How do I stop being a cunt to my boyfriend?

>It has caused me to act unkind towards him
Just want to point out to you that you caused you to act unkind It isn't his fault or Christianity's fault that you are unable to cope with this in a calm and gentle way. That is your fault. Own your responsibility.

Because I like who he is when he does not have a Christian filter overlaying everything. I liked who he was when we met and I like who he is in the moments where he forgets about praying the rosary 8 times a day to repent for his sinful lustful thoughts towards me and just plays video games with me or something.

I want to stop yelling at him and being mean though. I have literally told him I hate him. I have screamed at him in these weird, guttural tones. I know I'm hurting him and that's not any way to change his mind. I keep thinking if I handled it more maturely or something, things would work out.

If he is like this forever would you want to stay with him? If this is him, and you can't change him, is it worth it to stay?

Yes, I never disagreed with that. You can see in the *context* of that I explained I am behaving poorly. I explained that I am acting poorly, yes, because of myself; but that the "trigger" since you take offense to the word cause, is the Christian stuff.

Please see lead up: I have become resentful and desperate. > It [my resentfulness] has colored my view of him as hateful and wrong. > It [my view of him] has caused me to act unkind.

Context is important. Picking single sentences does not work.

He leaves me every 3-6 weeks for a few days to an entire month. I could not live my entire life like that, no.

I feel I have to have some hand in him leaving though. I have to be doing something wrong. I have to be reacting in a way that drives him away or makes him feel unsafe around me.

Sounds like he can't handle above average stressful situations that aren't with his normal daily life and he relies on you to cope with it because it brings him back to what he's used to. These are major red flags, next time he does this I would recommend to just cut him out of your life completely.

Do you want to be with someone who you have to walk on eggshells with for the rest of your life? Would you really trust that he'd never walk out on you again, even if you change yourself into someone completely different that will "make him stay"?

I say I will do that then he comes back and I immediately just want to talk to him. I think "look! He will stay this time!"

There was a time last year I told him no. Repeatedly. And he kept coming back repeatedly. I kept telling him I did not want to talk to him for over a week and he kept sending me photos and stuff anyway. I don't remember why I started talking to him again. I think he started telling me about how life is better/more full with me in it, he likes having me around, etc. and I thought "oh he actually cares about me? he thinks I am good? he will stay?" which obviously was not true....

If he would leave the Christian stuff alone I might have some trust that he would actually stay.

Every time I ask why he is leaving me he just sends me some quote from a Priest, a Saint, a Theologian, a link to a Catholic resource about how I'm the evil friend that desires to separate him from God, how there is too much sinful lust between us, he has to go to confession and can't have a valid confession without removing the thing that causes him to sin (me), etc.

It feels like a cult that says "your friends who don't like the cult are bad; cut them off" and he sways between it and normalcy.

Just leave.

I see he's on a good track. It's only missing that he can get rid of you.

It's not a cultish attitude, maybe he just doesn't like being with someone who is so intolerant of his religion.

This. OP you're a typical entitled whore.

Break up with him, he sounds like a psycho.

I'm not even religious but the bible is right about women. It's part of a 7000 year old cultural stream that works, benefits society family formation and general happiness. Why hold onto feminist poison when all that does is make you miserable, just let it go.

Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?
Prayed the sinners prayer?

Pray alone somewhere where you know you can’t be heard or interrupted.

Serious question. Have you guys ever made official that you were going out? Do other people acknowledge you as a couple?

>He comes back to me the second bad things happen to him

Define "coming back".

If someone is your SO they dont just bail or engage in a relationship when its convenient for them. Are you fuckbuddies? Could it be possible you are just friends and thought there was more?

Ideology doesnt appear to be too relevant here. Not only is it an excuse but there looks like an even bigger problem here.

Not being endlessly pregnant because "birth control is evil" does not make me miserable.... that is very much the opposite.

I went to RCIA (rights of catholic initiation for adults) classes and tried to accept it despite my initial reaction because I saw it to be important to him. I would pray with him, read books relating to the subject, re-read the bible, etc. The end result was only a further feeling of "this is wrong". I can appreciate some of what it has to say, but other points feel like reading outdated philosophy or bad science (ie: Aquinas' whole reasoning for the "misbegotten men" thing is from Aristotle's misunderstanding of how human reproduction worked).

In the first year he referred to me as his girlfriend and it was acknowledged. My own friends are well aware. He then stopped referring to me as his girlfriend at some point, but would do so sporadically, over the 2 year Christian period. More often he would just refer to me as his "friend" or "someone he knows" while turning around and telling me things like "have a nice day at work honey", "I can't wait to spend every day with you", etc. It is inconsistent.

>Define "coming back".
Tells me "I want to break up" or "I want to stop talking forever" then initiates contact with me again later. Acts very affectionately towards me at first, tries to engage in semi-sexual behavior with me, hangs out and does activities with me (watch stuff, play games, coordinate schedules together), talks about how nice being with me is, etc. Often he apologizes and tells me I am "so forgiving" as well.

