I have asked similar to this before but I recently went to NRW for a week and found myself very paranoid about photos in general. Years ago on previous trips I had no knowledge of German image laws so didn't have the same paranoia.
I don't know if I let it affect my trip unnecessarily but am I right in my understanding of the law in this way?
KunstUrhG §22. Realistically doesn't apply to taking pictures in public only sharing them. If someone is incidental or unrecognisable to your photo then no infringement applies. If they are the focus of the photo and you didn't get permission and somehow they find the photo online some day they could ask you to remove it and if they really insist they can go through legal channels and get a cease and dissist letter sent.
If they don't do this step first it could be complex further down the line to sue. Any attempt to sue over the image will delve into a complex Web of rights balances and public interest and artistic value etc. I think I'm fairly correct that basically... it'll never apply to anyone taking tourist pics or sharing random photos of whatever and whenever on Facebook or with friends.
Second question though... StGB § 201a is new, I think its an attempt to deal with revenge porn but it has some funny examples. It's illegal and punishable by a fine or prison sentence to take pictures of someone in a vulnerable state without consent an example given is someone who is too drunk to look after themselves.
Both legislations require a complaint from the person in the image.
So my question really.. do these laws actually affect anyone in real life ? Are people going to prison for taking a picture of a drunk dude asleep on a train or posting their mate Timo on facebook who fell asleep in a bar on his birthday?
Because a lot of aspects of the relevant legislation seem uncomfortably over zealous to me. Things I never would have considered to have legal implications apparently have quite possible legal outcomes in Germany.
Any discussion of the above in threads I've seen so far either say don't worry none of these laws affect most people in real life or on the flip they try to suggest that the only thing you can safely take a picture of and share it is the floor in your hotel room.
Thoughts and opinions?

112 Operator
911 Operator
A Story About My Uncle
Action Henk
Age of Wonders II: The Wizard's Throne
Age of Wonders III
The Amazing American Circus
Antagonist
Archangel: Hellfire - Fully Loaded
Ashampoo Photo Optimizer 7
Aurion: Legacy of the Kori-Odan
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Coco Nebulon
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Rocco
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Skolldir
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Ted McPain
The Bard's Tale
Battlerite DLC: YogYog Bear Mount
Bionic Commando
Blockstorm
Boundless
Breach & Clear
Broken Age
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Car Mechanic Simulator 2018
Chime Sharp
Citizens of Earth
ClusterPuck 99
Cook, Serve, Delicious! 3?!
Corridor Z
Crashlands
Crusaders of the Lost Idols - Elite Starter Pack
Crying Suns
Cursed Castilla (Maldita Castilla EX)
Dagon: by H. P. Lovecraft - The Eldritch Box DLC
Dandara
Deadly Sin
Deadly Sin 2
Dear Esther: Landmark Edition
Defend Your Life: TD
Deponia: The Complete Journey
Draw Slasher
Drawful 2
Driftland: The Magic Revival
Dungeon of the Endless
Expeditions: Viking
Figment
Figment Soundtrack
The Final Station
Fury Unleashed
Go Home Dinosaurs
Going Under
Golf With Your Friends - OST
GRIP: Combat Racing Artifex DLC
Guns of Icarus Alliance
Guns of Icarus Alliance Soundtrack
Guns of Icarus Alliance Yogscast 2017 Costume Pack
Gurgamoth
Headlander
Hector: Badge of Carnage
Hexologic
HIVESWAP: Act 1
Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms -- Celeste Starter Pack
The Interactive Adventures of Dog Mendonça and Pizza Boy
Iron Danger
Jurassic World Evolution - Deluxe Dinosaur Pack
Last Word
Legacy of Dorn: Herald of Oblivion
Lion Quest
Love Letter
Lust for Darkness
Lust from Beyond: M Edition
Main Assembly
Mimic Arena
Ministry of Broadcast
Mirage: Arcane Warfare
Moon Hunters
NASCAR Heat 2 - October Jumbo Expansion
NecroWorm
Neon Drive (Steam)
Neverout
Neverwinter Feywild Starter Pack
Nex Machina
No Time To Explain Remastered
Offensive Combat: Redux!
Old Man's Journey
On Rusty Trails
Orbital Racer
Out of Reach: Treasure Royale
Out of the Park Baseball 18
Pale Echoes
Pandemic: Roles & Events
Pandemic: The Board Game
Pathway
Pikuniku
Post Void
Radio Commander
Rakuen
Raw Data
Remnants of Isolation
Renegade Ops Collection
Roarr! Jurassic Edition
RPG Maker 2000
RPG Maker VX
Sanctum 2
Say No! More
Scanner Sombre
She Remembered Caterpillars
Shing!
Silence
Slinger VR
Space Gladiators: Escaping Tartarus
Spectrum
Steel Rats
Super Raft Boat
SuperLuminauts
Supraland
SYSTEM SHOCK: ENHANCED EDITION
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Asharra’s Diplomat Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Birdsong’s Entertainer Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Dragonbait’s Dungeoneer Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Tales of Artus Cimber’s Explorer Pack
Tannenberg
Team Fortress 2 badges - Mandrew's Munificent Mug and Israphel's Eleemosynary Expression
Team Racing League
Telefrag VR
Telltale Texas Hold'em
Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure
This War of Mine
Tiltagon
Tiny Echo
Tooth and Tail
Tormentor X Punisher
Toy Odyssey: The Lost and Found
Treasure Hunter Simulator
The USB Stick Found in the Grass
Wanderlust: Travel Stories
Wandersong
War for the Overworld - Yogscast Worker Skin
Wargroove
Warhammer® 40,000: Dawn of War® - Game of the Year Edition
Warhammer: End Times - Vermintide
WARSAW
We Are Alright
West of Dead
World to the West
X-Morph: Defense + European Assault, Survival of the Fittest, and Last Bastion DLC
Yoku's Island Express
Zeno Clash 2
Zombie Night Terror
I also have Humble Choice leftovers from the following that I haven't sorted through yet:
APRIL 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Driftland, Turok 2, Truberbrook, Shoppe Keep 2, Capitalism 2)
APRIL 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Main Assembly, Rock Of Ages 3, In Other Waters, Aven Colony, Simulcra I+II, Colt Canyon, Skully, Popup Dungeon)
AUGUST 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Hello Neighbor + Hide And Seek, Littlebig Workshop, American Fugitive, The Coma 2, A Case Of Distrust)
DECEMBER 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Beyond The Wire, The Survivalists, Lacuna, 8 Doors, Greak, Tohu)
FEBRUARY 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Moving Out, The Wild 8, Train Station Renovation, Werewolf The Apocalypse Heart Of The Forest, Lovecraft's Untold Stories, Iris And The Giant, Boomerang Fu)
JANUARY 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Total Tank Simulator, Song Of Horror, Vampire The Masquerade: Shadows Of New York, Deleveled, The Ambassador)
JUNE 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Supraland, Grid, The Messenger, Felix The Reaper, Remnants Of Naezith, Overload, The Stillness Of The Wind, The King's Bird)
MARCH 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (WWE 2k, Hotshot Racing, Peaky Blinders, Cyber Hook, Pesterquest, Boreal Blade, Ageless)
MAY 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Xcom 2, Niche, Swords Of Ditto, Neoverse, Horace)
NOVEMBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Darksburg, Smile For Me, Rover Mechanic Simulator, Youropa, Townsmen)
OCTOBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Iron Danger, Autonauts, Shadows: Awakening, Fantasy Blacksmith, The Suicide Of Rachel Foster, Goat Of Duty, The Uncertain, Lightmatter)
SEPTEMBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Lethal League, Fun With Ragdolls, Evoland, Yooka-Laylee And The Impossible Lair, The Occupation, The Shapeshifting Detective)
SEPTEMBER 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Atomicrops, Heaven's Vault, Swag And Sorcery, Fort Triumph, Orwell: Ignorance Is Strength, Framed Collection)
My region is North America.

