Dating in a pandemic

Luna Novem

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
I don't want to tell you how to live, but I highly recommend ending it. He is not living in reality. There is no virus and there is no "vaccine," only a toxic sterilant gene therapy shot, and if he can't see that there was no risk to his health to begin with because covid is a hoax, then he is oblivious to the truth and that is a major red flag. He may be sterile, maybe not. But if you want a good husband and children, this isn't the guy. Women need to be led by men who understand what is going on. If he can't see the demons behind that shot and the truth of the elite cabal of Satanic psychopaths who are pushing it to sterilize the world and reduce the population, he cannot lead you spiritually when you know more than him. From an outsider's point of view, the whole thing is starting off upside down because you are in a position of intellectual authority over him since you get it and he doesn't, and that is not good.

Also, everyone getting the shot is completely controllable because the elites are going to make people into tech-humans and it is going to be hideous. This isn't even some wild conspiracy, they're talking about hooking you up to your phone and implanting devices in your body to connect you to the web. I wish it was some crazy idea but this is actually their diabolical plan. It could be months or years, but the people who took the jab will not be who they used to be and they will be controlled. God bless, I'm praying for you. But be careful. Nice men that seem to have a lot going for them will charm you out of seeing enormous red flags, and you will start to make excuses for him in your heart and you will not be able to see it how it really is if you keep talking to him and considering the idea of dating him. I really recommend ending it before it gets more difficult.

If a man makes you reconsider your stance on something that you are objectively correct about, i.e. "he go the shot he might be sterile and this is a problem" then you should run. Your first instinct, that the shot is a problem, was 100% right and that seems to be why you posted this thread because you wanted confirmation from others. Now, because he is sweet and you had great conversations, you are subconsciously changing your stance and making compromises as you think it through. But you can't compromise on truth.
I am genuinely curious about the stance that there "is no virus". Can you elaborate? (Don't get me wrong, I think the reaction to the virus was insanely over the top.) But when you say "no virus", what do you mean? Have you not met anyone who had it? If you have, what do you think they actually had?

ETA: I know it's hard to hear "tone" online, so let me offer that I utterly respect your opinion and I have zero intention of coming across rudely! I legitimately want to know your thinking on this.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
I am genuinely curious about the stance that there "is no virus". Can you elaborate? (Don't get me wrong, I think the reaction to the virus was insanely over the top.) But when you say "no virus", what do you mean? Have you not met anyone who had it? If you have, what do you think they actually had?

ETA: I know it's hard to hear "tone" online, so let me offer that I utterly respect your opinion and I have zero intention of coming across rudely! I legitimately want to know your thinking on this.
No "covid" virus has been isolated. SARS-COV2 is actually computer generated, its a code. All of Virology is nonsense, "viruses" are neither dead nor alive when you study them, and they all vary in shape and size to the point where the virology world says they are so mysterious they hardly know much about them at all. Turns out what they call viruses are actually just particles found in the human body when your body is fighting some sort of illness. They can be byproducts of fighting toxins, various types of waste in the body being expelled in order to reach homeostasis, etc. They are not transmissible, they are not identifiable as pathogens, and they certainly did not cause a "pandemic." My sister and an old lady who is a friend both got very sick this past year with the worst flu-like illness either had ever experienced. It looked a lot like "covid" but I am certain it was health related
(bad nutrition, stress, etc), and possibly technology related. Illnesses are caused by environmental factors and nutritional factors above all. Poison and metals in the water, vaccines, medications, GMO food, and all types of rotten things we consume today have serious adverse effects on our bodies and it comes to a point where your body gets overwhelmed. I think most disease today is avoidable but the medical industrial complex is wicked and profits off making you sick and keeping you sick. I think technology plays a huge part in people getting sicker too- 5G is brand new, people were already unhealthy, now they're very sick.
For example:
Spanish flu happened at the time of WWI and only in the first world. Why? The third world always gets sicker because of malnutrition and other factors. If there were a pandemic, why didn't thousands of poverty stricken South Americans die? They didn't- but thousands of young people in Europe and America did. The age of radio corresponds perfectly with the Spanish flu. Technology affects us very strongly. Also, the stress that many young women were under as they missed their husbands/sweethearts increased their weakness and tons of young people died. The men were under extreme distress in the war and many of them died of the Spanish flu. Stress causes illness. Couple that with the new technology screwing people up inside and out and you get Spanish flu. I suspect that 5G coupled with our already destroyed health these days is what caused whatever individual sick people decided to call "covid" the past year. I also think the power of the media to cause widespread panic increased peoples symptoms sympathetically, as we all know that the human mind is extremely powerful and I believe if you are living in abject terror you can become sicker and think yourself to be far sicker, and then your body will get sicker, because you have the deadly "covid" which you would have simply called the seasonal flu 2 years ago. I don't believe colds or flus are caused by viruses, I believe they are environmental and nutritional and stress related, as the body is weaker in winter and the food is lower in nutrients because it is not as fresh. There is a lot to research. Contagion is not real. Read "The Contagion Myth" by Dr. Cowen and also look into Dr. Kaufman/Stefan Lanka talking about it:
These Dr's debunked virology.
 
