Sam Harris wrote:And let me add one more thing. PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SMOKE AND DRINK!!! THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR CLOTHES TAKEN OFF THEIR BODIES AND THEN BE BEATEN!
IT IS NOT THE SAME! YOU CANNOT COMPARE AN ALCOHOLIC TO AN ABUSED PERSON! ARRGH!
I wasn't comparing them.
I was simply listing MY criteria of what are dealbreakers to me. Which, by the way, abuse is NOT a dealbreaker.
As I stated before, it totally sucks that abuse would be a dealbreaker for some people. But I'm not going to say they are wrong for it.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Sam Harris wrote:And let me add one more thing. PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SMOKE AND DRINK!!! THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR CLOTHES TAKEN OFF THEIR BODIES AND THEN BE BEATEN!
IT IS NOT THE SAME! YOU CANNOT COMPARE AN ALCOHOLIC TO AN ABUSED PERSON! ARRGH!
I wasn't comparing them.
I was simply listing MY criteria of what are dealbreakers to me. Which, by the way, abuse is NOT a dealbreaker.
As I stated before, it totally sucks that abuse would be a dealbreaker for some people. But I'm not going to say they are wrong for it.
Well I say they're wrong for it. I didn't choose what happened to me. I chose as a child to heal from it and I demand respect for that, not degredation and judgement. If I could go back in time I'd spit in the face of those men who dared to look down on me for things I couldn't control.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Moniker wrote:I just wonder (and no one get hot and bothered by this question) if talking about people having "issues" is something done in the Church. I know gossip and twittering about deviance is par for the course -- yet is this a term used often?
I have seen the Church make baby steps in this regard. The Church is beginning to spearhead programs to help abuse victims, as well as those who have anger management issues. It's been a long time in coming, and there is still a LONG way to go.
That being said, I think that what is experienced more than anything else in Church is that when people do have issues, it's more like what you see happen in a traffic accident. There is often this odd fascination. "Rubber-necking" occurs. People can't look away from it. But, at the same time, no one is really doing anything productive, so the only thing accomplished is a traffic jam.
Some Schmo wrote:I understand what you're saying here, but I think the point is that a sexual past shouldn't be a determining factor when considering a potential mate. If the only problem you have with a person is that they aren't a virgin, I recommend grabbing that person ASAP.
As with Sammi, I don't know where this notion came in that you can dictate just how picky someone is allowed to be. If they are more picky than you, they are automatically labeled a jerk! If they are less picky than you, they are labeled blind and stupid.
Why is that we want to force our own criteria for selecting a partner on everyone else??
Well, I wouldn't call someone using that as part of their criteria a jerk, but I would say that they are unnecessarily limiting their potential pool of mates for a bad reason. All I'm personally getting at is that, in my opinion, it's a silly criterion, and there are much better ones. I'd have the same reaction to someone who said they'd only marry someone who didn't major in theater (or something else equally arbitrary) because actors/actresses "behave a certain way."
But if people want to limit potential partners based on it, whatever. I don't really care, but I don't think they should be surprised when others say in response to finding that out about them, "What a jerk."
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Moniker wrote:I just wonder (and no one get hot and bothered by this question) if talking about people having "issues" is something done in the Church. I know gossip and twittering about deviance is par for the course -- yet is this a term used often?
I have seen the Church make baby steps in this regard. The Church is beginning to spearhead programs to help abuse victims, as well as those who have anger management issues. It's been a long time in coming, and there is still a LONG way to go.
That being said, I think that what is experienced more than anything else in Church is that when people do have issues, it's more like what you see happen in a traffic accident. There is often this odd fascination. "Rubber-necking" occurs. People can't look away from it. But, at the same time, no one is really doing anything productive, so the only thing accomplished is a traffic jam.
;)
Ha! Then no one wants to be in the wreck so they pretend they never have "issues". Projection of perfection. :)
Sam Harris wrote:Well I say they're wrong for it. I didn't choose what happened to me. I chose as a child to heal from it and I demand respect for that, not degredation and judgement. If I could go back in time I'd spit in the face of those men who dared to look down on me for things I couldn't control.
Again, I think you are confusing the two things.
Looking down, degredating and judging someone for abuses which are out of their control is HORRIBLY wrong.
Not wanting to marry someone because of it...that's a different story.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:I understand what you're saying here, but I think the point is that a sexual past shouldn't be a determining factor when considering a potential mate. If the only problem you have with a person is that they aren't a virgin, I recommend grabbing that person ASAP.
As with Sammi, I don't know where this notion came in that you can dictate just how picky someone is allowed to be. If they are more picky than you, they are automatically labeled a jerk! If they are less picky than you, they are labeled blind and stupid.
Why is that we want to force our own criteria for selecting a partner on everyone else??
Well, I wouldn't call someone using that as part of their criteria a jerk, but I would say that they are unnecessarily limiting their potential pool of mates for a bad reason. All I'm personally getting at is that, in my opinion, it's a silly criterion, and there are much better ones. I'd have the same reaction to someone who said they'd only marry someone who didn't major in theater (or something else equally arbitrary) because actors/actresses "behave a certain way."
But if people want to limit potential partners based on it, whatever. I don't really care, but I don't think they should be surprised when others say in response to finding that out about them, "What a jerk."
Good points.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Sam Harris wrote:Well I say they're wrong for it. I didn't choose what happened to me. I chose as a child to heal from it and I demand respect for that, not degredation and judgement. If I could go back in time I'd spit in the face of those men who dared to look down on me for things I couldn't control.
Again, I think you are confusing the two things.
Looking down, degredating and judging someone for abuses which are out of their control is HORRIBLY wrong.
Not wanting to marry someone because of it...that's a different story.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Marriage is one of the most solemn decisions you can make in life. But I'm glad to potentially be marrying someone that doesn't have all those hang-ups. But maybe it's because he has as many "ISSUES" as I do...recognizes that, and is willing to work through them.
I've looked in the mirror since my childhood and seen my flaws and had to rectify as many as possible one by one on my own. I'm sure he's had to do the same, and now we're doing it together. I have no patience for those who like to pussyfoot around the topic of "issues", or look at other people's "issues" as if they're something repugnant.
I just can't understand it. And I feel for every little girl who has to stand in front of a man and face rejection because her daddy or her mother didn't love her enough to treat her right, and yet another person is carrying on that cycle. How disgusting.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Sam Harris wrote:But is that an excuse? There are a lot of behaviors going on in the church that are damaging, this being only one. I had to deal with being a non-virgin, deal with being black, deal with being "ghetto"...outside the church I was just normal.
When is the church going to let go of the Beaver Cleaver mindset and learn to embrace the kalidescope of humanity, flaws and all? Sometimes imperfection can be immensely beautiful...
I could never tolerate a man who looked down on me like that again. But can't lie and say his judgement wouldn't hurt like hell...
No Sam it is not an excuse. But it has taken some gut wrenching emotional turmoil inside me resulting from a number of very personal issue on this topic that I will not post here to understand that some of this is just a bad way to teach and to view the world. Certain mind sets become a part of us and they do not go easy. You asked why an LDS male, and even many non LDS males, have a distorted view of non virgins or a victim of abuse. Culturally many men do and this is a hold over form not so many years gone by. Pile on top of the existing cultural stigmas the teachings I posted above and one should not be surprised that LDS men may develop some not so good attitudes about this.