Before I get things started, I’d like to say that I(22M) am from a rather conservative country, I am a virgin, and this is my first relationship.
It’s been around 6 months since I started dating my 22F girlfriend, we have a 1000km distance, but we’re both students and are not financially independent yet. I just needed some advice as I just feel like this keeps going around my head and I’d like to articulate it better for myself while receiving advice from the more experienced people on this subreddit.
To start things off, This isn’t my girlfriend’s first relationship and she’s been in relationships for a while now, she started dating somewhat young (for my country at least, or maybe I have been too closed off to realize) and she said she’s had sex from a year or two and has had a few ex-boyfriends she’s mentioned to me before whom she slept with and she’s also had a few friends with benefits (I found out about this later)..
I knew she wasn’t a virgin before we started dating and It does not matter to me if she wasn’t a virgin, because she’s dating me and choosing me and I do have some self-confidence and am a bit secure with who I am to let it bother me much.
I love her a lot and would love if this relationship lasted a long time and even hope to marry her and build a home with her someday.
Around 2 months back, she told me that she did not want to sleep with me till we got married and when I first heard this, I was quite taken aback, especially since I didn’t think she cared much about that due to her history and I don’t care much about it either (I’ve had my share of mental issues and felt that it wouldn’t be right to date anyone with those level of issues, so decided to not date anyone till I met her..).
This turned into a somewhat large argument and we were supposed to have a few days free and were planning on talking and video calling for those days, but we ended up arguing a bit, I was just feeling very mentally messed up and trying to process everything and I did get a bit cold and kind of withdrew into myself.
When I asked her for the reason, she said she didn’t know and then later said that she wanted a serious relationship with me and “I’m not like her playboy ex-boyfriends”and that she “doesn’t want to introduce me as a person she slept with to her parents” and wants to “respect them by not sleeping with me” while these ideas aren’t too uncommon amongst the younger generation of my country, I didn’t think she would have such thoughts because then why do it with a few others and then not with me? (I don’t think I am entitled to sleep with her, nor do I feel it’s my right or anything like that, I wouldn’t want her to do anything with me if she doesn’t wish to, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew I forced someone into having sex with me when they don’t want to.)
When we went further into this discussion, she asked me if sex was something so important to me and if I just wanted her for her body and not for who she is and that kind of things, which made little sense to me, as why would I be in a LDR if I just wanted sex?
Anyways, after a while, she kept apologizing and was like if you want to we can do it. (and that wasn’t the conclusion I wanted, I just wanted her to tell me some real reason why she doesn’t want to do anything with me, I forgot to mention, but she called our relationship an online one and that hurt me quite a bit (she later said that she didn’t mean it that way and meant it as a LDR).
After a day or two, I kind of decided to just not think about it, because she just kept apologizing and I felt like I was hurting her by continuing the topic.
A few weeks after she talks about the house of some guy she was “more than friends with” I didn’t know about this before and thought she only had sex in relationships (again, my country is quite conservative and maybe I am too closed off** to have had considered this before) and that kind of got to me, because whenever she said anything about people wanting her only for her body and that kind of stuff, I kind of felt like she was coerced into sleeping with her ex-boyfriends (I understand that I might have tried to rationalize what was going on and made up stories), and imo a friends with benefits is where you just have sex and it’s quite consensual, to say the least.
Now, a week back, I just wanted to bring this topic up again and I kind of messed up with the timing as we both were quite tired and I hadn’t slept properly in a while.. at the same time, I was feeling a bit guilty because I did fantasize about sleeping with her when we met even though I agreed to her boundary.
She told me she was confused and why I still thought about this topic and stuff like that and she asked me if I “didn’t like anything else about her apart from her body” and “what would I do if she had any physical deformities and she couldn’t have sex with me”( she said this when we first spoke on this too), she then said that she isn’t a touch person like I am and me thinking about such things out of the blue is quite strange to her.
All this has kind of led me to feel like I am ugly (which I don’t feel anymore, apart from the occasional intrusive thought) and whether she doesn’t want to sleep with me because she thinks I’m not the right person for her or maybe she thinks I am not good enough and so on...
She later said that she doesn’t want to have sex because she hates her body and how she looks and that she is carrying trauma from her past relationships because her ex-boyfriends slept with her and left her, I obviously understand this.. till a few days later she again said that we wouldn’t have sex till marriage. So I don’t know what’s really going on in her mind. Is she uncomfortable with me?
I understand that this might be a “Me” problem or something I am doing wrong or just overthinking and over analysing things and ending up with a wrong conclusion. I’m just confused I guess.
TLDR: My long-distance girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex with me even though she has had sex before (She later (after a month, when asked) said it is because she hates her body*). I felt hurt by this and it makes me feel very unwanted. I love her and I want to be with her, but I keep thinking about this and it’s making me lose my self-esteem and confidence as I feel like I am not good enough.
*I felt not including this in the TLDR would make it seem as though I am only telling my side of the story
**by closed off I mean I’m quite introverted and just stay home a lot and my parents are somewhat strict too (her parents are much stricter btw)..
I don’t know what I should do, I love her and I understand where she’s coming from, but this is kind of eating at me, whenever I feel low or am having a slightly bad mental health day my feelings of being not good enough or not the right person or that I am not wanted keeps creeping back up and starts shaving away at my self-esteem and the more I think about it the worse I feel.
Should I just stop thinking about this and pretend everything is okay with me? Am I not understanding enough? Do you think I can do something better? Should I talk about this topic again? (my girlfriend has exams for a few weeks now, so I would most likely hold off the topic until then, at the same time I might go to see her in June and I don’t know how that would work if we have such a conversation before this.)

I am 28M, but still feel like am in my early/mid twenties. When I say “Act” I don’t mean I act immature or childish, it’s more like I am still figuring it out while majority of my friends (from high school and college) are married and many have kids too. When compared to them I feel like am still a kid who’s not ready for marriage and kids. I work a full time job, currently single and I like bikes. Is it normal to feel this way?

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

i’ve manifested pretty much everything i have wanted - i’ve been to both of the best schools in my country, have an amazing group of friends (so amazing that sometimes i cry just thinking about how happy 16 year old me would be knowing this), do not struggle for money, and i really like the way i look and dress. apart from one thing - i’ve never been in a proper relationship. this is literally all that i feel is missing from my life.
no matter how much i manifest, it just doesn’t seem to happen for me. i spent 3 years genuinely believing that it would happen one day, not worrying about it, and suddenly im 22 and nothing has happened.
im having doubts right now, because i asked out my SP - he’s a good friend, and i really thought he had been flirting with me for months, as did my other friends. i asked him out because i felt we kept missing what would be ‘our moment’ where something would happen naturally, and i know he’s a pretty shy guy himself. also, because we graduate in a couple of months, so i felt that time was running out. he initially said yes, but called me a few days ago to say that he’s thought about it and changed his mind, he doesn’t want to ruin the friendship - and he seemed genuinely surprised when i said i thought he’d been flirting with me, and said he didn’t mean to give those signs.
i see posts and videos online of people who are 30, 40, 50 and have never been in a relationship, and i worry that that will be me. i worry that even if i live in my belief that it is for me, 20 years will go by with nothing, as 3 years already have. it’s all i want in the world, but no matter what i do - love letter method, whisper method, self concept, detachment theory - it doesn’t come to me. which means i start having doubts about the law.
does anyone have any pearls of wisdom? sorry, i think i just need some reassurance, or maybe some explanation as to why this just isn’t working for me. what did i do wrong with SP? is there any hope, given that he’s rejected me and we are moving to different places in a couple months time? is it a sign from the universe that he’s not right for me?

