tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post4701786143711368614..comments2023-12-25T11:13:04.495+00:00Comments on Seraphic Singles: Auntie Seraphic and Modest MillieSeraphichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-6907071369182136392010-03-02T21:34:15.699+00:002010-03-02T21:34:15.699+00:00This is a very nice article, but the flaw and miss...This is a very nice article, but the flaw and missing gap is covered by a Gentleman Saint and Doctor of the Church in his writings about friendship. Published more than Shakespeare, no one can top St. Francis de Sales' sections on friendship and "Society and Solitude" in the book titled _<a href="http://catholic-lifetime-reading-plan.blogspot.com/2008/08/introduction-to-devout-life-by-st.html" rel="nofollow">Introduction to the Devout Life</a>_. I wish more men and women were familiar with the sections on friendship by this Church Doctor and Gentleman Saint.<br /><br />This is a really good article. Do not forget that VIRTUE requires God's grace and something that must be prayed for constantly. Guidelines are good, but we must show charity and love of God in everything we do, including our friendships and love of neighbor.<br />The virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, faith, hope, and love.<br />(Revised comment with link to St. Francis de Sales' writings on friendship and society.)Gallitzinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09613045654136935281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-51753885673554466382010-03-02T17:59:51.147+00:002010-03-02T17:59:51.147+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17170065977298380196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-13677814958253507392010-03-01T13:35:26.986+00:002010-03-01T13:35:26.986+00:00Alisha: Good point. I guess I should have clarifie...Alisha: Good point. I guess I should have clarified: when I say "dates" I mean something much more along the lines of a 1950's- style social interaction where, unless a couple had agreed to "go steady", they were perfectly free to date several different people at once, to "double date", to set each other up with their friends, and to generally improve their social and communication skills, have fun, and enjoy each other's companionship, without any of the pressure of exclusivity, physicality, and emotional verklempt-ness that "dating" or being boyfriend/girlfriend entails today. <br />If you think about it, this is really a much more healthy way of understanding the process than our current culture allows. I completely agree with you that thinking of all one-on-one meetings in the *modern* dating sense *would* be "too much pressure." But I've watched several friends/roommates go through "just friends" relationships that were extremely close and involved a lot of time one-on-one. I could appreciate that they weren't at all ready to be a "dating couple" in the modern sense of the word (some never did get quite that far), but "just friends" wasn't truly an honest sum-up of the relationship either: they were much closer to one another than they were to other platonic aquaintances, and the relationship did eventually change dramatically when they dated others/went into religious life. <br />Instead of "just friends," I wish we could go back to a '50's style "just dating" where it doesn't have to be a federal case. In my case, it's become just a personal recognition... "I'm spending one-on-one time with Single Stan today. Is it business?(working on a song, discussing club or charity work)If it's not, and he's not either already taken or we've discussed our mutual lack of attraction, thinking of it as Dating Lite, '50's style (even if only in my own head) helps me to keep myself honest: this might never go anywhere, neither of us might want it to, I can be completely relaxed in this person's company, but I also have to be honest that the *potential* is there, and guard my heart accordingly. No law says I can't choose to continue spending time with guys even though we both know we'll never be an item. But the reason I prefer this mindset is that, if I ever realize that I DO want to get serious with a guy and he's not interested, it's much, much easier for me to recognize that and move on if I think of our meetings as (very casual) dates. If I've been thinking of him ONLY as a friend the whole time, not acknowledging the potential for more, or if I've been reading into his every word hoping for more, I get much more neurotic. If I can think of it as a casual date, I relax. It's a paradox!fifihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707768899655106067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-19172207976980763862010-02-27T17:13:02.740+00:002010-02-27T17:13:02.740+00:00Fifi,
