Separate property in marriage?

[christulsa]

Straw man.  Not one person in this thread has seriously claimed GoG's choice to retain his property is wrong.  It's his attitude toward telling women after 3 dates, keeping his rental income, making her pay, yada yada.   It takes a certain cut of woman to defend that kind of attitude.

[christulsa]

LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).

I suppose you are using "literally" in the recent sense of "figuratively".  Nowhere near hundreds of people have called me a drama queen.

At any rate, you are reading a great deal into GoG's posts with very little justification that I can see.  Since you like exhorting people to be charitable, you should consider what St. Ignatius had to say:

It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.

[Jayne]

It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.

But I have been following it.  I have, with little difficulty, seen that there is a positive interpretation for what GoG has been saying.  It requires no mental gymnastics to take his statements in a good way.  It seems to me, the more obvious interpretation.

Rather than recognize that I am merely following Catholic teaching by preferring my good interpretation to your bad one, you have made up all sorts of bad motives for me and said I should be ashamed as a traditional Catholic woman.  You really don't have the sort of moral high ground that would allow you to scold me.

[Jayne]

Straw man.  Not one person in this thread has seriously claimed GoG's choice to retain his property is wrong.

You repeatedly claimed that he was going against Catholic teaching, obviously and indefensibly so.

It's his attitude toward telling women after 3 dates, keeping his rental income, making her pay, yada yada.   It takes a certain cut of woman to defend that kind of attitude.

He tells women about his "sole property" plan after a few dates out of a desire for honesty and transparency in the relationship. Sharing expenses on dates is a practice recommended by many people as a way to promote virtue.  Keeping his sole right to property is a legitimate response to no-fault divorce.  These are all quite reasonable positions. 

Rather than make logical arguments against them, you claim that they show a bad attitude and turn every conversation with him into a personal attack.  If anyone has a bad attitude here, it is you.

[christulsa]

It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.

Nice try, once again.  You joined the thread, notably after a stint of infrequent posting, scolding a LARGE group of people for their criticisms, not just christulsa.  Abc123 later called you out out on your defense of GoG as being nonsensical, as axe grinding. 
Then follow the advise you quoted, Hypocrite.

But I have been following it.  I have, with little difficulty, seen that there is a positive interpretation for what GoG has been saying.  It requires no mental gymnastics to take his statements in a good way.  It seems to me, the more obvious interpretation.

Rather than recognize that I am merely following Catholic teaching by preferring my good interpretation to your bad one, you have made up all sorts of bad motives for me and said I should be ashamed as a traditional Catholic woman.  You really don't have the sort of moral high ground that would allow you to scold me.

Nice try once again, Jane.  You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG.  Abc123 then later said it didn't make any sense why Jane would suddenly appear defending him, accept to grind an axe.  I am sure you will try and gain the last word. 

[Maximilian]

At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children. 

No, this is completely contrary to Catholic belief.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; [condemned] wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.

[Jayne]

You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG.  Abc123 then later said it didn't make any sense why Jane would suddenly appear defending him, accept to grind an axe.

Here is my first post to this thread (minus my quote from the OP):

I haven't been around much and managed to miss this when first posted.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that it is reasonable, prudent, and moral to keep your house as "sole and separate property" when you marry.  No matter how legitimate this decision is logically and objectively, you need to consider how women tend to process things.

Women typically use emotion over logic and take things personally.  When you tell a woman whom you are dating about your plan, she hears you saying that you don't trust her to stay married to you. While it may be perfectly logical to consider the statistically high risk of divorce, she takes it as a personal insult and feels hurt.  Or, she may take your attempt to protect yourself in the event of divorce as a sign that you are not committed to marriage and going into it expecting to divorce.

I think the vast majority of women would have these sorts of negative emotional reactions.  It is not, in most cases, because they are after your money.  Women, in general, want to feel loved and trusted and safe.  Hearing about your plan to protect yourself in the case of divorce makes them feel bad.

One solution is to keep dating until you find an extraordinary woman who will process your plan with logic rather than emotion.  The odds are against you finding such a woman.

Another solution is to wait to inform the woman of your plan until she has become so emotionally attached to you that she will stay with you in spite of how bad the plan makes her feel.  This will not necessarily work and, if it fails, it will be a painful break-up.

Another solution is to reconsider your plan.

I do not see how anyone could imagine this shows an intent to call everyone out.  ABC did make some sort of comment about me defending GoG but that was in another thread.  (It was about headcoverings.)

[christulsa]

I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.