>Are you fuckbuddies? Could it be possible you are just friends and thought there was more?
We have not actually had sex. We have only played around a little and that is not a frequent theme. More often we are motivating each other to improve our lives, spending time doing shared activities, etc.
He explicitly called me his girlfriend and vice versa. He talked about me having been a good foundation for him and wanting to "build something beautiful on that foundation together". Those line do not strike me as casual/friends/fuckbuddies.

You should be old enough to know you have to stay away from weak minded people. He’ll soon jump on to the next dumb brainwashy thing his leader says.

Volcels and those that intensely cling to doctrine that validates their worldview, should not be entertained with relationships. What are you doing, femanon? This is clearly how he has chosen to live, you are bedding an enemy to society. Leave.

>Tells me "I want to break up" or "I want to stop talking forever" then initiates contact with me again later. Acts very affectionately towards me at first, tries to engage in semi-sexual behavior with me, hangs out and does activities with me (watch stuff, play games, coordinate schedules together), talks about how nice being with me is, etc. Often he apologizes and tells me I am "so forgiving" as well.
Sounds like he cheats too, get tested anonette.

Haven't had sex. No risk. I don't think he's sociable enough to do that anyway...

It sounds like you two are not a good match, wouldn't you agree OP? Sure, when things are good they're great, but a pattern of behavior has been established that is inimical to a healthy relationship between you two. You know you have to break up with him for the both of you to be happy, right?

Then why doesn't he leave already? I would not chase him at all, cease all communication, and he would STILL come back.

>general happiness

Catholic church pushed for laws regarding abortion and birth control in El Salvador years ago. They made it illegal for any abortions to take place, even in cases where the mother would die or in pregnancies from rape/incet, in addition to their disdain for birth control.
The suicide rate of pregnant women skyrocketed.

That is not conductive to the happiness of women.

You can still get mouth herpes from hookers.

No risk.
And again, I am almost certain he doesn't have the ability to cheat. He is socially terrified and barely speaks to anyone/barely leaves his apartment.

Show him this thread

Why the hell would you stay with a nutjob? And even worse, stay around on call until he finds a religious replacement for you (protip: he'll never find one, so he'll continue to play you until he decides he wants kids).

Fucking run, what the hell are you waiting for?

For him to work out whatever problem it is causing him to "need" Christianity in lieu of just enjoying and living his life. To grow up some more.

I don't really feel like I "need" a relationship either so I am not terribly concerned with the idea of "oh no he's preventing me from being with someone better" or anything.

ok i told him im done

Attached: pathetic.png (94x96, 15K)

If you think like this then you might not want to continue being with him, or you're too young to know he's right. I won't say I've gone as far as he has, I'm not even religious, I can't have the 'faith' in that stuff, but I definitely have a traditionalist view on my house hold(Married no kids yet) Her mother had her as a bastard, ran from the father and his wealth away so she could be in the big city and was a total failure as a mother and a woman. You form your opinions on experience. Some woman need guidance of a man, some men need the emotional insight of a woman. MGTOW is pretty gay, but I think men and women can sympathize what modern society is doing to how men and women are interacting. A lot of men are like this, and seeming to dig in further because they're living too much online. There's a healthy inbetween. Try to find it, if you can't don't waste your time.

I don't have the "emotional insight of a woman".
I don't any more need the "guidance of a man" than he needs the "guidance of a woman".
Notice how this is always worded to make women some inferior being in need of leading while men just need a woman to wipe their emotional ass.

Your view is shit but you wont see it from your throne.

Also I'm older than him.
I'm also more "worldly" than him.
I've done better holding down jobs and being successful than him.
I've been better with money than him (I've loaned him $2,000 etc).
etc.
etc.
etc.

You should probably be concerned about the scientific implications of birth control. Abundance of hormones are known to fuck with your brain chemistry, your personality as well as who youre attracted to. Moral reasons are secondary to why BC is so terrible.

Birth control includes condoms, nonhormonal IUDs, pullout method, spermicide, etc. etc.
All of it is "sinful and wrong". Literally anything that means I do not have to be celibate or endlessly pregnant is "sinful and wrong".
Non-hormonal option like copper IUDs exist and are a very viable solution for me.

as a woman i wish i could be like that, just work at home and have children. once you fall in love that's all you want because of how devoted you are to the man that is the source of all your inspiration. and i don't mean that by working at home i will never be able to go outside or be social or travel. what i mean is that if i had the love of my life take care of everything else, all i'd want is to take the role of the wife.
but you have to be in love to experience that feeling. maybe you're just not in love, i don't know. you want him to be a person he's not. maybe he's not in love with you either. or maybe wanting to be a "catholic wife"is a wish some women have and someone women don't, just like some people love short hair and some people love long hair. so don't ever force yourself to be that.