I hate myself and I feel like such a cliche. I (f)got married young (21) to my husband who is a couple years older. I think a few things led to me personally making this life choice. My parents had a messy divorce which left me estranged from my father and feeling forgotten about/replaced by my mother and I was Obsessed with starting my own family. I even thought I wanted to be a young mom at the time. So we got married young after 4 years of dating. I was also brought up religious and that combined with my mental illness made me cling to purity culture beyond a healthy amount even after I stopped being christian. My husband was my first kiss (at 18), first everything… you get it.
he’s known the whole time he’s been with me that it’s my life long dream to live in New York to pursue my dream career. he’s always been supportive and honestly he’s a great man. He’s honest and loving and so completely giving. Anyway, fast forward we’ve been married 2 years and living in New York for a year. my whole life and self has changed. Im realizing all the things I want to with my life, I’m making friends, I’m going places, on trips with my friends. My husband does nothing at all besides play video games with his friends that are back in our home town. It’s not even that he’s lazy because he’s really not. He does his part and more when it comes to chores he just isn’t taking care of HIMSELF. He never has to leave the couch because he works from home. So do I. So we are together at home all day. And I feel guilty building a life and living it. he hasnt tried making friends at all. Has no other hobbies. This man hasn’t left our tiny apartment for a year. I feel like his whole existence orbits around me and video games and it’s making me crazy. I’ve seen a difference in him from before we moved and he agreed with me he won’t stay happy long term. I’ve cried to him about this several times now but it’s just like he’s paralyzed or something. He’s not taking care of himself in any way. I feel like we’re holding each other back
i am trying to keep this short so I’m not going to go into every detail or other problems we have, like whether or not we’ll be compatible parents, but there’s one thing we all know changes and determines everything: sex. I’m just gonna give it to you straight. It’s not good. It took me forever to realize because I had nothing to compare it to. I used to think I was not a sexual person but it turns out I think he’s the one who isn’t. even today it’s been almost two weeks and he hasn’t even mentioned it. I have tried asking to try new things a couple times in the past but he’s not that receptive. I’ve been with him for 6 years total and I’ve never finished without … help. It gets to a point where when he finally does initiate I’ve already taken care of it myself or just don’t want to. And these days I just don’t feel attracted. The guilt is eating me alive. There’s nothing anyone can say that I don’t think worse of myself. Not even the most woman hating incel lol(boy would they love this story fml) I would never ever cheat but I feel like a teenager any Mild attraction I have towards anyone else spirals into endless fantasizing and it’s driving me literally crazy and again, makes me so guilty I want to die... I don’t know where to end this and its already pretty long so I guess I’ll leave it there for now. I feel Like the only person in the world with this problem. are these problems fixable? I’m left with a lot of moral questions which I guess aren’t allowed. What makes a marriage with big foundational problems salvageable? Am I being too selfish? I know certain things fade anyway but feeling like we’re already there in our early twenties is… so depressing.
tl;dr: got married young. same bs cliche problems you expect arose and I just found out youre supposed to actually really enjoy sex. And I want to. but I don’t. Not sure where to go from here

I’m 23 turning 24 & i feel suuuupeeer old
I know there is a general marriage crisis going on but everyone around me (school friends, peers etc) seem to be getting alone just fine
I know comparison is the thief of joy & that Allah has blessed me in soo many other ways
However all the things i used to value (my education etc) i look at & think if does that even matter when no one even wants to marry me right now ?
Before anyone says you shouldn’t let a man pull your self-esteem down like that, it’s only natural to feel incomplete when you haven’t hit such a huge milestone
I’ve studied deep into the islamic sciences so i know better than to have shaky tawakkul - but tawakkul doesn’t come from books it comes from real life experience
I have been making dua for the last couple years - ramadan, in tahajjud, in palestine - all the blessed times & places
But Allah hasn’t decreed it yet😢
I know He is too generous to not give but i’m feeling less optimistic as the years go on - my family around me aren’t doing a great job at helping but tthe one story that’s in my head right now is how Prophet Yusuf asked his fellow prisoner to mention his release to the king & the prisoner forgot & remembered after 7 years! Prophet Yusuf remained patient & look how God rewarded him
So that reminds me that time isn’t being ‘wasted’ by my family being too slow with it all - it’s all just written to happen this way

I went back and re-read one of your last letters... and I'm still stuck. "I appreciate that you're interested, but come on..." Except... "Does she like you?" and then "How much does she like you?" Maybe it's just my betrayal wounding, keeping me rooted in a problem that doesn't need to be one. You clearly got something out of the signals you sent or you wouldn't have done so. That doesn't have to mean anything. You didn't owe me. But we were friends, and you essentially played games with my heart, and that does mean something. It means a great deal to me because I've already been betrayed by so many.
You didn't know a lot of this, because we didn't ever really go that deep. I would have wanted to, but you never showed any interest in asking me the same kinds of personal questions I asked you in the beginning. I realize looking back that the information about me you did have was volunteered. And that tracks with what you said about your lack of attachment. Repression, disinterest, perception of being a third wheel. Why bother to feel if you believe your feelings will never be reciprocated? I know that feeling... except you put me on the receiving end because of your inability to connect to and manage yourself, and now I have to deal with that.
I realize how toxic my reactions to you were. How I jumped into fixing when I should have been taking a step back and letting you figure it out. And I get how that escalated things. That's something I have to work on, and forgive myself for. That's an issue in itself. It doesn't mitigate the game playing though. You didn't have to ...
It just hurts, I guess. I'm realizing part of that is shame, for not being more aware. Man after man has misled me about their intentions and instead of being more mindful of that, I hung on every word, every hint, rationalizing the mixed signals and hot and cold nonsense. One day, making me blush, the next, nowhere to be found or saying offensive stuff, refusing to apologize, and disappearing for a bit, only to come back and act like nothing happened a day or two later. It's maddening. I know better. But I was enamoured of you, and so attached, so I overlooked and made excuses and tried to fix, so I wouldn't have to say goodbye, and all I really did was magnify my own pain when it inevitably hit that this was convenient for you, pleasurable in the comfortable, distant way Internet connections can be, but it didn't really impact your every day life. Not like it did mine. I was looking for something in you that I should have been finding in myself. My ivory tower fell a long time ago, but somehow I seem to have remained an idealist, a romantic, and letting go of the idea of a great love is hard for me. There was so much about you that seemed familiar to me. I thought we had more in common than we do.
I don't really know what I'm getting at here. The fundamental core of this sentiment is you hurt me, and you didn't have to. I own my own shit. And I can see that you struggle to figure everything out, that you're trying to get better, and I appreciate that. But... you hurt me, and you didn't have to. I know you said sorry for leading me on. But all that about "mistakenly talking about" your "confusion" and telling me that I "can be very engaging"... so it's my fault? I mean, thanks for the compliment, but I really don't understand what that means. When I feel lonely and sad I return to that letter again and again, not to wallow, but because I feel tied in knots over how nonsensical some of it is. It's nobody's fault if you lead someone on except yours. It doesn't matter if they're a solid 10 (and I'm not, but let's go hyperbolic to slide the point home, shall we?). The responsibility for your behavior lays with you, just like mine does with me. I could be Aphrodite incarnate (I'm not) and you would still bear the sole responsibility for how you approached me. It doesn't matter that I'm a certain way, the only person who confused you is you. And if you had wanted to talk about it, I mean actually, really talk about it, I'd have held space. But to shame me for not being more forward when you weren't even sure you wanted me to be interested in the first place, only to tell me my interest is misplaced, and apologize for leading me on while distancing yourself from actually having done so... It's all so much circular, self indulgent bullshit.
And it isn't really that this one thing is coloring my entire experience of you... or that it's this world shattering big deal. It's not. I think I am fixated on that specifically because it hits on so many other experiences where men felt I was a sort of commodity to value or discard as they pleased, without regard for how it affected my well being. "I didn't mean to hurt you" doesn't always mean "I actively kept your wellbeing in mind, but I made mistakes and that hurt you, and I'm sorry". Sometimes, it means "I wasn't actively thinking about not hurting you." I'm sure you can see the difference in those two statements.
I suppose I could look inward, because when I was triggered by your outbursts and your lack of accountability, and later, your abandonment, I certainly wasn't thinking about your wellbeing. When I went NC the only aspect of you I was thinking about was the behavior and lack of good good faith I needed to protect myself from. I see how some of that is exaggerated. When you're not melting down, you're actually quite earnest. You said you don't attach, yet on multiple occasions you've demonstrated premeditated consideration. You can be quite thoughtful. Charming, sweet, earnest, provocative even (not in the antagonistic way, though you're very good at that, too).
You already said I deserved better. I don't know what I'm looking for here. It just hurts. It hurts, and it didn't have to.

