If You Are Considering or Actually Living a Consecrated Single Life, How Do You Put Off Advances From the Opposite Sex?


#1

I hope this is an appropriate forum to put this in.

I know there has been a lot of discussion here about consecrated singles, and I'm still not sure if such a state canonically exists. But let's say, I were to be considering such a state officially or unofficially. I'm not making any promises. It is just something I'm exploring.

How does one respond to those of the opposite sex who express interest?

I tend to say stuff like, "Quite honestly, I'm just focused on God right now". Or sometimes I half joke, "I'm probably going to end up in a convent, eventually".

Any ideas about ways to answer?


#2

I’m a male, and I’ve thought of wearing a Roman collar on occasion to deal with this occurrence, if it wouldn’t be blasphemy to wear it.

In my experience, if I would say, “I’m religious” or “contemplating the priesthood”, it makes the girl more want to seduce me/defile me/lure me away from purity/God/et c. than one would think (common-sense would state that to a secular girl, who would be making the advances, saying “I’m strongly religious” and quoting the Bible and/or a Saint with attribution would turn them away: I only had to do that once before I was disabused of the notion), probably in a way analogous to many women are not attracted to a single man, but immediately become flirtatious or seductive if they see 1) another woman with that man or 2) a wedding ring.

The method I eventually learned was a completely blank look on the face, combined with intentionally “not getting” innuendos, followed shortly by ceasing communication entirely while giving a short look that says, “what are you talking about? I don’t get it.” That, in my experience, generally elicits either 1) a sigh and frustrated walk-away of some sort, or 2) a statement to the meaning of, “are you human? do you know what ‘sex’ is?”, followed by a walk-away, or 3) a “that man must be a gay” followed by a walk-away (I’d much rather be thought of or imagined as a gay, than be known in actuality to be a fornicator, much less an adulterer).

I’m sure such techniques could be adapted to a female, although I’m not sure with the same level of effectiveness, as, generally, I have seen, the man is supposed to play the role of initiator and pursuer, and the woman is supposed to play a pre-scripted role of feigning lack of interest or lack of understanding, much in the same way I described myself behaving above, and the man continues, and the woman eventually relents (or states up-front “you’re not my type” with disgust, or, if a slut, has all of the equally-slutty men chasing her without deciding one way or the other).

Essentially, all I do is exude complete lack of understanding (naivete? or studied asexuality: more the latter, it being somewhat hard to describe in words alone, it depending so much on non-verbal communication) and/or not play the man’s pre-scripted role; as only the most forward women approach a man in the first place, it is surprisingly effective (because, even though these woman take the man’s role in “initiative” - I suppose as part of “female liberation” - they, likely to do with the essential character of female-ness, do not continue to play through the aggressor/pursuer role as most men would). As a man, as well, much I can do by controlling my environment: outside of “hooking-up” environments (drinking establishments, dancing floors, et c.; places that I do not frequent) I find there are few women of the type who approach a man as I describe: thus, the occurrence is quite rare (albeit not completely absent).

I digress before I begin an amateur sociological analysis of courtship and/or “hookings-up” and gender roles and the stereotypy of men, women, and the celibate or non-sexual.


#3

This will work for a lot of people: "I'm in a committed relationship right now." You can decide whether or not to tell them that relationship is with Christ ;)

Or just tell them you don't date :shrug: Or tell your friends and have "body guards", i.e., hang out with more persons of your gender (and let them know you don't want guys advances) and maybe they can help you!

You could do what one saint did (I can't recall her name); she rolled around in brambles so she wouldn't look as attractive and was able to serve the Lord in peace. :hypno: Maybe that's a bit too extreme...


#4

[quote="TrueLight, post:1, topic:270933"]
I hope this is an appropriate forum to put this in.

I know there has been a lot of discussion here about consecrated singles, and I'm still not sure if such a state canonically exists. But let's say, I were to be considering such a state officially or unofficially. I'm not making any promises. It is just something I'm exploring.

How does one respond to those of the opposite sex who express interest?

I tend to say stuff like, "Quite honestly, I'm just focused on God right now". Or sometimes I half joke, "I'm probably going to end up in a convent, eventually".

Any ideas about ways to answer?

[/quote]

Canon Law does not specifically address the single celibate state, one comes under "Laity" or the lay state. One is a lay person in the lay state. If one has made private vows, one also comes under that section referring to "Vows" insofar as the private vows are concerned.

I'm 66 years of age now and no longerhave the problem of advances from the opposite sex. When I was much younger, I was very polite and addressed the issue put to me in a negative but kind response. I have always worn a cross on a leather thong around my neck and a wide silver band on my wedding finger - and sometimes could respond pointing to the ring "Thanks, but I'm already committed". Advances were never a real problem and I had no difficulty in handling any that might have cropped up.