>Your view is shit but you wont see it from your throne.

If you think gender roles promote inequality then you may have just drank too much of the feminist kool aid.

Masculinity was never a throne. Being treated as disposable in war time and bearing the brunt of higher risk labor was never a throne. It was duty. However being dutybound is a thought process entirely forgotten by this generation as weve been spoiled by higher standards of living.

Maybe your boyfriend is actually right.

he's right about women, wrong about skydaddy

So you disagree on a lot of things, I get it. At the same time while youre looking to change his mind about his religious drone behavior you go to the internet looking for people to make an argument for you. I mean if your views are logically sound it shouldnt be tough to persuade him. Me for instance I like religion when its not taken 100% literally and just serves as a lesson to teach kids morals.

Also insertables have caused many infections before after dislodging on their own. Rubbers should be good enough.

For the record I am agnostic.

Being in the role of "you are the head, you are the commander, woman is your helpmeet" absolutely is a "throne" in that you do not have any limitations placed in the way women do, in regards to Christianity in modern times.

You do not need to look any farther than the numerous things said by church fathers, theologians saints, etc. such as "When woman thinks alone, she thinks evil", "woman is intellectually inferior to man", "female offspring is deficient and caused by accident", "woman is only the image of god when united with man, but man alone can be the full image of god in himself, without woman", that they were barred from ordination on the grounds of "since woman is in the state of subjection, the female sex cannot signify eminence of degree", the fact that the vatican had to actually take a vote on whether or not women even had "rational souls" or only "appetive souls" as animals do.

>you go to the internet looking for people to make an argument for you

I made the argument myself. I grew up going to AWANAS and was paid tokens/toys/candies in that system to memorize bible verses. I already knew what it was while he didn't even have the association of the holy spirit and a bird or know that the Godhead is a trinity. I spent several years before we met checking out religious stuff (christian and otherwise) alongside mythology, philosophy, and how those connected to psychology and biology. This topic isn't anything new to me or something I ran out to research because of him.

> I mean if your views are logically sound it shouldnt be tough to persuade him.

Except it is. I have tried to tell him things numerous times in the past and he refused to listen to me during the moment, then adopted the same beliefs later on. He has a predisposition to never wanting to "lose" an argument and will be sort of mocking/teasing with a cocky "I win" or "I won't back down" type sayings.

>Me for instance I like religion when its not taken 100% literally and just serves as a lesson to teach kids morals.

I liked this. I even said like a year before we met that I would like to be "like Jesus". I took many of the stories to be metaphorical and useful in some ways. I did not use it with some fanatical devotion that overruled all aspects of my life.

>Also insertables have caused many infections before after dislodging on their own. Rubbers should be good enough.

Risk is pretty low especially with some available in europe that utilize a softer, flexible design. IE: ballerine.

It really isn’t about your happiness. It’s about general stability, cohesion and survival in society. Everyone has duties and obligations that have to take precedence over their happiness. If women are allowed to ignore all of theirs and do anything they want without consequences, how can you make the argument that men should have to provide for them, or be eligible for the draft, or pay child support? The list goes on. They don’t want to do it, but they have to because society requires it. It isn’t conducive to the happiness of men.

>how can you make the argument that men should have to provide for them, or be eligible for the draft, or pay child support?

I don't argue for those.
I don't think it is OK for men to be obligated to provide for women.
I don't think it is OK to force anyone to sign up for the draft, especially not only men.
I don't think it is OK that men can sign away their rights to a child, but never their obligation to pay child support while women can choose to abort.

I do not advocate for any of the things you are saying I advocate for.

And again: the example in El Salvador did nothing but make it so women were more likely to commit suicide, doctors were less likely to be willing to treat risky pregnancies for fear of a miscarriage being suspected as an illegal abortion, and women were less likely to seek medical care/let anyone know they were pregnant due to fears of it being suspected of an abortion in the event they did miscarry.
It also meant women carrying literally dead fetuses that could cause sepsis were unable to have them aborted, in addition to later investigations that the natural miscarriage (if the sepsis did not kill her) was not a self-induced, illegal abortion.

That is not "stability for society".

The church didnt create gender roles though. Civilization did. Trust me, I hate the Church as much as you do.

I know that.
I will even say Christianity did elevate the status of women in regards to their previous position at it's time; much of its early support was even from women.

But it's old. It's no different than saying it would be right to keep the roles that existed pre-Christianity and shun the advancements Christianity brought because it was wrong in the eyes of the pre-existing Pagan or Jewish God.

See you at the thunderdome then, hope the collapse is at least fun before I get murdered.

I don't see how letting up on "men are for x and women are for y" to some degree is going to lead to the downfall of the species.