I'm told women want a man who knows what he wants, so here's the whole nine yards. If there is anything here that you are not willing to accept, then don't. You will not change me now or years down the line. Obviously I intend to grow and mature (as one ought to), but I have decided who I am and what I want out of a relationship.
I am looking for a woman that I can make a permanent covenant bond with; I have no interest in flings or "long-term relationships."
I don't intend to come across as bitter or angry with any of this, just clear and up-front. It makes things easier for both of us.
A bit about me:
My faith in Christ is paramount in my life. I would not be where I am without him. In taking interests in various things, I've learned a lot about God's character and design. Each new thing I learn fills me with more worship of him and wonder at his works. It is very important to me that you share this admiration of God.
I have a full-time job that I am very satisfied with, but what I feel truly passionate about is art and storytelling. To be honest, I've hit a bit of a block lately as far as my output. But I've been trying to find my feet so I can make something valuable to share with the world. I think that art and stories are a fundamental part of being human, not just a luxury. So pretty much any kind of art will spark passion in me, be it music, cinema, video games, literature, video essay, sculpture, etc. I could go back and forth for hours on a lot of things. My hope is that you and I will be able to enjoy art together and create some of our own.
I frequently spend time with another gentleman from my Church and we enjoy conversations about personal projects and contemporary issues, along with walks along beaches and park trails. He is a very important friend in my life, and I am lucky to know such a kind soul. Things aren't well with my family, so I really need that kind of presence.
While I rely on my bicycle for transport (no car), it's not a problem for me. I've been riding bikes since I was in elementary school (maybe even before). It would be really nice to ride down some trails with you.
What I expect from you:
-You need to be a follower of Jesus Christ. God needs to be an active part of your life because I intend to raise our children under Biblical values.
-You need hobbies and interests apart from me. I'm fine with helping you find things you like.
-You need to have no mileage.
-You must be humble and respectful. "Boss babe" attitudes are not attractive to me.
-You cannot have any tattoos or piercings.
-No cosmetic products. It's not good for your body and I am attracted women, not makeup. This includes fake nails and fake eyelashes. I don't need you to look "pretty." You character is more important to me.
-Related to the previous, no use of image filters in photos. I do not like the type of people who are vain and vapid enough to feel the need to use filters on their photos.
-Again related to the previous, you need to have a limited social media presence. If you have a business or post something of value (like art, for example), then I have no problem. What I'm talking about is having an Instagram or Facebook account where you make random posts to nobody in particular to "update" the internet on your life or post tons of pictures of yourself online. Basing your self-worth on the comments and likes from strangers on the internet is unhealthy, and I find people's obsessive need to take pictures of themselves very unattractive and vain.
-If we marry, I expect you to be fully submissive to me. There can't be two leaders in a household because one will have to submit to the other.
-I expect you to view marriage as something that you put work into. Marriages are a team effort, so I expect you to be a help meet.
-You need to treat me like a partner, not an adversary. Getting into arguments and nagging me helps neither of us. You must have conflict-resolution skills and a solution mindset.
-You need excellent communication skills. This means understanding yourself, putting your thoughts into words other people can understand, and verbalizing things rather than expecting me to read your thoughts.
-You cannot play games with me. Telling me about other guys to make me jealous or planning dates for specific days to pressure me into committing to you are wicked and manipulative.
-While we are dating, you cannot have a "backup plan." I expect you to not be splitting your attention between me and other men. This includes spending time outside of work with other men (family excluded).
-You must be in shape. Don't be dishonest with yourself about your weight; check your BMI. This includes being underweight, anorexic, and bulimic.
-You cannot have taken any COVID-19 vaccinations from any provider.
-No smoking, drugs, or drunkenness.
-I expect you to completely renounce fast food if we date or marry. We will never feed our children McDonald's.
What you can expect from me:
-While we are dating, I will not be speaking to other women.
-I cannot meet your height, money, or attractiveness expectations. I am simply an average dude. I am critical, abstract, and imaginative in my thinking though.
-I will not ask you to do something that is unreasonable or demeaning. I will only ask of you what I expect from myself. No relationship is going to be 50/50 100% of the time, but I will put forth the effort I am able to. I expect the same out of you.
-I will not raise my hand against you. My hands will be a safe place for you.
-I will be available to listen to your troubles and help you bear through them.
-I will not demean you or humiliate you, whether or not you are in the room.
-I will show leadership in our house and exercise restraint with a mild temper.
-I will cherish you and treat you as my own body.
-I will devote myself to displaying my love for you in a language you understand, even if I am feeling distant from you because of troubles we face. I expect the same from you.
-I will not turn to another woman and betray you.
-I intend to keep every promise that I make with you.
-I will treat our children with patience and kindness, but diligently discipline them and instruct them appropriately.
Please tell me a bit about yourself and what you expect out of a relationship, but be practical and clear. A list of platitudes like "loyal, honest, etc" does not help me understand what you're looking for. Think about what your expectations look like in a tangible, everyday way.

I'm told women want a man who knows what he wants, so here's the whole nine yards. If there is anything here that you are not willing to accept, then don't. You will not change me now or years down the line. Obviously I intend to grow and mature (as one ought to), but I have decided who I am and what I want out of a relationship.
I am looking for a woman that I can make a permanent covenant bond with; I have no interest in flings or "long-term relationships."
I don't intend to come across as bitter or angry with any of this, just clear and up-front. It makes things easier for both of us.
Age gap is not mandatory. Don't be put off contacting me if you are closer to my age.
A bit about me:
My faith in Christ is paramount in my life. I would not be where I am without him. In taking interests in various things, I've learned a lot about God's character and design. Each new thing I learn fills me with more worship of him and wonder at his works. It is very important to me that you share this admiration of God.
I have a full-time job that I am very satisfied with, but what I feel truly passionate about is art and storytelling. To be honest, I've hit a bit of a block lately as far as my output. But I've been trying to find my feet so I can make something valuable to share with the world. I think that art and stories are a fundamental part of being human, not just a luxury. So pretty much any kind of art will spark passion in me, be it music, cinema, video games, literature, video essay, sculpture, etc. I could go back and forth for hours on a lot of things. My hope is that you and I will be able to enjoy art together and create some of our own.
I frequently spend time with another gentleman from my Church and we enjoy conversations about personal projects and contemporary issues, along with walks along beaches and park trails. He is a very important friend in my life, and I am lucky to know such a kind soul. Things aren't well with my family, so I really need that kind of presence.
While I rely on my bicycle for transport (no car), it's not a problem for me. I've been riding bikes since I was in elementary school (maybe even before). It would be really nice to ride down some trails with you.
What I expect from you:
-You need to be a follower of Jesus Christ. God needs to be an active part of your life because I intend to raise our children under Biblical values.
-You need hobbies and interests apart from me. I'm fine with helping you find things you like.
-You need to be a virgin.
-You must be humble and respectful. "Boss babe" attitudes are not attractive to me.
-You cannot have any tattoos or piercings, or have undergone any kind of surgery that affects your reproductive organs (reassignment, colpocleisis, FGM, tubal ligation, etc). I am not a doctor, so I don't know every situation that could require surgery. If you've had to undergo surgery or medication because of circumstances beyond your control, please let me know; I'm willing to hear your side of things.
-No cosmetic products. It's not good for your body and I am attracted women, not makeup. This includes fake nails and fake eyelashes. I don't need you to look "pretty." You character is more important to me.
-Related to the previous, no use of image filters in photos. I do not like the type of people who are vain and vapid enough to feel the need to use filters on their photos.
-Again related to the previous, you need to have a limited social media presence. If you have a business or post something of value (like art, for example), then I have no problem. What I'm talking about is having an Instagram or Facebook account where you make random posts to nobody in particular to "update" the internet on your life or post tons of pictures of yourself online. Basing your self-worth on the comments and likes from strangers on the internet is unhealthy, and I find people's obsessive need to take pictures of themselves very unattractive and vain.
-If we marry, I expect you treat me as the head of the house. There can't be two leaders in a household because one will have to defer to the other.
-I expect you to view marriage as something that you put work into. Marriages are a team effort, so I expect you to be a help meet.
-You need to treat me like a partner, not an adversary. Getting into arguments and nagging me helps neither of us. You must have conflict-resolution skills and a solution mindset.
-You need excellent communication skills. This means understanding yourself, putting your thoughts into words other people can understand, and verbalizing things rather than expecting me to read your thoughts.
-You cannot play games with me. Telling me about other guys to make me jealous or planning dates for specific days to pressure me into committing to you are wicked and manipulative.
-While we are dating, you cannot have a "backup plan." I expect you to not be splitting your attention between me and other men. This includes spending time outside of work with other men (family excluded).
-You must be in shape. Don't be dishonest with yourself about your weight; check your BMI. This includes being underweight, anorexic, and bulimic.
-You cannot have taken any COVID-19 vaccinations from any provider.
-No smoking, drugs, or drunkenness.
-I expect you to completely renounce fast food if we date or marry. We will never feed our children McDonald's.
What you can expect from me:
-While we are dating, I will not be speaking to other women.
-I cannot meet your height, money, or attractiveness expectations. I am simply an average dude. I am critical, abstract, and imaginative in my thinking though.
-I will not ask you to do something that is unreasonable or demeaning. I will only ask of you what I expect from myself. No relationship is going to be 50/50 100% of the time, but I will put forth the effort I am able to. I expect the same out of you.
-I will not raise my hand against you. My hands will be a safe place for you.
-I will be available to listen to your troubles and help you bear through them.
-I will not demean you or humiliate you, whether or not you are in the room.
-I will show leadership in our house and exercise restraint with a mild temper.
-I will cherish you and treat you as my own body.
-I will devote myself to displaying my love for you in a language you understand, even if I am feeling distant from you because of troubles we face. I expect the same from you.
-I will not turn to another woman and betray you.
-I intend to keep every promise that I make with you.
-I will treat our children with patience and kindness, but diligently discipline them and instruct them appropriately.
Please tell me a bit about yourself and what you expect out of a relationship, but be practical and clear. A list of platitudes like "loyal, honest, etc" does not help me understand what you're looking for. Think about what your expectations look like in a tangible, everyday way.

