Why You Shouldn't Sleep with Your Boyfriend (an article in Regina Magazine)


#1

see reginamag.com/why-you-shouldnt-sleep-with-your-boyfriend/


#2

For 2000 years, the Church has regarded marriage as a sacrament, an outward sign of God’s grace.

A citation is needed for this assertion. I don’t believe that the number of sacraments were finalized to seven until somewhat later than the Apostolic Age, and I believe that marriage was one of the last things to crystallize as it was widely handled merely as a civil matter. I could be mis-remembering, so links and documentation would be appreciated.


#3

I appreciate the overall message that the blog's author was trying to get across, but I think she left her theories open to a lot of contradiction.:o


#4

Sounds like more idealistic Christianist misandry to me. What about wives? When are people going to shout at "bad girlfriends" who care about status, money, success, and appearances too much? Oh. The author is one of them! she just spiritualized her BS. Tell me, why do I have to be completely spotless but not her?


#5

[quote="Elizium23, post:2, topic:344611"]
A citation is needed for this assertion. I don't believe that the number of sacraments were finalized to seven until somewhat later than the Apostolic Age, and I believe that marriage was one of the last things to crystallize as it was widely handled merely as a civil matter. I could be mis-remembering, so links and documentation would be appreciated.

[/quote]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/god-made-it-we-can%E2%80%99t-change-it


#6

[quote="WoundedIcon, post:4, topic:344611"]
Sounds like more idealistic Christianist misandry to me. What about wives? When are people going to shout at "bad girlfriends" who care about status, money, success, and appearances too much? Oh. The author is one of them! she just spiritualized her BS. Tell me, why do I have to be completely spotless but not her?

[/quote]

I didn't pick up on any misandry, but I do think she made it all about female victimhood.

She spoke of serial monogamy as if this only ends up hurting women (which it can, in the long run) but made no mention how men can get hurt in the short term when they are rejected in favor of the next best thing around the corner. I also think she should have followed up the question that women should ask themselves, "is he marriage material?" with another one. It's also good for women to ask themselves the converse question: "are you marriage material for him?"

To be fair, maybe the author was only trying to hit one point with that post. Still, it was rather incomplete. (Not to mention, I think she's way off with the oxytocin thing.)


#7

[quote="lerapt78, post:6, topic:344611"]
I didn't pick up on any misandry, but I do think she made it all about female victimhood.

She spoke of serial monogamy as if this only ends up hurting women (which it can, in the long run) but made no mention how men can get hurt in the short term when they are rejected in favor of the next best thing around the corner. I also think she should have followed up the question that women should ask themselves, "is he marriage material?" with another one. It's also good for women to ask themselves the converse question: "are you marriage material for him?"

To be fair, maybe the author was only trying to hit one point with that post. Still, it was rather incomplete. (Not to mention, I think she's way off with the oxytocin thing.)

[/quote]

I noticed that...the boyfriend would get off easy by ultimately settling down with a younger woman, but if the woman settled down with a younger man, she was a "cougar"...

Yes, it would be a good addition to ask women if they themselves are "marriage material." Maybe the article was targeting an audience that is primarily made up of good, holy, marriage-material women who struggle to find decent men and are tempted to settle for less. :D


#8

Especially if you or your boyfriend are married.
I don't like it when, if someone is trying to make a point about moral behavior, that they use one person as an example and leave others alone. She can brand Demi Moore as a "cougar", but she leaves alone even people who grace the pages of that magazine that have lived less than stellar personal lives. She could have made her point without calling out one person. It comes across as a condescending, hypocritical, and holier than thou attitude, and sours the point she is trying to make.


#9

[quote="Elizium23, post:2, topic:344611"]
A citation is needed for this assertion. I don't believe that the number of sacraments were finalized to seven until somewhat later than the Apostolic Age, and I believe that marriage was one of the last things to crystallize as it was widely handled merely as a civil matter. I could be mis-remembering, so links and documentation would be appreciated.

[/quote]

Then that would mean the Church added a sacrament, which as we know, is impossible. The Church has, however, restricted the conditions under which a sacrament might legally or validly take place. For example, until the Council of Trent, a priest was not strictly necessary for a marriage to be valid normally.


#10

That is not what I meant, and this idea is borne out by the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

The reason why marriage was not expressly and formally included among the sacraments earlier and the denial of it branded as heresy, is to be found in the historical development of the doctrine regarding the sacraments; but the fact itself may be traced to Apostolic times. With regard to the several religious rites designated as "Sacraments of the New Law", there was always in the Church a profound conviction that they conferred interior Divine grace. But the grouping of them into one and the same category was left for a later period, when the dogmas of faith in general began to be scientifically examined and systematically arranged. Furthermore, that the seven sacraments should be grouped in one category was by no means self-evident. For, though it was accepted that each of these rites conferred interior grace, yet, in contrast to their common invisible effect, the difference in external ceremony and even in the immediate purpose of the production of grace was so great that, for a long time, it hindered a uniform classification.


#11

[quote="thistle, post:5, topic:344611"]
catholic.com/magazine/articles/god-made-it-we-can%E2%80%99t-change-it

[/quote]

Thanks for the link & thread.


#12

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.