#5

me i always say to them that. “i am committed”

:slight_smile:


#6

[quote="Khalid, post:2, topic:270933"]
I'm a male, and I've thought of wearing a Roman collar on occasion to deal with this occurrence, if it wouldn't be blasphemy to wear it.

In my experience, if I would say, "I'm religious" or "contemplating the priesthood", it makes the girl more want to seduce me/defile me/lure me away from purity/God/et c. than one would think (common-sense would state that to a secular girl, who would be making the advances, saying "I'm strongly religious" and quoting the Bible and/or a Saint with attribution would turn them away: I only had to do that once before I was disabused of the notion), probably in a way analogous to many women are not attracted to a single man, but immediately become flirtatious or seductive if they see 1) another woman with that man or 2) a wedding ring.

[/quote]

i did experience this..

if they know you desire to enter into religious life, they'll be more eager


#7

In my experience, like a wedding ring (or, as I said, being together with someone), in everyone I’ve known, causes a good amount of people to try even harder to seduce (at least women towards men, I don’t know if it’s the same men towards women, but I imagine so, or worse). For persons of both gender, it seems today (though especially for men, I would think), the whole psychology behind “dating sex” and “relationships” is conquest, and that conquest is greater and more pronounced when it involves stealing - conquering two people instead of one and “proving” to oneself that one is better than whoever she was “with” before.

I’m 66 years of age now and no longerhave the problem of advances from the opposite sex. When I was much younger, I was very polite and addressed the issue put to me in a negative but kind response. I have always worn a cross on a leather thong around my neck and a wide silver band on my wedding finger - and sometimes could respond pointing to the ring “Thanks, but I’m already committed”. Advances were never a real problem and I had no difficulty in handling any that might have cropped up.

Very sadly, I think the problem is much greater a generation or two down the line, with how much sexual morals have loosened and how pervasive the influence of feminism and “womens’ sexual liberation” has been (viz. women should act like the worst male pigs they know and call it by the name of “equality”). The problem is probably even worse for women, as the men have gotten even piggier. There’s no chivalry left, and much of the interaction between sexes still shocks me (and I’m from a culture not known for its great respect for women).


#8

[quote="Khalid, post:7, topic:270933"]
In my experience, like a wedding ring (or, as I said, being together with someone), in everyone I've known, causes a good amount of people to try even harder to seduce (at least women towards men, I don't know if it's the same men towards women, but I imagine so, or worse). For persons of both gender, it seems today (though especially for men, I would think), the whole psychology behind "dating sex" and "relationships" is conquest, and that conquest is greater and more pronounced when it involves stealing - conquering two people instead of one and "proving" to oneself that one is better than whoever she is with now is better than who she was with before.

[/quote]

I can only speak from my own personal experience. I tended to think that any sort of an 'argument' rather than accepting what I said and moving on, was prompted by trying to save face and an 'ego thing'. They wanted to be able to move on with their dignity intact. But why we human beings can behave the way we do can be difficult to pinpoint with accuracy. Sometimes we can even be personally unsure of motivation behind our own behaviours.
I found more curiosity about why I wore the cross on the leather thong. This was a good thing very often and opened the subject of Faith and religion.
I am female and even in my much younger days, mid to late thirties onwards, the male of the species never caused me undue problems in their approaches if any - I always tried to allow them to move away without causing them any embarrassment or discomfort. It certainly never caused me embarrassment or discomfort, it's a compliment I think and it never disturbed me interiorly nor exteriorly.
Much probably just might depend on one's own attitude to the opposite gender. I didn't look on my private vows as any sort of rejection of the male of the species, rather that I had been called to and chosen a different road to that of general male/female relationships in some areas in the normal course of life. Generally speaking, the general run of the male population do not anticipate in any way at all such a road as a potential in any approaches to a female. And anyway I found pointing to my ring and stating that I was already committed was sufficient - if at times there was a brief exchange about the commitment.


#9

[quote="FraLeones, post:6, topic:270933"]
i did experience this..

if they know you desire to enter into religious life, they'll be more eager

[/quote]

30 years ago, a Catholic priest told me they were taught in seminary that certain women deliberately try to seduce priests. Its a form of conquest which enhances that woman's sense of attractiveness and power. He told me the seminarians learned ways to fend off such advances, but if told me what they were, I don't remember. :blush:

But I do know of one woman who was trying to do just that.

I'm not sure whether guys would do the same thing with female religious. I would hope not, but I suppose the same conquest motivation might exist for certain guys too.