[GiftOfGod]

Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

How is it duplicitous to point out in advance my beliefs on finance in marriage, far before anyone's feeling could get hurt? How is it stingy to not want to risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a no-fault divorce? I see that you're still obsessed about the point of me not caring about women I went on one date with. You see, I didn't marry the first Jungle Asian to wink at me, so you have to put yourself in my shoes.

Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.

Why not? You've wasted your time following me from thread to thread. You even said that you're going to stop posting in this thread but you've made over half a dozens of posts since your annoucement. I'm sure a South American priest will be very familiar with community property law, as every Spanish-speaking nation on that continent adheres it. So I highly doubt that he would be the first priest in history to go on record against a 1,000-year-old time-tested Iberian legal concept.

[Jayne]

I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.

You claimed "You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG."  One joins a thread when one writes one's "very first post" to it.

Everything that I have written in this thread was honest and logical. There is no question of me manipulating anything.  It would be nice if you could talk about ideas instead of your constant personal attacks and nastiness.

I did, in fact, write to disagree with something you posted today.  If you perceive that as calling you out, you really need to reconsider your participation in discussion forums.  It is the nature of these discussions that people will disagree with you sometimes.  It does not mean that you are being targeted.  It does not mean that they are posting because they are out to get you.

The reason that I am posting to this thread is, as one might guess, that I find the topic interesting.  I actually had a real life discussion with my husband about it.  The topic is so interesting to me that I even read christulsa's posts to the thread even though I normally ignore his posts.  Apparently this was a mistake.

[christulsa]

Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

How is it duplicitous to point out in advance my beliefs on finance in marriage, far before anyone's feeling could get hurt? How is it stingy to not want to risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a no-fault divorce? I see that you're still obsessed about the point of me not caring about women I went on one date with. You see, I didn't marry the first Jungle Asian to wink at me, so you have to put yourself in my shoes.

Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.

Why not? You've wasted your time following me from thread to thread. You even said that you're going to stop posting in this thread but you've made over half a dozens of posts since your annoucement. I'm sure a South American priest will be very familiar with community property law, as every Spanish-speaking nation on that continent adheres it. So I highly doubt that he would be the first priest in history to go on record against a 1,000-year-old time-tested Iberian legal concept.

1. It is absolutely immature and self-centered to go into this after just 3 mere dates, as you stated, with these women, hello, when you identify as a believing, practicing traditonal Catholiic.  If you don't understand that even remotely, then I'll pay for all your sessions with Fr. P to sort out your issues.  James03 tried to explain this to you already.  And I concur with Angela about her comments.

2.  It is stingy to NOT share rental income from the property AFTER marriage with your wife, which you defend. 

3. Jungle Asian?  Are you referring to my wife of 10 years?   If so, Game on buddy. 

4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

[christulsa]

I did not claim you called out everyone here in the very first post you made in this thread.  Your near constant manipulation responding to posts is as tiring as it is nauseating, in large part because you've also done this for not weeks or months, but for verifiable YEARS.  Which is why I've decided generally to ignore it, except when you direct it directly at me, as you did today responding to me (I wasn't responding to you), and then I am going to shut you down because of your blatant habitual hypocrisy.

You claimed "You joined the thread to call out not just me, but everyone for their reasonable criticisms/points of GoG."  One joins a thread when one writes one's "very first post" to it.

Everything that I have written in this thread was honest and logical. There is no question of me manipulating anything.  It would be nice if you could talk about ideas instead of your constant personal attacks and nastiness.

I did, in fact, write to disagree with something you posted today.  If you perceive that as calling you out, you really need to reconsider your participation in discussion forums.  It is the nature of these discussions that people will disagree with you sometimes.  It does not mean that you are being targeted.  It does not mean that they are posting because they are out to get you.

The reason that I am posting to this thread is, as one might guess, that I find the topic interesting.  I actually had a real life discussion with my husband about it.  The topic is so interesting to me that I even read christulsa's posts to the thread even though I normally ignore his posts.  Apparently this was a mistake.

I literally did not read what you wrote above.  Because you are beyond irrational.

[Jayne]

4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

While I tend to avoid reading christulsa's posts, even I could not miss that he has some sort of vendetta against GoG.  If chris does not realize he is doing this, he is very lacking in self-awareness. 

[GiftOfGod]

4.  From thread to thread?  There's THIS thread, and another you started like a Troll to complain about my comment questioning your "Going Dutch" policy.

Please provide a link to the thread that you claim I started. I won't hold my breath because you never back up your claims with any source.

[christulsa]

I've We've had to read your posts for 10 phucking years, Jane, literally THOUSANDS of irrationally, personal arguments directed at Greg specifically.  Take responsibility for yourself.  I want you to ignore me, but each time you respond to me as you are, like a hypocritical mother hen, I will shut you down.