Less and less we need reliance on human/male strength to do tasks (this also doesn't account for the anomalies like strong/large women and weak/small men; do we just give them the opposite gender role?). I am seeing the military now crafting exoskeleton suits that negate any difference in human strength, and right alongside it are the advances in artificial wombs. What becomes of "men are for x, women are for y" when their two primary different attributes become meaningless due to technology?

Guaranteed replies, eh, OP?
Appreciable digits.

But why do you keep taking him back?

Because I DO want him.

That is beside the point though. The assertion was he leaves because he doesn't want to be with me. That can't be true when he keeps coming back.

He doesn't seem to want to be with you permanently, only from time to time.

Let me put it this way: if you had a bf and you treated him like this, and one day he just said enough and didn't let you come back, would you think he was being unreasonable?

If you have fights over something as fundamental to someone's life as religion then you shouldn't be together. Accept that he has become a die-hard Christian and move on. His religion is obviously very important to him and neither of you are going to sway the other.

smells an awful lot like Jow Forums in here.

OP, you are not sticking to your own declared intention any more than he is when he comes slinking back to you.

>I did not know if I could stay with him if he got very into it, because I think Christianity is very detrimental towards women.

regardless of how you arrive at your conclusion, thats a discussion for Jow Forums and any exploration of that here is futile.

The point is you've come to your conclusion on the matter with the knowledge you've accumulated and you're the one that told him you're incompatible with someone based on that.

Its completely irrelevant if his spiritual exploration is unsophisticated and not very well thought out compared to you and your more highly reasoned and skeptical conclusions.

He's looking into his spiritual exploration for positive manifestations of meaning, whereas you are only looking at it from an utterly dismissive rejection. You even admit you are personally attacking him for daring to think for himself about the matter if it runs contrary to what you want.

You're probably on different paths, based on what you've said just because he's reached out to things for meaning that you find distasteful. But you have no control over that.

You must be pretty desperate to stand being with him. Give it to us straight, is he rich? Good looking?

>How do I stop being a cunt to my boyfriend?

> I think Christianity is very detrimental towards women.
My guess is that you're just a 'cunt' overall, but he's likely a degenerate who more or less deserves it anyway.

I can't really place myself in that scenario. My drive is very different. I would be upset if I caused him to leave due to my being inconsistent, but I can't understand the motivators behind it to asses if its unfair since I can't place myself in that scenario at all (my nature is to be very determined/devoted, reliable, and consistent).

He KEEPS COMING BACK THOUGH. He will be like "I'm leaving, because Jesus!" then come back. He's done this at least 8 time now. If he would just say "I'm leaving because you aren't Christian" then leave, for good, OK. But he comes back each time and the leaving has lost its weight. I just expect its a malfunction/attempt to run away and self-isolate during times of stress (ie: he will run away from me, then his life gets worse after because of similar "run away" drives, like losing his job because he stops showing up, etc). So when he comes back I get the hope of "oh, he does want to stay, he is just struggling." But I cannot get him to really talk to me about what is going on. I can tell when he is going to do it, before he does it now. I can tell when he is not feeling well before he will admit to not feeling well. But I don't know how to combat it or help. Word for word last time he left and came back: "i have a habit of avoiding social stuff and fleeing from it and causing problems if you haven't noticed".

A Jew is posting this. OP pls go hang yourself

>you are only looking at it from an utterly dismissive rejection
I did not only reject it. I said at first that I did not know if I would be able to stay, based on my initial response. I actively went against that and tried to be supportive of it for around a year because I did think "if this is positively helping him, if he is looking for 'positive manifestations of meaning' to help himself, I should encourage it". I discussed different aspects of it with him, read scripture, we prayed the rosary together, I went to RCIA classes for a while, I encouraged him to go to church when the social anxiety was pushing him away, I gifted him religious stuff, etc. The end result was repeatedly coming back to things I cannot agree with in the fanatical, "this is literal and every word is to be obeyed or else you will burn in hell eternally" way that catholicism endorses (things like no birth control/condoms are really, really unrealistic to me), and so I asked that he not discuss it with me anymore. He had also repeatedly during that time when I was supportive used it to say we were not in a relationship while behaving very domestically towards me ("I love you", "Have a nice day at work honey", "I can't way to build a life with you", etc), then began using it as an excuse to leave me.

1/2

This happened while I watched it drive him further and further into isolation from the normal world as he is now even more unpalatable in his views and stances, while he meditates on hell constantly, while he follows the advice of some saint who suggests he think about his own death daily and imagine his own corpse filled with maggots and rotting, while he listens to endless videos from Fr. Ripperger in the same way he listened to endless videos from Stefan Molyneux previously, etc. He does not even attend church anymore. He only participates in the 8ch Christian board, reads obsessively, debates with people in a discord server, and stays alone in his apartment. He will no longer agree to see me in person and cites "I will have lustful thoughts towards you" alongside the "whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her" as reason for that. I can't tell what is legitimate and what is a scapegoat to not have to confront what he's afraid of.

