Sam Harris wrote:But I know my worth now, no thanks to attitudes like that above. I found spiritually strong people to teach me, not people who thought about how my kids were going to be damaged (my kids will have one hell of a mother thank you, because ever since I was a kid I've vowed to give them what I did not have!). Goodness...
YOU SEE? YOU are an example of a survivor who has successfully dealt with her past and is therefore A-O.K. in the marriage department.
Now, let's contrast that with a survivor who has NOT successfully dealt with her past. Let's say she breaks down crying at random times for no reason. Let's say she's running up huge bills for frequent trips to the psychologist. Let's say she has a deep-seated revulsion to intimacy. THAT would be an example of someone who ought to disclose her issues to her potential husband, since such things will have a practical impact on his life as well.
BOTH are examples of survivors. NEITHER of them are "damaged goods." NEITHER of them are any less virtuous than anyone else. NEITHER of them are any less worthy of God's love (assuming God exists).
The only problem is when a man mistakenly assumes that abuse in one's past equals the latter, and cannot equal the former. IT'S NOT THAT SHE IS "DAMAGED GOODS," it's just that he is ignorant of just what the consequences of abuse are, or that (as Moniker implied) abuse survivors can, and do, overcome the past.
Going by some of the assumptions on here, I'm supposed to be biting myself and abusing kids...
I REALLY DOUBT THAT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS EXIST IN THIS THREAD. When various males here have asserted their right to "pass" on someone with abuse issues, they're merely asserting their right to "pass" on survivors in the latter category--the unhealed one. They're not castigating survivors in the former category--the healed one--such as yourself.
Am I making any sense?
You make perfect sense Shades (and thanks for the kudos on my personal situation), but how can these people tell from initial interactions, or even a year or two of dating that their potential partners are like this? Most survivors do not reveal their issues right off the bat...these men are going off of fears and assumptions...
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Sam Harris wrote:You make perfect sense Shades (and thanks for the kudos on my personal situation), but how can these people tell from initial interactions, or even a year or two of dating that their potential partners are like this? Most survivors do not reveal their issues right off the bat...these men are going off of fears and assumptions...
Initial meetings, I agree with. You wouldn't be able to tell.
After a year or two, I disagree. Your true colors will have shown by then.
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
Not necessarily. I know of people whose true colors have taken years to show. There are things about me my own family don't even know, and they're my blood kin...
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
I think it's just easier and far more comfortable for some people to just jump to a conclusion. Safer for them, perhaps.
My own mother doesn't know me. I surprise people every day with the things I do. "I didn't know you had it in you, Sam" is something I hear quite often. I'm not unique in this. I'm sure of that.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Posting one more thought about this "true colors" nonsense...
If a woman has been severely abused, not necessarily will she trust you enough to reveal such a thing after just one year...and not all abused women are neurotic...
There's still that assumption that an abused woman is going to misbehave somehow. Not necessarily!
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Moniker wrote:Shades kept saying I was raped 'cause I had consensual sex while under the influence of LSD or ecstasy and the sort...
To clarify, I said "date raped," not simply "raped."
Think about it. . . If a woman told you she met a guy who had her take drugs, who sat there and watched until she was good & inebriated, and then had his way with her, what would you assume?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Sam Harris wrote:Posting one more thought about this "true colors" nonsense...
If a woman has been severely abused, not necessarily will she trust you enough to reveal such a thing after just one year...and not all abused women are neurotic...
There's still that assumption that an abused woman is going to misbehave somehow. Not necessarily!
Also, as in my case, she could actually be blocking the incident of abuse as a survival mechanism. It might take some type of dramatic event, like the birth of a child, etc. to actually trigger a flashback reaction.
Moniker wrote:Shades kept saying I was raped 'cause I had consensual sex while under the influence of LSD or ecstasy and the sort...
To clarify, I said "date raped," not simply "raped."
Think about it. . . If a woman told you she met a guy who had her take drugs, who sat there and watched until she was good & inebriated, and then had his way with her, what would you assume?
Oh. Man. I would have noticed the woman saying that she was in a relationship with him (he later became my husband and actually proposed that day). I would KNOW enough about drug use to understand that the guy was watching her to make sure she was okay as it was her first time doing the drug in question (I mentioned that he was encouraging me to do certain things to make the transition from lucid to out of my mind a bit smoother) -- and then would understand that they went off and had some fantastic sex while under the influence.
Moniker wrote:Oh. Man. I would have noticed the woman saying that she was in a relationship with him (he later became my husband and actually proposed that day).
I thought it happened with more than one guy.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Sam Harris wrote:Posting one more thought about this "true colors" nonsense...
If a woman has been severely abused, not necessarily will she trust you enough to reveal such a thing after just one year...and not all abused women are neurotic...
There's still that assumption that an abused woman is going to misbehave somehow. Not necessarily!
I'm not sure the assumption is that a woman who was abused as a child is going to "misbehave." I think the assumption is that a woman who was abused as a child is less pure, less innocent, and is going to carry excessive baggage that the man is not equipped to deal with. I call "bull" on that. Virtually everyone carries baggage, even the men who run at the first hint of abuse. Many many women have the same hangups I do (they are uncomfortable being unclothed or they cannot sleep if someone is touching them), but that doesn't mean their hangups exist for the same reasons mine do (maybe they have a poor body image because of an overly critical mother or they never had to share a bed). To blame ones quirks on abuse in childhood may or may not be a correct assumption.
My problem with the assumptions is the "less pure, less innocent" part, in addition to the assumption that the baggage is unbearable. Is a woman who as a 6 year old was forced to perform fellatio on a teenaged uncle somehow "less pure"? Where is the justice in that? How can a child be held accountable for something like that?