Last edited:

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
lol I just got a message from a guy on the site who's wearing a cowboy hat and a necklace with a cross. He specifically comments on the absurdity of masks in his profile, says "I didn't expect to be single at the end of the world." His profile is hilarious. Another gem: "I'll spare you the long walks on the beach speech or the I exercise 20 times a week story." Too bad he's way too old for me and states on his profile that he doesn't want kids. Getting warmer, tho lol
What a shame he's effeminate. Seemed almost good there. Might as well say "I do not want to follow natural law and I want to spite God" instead of "I don't want kids."
The end of dating is marriage, the end of marriage is procreation. It's pretty simple.
 

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
He doesn't strike me as effeminate. He seems like a manly guy, has a ranch in the country with horses and other livestock, has already had his kids. But I do find it ridiculous and kind of offensive when men who don't want kids for whatever reason bother women who clearly do. What could he possibly offer to replace that? Nothing at all.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
He doesn't strike me as effeminate. He seems like a manly guy, has a ranch in the country with horses and other livestock, has already had his kids. But I do find it ridiculous and kind of offensive when men who don't want kids for whatever reason bother women who clearly do. What could he possibly offer to replace that? Nothing at all.
If he is a man who is on a dating site to find a woman and doesn't want kids then he is by definition effeminate even if he looks macho and acts like a man otherwise simply because effeminacy is the inability to do the hard thing for the sake of attachment to pleasure. In this case, knowing you should not date unless you are looking to marry, and that the purpose of marriage is procreation of children, it is clear that he wants the pleasure that comes from being with a woman without being willing to do the hard thing, that is, procreate and raise children. If you don't want kids, you have no business dating or marrying anyone at all. He's effeminate
 

Ah_Tibor

Kingfisher
Woman
Orthodox
He seems to be a mix, but I hear you. I'm attracted to alpha males, which is totally natural, but they always seem to turn out to have unsavory qualities - egomaniacs, selfish, obsessed with their own status, wandering eye. I guess alpha males who are also God-fearing, kind, loving, and with any grasp of a woman's needs are rare unicorns.

I'm not sure of the origin of alpha/beta stuff or if it's a reference to Brave New World (where they would genetically engineer people to be happy in their class roles, to the extent of giving fetal alcohol syndrome to the drones so they would never aspire to be different), but people in general are a mixture of traits and we often love because they are unique.

I've always found our section of the internet's obsession that women *only* want "alphas" and can only be interested in "betas" because they are siphoning resources to be weird, or at least simplistic. Like you said, alphas often have a lot of negative traits and don't make good husbands.
 

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
If you don't want kids, you have no business dating or marrying anyone at all. He's effeminate
While I agree that a man who doesn't want kids has no business approaching a woman who does want kids for dating or marriage, I think a guy in his age group would be fine to approach a woman who doesn't want kids for whatever reason (beyond child bearing age, infertile, already has kids and widowed, etc.).
 

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
I've always found our section of the internet's obsession that women *only* want "alphas" and can only be interested in "betas" because they are siphoning resources to be weird, or at least simplistic. Like you said, alphas often have a lot of negative traits and don't make good husbands.
I agree. Did you know that there's a correlation between deeper male voices and infidelity? I was bummed to read that, given that deep male voices are so appealing.
 

