who needs to know?

[_moksha]

I wonder if this mindset of damaged goods is a lingering aftereffect of the Cupcake Lesson that the young men picked up?

[_Dr. Shades]

Let me go "against the grain" and say a word or two in these LDS guys' defense: Perhaps it isn't so much that they view your daughter as "damaged goods," but perhaps they're worried about whether they'll be able to handle the "issues" that survivors often have to deal with?

For example, although I wouldn't stigmatize a potential wife for any past sexual activity and/or victimization, I would be very, very wary of the proposition of continuing visits to the psychologist, potential intimacy issues, PTSD, etc. I would want to make VERY sure that such things were already resolved as far as the practicalities of day-to-day married life were concerned.

So, to answer your question, if the issues in her past don't affect her on a practical basis, then there's no need to tell anyone. But if the issues in her past DO or WILL affect her in a practical sense--an aversion to intimacy, a revulsion to being touched, etc.--then her potential partner has a right to know in advance, methinks.

[_asbestosman]

Perhaps it isn't so much that they view your daughter as "damaged goods," but perhaps they're worried about whether they'll be able to handle the "issues" that survivors often have to deal with?

Precisely what I'm thinking.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but if one isn't up to handling it then it's good for everyone involved to realize it.

[_Moniker]

Let me go "against the grain" and say a word or two in these LDS guys' defense: Perhaps it isn't so much that they view your daughter as "damaged goods," but perhaps they're worried about whether they'll be able to handle the "issues" that survivors often have to deal with?

For example, although I wouldn't stigmatize a potential wife for any past sexual activity and/or victimization, I would be very, very wary of the proposition of continuing visits to the psychologist, potential intimacy issues, PTSD, etc. I would want to make VERY sure that such things were already resolved as far as the practicalities of day-to-day married life were concerned.

So, to answer your question, if the issues in her past don't affect her on a practical basis, then there's no need to tell anyone. But if the issues in her past DO or WILL affect her in a practical sense--an aversion to intimacy, a revulsion to being touched, etc.--then her potential partner has a right to know in advance, methinks.

I agree with this in some respect. Yet, too often others prescribe "issues" for survivors of whatever without being truly informed. As Jersey Girl mentioned sometimes people work through whatever and are able to not let whatever effect their day to day.

I worked with a group in college that dealt with sexual issues -- and rape. It was interesting how the women that had been violated talked about how others viewed them and PRESCRIBED issues for them. They were frustrated with this. They didn't want pity, they didn't see themselves as flawed and when others THOUGHT things about them (that were not true) it was incredibly aggravating to them.

I truly (and hate to be blunt here) see loads of men and women on this site and MAD make ASSUMPTIONS about people based on what they think they know about them. Saw a thread on MAD a few days ago talking about women that just had sex before marriage and it made me bristle. I've seen people (ex-LDS) say they were glad they didn't have sex before marriage 'cause they didn't get STD's -- hello dingdong -- there are CONDOMS! I truly think this mentality is indoctrinated in the Church. NEVER saw some of the scorn and pity heaped upon people as in this environment. It's just odd....

[_SUAS]

I think the reactions that your daughter has experienced from the LDS men in her life are going to be the reaction of most men, LDS or not. I don't think they see her as "damaged goods" I think it goes deeper.
There are not many men that know how to deal with information that someone they are just starting to care about has been abused, how exactly are they supposed to deal with that? Some men can't.

Men like to fix problems, men do not like to feel helpless. When a man hears that a woman has been abused the first thing they want to do make is everything okay. Men want to protect and make everything okay and make all the hurt and pain go away. When they know they can't it goes against everything that makes them a man. Men are supposed to protect us and keep us safe at least that is what society has taught them.

Your daughter endured some horribly tragic events in her life if the men she has been close to can't handle it and run away then they will never make a good husband and she is lucky to find out early.

I have been married for thirty years and I know if I was raped and/or hurt in any physical way my husband would not see me as damaged goods but he would have a hard time dealing with it because he couldn't protect me, he would want to fix me and make me unhurt, knowing he could never do that would hurt him deeply because he loves me deeply. We would need to be in therapy for years before we could get past my hurt and his feelings of uselessness.
Even after thirty years of marriage there would be no guarantee that we would remain together because tragic events will either make or break a relationship.

Everytime he looked and me he would see his failure to protect me and the guilt would eat him alive, could he over come his feelings of failing me?
Probably given his maturity.

One day your daughter will meet a man that is mature enough to handle her past and love her because of who she is now, and know that he can protect her and keep her safe.

No,no one needs to know, but her abuse is part of her and her true love will only truly love her if he can know every part of her. The good and the bad.

[_Moniker]

SUAS, what a wonderful post!

Just one thing.... I've seen men on MAD and this board refer to women as "used meat" and damaged goods. Men have talked about how they were told to stay away from converts (even ones they LOVED) 'cause they may not be virgins. I think it may be a combination of men's natural reaction to protect women that may come into play with this interspersed with this view of women needing to be chaste.

[_Bond...James Bond]

SUAS, what a wonderful post!

Just one thing.... I've seen men on MAD and this board refer to women as "used meat" and damaged goods. Men have talked about how they were told to stay away from converts (even ones they LOVED) 'cause they may not be virgins. I think it may be a combination of men's natural reaction to protect women that may come into play with this interspersed with this view of women needing to be chaste.

I myself have fallen into the mindset from time to time to consider girls who've been around the block a time or two "damaged goods". I wonder if this sort of this is hardwired into our minds as men, and that the thousands of years of considering women chattel will take thousands of years to unwire in our minds. It's hard sometimes being a dude. Seriously. Two brains and neither is really adequate. :/

[_Inconceivable]

Who needs to know? I suppose it depends.

However, I believe that in order for soulmates to truly become one, they need to express to each other what makes them who they are. I would feel a betrayal of trust if my spouse were to have held back such life shaking events. I ought to be aware solely because of my necessity to develop a keener sensitivity to her needs.

When it comes to rape, virtue ought not be in the equation. But in true Mormonism it is.

Unfortunately, in the Mormon church, virtue and rape fall within the same gray area because of the sinister comments made by past Mormon presidents and their twelve disciples. Spencer Kimball (as well as others) raised the question as to whether the woman was guilty by contributory negligence. Several others have parroted that it were better that they come home in a pine box rather than lose their virtue.

So, one of the first questions the TBMm (male) comes up with after such disclosure from his fiance might be, "so why are you still alive if you are yet virtuous?".

Think about it.

TBMm's that have read the teachings of these blind guides ought to be the ones considered as damaged goods. Some of them will never get past wondering in the back of their minds whether their spouse was unfaithful.

In reality, if Jesus really did what they say he did, virtue is a spiritual state - not a temporal one. Jesus forgave and then never held the sin against the penetant transgressor. It was like he pressed a reset button, gave them a fresh start, a brand new life. Mormons are not taught this. For this reason, they will never understand true forgiveness.

[_harmony]

Thanks to all who have replied.

I am almost despairing of her ever finding a mate within the church. I'm not sure such a man exists.

[_Inconceivable]

Thanks to all who have replied.

I am almost despairing of her ever finding a mate within the church. I'm not sure such a man exists.

If such a man does exist, it is only temporary. I would prepare myself for his exodus from it.

I would suggest she seek out a mate that shares her ideals - faith factors in, but it is hardly the sum of the whole in a healthy marriage.