I make more money than him and have even loaned him money. I like how he looks but other people sometimes say he looks weird. My initial response to his appearance wasn't a major factor though. I rejected other guys who would be said to be more attractive. I had feelings based around interacting with/talking to/feeling comfortable with him that I do not normally get. He was goofy/playful, gentle, and sweet; and did not sexualize me. We shared some similar interests and life goals initially as well, and could sympathize with each other over some similar problems.

I'm not jewish.
I was raised loosely protestant and have no specific religious standing now. My blood is standard "white american mutt" with an emphasis on german and polish.

Barring them from using birth control or condoms or anything that would prevent pregnancy even within the confines of a stable, long standing marriage is inherently detrimental to their wellbeing, in addition to everything cited here: Maintaining something that has a foundation based in barring them from areas of life or treating them in certain ways due to an assumption of them being evil, intellectually inferior, less God-like than man, and not in possession of a human soul is detrimental. Catholicism is especially opposed to reform vs. Protestant denominations.

>Barring them from using birth control or condoms or anything that would prevent pregnancy even within the confines of a stable, long standing marriage
I'm not Christian.
I don't have an issue with that, provided it is solely within marriage. My issue is that with types like you, a rejection of Christianity also comes with a wholesale rejection of individual Christian values, irregardless of their impact.

>inherently detrimental to their wellbeing
Overall trends indicate that modern amorality is even worse, although this is due to myriad factors.

ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf
>"measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men."
>"Social and legal changes have given people more autonomy over individual and family decision making, including rights over marriage, children born out of wedlock, the use of birth control, abortion, and divorce (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007). Once again, men may have been able to disproportionately benefit from these increased opportunities: Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz (1996) argue that sexual freedom offered by the birth control pill benefited men by increasing the pressure on women to have sex outside of marriage"

>Catholicism is especially opposed to reform
>What is Vatican 2.0
"Reform" is more often than not just a dressed-up way of rendering something meaningless. When a protestant denomination "reforms", they simply create yet another schism and add to the nauseatingly long list of "true" faiths, with the effect that none of them have any impact besides bolstering the egos of cafeteria Christians.

You have to see how that's a completely unhealthy relationship, though. Wouldn't you rather have a boyfriend who commits to you for real?

>Overall trends indicate that modern amorality is even worse, although this is due to myriad factors.

Saying "this isn't AS bad as this" doesn't make it OK.

>ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf
Cannot be attributed solely to birth control/prevention, nor allowing them to work. Self-assessment for something as ambiguous as happiness is also hard to pin down and subject to standards of the time.

>they simply create yet another schism and add to the nauseatingly long list of "true" faiths

That's how religion works. It takes many points of the previous religion and reforms them into a new one and asserts "this one is now the true one". Christianity is a mixing of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Gnosticism with some Paganism to boot that then said all those are wrong. Protestantism and Catholicism are different religions. Each say the other is wrong. The various sects of Protestantism are also different religions. They all say the other one is wrong. If there was no reform and formation of new sects, denominations, and religions, we would all be practicing the exact same religion that existed long, long before Christianity, like Hinduism or whatever undocumented eastern religion existed.

>What is Vatican 2.0
A drop in the bucket compared to changes seen elsewhere. Saying "especially opposed to reform" does not mean "never reforms" only "more opposed than others".

I didn't especially want a boyfriend to start with. I don't have a thought of "I NEED someone" and when he has left, or I have assumed it was over, I don't seek out anyone else. The problem isn't "I want a boyfriend to commit to me" it's "I love you, specifically, and am sad things are not going well, because I want to stay with you". If it does not work out OK, but my drive is not "I need someone, so I must leave you, who won't commit to me, to find someone who will". My drive is "I want things to work with YOU".

you sound like a bad person better leave him so he can be better off without you

>Saying "this isn't AS bad as this" doesn't make it OK.
True, however if you're asking about standards as in this thread, it does make it better.

> Self-assessment for something as ambiguous as happiness is also hard to pin down and subject to standards of the time.
While not wrong to say, of course, the pattern holds regardless of the controls used, and can hardly be dismissed on these grounds.

>That's how religion works.
The workings of religion, yes--but it is also how religion stops working.

>A drop in the bucket
No. Sure, it maintained the existing structure with all of the finances included, but there was barely anything left untouched as a matter of doctrine.

This is all beside the point I originally made, which is that everyone involved is degenerate.

>The workings of religion, yes--but it is also how religion stops working.

It's how A religion stops working, not religion as a whole. To religion as a whole, it is how it continues to reproduce.

>but there was barely anything left untouched as a matter of doctrine.
It left many things untouched. The primary differences were in the way the mass and congregation was conducted, and trying to reduce anti-semitism. It did little change to the regular life matters. The small opportunities it opened up to women were also vastly behind those Protestantism already offered.

