are called to such a thing. If one hold's true to Catholic moral value's then striving to be a gentleman should be natural. I think though a small text from John Henry Newman below hit's the spot pretty well to give you an idea:




[i]t is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;--all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honours the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

Not that he may not hold a religion too, in his own way, even when he is not a Christian. In that case his religion is one of imagination and sentiment; it is the embodiment of those ideas of the sublime, majestic, and beautiful, without which there can be no large philosophy. Sometimes he acknowledges the being of God, sometimes he invests an unknown principle or quality with the attributes of perfection. And this deduction of his reason, or creation of his fancy, he makes the occasion of such excellent thoughts, and the starting-point of so varied and systematic a teaching, that he even seems like a disciple of Christianity itself. From the very accuracy and steadiness of his logical powers, he is able to see what sentiments are consistent in those who hold any religious doctrine at all, and he appears to others to feel and to hold a whole circle of theological truths, which exist in his mind no otherwise than as a number of deductions.

This, is not small.
Thanks. (:

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by 28562

Am I the only one who read this thread and realizes that Ohio and Indiana are not that far from each other?

Just sayin...

Where are you getting at?