I like your question in the second paragraph...Fifi,<br />I like your question in the second paragraph - people should check and see if they would behave similarly towards a person should the circumstances be altered.<br />I disagree with you about considering all one on one time with members of the opposite sex dates...While I can see how this may help some to set boundaries I think it can put a LOT of pressure on a person, and cause them to be uncomfortable, esp if they are the nervous type.<br />Secondly, there are times where it would just be absurd to consider those times dates...if I get together to work on a song or talk shop with a fellow male musician, whether single or married, we're definitely not on a date even if we're spending time one on one. <br />I think partly what defines a date is the asking - if the guy or girl asks to take the other to dinner or tea or coffee, especially when you don't know each other well, then it's a date: they are asking for the other's exclusive attention with no other purpose other than the other's company and conversation. If you've been friends for 10 years and you are getting together to catch up or even for regular conversations, it's just not a date. I would be hugely surprised if a guy friend whom I've been hanging out with one on one forever told me all those times were dates. Especially since he was dating others through that period, and we've both clearly said to each other there has never been any ambiguity of relationship.<br />If a guy or a girl has intentions of dating, they shouldn't be vague. If they are vague, assume nothing (as in, don't draw conclusions, don't read into things) just keep your heart guarded. If he/she complains later that you didn't pick up on their vague signals, that's their fault and you can tell them they weren't clear enough. If you are just starting to become friends there is no reason to be so direct and ask someone on an explicit date...I know for me that can just spoil the possibility of a friendship, because I think the guy is interested romantically and that's weird, if he doesn't even know me yet.Alishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08803069677860028673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-65460015336055199762010-02-24T15:59:59.084+00:002010-02-24T15:59:59.084+00:00re: the Modesty Survey
I actually found the surve...re: the Modesty Survey<br /><br />I actually found the survey pretty interesting. It's also interesting filtering it by age group. The older men seem to struggle less (they've made it through puberty and have learned how to guard themselves better... or perhaps it is that the women around them have learned that pretty and lusty aren't the same things and dress accordingly?)<br /><br />I completely agree with comments made above, that men have to be responsible for themselves (ie, this isn't Saudi Arabia and guys need to learn how to differentiate between appreciating beauty and lusting after women), but it's interesting... because the guys who took the survey seemed to think the same thing:<br /><br />"If you look at the survey results you will find that 99.9% of the guys take full responsibility for themselves, and don't expect women to cover every inch of skin -- they're just asking for help."<br /><br />Modesty is a tough issue, because we women don't want to be controlled (and, you know, shouldn't be controlled), but as we expect and want men to respect us (ie, not turning us into objects because they happened to catch site of some ankle or collarbone ), we should also respect them by not wearing plunging tops and tight skirts... or whatever else. (Okay, *now* I'm done being facetious.) <br /><br />It should be a partnership. We should be helping each other. If the men are at fault, we should still be helping each other. If we're at fault, we should still be helping each other. If no one is at fault and it's just the beauty of how God made us... we should still be helping each other. <br /><br />And it really is beautiful how God has made us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-21786585912400794382010-02-24T10:28:01.933+00:002010-02-24T10:28:01.933+00:00Bolyongok, he sounds like a chump. My own personal...Bolyongok, he sounds like a chump. My own personal definition of a chump is a sweet guy who is taking up too much of a woman's kindness, time and baking supplies without giving much back.Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-90099482710539109932010-02-24T10:26:05.072+00:002010-02-24T10:26:05.072+00:00Oh, yes, you can bake brownies for steady boyfrien...Oh, yes, you can bake brownies for steady boyfriends. If one nice man keeps taking you places, go ahead and bake him brownies. If he's actually courting you, you're not in danger of wasting all your feminine kindness (and flour) on a chump.<br /><br />But never, ever bake for a mere crush object.Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-46787318625851646722010-02-24T10:23:36.641+00:002010-02-24T10:23:36.641+00:00Theob, there's jewellery and jewellery. Jewell...Theob, there's jewellery and jewellery. Jewellery is definitely a romantic present (I was just listing romantic presents) and at the cheap end of jewellery are trinkets. <br /><br />I would have no problem with even a teenage girl accepting a trinket, like a charm for a charm bracelet or a nice pin, from an admirer. Start getting into gems/bling, and then my eyebrows would raise. No woman should accept a very expensive present from an unrelated, unattached man, not if marriage isn't in the air.Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-11399177933888402972010-02-24T04:40:20.126+00:002010-02-24T04:40:20.126+00:00Auntie Seraphic, thank you so much for this post! ...Auntie Seraphic, thank you so much for this post! I am afraid I have a gerbil on my hands... He's a sweet guy, and he has called me on a regular basis, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's not going anywhere and I think he likes some other girl. I think I have been a sympathetic ear for long enough.