I live in the EU and my Girlfriend lives in the UK. She has now already some time ago paid the HM Passport Office to get her passport, and they are repeatedly asking her to make someone confirm her identity, which can be done online
at : https://www.passport.service.gov.uk/confirm-identity
There is a list of eligible people who can do this, and she had already a few people do it, who know her for many years. But the HMPO does always say that those people are not eligible, while they are on the list and they do have a British Passport and did everything correct, to confirm her identity.
The problem is now, she does not know many people, and has already made everyone do this process that she knows, and they know her for many years, long enough to be eligible. But every time it is being rejected for no reason, and my Girlfriend is also NOT wanted or anything, she is just a normal person without any criminal history.
This rejections do have an impact on her mental health, every time they refuse someone she is getting mentally heavily unstable and I have a hard time calming her down, because she always thinks she will never be able to ever leave the UK and come to me, she is mentally very unstable and this worries me much. What worries me the most is, we do not have any eligible people left she knows, since she has not many contacts due to her mental health issues, it feels to me as if she is living in a communist country, where people are not allowed to leave - how is Britain a "free country" if she has no way now to ever get a passport and come to me to live with me ?
Where can I find eligible people with British Passport that would be willing to confirm her identity online or how do I get help at getting her passport ? On the website it says the following to make sure someone can confirm the identity :
You can only confirm someone’s identity if you:
are 18 or over live in the UK have a current UK passport have known the person applying for at least 2 years know the person applying as a friend, neighbour or colleague (not just someone who knows you professionally)
You must work in (or be retired from) a ‘recognised profession’. For example:
accountant airline pilot articled clerk of a limited company assurance agent of recognised company bank or building society official barrister chairman or director of a limited company chiropodist commissioner for oaths councillor, for example local or county civil servant (permanent) dentist director, manager or personnel officer of a VAT-registered company engineer with professional qualifications financial services intermediary, for example a stockbroker or insurance broker fire service official funeral director insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company journalist Justice of the Peace legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs) licensee of a public house local government officer manager or personnel officer of a limited company member, associate or fellow of a professional body Member of Parliament Merchant Navy officer minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science) nurse (RGN or RMN) officer of the armed services optician paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals) person with honours, for example an OBE or MBE pharmacist photographer (professional) police officer Post Office official president or secretary of a recognised organisation Salvation Army officer social worker solicitor surveyor teacher or lecturer trade union officer travel agent (qualified) valuer or auctioneer (fellow or associate members of the incorporated society) Warrant Officers and Chief Petty Officers Who cannot confirm someone’s identity
You cannot confirm someone’s identity if:
you’re related by birth or marriage you’re in a relationship with them or live together you work for HM Passport Office you work for UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) on British citizenship or right of abode applications you’re a doctor - unless you know the person who has asked you well (for example, you’re a good friend)
To me this list seems unreasonably complicated and I do not know how anyone can actually get a Passport in the UK at all.
Anyone knows how to get help ? We already called the HMPO but they give a fuck and do not help at all, they do simply not seem to care. We are getting very desperate and I have a hard time convincing her to stay alive, and this is destroying us and our relationship.

Need to do a background check but feeling overwhelmed by all the options? I've been down this rabbit hole and emerged (hopefully) saner on the other side. I’ve scoured all the reddit posts on this topic and also the articles out there on Google and have finalized the best background check sites.
TL;DR: BeenVerified.com or TruthFinder.com are the top picks.

5 Best Background Check Sites

BeenVerified - Best Background Check Site Overall

Pricing:
BeenVerified offers different subscription plans: 1 month and three-month plans. All plans include a 7-day trial and allow you to run 100 reports per month.

• The 1-month plan costs $29.99 per month
• The 3-month plan costs $58.48, which is $19.49 per month

BeenVerified is an online background check platform offering quick access to public records, typically delivering results within minutes. It prioritizes user privacy with advanced encryption and does not share or sell information. While some find its reports less detailed than competitors', BeenVerified is still reliable and user-friendly. Membership is required, with discounted three-month prepaid subscriptions for long-term users.
Pros:

• Available on Android and iOS
• Discounts for three-month prepaid subscriptions
• Access to a variety of data sources

Cons:

• Less detailed reports compared to TruthFinder, Intelius
• No option for a single search

Features

• Quick and simple data collection on individuals
• Reverse phone number lookup, email search, checks on public records, criminal history, and social media accounts
• BeenVerified has an intuitive interface
• All features are conveniently accessible

Customer Service
BeenVerified’s customer support can be reached via the toll-free number 1-844-823-2869 from Monday to Sunday, 6:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. EST, or by emailing support@beenverified.com. These multiple contact options help establish BeenVerified as one of the top background check sites.

TruthFinder - Best for Value of Money

Pricing:

• People Search Plan: $28.33 per month; bi-monthly plan available at $23.52 per month ($47.03 upfront), includes all features and unlimited searches
• Reverse Phone Lookup Plan: $4.99 per month, provides unlimited phone reports
• Reverse Email Lookup Plan: $29.73 per month, offers unlimited searches and additional details related to email addresses​

TruthFinder is a reliable background check service providing detailed reports on individuals' criminal history, personal facts, and contact information, usually within minutes. Report delivery time varies based on the accuracy of provided information, record availability, and search complexity. Subscribers get unlimited monthly reports and can use mobile apps for on-the-go searches.
Pros:

• Unlimited reports with a subscription
• Reports may include deep web information
• Available Android and iOS apps

Cons:

• No free version is available
• Extra charges for PDF downloads
• Limited to use within the United States

Features

• Provides reverse telephone number searches, email lookups, and dark web scans for added security
• User-friendly interface allows for quick generation of reports and access to up-to-date information
• Ensures user privacy by adhering to strict data protection regulations

Customer Service
Contact TruthFinder's customer support from Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Time, by calling (855) 921-3711 or by emailing help@truthfinder.com.

