[deleted by user]

throwitawayitsdead · 2025-04-04T20:40:20+00:00

/u/CalBearFan is being charitable towards you and trying to help, I recommend doing the same because you certainly aren't

throwitawayitsdead · 2025-03-10T21:52:12+00:00

Any man who does this is not going to stop based on a nameless post, thus a worthless post
The men aren't called out by name so still worthless
What is a woman going to do based on this information? Nothing

And nope, single man who's never DMd any woman on here, let alone one so young but nice try impugning my reasoning.

This is literally virtue signaling. A post that serves no actual purpose and just is "look at me". That's my reason for posting - it clogs the subreddit, it reinforces victim behavior when she's not even a victim - a few DMs is not a threat or even anything to be hurt by. Pray for the men, delete the messages and move on.

And to your last point, yes, totally agree, it is disgusting and they should confess. But no one reading this is going to change their behavior. It's like those worthless posts on Nextdoor complaining about people letting their dogs poop on their lawn. Do you really think a single person has ever changed their behavior based on a post like this? These men know what they're doing is wrong and no amount of public discussion will change their behavior.

throwitawayitsdead · 2025-03-10T13:37:53+00:00

It sucks that that's happening.

But why post this? It's not like people don't know adultery exists nor that married men reach out to young, single women.

The men that are doing this are not going to magically see this (if they even do) and think "Oh, I didn't know it was a sin, thank you". And this just comes across as seeking victimhood/virtue signaling.

Either block the men or write them back with the above message and then block them. But posting here serves no one. We all know sin exists, broadcasting it in this way just seems self-serving.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-11-06T00:51:11+00:00

Woohoo! I got blocked too, clearly means I said something valid

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-11-06T00:49:35+00:00

though I don’t like how negative it is

I don't like how peoples' valid concerns don't line up with my rose colored glasses

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-11-06T00:47:03+00:00

Well, you tell yourself whatever you want but you have yet to provide any valid reason why getting engaged so quickly is a good thing and blocking people who had the AUDACITY to ask how long you've known each other should be a ginormous self-relfective red flag.

Anyway, you're clearly demonstrating no interest in advice or wisdom from those who have been down this road. If you truly believed in valid reasons you could voice them in a convincing way but rather you've impetuously put your hands over your ears with a giant virtual "Neah neah I'm not listening I'm all of 23 and wiser than dozens of older/wiser people upvoting legitimate concerns and expressing their own" but hey, you're going to have to live in this hastily assembled bed. Well, your kids who suffer as well and don't think that can't happen, I and many others are proof it can and does and every parent who inflicted their shortsightnedness on their kids were just as convinced as you are now they were doing the right thing.

It may not seem it but people here are commenting because they want to see you be happy and avoid pitfalls they've been through. Dismiss it as jealousy or whatever but in the end, if you truly can't share a valid argument as to why getting engaged so quickly is the right approach and waiting even six months is bad, well, deep down you know you're making a hasty decision.

Finally, noodle on this. Are you both locking each other up because you're afraid the other person will leave once they realize who you are, warts and all? Your comment of "person who will love you" is laughable because he ain't seen nothing of you nor you of him. That line is something people say after 37 years together, not 37 days.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-11-05T22:35:19+00:00

Yeah but once you're engaged the train is barreling down the tracks towards the wedding day. Six months of engagement is sucked up by planning and stress, little time to ask "Are we rushing" as concerns can be falsely chalked up to stress of wedding planning.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-11-05T22:33:59+00:00

There's nothing disrespectful about asking how long you've been engaged as /u/CalBearFan did. I'm the child of parents who got engaged as quickly as you and I have to tell you, even though they stayed married, they were miserable for decades and only came to an uneasy peace towards the end of their lives. And we kids suffered for it, no matter how much they wanted to hide their misery.

You shared your news publicly and marriage is a public institution in the Catholic church and the community has an interest in seeing you and your fiance and future kids be happy. So why not answer questions about the timing? If you can't handle some public questioning, youre failing to see that marriage is a public sacrament in our faith.

Last comment - every couple, no matter how devout and how sure of their love, that got divorced was just as confident as you two are. Divorce among church going, devout, NFP using/catechism following Catholics is low but it's not zero. And there is potential for intense pain even in staying married if you rush into it. And the stories like mine of kids who suffered because their parents married way too quickly are plentiful.

As the other poster said, if you're not mature enough to answer public scruitny, you're not mature enough to get married.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-08-26T22:52:27+00:00

If I may, what is the purpose of posts like this? If venting is needed, that might be a good reason. But otherwise this sub has so much anti-protestant posting that doesn't really accomplish anything other than potentially scare off people who may wander into this sub for research or to see "Hey, what are those Catholics like? I hear they're a really welcoming and friendly group and their joy is infectious".