What your boyfriend is doing, I think, is mainly a bastardization of christianity, as with any other religion on the news. Granted, no religion is perfect, but he's not really a "devout christian (as cheesy as that sounds)" if he doesn't read up on the more important aspects like with Karl Rahner.

The problem isn't so much so that he's christian, but he's not informing you as much importantly about it as you think he should and even then he fails to gain your interest because you think he should do a better job of telling you things.

>Karl Rahner
He's a Jesuit so instantly discarded.

>but he's not informing you as much importantly about it as you think he should
This is a really weirdly worded sentence, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>I cannot agree with in the fanatical, "this is literal and every word is to be obeyed or else you will burn in hell eternally" way that catholicism endorses (things like no birth control/condoms are really, really unrealistic to me), and so I asked that he not discuss it with me anymore.

none of this contradicts what I pointed out to you. You had already arrived at these conclusions before you 'tried to be supportive' and when you got on the other side of your 'tried to be supportive' phase, you were at the exact same place.

and again, i'm not here to convince you of catholocism's virtues, because that's inviting Jow Forums in. The point is that you clearly had a predisposition that was high level antipathy for the trappings it brought with it. You thought it was fanatical before, and you still do.

What makes you think you were capable of acting any other way to your BF in light of that when he chose to engage in this stuff?

and this post
just screams of justifications. You came to this thread asking what you could do to stop, but when asked for/pressed for info, your posts invariably degenerate into your own personal critiques of Christianity, or into severe instances of his transgressions against your sensibilities.

you just sound like you don't have much overall life experience based on your evasiveness, and your overly certain world view. Just as an example:

>He was goofy/playful, gentle, and sweet; and did not sexualize me.

All guys sexualise you way more than you think, or are ready to accept. A girl who doesn't think this doesn't have enough life experience.

Like I said, you sound like you are just on different paths, both of you are stretching whatever personal integrity you think you have to stay with one another based on what you've shared here.

>What makes you think you were capable of acting any other way to your BF in light of that when he chose to engage in this stuff?
Because I was open to the idea that I might be wrong. And because I did have an actual shift in disposition and the way I was living and had come very close to accepting Catholicism for myself, instead of just supporting him. I changed my stance on a lot of things due to the influence of it, although not everything. Even now, I hold some different stances as a result of it, and have some considerations in regards to it. But again: there are specifics within it that I cannot live under the rule of. Those I couldn't get past. When I brought this up he would tell me not to focus on those, to try to understand the whole thing instead of the specifics I found fault with. So I did that, I found and incorporated other parts of it, but there was never a solution for the initial problems I found fault with even though I had considered that there might be. But I had at least considered at the start that I could be wrong.

>based on your evasiveness
What am I evading? No one gave me any advice on how to be better towards him, only "get rid of him" or "you're bad" or "he's bad" or arguments about the validity of religion or that women are bad.

>All guys sexualise you way more than you think, or are ready to accept.
You don't understand what I mean by that. I mean he did not make overtly sexual remarks to me, he did not say dirty things to me, even when he pressed for sexual stuff it was very lighthearted and not vulgar and had a basis around wanting to be close, not "yeah lemme fuck that", the language he used even in moments of describing stuff was soft. He never wanted me to dress provocatively., he never wanted nude photos, he never commented on me being hot or sexy; only things like cute or nice, etc.

Weird OP. not sure if this is helpful but I'm in the exact opposite situation. Been going to an orthodox Christian church for over a year now, on my own accord. My SO doesn't care for it too much and I wish he did because he engages in acts I find demeaning towards women. (Watching porn, listening to mumble rap which basically promotes suicide and reduces women to breathing onaholes) I feel like modern society would be helped a lot if we treated each other as creations of God ,which makes us all inherently beautiful and valuable. A lot of acts we engage in today are pretending to be individuality and freedom but really divide and twice the sexes more to the point we hate each other. Anyways didn't tag the whole thread and hope this isn't bait . OP hopefully a different perspective can be helpful for you

Dios mio
El diablo

Do you have sex with him?
Would you marry him?
Would you be OK in a marriage with him where you cannot use birth control, condoms, or anything to prevent pregnancy?

Because these are my most significant problems in regards to how Catholicism will impact us in a long term relationship/marriage.
I know Eastern Orthodoxy has never made an official stance on birth control/condoms/etc as far as I know though, so maybe this is not a concern for you.

>You don't understand what I mean by that.

that makes a difference.

None of what you described is actually sexualising you; thats being generally ill mannered/low class & has less to do with whatever baseline sexual attraction he has toward you. You should avoid modifying the definitions of things like that, it makes you seem like you have another motivation.

>No one gave me any advice on how to be better towards him,

you don't respect him, & you tie that reason directly to his pursuit of material you find objectionable that he continues to chose to consume. Barring you just being a generally shitty person, then the reason you're insulting him is because you don't respect him.

in fact, one of your first replies to anyone telling you to just let it go is amounting to "OMG he like brings it up alllll the time and I keep telling him to stop. Look at all these things I don't like."