Intelius - Best Public Record Source

Pricing:

• People Search: Monthly ($25.11/mo) or Bi-Monthly ($21.35/mo)
• Reverse Phone Lookup + People Search: 5-Day Trial ($0.95) then $35.3/mo
• Address Lookup: 7-Day Trial ($0.95) then $34.95/mo

In addition to these plans, Intelius also offers a number of add-on services, such as:

• Downloadable Report Files ($3.99)
• Intelius Identity Protect (Monthly: $9.95/mo, Yearly: $119.40/yr)

Intelius, a trusted background check provider since 2003, offers quick and unlimited searches with reliable reports on criminal and traffic offenses, and geographic information. It ensures user privacy with 256-bit encryption and confidential searches, accessing millions of public records for comprehensive results. Known for its user-friendly interface and mobile app, Intelius prioritizes convenience and privacy while delivering valuable information.
Pros:

• Variety of subscription plans and pricing options
• Extensive sources of public records
• High-quality Android and iOS mobile apps
• Quick search results
• Simple-to-use interface

Cons:

• Pricing can be confusing
• Limited customer service hours
• Occasional incomplete reports

Features

• Reverse address lookup, reverse phone search, and email search
• Provides access to public records and documents such as birth records, death records, marriage licenses, and property deeds

Customer Service
You can reach customer service by calling the toll-free hotline at (877) 564-3253, available Monday to Friday from 10 AM to 7 PM Eastern Time. Alternatively, you can contact the customer service department by emailing support@mailer.intelius.com.

Instant Checkmate - Best for Ease of Use

Pricing:

• Person Reports cost $35.47 per month for a one-month membership and $28.38 per month for a three-month membership.
• Phone Reports cost $5.99 per month. Instant Checkmate also offers a number of add-on services, including downloadable report files for $3.99 and dark web monitoring for $1.99 per month.

Instant Checkmate is known for reliable results and user-friendly features, including a smartphone app and social media search function. It provides thorough reports, though there might be some delays during preparation. A monthly subscription is required, with no individual report purchases. The service allows searches of public records, including possible arrest records and criminal histories, completing most searches within minutes and presenting information clearly. Users can receive immediate alerts for updated data.
Pros:

• Detailed reporting
• Simple-to-use service
• User-friendly Android app

Cons:

• No option to purchase individual reports
• Reports may take some time to load

Features

• Reverse phone search and email search tools to gather information about unknown contacts
• Provides clear and detailed reports covering employment & education history, and social media activity
• Accessible via a web browser or mobile app

Customer Service

Customers can reach support by calling the toll-free hotline at (877) 564-3003 from Monday to Friday, between 7 AM and 4 PM Pacific Time. For assistance, you can also email help@instantcheckmate.com, and a representative will respond as soon as possible.

PeopleLooker - Best for Quick Results

Pricing:

• 1-month membership, run up to 100 reports for $23.99
• 3-month membership, run up to 100 reports per month at $19.19 per month

PeopleLooker is an online platform compiling detailed information from public records, social media, and directories, offering services like reverse phone number lookup and email search subscription plans, address searches, and background checks. Its user-friendly interface helps users find contact information, Criminal and traffic records, and other details. Accuracy may vary, so verifying critical information is recommended.
Pros:

• Comprehensive search reports
• Outstanding customer service
• Includes searches for social media and genealogy
• User-friendly interface

Cons:

• No option for single reports
• Not recognized as an consumer reporting agency
• Desktop version has fewer features than the mobile app

Features

• Quick background check using a name, address, phone number, email address
• Access publicly available information with ease

Customer Service
PeopleLooker's customer service can be reached via phone, email address, or ticket from Monday to Sunday, 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. EST. They offer a resource hub on their site for common issues and FAQs, ensuring top-notch service and swift issue resolution. Their knowledgeable representatives assist with billing, account management, and technical support. PeopleLooker's strong privacy policy and commitment to client anonymity contribute to its reputation as a leading background check service.
DISCLAIMER: You may not use any of these services or the information it provides to make decisions about consumer credit, employment, insurance, tenant screening, or any other purpose that would require FCRA compliance. Instant Checkmate does not provide consumer reports and is not a consumer reporting agency. (These terms have special meanings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 et seq., ("FCRA"), which are incorporated herein by reference.)"
Here's a table to help you compare prices:
Background Check Service1-Month MembershipBi-Monthly Membership3-Month Membership BeenVerified$29.99-$58.48 TruthFinder $28.33$47.03- Intelius$25.11$42.69- Instant Checkmate$35.47-$85.14 PeopleLooker $23.99-$57.57

tl;dr
i F20 have been dating my boyfriend M24 for 2 years. it honestly still blows my mind that he is my boyfriend since he's an incredibly outstanding person career wise, and he helped me a lot on my career too. im insanely grateful for him, he makes me happy, but he doesn't connect with me on an emotional level. he is quite emotionless and used to blame me for being sad (not now). but i still rarely talk to him about my emotional problems, since i know he wouldnt react well and that would jusy make me more upset. he is also quite immature, still relies a lot on his parents, as he is focusing A LOT on his career which i am proud of. but ive always worried when he will start to get independent. but thats for the future. him and i are doing long distance now and i will move to his country to get my master's.
i also have this friend M21 who I have known for 3 years, but we weren't that close until 5 months ago when he asked me for some advice. we have been chatting a lot about life and the more i get to know him, the more i notice that he is an amazing person, and our viewpoints in life are exactly the same (no sex before marriage, we both want 2 kids, family before career etc.) i could talk to him about my emotional problems, and he would make me feel better in no time. he has so much attention to detail, which i never really got from my boyfriend, and hanging out with this friend made me realize how important attention to detail is, even the smallest things touched my heart: walking me to my bus stop, listening to me talk about the most random things and actually try to engage in my conversation....
no i don't think i am developing feelings for my friend and i still love my boyfriend a lot. but last night i just started spiraling into the question, would my life be a lot better if i dated my friend? i feel like an asshole for feeling like this too. don't know if anyone has the same experience.
p.s: i'm moving to my boyfriend's country to get my master's degree in 3 months, and i will be living with him and his parents in his house. if everything goes well i would like to stay in his country too.
What should I do with all these emotions?