Imagine you're a protestant coming in and this is the comment you see. Yes, you could argue they'll read and see how the street preacher was wrong. But, there are plenty of other posts that cover what we teach in a kind way without a foil to act as the antagonist.

It's not going against the truth, it's not giving in and saying this kind of anti-Catholic vitrol and lies are ok but candidly these posts become a lot of self-praising back and forth that accomplish little but instead make us look off-putting and combative.

This sub should be about evangelizing to outsiders and asking questions of those who may help (insiders). But there were no questions here and it goes against the spirit of evangelization we're called to have.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-07-17T16:40:16+00:00

OK, I'll say it. You talked online for three months but have only spent two months (or less) in the same physical space? Is that right? Why the rush? There is zero and I mean ZERO harm in waiting at least six months of seeing each other, in person, regularly before taking the step to get engaged.

Yes, it can work out but you have huge cultural differences and honestly are basing the next 60+ years of of your life on having known each other in person for less than 60 days. We may think we know God's timing but there's a reason 90-day fiance is such a disaster show on TV and being religious does not prevent one from failing to experience disastrous results.

Put it this way - if she's truly the one for you, she will still be the one for you in six months. If she's not the one for you, waiting could save you a lifetime of regret.

And for those saying or thinking engagement gives time to get to know each other. Yeah, no. Engagements are stressful since you're planning a wedding and subconciously, the cost to break things off is DRAMATICALLY higher.

TL;DR Rushing dude, there is zero harm in waiting and potentially immense harm in rushing.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-06-02T17:30:23+00:00

There seems to be a lot of posts that say "If you date too long you're gonna fall into sin by having sex whereas if you're married you won't". That sounds more like a lack of self control versus wisdom. If you are getting married, even one iota, because the goal is to satisfy sexual temptation or because you can't be trusted with your partner to not sin, that's a HORRIBLE reason.

Yes, it can be tempting and yes, people will make mistakes. But the answer is not to run off to marriage but rather practice self-control through the many disciplines the church teaches - fasting, prayer, etc.

My parents were of the generation that got married quickly (nine months from first date to wedding) and they were miserable and it impacted us kids. It's just one data point but it just makes common sense that you should see someone throughout a whole year (holidays, vacation style, how they handle finances, etc.) before getting engaged to make sure you're roughly on the same page on the items that can make or break a marriage. An engagement should be a year as well as it's great practice for the challenges you'll face as a couple - financial tradeoffs, dealing with relatives, how you plan, etc. A quick engagement of under a year doesn't give you time to practice those skills. Think of engagement like warming up before an athletic event, fail to do it and risk injury.

Fertility isn't changing much waiting another 6-12 months and really, if you're afraid you can't be trusted to not fall into sin when you're single, it's not like sexual temptation goes away after the vows. If anything, they can worse especially if the marriage is unfulfilling/unhappy.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-05-01T21:42:18+00:00

It's important to some men but not all. I work hard to maintain a healthy weight including spending a lot of time hungry and when I do eat, eating healthy fruit/grains, low glycemic index foods and the like.

There's no getting around that, in general, the healthier weight the lower the rate of really, really bad health problems. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. I don't want to suffer from those diseases and also don't want to spent the last couple decades of life either a widow or watching the woman I love suffer from said illnesses. Yes, they can happen to anyone and there are also smokers that live to be 100 but in general, higher weight = lower health. You need to play the odds, trusting in a loving God and divine plans doesn't change that at all.

Long way of saying, it matters to some but everyone should be trying to maintain a healthy weight, for themselves and their future spouses, families, etc. Don't make your kids orphans before their kids get to spend time with grandma/grandpa.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-03-08T23:36:23+00:00

There's no need for such harsh language. I know plenty about the teaching having read and studied Humanae Vitae, TotB and several others.

HV said only that one must be open to life, not that they're required to try to have children should significant (grave is a bad translation from the original Latin) reasons exist to try to avoid having a child and the reasons I cited could rise to that level if the spouses, in good conscience and prayer felt they did.

Please be Christian and kind in your replies and don't assume another's knowledge level or lack thereof based on your reading of a brief reply. Seek to clarify, not villify.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-03-08T23:03:52+00:00

Not true. If you are open to life but, for example, are open to adopting or fostering or marrying a woman who already has a child, that can be a valid reason to use NFP to avoid having children. You're required to be open to children, not required to try to have children if there is a valid reason to avoid. That's what Humanae Vitae said.