>Because I was open to the idea that I might be wrong.

people reading this thread highly doubt this. and

>I did have an actual shift in disposition and the way I was living and had come very close to accepting Catholicism for myself...

nothing of what you shared shows any shift in disposition, only doubling down.

Everything here just screams of you both attaching to someone who does not conform to eachothers Jow Forums views & are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Since he's not here, we can only speak to you, and each and every post here drips with your disdain, your use of language(under the rule, etc), your expectation of what you want to be able to do all run in direct antipathy toward your perception of what Christianity is.

I just don't see what else you could expect of yourself here. Engage in this thought exercise: Imagine instead of a BF, imagine how you would interact with some random guy that did/said all the exact same things. How would you interact with them?

>None of what you described is actually sexualising you

"Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality,"
He never referred to me as sexy and did not regard me as a "sexual thing". My character, my primary quality, was not "something for sex" to him. The term is accurate.

>you don't respect him
OK, how do I fix this, or WHY don't I respect him? If this is the problem, how do I fix it?

>amounting to "OMG he like brings it up alllll the time and I keep telling him to stop. Look at all these things I don't like."
Yes, a year later when I started becoming more hostile towards him, I asked him to stop bringing it up around me. I asked him to stop because I did not like the problems it was causing between us when I reacted poorly. I asked him not to bring it up to me anymore and he would still use it to critique my behavior, critique other peoples behavior to me, try to hold debates with me, etc. That increase in hosiltity also coincides with him repeatedly using it as justification for "breaking up" with me or asserting "we aren't in a relationship" while continuing to come back to me after "breaking up", or act in ways that contradicted the notion of not being in a relationship (IE: sporadically calling me his girlfriend, talking about plans of a future life, saying he loved me, calling me domestic names like "have a nice day at work honey", etc). The things mentioned there were also to illustrate that it impacts his life even when he is not directly speaking to me about it, which impacts mine if we are to have a shared life. IE: His belief that birth control/condoms/etc. are wrong directly impacts me even if he does not engage me in a discussion about it, his new belief that our relationship must include children directly impacts me, etc. I stated that to point out to the person that it isn't something that can just be "ignored" with no impact to myself.

1/2

>people reading this thread highly doubt this.
Doubt does not make it untrue. I absolutely was open to the possibility of being wrong. I wrote a letter to a nun asking her to help me understand even. I tried to re-read the things I had problems with and interpret them in different ways. I went so far as to study the origin of the words in the verses I had problems with, in their original Hebrew and Greek, to see if maybe something was lost in the translation, or I was understanding it wrong. I can tell you stuff about how the word "helpmeet" in genesis is a poor translation of what should equate to "counterpart" and how the translation of "head" used to refer to men may mean not something that leads and controls, but the same word used to describe men at the front line who take the arrows for the men behind them, how the original word for "Adam" before he is split into "male and female" is different than the one used for him after the split - but that in English they use the same name. But I can't alter the systems built around these things nor the culture it encourages.

>nothing of what you shared shows any shift in disposition, only doubling down.
On only some issues. I reconsidered a lot of other things. I feel bitterness that I have been altered sometimes even, because I am angry at this system now, and don't want to let it have any influence over me, but I cannot undo the things I learned and accepted to be logical from it.

2/3

>Engage in this thought exercise: Imagine instead of a BF, imagine how you would interact with some random guy that did/said all the exact same things. How would you interact with them?
The problem with friends or random people is that they do not share a life with me as someone I would be married to does. They can't control my life in any manner. They can't leave and break up with me repeatedly. They cannot refuse to have sex with me unless there's a possibility of me getting pregnant. The problems are specific to a romantic relationship. I can, and do, maintain friendships with people who have opposing views (within reason) BECAUSE there is no dependency.

>He never referred to me as sexy and did not regard me as a "sexual thing". My character, my primary quality, was not "something for sex" to him. The term is accurate.

no, thats sexual objectification. It is not interchangeble with sexualise. His recognition of sexual attraction is his sexualising you. It doesn't matter if its soft, or doesn't offend your sensibilities. People will think different things than you if you use words that way.

thats not the point of the thought exercise. We're trying to deal with your behavior, remember? Examine how you would interact with such a person. The point is that you're asking in OP about issues with how you're treating him, which is a larger problem with how you treat people in general if they met certain criteria.

This in particular is largely your world view talking here, because you keep talking in the language of power dynamics, and control. You even said that you've become bitter about being convinced of a different position on something.

Look, i can tell you don't want to be miserable, and i can tell you don't want him to be miserable. And I can tell you're trying to take the problem seriously.

But you're actually trying address is about 4 or 5 problems happening between the both of you at the same time. Relationship inexperience, different worldviews, life experience and maturity, the difference between being spiritually motivated and purely pragmatic (because you're trying to address his spirituality with your own pragmatic concerns)...