I live in the EU and my Girlfriend lives in the UK. She has now already some time ago paid the HM Passport Office to get her passport, and they are repeatedly asking her to make someone confirm her identity, which can be done online
at : https://www.passport.service.gov.uk/confirm-identity
There is a list of eligible people who can do this, and she had already a few people do it, who know her for many years. But the HMPO does always say that those people are not eligible, while they are on the list and they do have a British Passport and did everything correct, to confirm her identity.
The problem is now, she does not know many people, and has already made everyone do this process that she knows, and they know her for many years, long enough to be eligible. But every time it is being rejected for no reason, and my Girlfriend is also NOT wanted or anything, she is just a normal person without any criminal history.
This rejections do have an impact on her mental health, every time they refuse someone she is getting heavily mentally instable and I have a hard time calming her down, because she always thinks she will never be able to ever leave the UK and come to me, she is mentally very unstable and this worries me much. What worries me the most is, we do not have any eligible people left she knows, since she has not many contacts due to her mental health issues, it feels to me as if she is living in a communist country, where people are not allowed to leave - how is Britain a "free country" if she has no way now to ever get a passport and come to me to live with me ?
Where can I find eligible people with British Passport that would be willing to confirm her identity online or how do I get help at getting her passport ? On the website it says the following to make sure someone can confirm the identity :
You can only confirm someone’s identity if you:
are 18 or over live in the UK have a current UK passport have known the person applying for at least 2 years know the person applying as a friend, neighbour or colleague (not just someone who knows you professionally)
You must work in (or be retired from) a ‘recognised profession’. For example:
accountant airline pilot articled clerk of a limited company assurance agent of recognised company bank or building society official barrister chairman or director of a limited company chiropodist commissioner for oaths councillor, for example local or county civil servant (permanent) dentist director, manager or personnel officer of a VAT-registered company engineer with professional qualifications financial services intermediary, for example a stockbroker or insurance broker fire service official funeral director insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company journalist Justice of the Peace legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs) licensee of a public house local government officer manager or personnel officer of a limited company member, associate or fellow of a professional body Member of Parliament Merchant Navy officer minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science) nurse (RGN or RMN) officer of the armed services optician paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals) person with honours, for example an OBE or MBE pharmacist photographer (professional) police officer Post Office official president or secretary of a recognised organisation Salvation Army officer social worker solicitor surveyor teacher or lecturer trade union officer travel agent (qualified) valuer or auctioneer (fellow or associate members of the incorporated society) Warrant Officers and Chief Petty Officers Who cannot confirm someone’s identity
You cannot confirm someone’s identity if:
you’re related by birth or marriage you’re in a relationship with them or live together you work for HM Passport Office you work for UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) on British citizenship or right of abode applications you’re a doctor - unless you know the person who has asked you well (for example, you’re a good friend)
To me this list seems unreasonably complicated and I do not know how anyone can actually get a Passport in the UK at all.
Anyone knows how to get help ? We already called the HMPO but they give a fuck and do not help at all, they do simply not seem to care. We are getting very desperate and I have a hard time convincing her to stay alive, and this is destroying us and our relationship.

A bit of backstory i lived in a 20 square meters apartment since high school because my parents house was too small to fit all 5 children and because im the eldest i had to move out first.I mean its not a big deal and i find a good job and rented this small apartment.After 2 years of hard work i get promoted to a new state and i earned 200000$ in the next 5 months so i was happy to finally be able to buy i house.I found a house in a nice neighborhood for a good price and it has 3 bedrooms 2 bathrooms,kitchen and big garden in the fornt.
When I moved to the new neighborhood, I was filled with optimism and hope. The house was exactly what I was looking for - peaceful, with a beautiful garden and enough space for my favorite hobby, gardening. The first few weeks everything was wonderful. My neighbors seemed friendly, except for the neighbor next to me who will call Karen.
At first I didn't pay much attention to her unfriendly looks and comments. But over time, things started to deteriorate. Karen was clearly not happy with my presence and never missed an opportunity to show it. It started with complaints about the smallest things - noise from my lawnmower when I cut the lawn, my flowers that "disrupted the aesthetics" of the neighborhood, and other such ridiculous claims.
One day, while I was working in the garden, Karen came over and started yelling that I was disturbing the peace of the neighborhood. I tried to calm her down and explain that I was just doing my job, but she wouldn't listen. This was the first sign that she was not going to be easy to deal with.
Soon after, Karen began calling the police with false accusations. He claimed that I was in my house illegally and that I was probably a criminal. When the police came, I showed them my title deeds and explained the situation. They quickly realized that Karen was making false accusations and warned her to stop complaining.
But that didn't stop her. She started sending letters to the municipality, organizing neighborhood meetings to complain about me, and spreading rumors that I had a criminal record. All this became so unbearable that I decided to take more serious measures.
One night, after Karen called the police again with false accusations, my patience ran out. I waited until late in the evening when everything was quiet. Then I approached her house and saw that she was still awake, sitting in the living room watching TV.
I knocked on her door. Karen opened the door with a smile, expecting another neighbor to complain about me. But instead, she faced me. Before she could say anything, the rage and frustration that had been building up in me was unleashed and I hit her.
Karen fell to the ground, shocked and scared. I leaned over her and told her in a low but firm voice that it was high time she stopped trying to harm me. I made it clear to her that I would not tolerate her harassment any longer and that if it continued I would go to the authorities and file a formal harassment complaint.
After this incident, Karen changed her behavior. She no longer engaged with me and even avoided contact with me. I went about my life in peace and enjoyed my garden. Although I did not condone violence, I realized that sometimes people like Karen need to be put in their place to understand that they cannot act with impunity