<br />Thank you! This simplifies things!<br />Your lists are awesome!bolyongokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13547288783948465659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-53317596588270993762010-02-24T03:43:26.173+00:002010-02-24T03:43:26.173+00:00I would recommend to our throughly Modest Millie t...I would recommend to our throughly Modest Millie that she adopt your excellent view that men who wish to spend time with her one-on-one be considered dates. Not boyfriends, mind you, simply dates. There doesn't have to be any pressure or expectation, but it seems more honest to acknowledge that opposite-sex friendships have a different kind of potential and character, and this seems to put the boundaries into a much better perspective, for me anyway. Instead of being more restrictive, I'm actually finding it to be more freeing.<br /> <br />Regarding "emotional promiscuity", I would recommend to all women that they look for men who seek first to give, to serve, (dare I say, to spoil?) rather than to receive. And to men wishing to avoid it, I have this thought: ask yourself, in your heart of hearts, will your relationship be the same when the lady begins dating someone else? Joins a religious order? Moves to Tahiti? If you envision yourself taking it down a notch under those circumstances, might it not be more honest to act as though that day has already arrived?fifihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707768899655106067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-39158175986789882492010-02-24T01:43:16.062+00:002010-02-24T01:43:16.062+00:00Like the idea of men taking responsibility for the...Like the idea of men taking responsibility for themselves, too. I see it as my job to not tease them with my body and to make it easier to focus on the human that I am; it's their job, in return, to focus on the human that I am and to not obsess (which is really the right word for it) about my body.<br /><br />Jewellry? I heard (Miss Manners) that a lady should not accept such things from a man who is not related to her (fathers, grandfathers - usually an heirloom - are fine, boyfriends are not); an engagement ring is the one exception.<br /><br />Not sure your thoughts on that.<br /><br />Final question: so can girls bake brownies for boys who are their boyfriends? Miss Manners (who, before you, was my sole go-to person for all things proper and healthy) says that this is one way in which Nice Girls reciprocate for dinners, movie tickets, and all the other things that courting men pay for.theobromophilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-68414941026370129762010-02-24T01:31:07.844+00:002010-02-24T01:31:07.844+00:00This is a very interesting post. I agree that men...This is a very interesting post. I agree that men are generally not taught to have much responsibility in any of these areas.<br /><br />"A man can outwardly act the part of a gentleman and still be, at heart, a chauvinist pig."<br /><br />Oh, is that ever true...which is why, I don't necessarily look at gestures - many Christian boys can be taught "gestures", or "appropriate dating behaviour", but if it's not rooted in something other than moralistic rules (i.e. care for the other's destiny because you recognize they are God's creation), all of that means nothing, and in fact cheapens the gesture.<br />I always, always look at character - for some, it will come out in very noticeable ways, in others, not.<br /><br />As far as the dos and don'ts...I'm definitely guilty of some of the don'ts...but shouldn't distinctions be made - i.e. behaviour should be different if you are or are not interested in the guy or vice versa? or the type of person you are? What if you just like to bake and happen to have good guy neighbours whom you would never date in a million years?<br />Overall though, I agree with a lot of what is said here...and the modesty survey: ew. ew. ew. ew. I would rather spend time in the company of my crazy heathen friends who may not have the modesty I hope because they do not act like I'm constantly a potential scandal needing to be contained.Alishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08803069677860028673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-5036556042569430082010-02-22T16:28:24.338+00:002010-02-22T16:28:24.338+00:00I agree with Modest Millie, too. Guys can be terr...I agree with Modest Millie, too. Guys can be terrible flirts sometimes! But if we believe it, that's *our* fault, whereas if they notice some body part of ours, that's our fault too. Of course we ought to dress modestly to avoid making it any harder for men than it has to be -- but if a lady in modest dress is still a temptation to a man, he is just going to have to work on that himself.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-42355943372385807962010-02-22T16:03:16.926+00:002010-02-22T16:03:16.926+00:00Modest Millie,
Please accept my apology on behalf...Modest Millie,<br /><br />Please accept my apology on behalf of all men for the "emotional promiscuity." You're right that it wasn't conscious or intentional, it is just that... we didn't know.IA_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-25158633294417359032010-02-21T21:04:38.544+00:002010-02-21T21:04:38.544+00:00Squicky is the perfect word.