Ah_Tibor

Kingfisher
Woman
Orthodox
I agree. Did you know that there's a correlation between deeper male voices and infidelity? I was bummed to read that, given that deep male voices are so appealing.

I wouldn't doubt it. Men with more options are probably going to branch out more than men who don't. I think the key is having the morals/ethics to *not* do that.

I don't think there's anything more unattractive than a man who is trying to offer things that he thinks make him attractive. Conceit and status-seeking were big turn-offs for me. Humility and practicality (and being at least tolerant of my niche interests) were always a lot more important.

Sometimes we just get along with one person better than another for no apparent reason. Long-term perspective is important. I think the big problem when we're dating is that we're prone to fantasy-- which isn't BAD thing, we're trying to envision our future life-- but sometimes it doesn't align with reality.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
While I agree that a man who doesn't want kids has no business approaching a woman who does want kids for dating or marriage, I think a guy in his age group would be fine to approach a woman who doesn't want kids for whatever reason (beyond child bearing age, infertile, already has kids and widowed, etc.).
I say what I say objectively, not subjectively as cases vary. Don't want kids, don't date or marry because God gave us marriage for the primary purpose of child bearing. That's the standard. Obviously there are specific exceptions to things, I don't go into those because 99.9% of men and women who don't want kids today yet seek to date or marry have zero excuse and are effeminate moderns that don't want to follow natural law. I won't nitpick the .01% who might be widowed or infertile or something. But I will say that "already has kids" is it's own red flag unless one is widowed.
 

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
I say what I say objectively, not subjectively as cases vary. Don't want kids, don't date or marry because God gave us marriage for the primary purpose of child bearing. That's the standard. Obviously there are specific exceptions to things, I don't go into those because 99.9% of men and women who don't want kids today yet seek to date or marry have zero excuse and are effeminate moderns that don't want to follow natural law. I won't nitpick the .01% who might be widowed or infertile or something. But I will say that "already has kids" is it's own red flag unless one is widowed.
That's your prerogative, but it strikes me as judgmental. It's far more than .01% of the population who are legitimately in the eyes of God not looking to be parents or not able to conceive, but still would thrive in a loving marriage. While God hates divorce, it's acceptable in case of infidelity, which is rampant these days, and someone in that situation is much better off with a loving spouse than without.
 

stugatz

Pelican
Catholic
I know, I know. He just seems like such a good guy. You're right that I'm on a different level in terms of critical thinking. He's not dumb, but he's more... simple, sweet, happy go lucky, definitely not the kind of guy to question the narrative. Bummer!!
I'd say just have coffee and a walk with him, and be prepared to back out - but are you saying that you're afraid of meeting him because you might end up liking him, and you don't really trust yourself?

If so...maybe don't meet him, and back out now. I've been single for about four years, and being overly cautious has been a pretty big part of being able to maintain it. Although I admit I'm getting tired of it & know your pain here.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
That's your prerogative, but it strikes me as judgmental. It's far more than .01% of the population who are legitimately in the eyes of God not looking to be parents, but still would thrive in a loving marriage. While God hates divorce, it's acceptable in case of infidelity, which is rampant these days, and someone in that situation is much better off with a loving spouse than without.

It is not permissible to remarry in the Catholic Church even if your spouse cheats on you. If reconciling is impossible then divorce is seen as a necessary evil if you must separate for your safety/your children's sake. But you don't get to remarry. You'd need an annulment to state that essentially you were never married, so then you could marry and in that case it wouldn't be remarriage because you were never married before. But in God's eyes you can't just get an annulment because your spouse broke his vow. There would have to be something major to invalidate the marriage from the start, not just that he sinned against you after marriage. Annulments are given way too freely these days and it is a shame and evil in God's sight. Those who are eligible for annulments are so few compared to those who get them. But the Church has been infiltrated and is so full of modernists that many are led astray. So overall, usually when a guy is on a dating site and has kids from a previous marriage he is doing something gravely evil.

I don't think it's judgmental to say more than 99% of people have no excuse because when you look at the statistics of contraception use among married couples and cohabitation outside of marriage (contracepting usually as well) in the world it's a vast majority. If the first end of marriage is procreation, then people called to marriage are called to procreate. If you find out after marriage you are infertile, then it is God's will and there is a reason for it (again, an exception to the standard). But if you are getting married, you need to be open to having children. If you are old and have never been married, that is a much more rare scenario so I'll stand by what I said. Likewise widows.
 