And not once did you go into what your relationship goals are for yourself/together. You were able to crystalise it in your questions when you addressed , but can you do the same for yourself? Whats your 6 month relationship goal? 1 year? 5 year? end-game? Do you want kids? Do you want to travel? Do you want to openly advocate for things that might bring conflict in your relationship?

Attached: mmmk.jpg (352x312, 43K)

The best way to stop being a cunt to him would be to leave him. Calmly tell him the it be can't decide definitively what he wants, then he just needs to leave and find someone who can happily fulfill his desires. A relationship is not a one-way street, it's not right that you're the only one who has to make an effort to understand him while he only digs in deeper with no effort to compromise. Unless you're willing to see a couple's counselor, which I can't say will be helpful if not, I can't think of anything that would make this work again.

>no, thats sexual objectification
"According to the American Psychological Association, sexualization occurs when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness."[3]"

>thats not the point of the thought exercise.
I cannot perform the exercise because of the "imagine he does the things your bf does" is dependent on "breaks up with me every month". That's not possible in scenario with "some random guy". Do you see?
If only in regards to the disagreement of topics/etc. I can generally disagree with people and tell them why I disagree, or that I disagree. If it goes on long enough I will usually just say "I don't want to talk about this anymore" or something and drop it. If they are sort of shitposty or condescending/troll-y about it, I will feel annoyed/angry and may say this; say I am getting annoyed and dont want to talk about it anymore. I'm usually the one to end it and walk away/switch topics when things go on for a long time. I can still maintain a relationship with that person in most instances, and will still hold a "What if I am wrong?" thought in regards to their position. I may think about it for a long time and sometimes go back to them later and say I've found their initial point to be right.

>You even said that you've become bitter about being convinced of a different position on something.
Only now. I was fine with it before. I'm only angry about it NOW and it is only because it relates to a system that says "you must accept it ALL not only specific parts" and there are parts I cannot accept. Per Catholicism I am worthy of excommunication because while I can accept other portions of it, I cannot accept one specific thing, and holding that one belief, per the pope, is grounds for anethema; excommunication. In general, in relation to other systems and topics, I am not bitter about having my position changed. It is specific to this.

>And not once did you go into what your relationship goals are for yourself/together.
No one asked.

>but can you do the same for yourself?
From the start we have both had similar goals for careers/work. We both actively motivate each other to study, practice, and inform each other of related stuff.
We have both wanted to live in a similar location, with a similar lifestyle (semi-rural with some land, emphasis on self-sufficiency; I grew up on a small "farm" and want to go back to that, he is very interested in that life as well), we both agree that it is vital for kids to have at least one parent stay home if there are kids. Kids are undecided at this time and there is a high likelihood I cannot have them (I am also really afraid of the process and it causes some sort of deep repulsion in me), in addition to both of us being unwilling to have them if we can't provide an ideal environment to raise them in (time and money-wise, see: need at least one staying home with them for the first 10 or so years). Traveling in the sense of road trips within the US is something I want. Both of us are into the idea of this with an appreciation of hiking, camping, outdoors stuff, etc. I've also worked on ranches and kennels and am capable of training horses and dogs (obedience, hunting, etc) and would like to have a setup for both or one of those (likely dogs, the facilities are easier to have on a small scale) to faciliate that for side income as its something that can be done in addition to a full-time job or while being the stay-at-home parent (I also enjoy it). Both of us have a similar set up in mind for how we would like buildings, workshops, etc. and stuff on the property as well.

Whats your 6 month relationship goal?
I want to live with or at the least nearer to him so it's not a plane ticket and a money sink just to spend time together IRL. He will not give me a yes or no answer when I ask about any sort of future planning though.
"Will you move in with me in six months?"
"I don't know." or "Ask me then." or "I can't think about that right now."
He previously had the goals mentioned above. When a concrete timeframe comes into play, he balks and becomes evasive.
In lieu of that I have been working to coordinate moving to his state to make it easier since I cannot get a solid answer about living with me. It is very possible I will be there when my lease ends in Fall of this year if my job is willing to let me go to working exclusively remotely (I am already permitted to work primarily remote as is).

>1 year? 5 year?
To continue climbing job ladders, save money, and buy land. If he will marry me I am for that, but the actual act of marriage is not important to me. By the end of 5 years we would need to make a decision on kids or no kids. That is going to be very dependent on income level and ability to accomodate them in relation to jobs/income sources though. It is absolutely vital that we are permitted to use some form of contraception to facilitate giving them a good life though. The only other option is no sex, at all, which I think you will also agree is unrealistic to do for 5+ years in a committed relationship.

>end-game?
Above goals mentioned in reply to "but can you do the same for yourself?"

>Do you want to openly advocate for things that might bring conflict in your relationship?
I don't really understand this point. Could you re-word or explain?

wait... this is a LDR?

Yes, we are living in different states right now due to some circumstances.