Now, I imagine any o...Squicky is the perfect word.<br /><br />Now, I imagine any of those commentators, even the ones who bellow "Girls should be more careful" would admit that the West is not and should not be Saudi Arabia, and that MEN are the ones who must take responsibility for their own responses to women. And in various places this modesty survey links to pages saying the latter.<br /><br />Men can look away, or they can get over that fact that women, like men, have legs and arms and shoulders. But I think what really bothers me about that survey--and I know the guys were asked, and they answered honestly--was that the men seem to think appreciating the sight of a beautiful female leg (for example) is a Simply Terrible Thing. It was interesting how they felt about skirts tailored or tailored at the waist. They seemed to agree that that was very nice--very pretty. The waistline, therefore, as long as it is covered up, is both attractive and innocent, in their view. What, I wonder, is wrong with breasts, then, when they are nicely covered up. So you can see the shape, just as you can see the shape of a waist--what's the problem?<br /><br />Appreciating beauty is not a sin. Objectifying women and judging them by how they present each body part (which this survey sort of does) seems very wrong to me. "Her breasts are too small" comes very close to "her breasts jiggle too much when she walks" for me.<br /><br />But then men are different from women, and these guys were being honest and...<br /><br />Still--squicky. I know how they feel about my boots (modest but gives the wrong message); I must check out how they feel about bare arms.Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-69839636995882476922010-02-21T20:48:18.655+00:002010-02-21T20:48:18.655+00:00That makes me feel so much better! I mean, I'm...That makes me feel so much better! I mean, I'm sure the survey was done with the best of intentions, and I'm pretty sure it was spoken of approvingly by Catholic bloggers. But the whole tone is just so... squicky (to use the technical term).Clare Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-50864624434457499652010-02-21T18:38:07.788+00:002010-02-21T18:38:07.788+00:00Clare, I just had a look at that site and steam is...Clare, I just had a look at that site and steam is coming out my ears. "Stumbling block"? The word "skandelion" translates to "stumbling block". If seeing a woman exhibit a natural range of motion is too much of a scandal for a Christian man, he needs serious help. <br /><br />If my breasts bounce when I'm walking or running, or if I feel like stretching, the oversensitive types (what HAVE they been watching if this is too much for them?) can bloody well look the other way!!!Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-1069701594687909542010-02-21T18:19:27.768+00:002010-02-21T18:19:27.768+00:00Word to power, Clare H! And does anyone ever tell ...Word to power, Clare H! And does anyone ever tell them not to play football "Shirts vs Skins" when girls are around? I BET they don't!Seraphichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251504033428511090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6905236167079601771.post-9709861657150072052010-02-21T18:08:32.672+00:002010-02-21T18:08:32.672+00:00I sympathize greatly with Modest Millie, for I too...I sympathize greatly with Modest Millie, for I too was frequently been annoyed with the overemphasis on female modesty in my Catholic high school. Women are visual too, but in a way that is not focused on genitalia.<br /><br />Have any of you seen the Modesty Survey? (http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse) It's a very large survey of Christian men on women's clothing and what they find objectionable or a "stumbling block." I found it faintly uncomfortable when I ran across the site a couple of years ago, not least because stretching (that includes arching the back) is considered a stumbling block, as is the removal of a pullover when there is a modest shirt beneath.<br /><br />Now, I am not one to be constantly calling misogyny, but this site makes me even more uncomfortable now that it did a few years ago. It has an air of control that is somewhat disturbing, and is just generally the wrong way to be talking about modesty. But I'm curious to see if others will have as strong a reaction as I.<br /><br />Incidentally (to make a long comment longer), I think that modesty talks should tell boys not to cutely flip their curls out of their faces, or to cover their nicely shaped calves, or to wear scarves so as to cover that appealingly bobbing Adam's apple! All of these things have been "stumbling blocks" for me, at least...Clare Hnoreply@blogger.com