The response of "I'm already in a committed relationship" sounds like a winner! Certainly it would deter anyone who isn't being predatory, like the individuals I mentioned above.


#10

Wear a wedding ring.

Dealing with people "hitting" on you is no different if you're married, single, or in a committed relationship. You owe no one any explanation, other than just a polite, "No thank you".


#11

Thank you everyone for your responses. Some of them were quite interesting. :D

[quote="anonymous_in_fl, post:10, topic:270933"]
Wear a wedding ring.

Dealing with people "hitting" on you is no different if you're married, single, or in a committed relationship. You owe no one any explanation, other than just a polite, "No thank you".

[/quote]

That's a good point. I guess I thought that I had to give a holy response of some sort, especially when it comes from men I've known for a little while. They'll say, "Don't you want to remarry?" I say no, then they ask why, etc, etc.

Again, this is something I'm discerning. I may very well remarry in the future, but I'm just not feeling called to that now.


#12

No thank you. You don’t owe anyone an explanation. If they push, and they almost always do, you say, pointedly, “Because I prefer not to.” And then walk away.

To explain is simply a way to open the door to argument. To discussion that leads to, “but, we can just do [insert activity here), can’t we?”

However, you need to avoid the situations. That’s why women go into convents. Do you still wear make-up? Do you smile and tilt your head and laugh at their jokes and…

Disengage and avoid them. Be honest about how much fun it is to be pursued. To think, *“Well, I haven’t really decided yet.”

Cut off your hair and cut back your nails, wash your face and throw away all perfumes and perfumed products. Wear simple, loose, neutral clothing and flat heels. When you have to speak to men, do so politely and briefly about whatever is necessary and then go away.


#13

[quote="Julia_Mae, post:12, topic:270933"]
*
Cut off your hair and cut back your nails, wash your face and throw away all perfumes and perfumed products. *
Umm no.

There's no reason for me to go butch.

LOL.

[/quote]


#14

On reflection, I did cut my nails. I used to wear them long and I did simplify my wardrobe, but there is nothing wrong with wearing simple, but pretty clothing or a light covering of face powder and gloss.

Or perfume. That has nothing to do with attracting men.

Maybe I'm still attached to vanity. :shrug:

But anyway, I don't want to derail the thread.


#15

[quote="TrueLight, post:13, topic:270933"]
Umm no.

There's no reason for me to go butch.

LOL.

[/quote]

I find this a highly inappropriate remark.


#16

I wear very simple modest clothing more because it is to my taste than any sort of conscious effort - and just ensure that I am neat and tidy, presentable. I always wear my cross on a leather thong around my neck and the commitment band on my wedding finger. I might wear very light makeup if going out - not always. Depends on the venue and why I am attending. Around the house I have stock standard regular clothing.
I dont think at all that one needs turn into a dowdy frump because one is in the lay single celibate state by call and vocation and committed to it.
I think a mistake that can be made is striving to live like a religious and/or monastic when this is not one's call and vocation - unless of course it is a call to live in a similar fashion. But a mistake to think that it is necessarily always such a call.

Why should not the servants of God be well presented according to the customs of the day? One would be very wise indeed to have a regular spiritual director and this can also help one determine just how one is called to live in the day to day.
Vanity is an interior matter and I have certainly known religious (both in habit and in secular clothing)who were quite fussy about their appearance. Is this vanity? not necessarily I dont think. "Man judges appearances but The Lord knows the heart" (Book of Samuel).


#17

[quote="TiggerS, post:16, topic:270933"]
I wear very simple modest clothing more because it is to my taste than any sort of conscious effort - and just ensure that I am neat and tidy, presentable. I always wear my cross on a leather thong around my neck and the commitment band on my wedding finger. I might wear very light makeup if going out - not always. Depends on the venue and why I am attending. Around the house I have stock standard regular clothing.
I dont think at all that one needs turn into a dowdy frump because one is in the lay single celibate state by call and vocation and committed to it.
I think a mistake that can be made is striving to live like a religious and/or monastic when this is not one's call and vocation - unless of course it is a call to live in a similar fashion. But a mistake to think that it is necessarily always such a call.

Why should not the servants of God be well presented according to the customs of the day? One would be very wise indeed to have a regular spiritual director and this can also help one determine just how one is called to live in the day to day.
Vanity is an interior matter and I have certainly known religious (both in habit and in

secular clothing)who were quite fussy about their appearance. Is this vanity? not necessarily I dont think. "Man judges appearances but The Lord knows the heart" (Book of Samuel).

[/quote]

Thank you for this.


#18

[quote="TrueLight, post:17, topic:270933"]
Thank you for this.

[/quote]

God bless :thumbsup:


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.