Last edited:

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
Not everyone is Catholic. But we're clearly not going to change each other's minds, so I'll agree to disagree.
 

Mancipium Mariae

Sparrow
Woman
Not everyone is Catholic. But we're clearly not going to change each other's minds, so I'll agree to disagree.
Well of course not, but since you said it was my prerogative I thought it necessary to point out that it is not my own but the Church's, and I am subject to Her holy laws as they are God's holy laws
 
Last edited:

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
Great answer!! I understand how man's need to build something external to himself & to make his mark on the work brings him fulfillment, and helps build Christendom. And I understand how the family helps to build the Church and nation. And I know feel content knowing that one day I can serve the Church and nation one day.

Where I get lost in this chain that you've set up is exactly how women help in work? I understand why men like women, and that men want children. We seem to make them very happy if the relationship is a virtuous one. I understand that women can make men's life easier, but is this all it is: companionship, taking domestic management off his plate, etc.?

For me, I imagine that my children will be the thing that I am building external to myself & how I make my mark on the world. But I fail to see what a marriage gives a man beyond creature comforts & emotional / sexual intimacy.
I would replace your word "external" with "extention".

For eg, a wife can be her husband's secretary, a vet nurse to her veterinary husband, farm manager of her farmer husband.
 

TexasJenn

Woodpecker
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
I'd say just have coffee and a walk with him, and be prepared to back out - but are you saying that you're afraid of meeting him because you might end up liking him, and you don't really trust yourself?

If so...maybe don't meet him, and back out now. I've been single for about four years, and being overly cautious has been a pretty big part of being able to maintain it. Although I admit I'm getting tired of it & know your pain here.
I already like him as a person, just think it's a shame he got the shot and worry about the long-term repercussions. Also, my clearly detailed rationale about the potential risks seemed to fly right over his head.

I think my problem in the past was not being picky enough - even though I consider myself very picky. Then I just ended up inadvertently breaking hearts when I eventually concluded those men were not up to standard.

Now I'm taking my sweet little time, not moving forward unless I feel very confident it has real potential. This minimizes drama and pain for all.
 

Ah_Tibor

Kingfisher
Woman
Orthodox
If so...maybe don't meet him, and back out now. I've been single for about four years, and being overly cautious has been a pretty big part of being able to maintain it. Although I admit I'm getting tired of it & know your pain here.
I didn't really date between 20-25, except for a seminarian friend of my brother's who asked me to be a wedding date, so we hung out twice and he later de-invited me (he was seeing somebody he ended up marrying so it didn't bother me).

But it was for that reason though. Your reason tends to get suspended when you're lonely, like how anything tastes good if hungry.
 

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
lol I just got a message from a guy on the site who's wearing a cowboy hat and a necklace with a cross. He specifically comments on the absurdity of masks in his profile, says "I didn't expect to be single at the end of the world." His profile is hilarious. Another gem: "I'll spare you the long walks on the beach speech or the I exercise 20 times a week story." Too bad he's way too old for me and states on his profile that he doesn't want kids. Getting warmer, tho lol
"End of the world"...oh dear. So, unless he's being facetious, he wouldn't have a long term vision.
 

stugatz

Pelican
Catholic
I think my problem in the past was not being picky enough - even though I consider myself very picky. Then I just ended up inadvertently breaking hearts when I eventually concluded those men were not up to standard.

Now I'm taking my sweet little time, not moving forward unless I feel very confident it has real potential. This minimizes drama and pain for all.
I ended up dating a woman from my Catholic group for about three months, relieved that I'd found someone who had my values (and figuring she likes me, why not give it a shot). It ended very poorly when it became obvious that she wanted to get serious in a big hurry, and I still didn't even know if I liked her yet. Social pressure from our mutual friends guilted me into dragging it out longer, and I still feel awful about it. (She has since gotten married to a man who isn't a Christian. It makes me feel worse in a way - did I hurt her so badly she decided to compromise all of her values to find a man?)

A situation like that is just unpleasant to a point where you're better off not dating and waiting longer. Although like a poster wrote earlier, you don't want to be the person left standing without a chair to sit in...so I've tried to figure out what works best for me. It'll continue to be a struggle.
 
Top