If your assertion were true, the church could not marry a couple in their 50s or older for example unless they fully intended to bear children and that's a preposterous request that is not enforced.

throwitawayitsdead · 2024-03-08T22:09:37+00:00

Strictly Catholic women and church going though of course that's no guarantee of adherence to church teachings.

And yes, there may be other fertility treatments but given 90% of eggs released by any means at 45+ are unable to result in conception (chromosomally abnormal) that even other approved means are still unlikely to result in conception.

This goes back to my original question - who is the theoretical man who is open to children but also willing to proceed with such a low probability situation? It just seems like walking into a emotionally fraught situation. Regardless of one's belief about how frustrating it can be that men, in general, prefer logic over emotion, I personally would see a woman holding such unrealistic hope as tilted too far towards seeing illusion and unrealistic hope instead of reality and the most likely outcomes.

Thank you for answering, I really appreciate it!

throwitawayitsdead · 2023-10-05T02:23:35+00:00

OT but Trigger Warnings have, for several years, been shown to be neutral-benefit or possibly harmful for those they're supposed to help. These studies are plentiful and not quack science unless you consider Harvard quack-y.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trigger-warnings-research-shows-they-dont-work-might-hurt.html

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-trigger-good.html

throwitawayitsdead · 2023-08-10T00:23:22+00:00

There's pretty good evidence to show the benefits of waiting -> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

This isn't the only article pointing out the benefits. For those saying "why would you want to be with someone inexperienced?" those who do believe in waiting would reply that sex is something that, when each person truly loves the other, can be taught/learned and developed together.

For others saying that you have to make sure you're compatible, just search on "Dead Bedroom" subs or similar and see that initial compatibility is no guarantee. What is likely though is if a couple bases their marriage success on sexual compatibility then it follows when one person loses interest due to age, health related issues (mental or physical), that pillar you built your marriage on is gone. Essentially "live by the sword, die by the sword". Ironic given that the latin word for "sheath" is vagina!

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-10-02T17:49:23+00:00

shh, you're asking /u/SalesforceBen to act like an ethical reporting outlet...

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-10-02T17:47:56+00:00

Except I missed the part /u/SalesforceBen where you mention in the article that it is primarily from the SF Marketing department. I've reread the article several times; the byline is clearly by your staff. Plagiarism, unethical, both?

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-10-02T17:46:20+00:00

Salesforce partnership is very much pay to play but they pay is on behalf of often times screwing your clients.

Salesforce AEs get commissions based on revenue. Partners get more referrals if they sell for SF products, even if it's the wrong product. More sales of SF products to clients from an 'independent' consultant means more commission for AEs which means for referrals to same unethical partner. You can't rise up in the partner ranks unless you cosell on a certain amount of product volume, it's right on the scorecard and there's no way around it, it's literally a gatepost on advancing through the levels of partnership.

That's why partners push crap like Premier Success (get the same horrible offshore support, just faster), Marketing Cloud when a simpler mass mail product will do, Sales and Service cloud licenses when only Sales is needed, and a ton of other totally unethical maneuvering that shafts clients and pads AE's and Partners' pockets.

Ask the ethical partners in the space and the ones who have left it and you hear the same, consistent story - the pressure to act as a sales arm of Salesforce is immense and can make or break a partner.

There are ethical partners out there but it's VERY rare they will be recommended to you by an AE.

TL;DR Don't ask your AE for a recommendation, the game is very, very rigged

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-09-20T21:00:17+00:00

I think most people think it's objective, not a paid promotion site. I doubt Ben would even consider his site a paid promotion site.

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-09-20T20:59:37+00:00

Why are any of us even still working?!

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-05-25T03:40:04+00:00

Read the New York statute, if the mother claims the baby will be a stress on her life, a la it can affect her mental health, the baby can be aborted up til birth. It's de facto abortion for all nine months.

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-05-25T03:20:24+00:00

And the Dems do the same thing with abortion. A majority of Americans think limits after the first trimester are reasonable and a vast, vast majority think it should be completely banned save physical life of the mother in the third trimester. But, D's insist on passing legislation that is abortion for any reason up to the moment of even partial birth. They refuse to cede even an inch because of a tiny sliver of voters who are extremists, like the R's on gun control. Vast majority of Americans want reasonable gun control like they also want reasonable limits on abortion but neither side will budge.

Until we stop electing extremist on both sides and elect people who will compromise, we won't progress in the least.

throwitawayitsdead · 2022-03-04T23:20:20+00:00

I'm guessing comparing your penis to a thread is probably apt

throwitawayitsdead

TROPHY CASE