An open letter to Benedictine College and Harrison Butker
I first came across the Harrison Butker’s 2025 commencement speech at Benedictine College on Twitter. It was a short snippet of the speech and I was in disbelief of what I heard. Intrigued, I went to YouTube to find a recording of the whole speech before drawing further conclusions. Now, I am nearly beyond words.
I grew up in the Catholic Church, attended a Catholic high school, and do still consider myself to be Catholic, although not without my own qualms with the church. However, this is not about that. I am also a more recent college graduate. I graduated from a large public university 5 years ago and am looking forward to obtaining my graduate degree next year, both degrees I have worked incredibly hard for and am immensely proud of. I don’t remember my own commencement speech, but if it was anything like this, I am glad I don’t- I loved my undergraduate experience and will be proud to have my diploma framed and hanging one day. Harrison Butker’s speech is condescending, out of touch, and against the very values of your school. You both, Benedictine College and Harrison Butker, owe these graduating students an apology.
As a proudly Catholic college, I do not hold issue you or your choice in speaker with promoting Catholicism and the beliefs of the Catholic Church, even in regard to politics; while I may not agree, that is your choice to do so and one that underlies the foundation of your school.
The class of 2025, as with many recent graduates and current students, have had to work through a unique set of hardships as a whole, beyond the personal hardships we all face. Mr. Butker is not a recent graduate, nor is he working directly with a school or university. College is a change for everyone from high school, with the course load, schedule, and independence, but beyond the nervousness and uncertainty that comes with this new phase, students are able to rely on the fact that since its inception, the college experience has been relatively stable, until the COVID-19 pandemic. Students, and faculty, were forced to rapidly adapt to a situation that we knew very little about and had no history to guide us. To minimize that, say that “it is not unique,” especially as someone who was not experiencing it from an educational aspect, is disrespectful to students and faculty, regardless of beliefs on the issue. Pandemics are not new, nor are controversial policies, but what these students faced, was new. I know of no other time during our history, where thousands of students were nearly overnight told to immediately leave their housing and worry about their finances and shelter as not everyone has the means to find new housing or go back to their parents, have food outside of the dinings halls, or access to a computer and internet to complete their coursework where they had planned on attending in person or using university resources, when these things are apart of what students pay thousands of dollars for or take loans to afford as part of their college expenses. Whether or not you support these policies and changes, that does not lessen the unique hardships faced or make a student wrong for adhering to them when failure to do so could result in greater consequences. If there is another time where this has happened, I am happy to be referred so that I can learn. It is one thing to say that the feelings of uncertainty and anxiety around new policies and adapting to them are not unique, but another to say that the challenges these students faced as a result of policy is not unique, it is disrespectful, condescending, and completely out of place as someone who did not experience it.
Beyond this, it is even more disrespectful to diminish the accomplishments of particularly the female graduates of your university by allowing your speaker to advocate forgoing using their degree and instead, choose being a wife and mother. To Benedictine College, if this is what your school advocates, then why charge tuition to your female students? How will they pay for it or pay off their loans for it? Do you expect your female graduates to marry a man who will pay off their debts? What happens if they don’t or if they choose a vocation in religious life, are their debts forgiven? To take it a step further, why admit female students at all if their degree is not meant to be used? A yearly tuition of $35,000 seems a greedy ask to attain what becomes a useless degree. Maybe this is not something you support, but I have yet to see any statement indicating dissent with this position. The Benedictine sisterhood and St. Scholastica, its founder, take pride in education and she herself do not choose the vocation of marriage. How would St. Scholastica be able to attend your college when she found her vocation to be in the religious life? To Harrison Butker, how dare you? I am happy for you and your family that your wife can be a homemaker if that’s what she wants to do, but that is completely out of touch for what nearly all of these students will face as they graduate. Your family can comfortably live on just your salary of over $4 million per year, but you are a minority in this situation. You speak of not allowing cost of living to prohibiting where you live, but with your salary, I’m sure there are few areas you cannot find suitable housing and access to food. Is one supposed to choose to live in circumstances where they do not have a stable shelter in favor of a more traditional priest? Earlier in your speech you mention “accepting your lane and staying in it,” I believe you should have taken your own advice, because your lane is far wealthier than mine and likely all of the graduates you are speaking to. Most families will need two salaries to live in even a fraction of the comfort you live and even then, may not be comfortable. From what I understand, you went to GT on a scholarship, another minority, factor in student loans, and the comfort fraction becomes even smaller. Should a family live in a constant state of worry about money so that a woman can be a homemaker? You spoke of charity and the platform God has given you, but I do not see you using your wealth for charitable acts to support the lifestyle you advocate in these graduates. You decide to speak for women and presume they are most excited at the prospect of marriage and children when you are speaking to congratulate them on a major accomplishment that has little to do with their future as a wife or mother. Can a woman not find fulfillment and a calling as a valuable member of the workforce and a wife and mother. As a woman who anticipates graduating from medical school in one year, is being a doctor not part of God’s plan for me? As I understand it, my vocation, is not between being a wife and mother or being a doctor, but of the calling to serve as a married, single, or religious person. You make it seem as though I cannot be both a doctor and family woman one day. You make remarks about controlling how and when children are conceived. You condemn IVF and surrogacy when a large portion of woman and men in this country struggle with infertility or health conditions making a pregnancy incredibly dangerous. If a woman cannot naturally have a child then is she not to be a mother? Do you also condemn adoption as it a choice and controlled method of becoming a parent? Is it only if a woman is unable to conceive naturally that it is acceptable to work rather than be a homemaker? I have always been taught in my experience with the Catholic Church to welcome children into your life whenever they come about, not as a barrier to being a working mom. You have laid out the options as black or white, mother or worker, when I believe the advice is to be open to and welcome God’s plan for you in both areas of your life. Not only do you advocate for the females graduates to forgo the workforce when this is an unrealistic path for most, but in doing so, you add extra pressure to the male graduates to provide in an unrealistic way. At what cost do men take higher paying jobs they are unhappy in so that their wives can be homemakers? You have worked hard to get to where you are, say you are doing something you love, and are able to show the fruits of that labor, should these graduates not show all of the knowledge and skills they have gained through earning their degree?
To Harrison Butker, I, too, am Catholic. I believe we also are similar in that we question right from wrong and do not just blindly accept the things that are fed to us. You say that our priests and bishops are anointed by God, but quickly question that anointing. I now question you, in who you are to question who has been anointed by God. You point out it is your duty as a father to lead your son. In our faith, we call our priests Father, but you call us to question and right them, should they not lead us? Should we not follow the quote you use of trusting our priests to translate the teachings of the Bible for us? Does your son question you and what is your response? You call for priests and bishops to be righted but also to stay in our lane. I do not mean to support the actions of our church leaders either way, but as an individual am not following what you ask of these graduates.
To Harrison Butker, you say you speak from experience, but it seems your experiences are vastly different than most of the graduates you speak to. Your statements contradict one another, in questioning our church leaders, staying in our lane, and even speaking of your wife as someone who converted to Catholicism but later question being with someone of a different faith, not allowing for change. As I have stated before, it is one thing to speak of shared feelings, but another to speak of a shared experience. You give advice in black or white rather than ideas for consideration and reflection. Listening to your commencement speech, I can’t imagine I would have found excitement for the future and wisdom as I start to move forward on my own. Had this been my speech to give, I couldn’t speak to a lot of the challenges these students faced, but can empathize with the fears of stepping out of the student life and uncertainty about my future. I could speak to how being able to adapt to challenges, facing hardship in my own way has made me strong and able to persevere and that they too have grown to be stronger and able to persevere too, even if they are not confident. I could speak to how money is not always the most important thing in life, your church, your family, your community are all things to reflect on when making decisions about the future. But, this was not my speech, it was yours. My ideas may not be right, maybe it has more “fluff” than yours, but they do not tell me the right or wrong way to live my life, as that is between me and God.
To Benedictine College, much of this is address to Harrison Butker. However, this is the person you chose and supported in giving a commencement speech. What is address to him, is also a reflection of what you support and believe, and the message you hope to send your graduates off with. I am not one of your graduates, happy to say I am not with this speech, but at least for me, this is the representation I have of your school.
To Benedictine College and Harrison Butker, you both owe the graduates an apology for these disrespectful and confusing sentiments as they enter a new and stressful chapter of their lives.
To the Benedictine College class of 2025, congratulations!

TL;DR: OP is frustrated about his marriage that is being organized in a traditional extravagant way against his own will. It is difficult to resist because both his and his partner's family are supporting the wedding because it is traditional.
The story:
Salaam alikum,
My apologies in advance for this topic, but I feel this is the only place left where I can ask for advice or insights from other muslims. Normally, I would never post such personal issues but I really need the advice since I can't get it elsewhere.
I am a European born citizen with North African roots (3rd gen) that is soon going to marry. In the Nort African culture, it is not uncommon to organize large weddings with lots of guests, grand feasts and extravagant budget spendings. Personally, I find this very unislamic and against the Sunnah and I have always been against it. My opinion is that this tradition should disappear.
Soon, I am going to marry myself and I find myself stuck in a situation where I have no other choice of having my wedding in the manner mentioned above. And I am deeply frustrated about it that I lost all my joy of marrying.
My future partner, her family and my family are completely behind the idea of having a big wedding with all the traditional phases (hennah, traditional party for the man, legal ceremony at the city council and finally a large feast). I stand alone in not wanting it this way and it led to many heated discussions where I bring evidence of the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW, but they keep on persisting and it is difficult to strive for my right since I stand alone. I am also very frustrated that the biggest part of the marriage will be paid out of my own pocket, but I feel it goes against my responsibility as a man to refuse to give any money so that's not something I can stop doing.
The organization of all this has been going on for almost a year now and the wedding is approaching, but everyday my frustrations get bigger and I become unhappier. It's so bad that I even had a fight with my future partner about all this.
My frustrations are stacking up and my thought are following this cycle where it just adds up, for example: weather will be bad so that just frustrates me more that we are throwing it this big while the weather will just ruin everything. I also want my few closest friends to be at my wedding but at the same time I don't want them to be sitting in the same unseparated room (at the city council) with my and her entire family. This all could have been avoided if we were just going to do a small ceremony.
You might see that my thoughts and frustrations go very far, hence why I am asking for advice or insights from clever fellow muslims. What would you do? Would you resist or would you go with the flow? How would you handle the situation? How would you handle the thoughts?
BarakAllahu fiekum...

I'm a newer player and we're all level 3 in the Dragon Heist campaign. Our DM mentioned he would love to have us run a one shot if we wanted to give it a try. We're all pretty good friends and somewhat casual so I'm comfortable diving in right away. So I decided to run the new Vecna level 3 quest (Nest of the Eldritch Eye).
I have a way to get the party there (my character is a sailor), to remove my PC temporarily (he'll continue with the ship and return in X days), and add the current DM's temp PC (either another passenger on the ship or a another sword for hire that gets placed with the party after arriving, his choice) So that all fits well within the setting of Dragon Heist and with our characters. But if you've read the intro to Nest of the Eldritch Eye, it says you're invited by Dagult Neverember. He's currently missing in the Dragon Heist campaign.
My hook was to have a letter from "Dagult" ask the adventurers to come to Neverwinter. They'll want to do it because everyone wants to find the guy. When they arrive, they're going to find out someone else is in charge and he lied about being Dagult. But my question, who should be in charge? Normally, I'd assume his son would be in charge but because of the events in Dragon Heist, Renaer is in Waterdeep. So who would normally be in charge of a city during the absence of its Lord?
I'd like this story to fit as neatly as possible in the campaign but don't want to be spoiled by looking up too much information about the Neverember family. I find it hard to make any world building choices without looking through wikis that are chock full of spoilers.