Split from Harmony's Thread, Who Needs To Know?

[_BishopRic]

I'm still 100% against ruling someone out because of something that happened to them that they might be dealing with in a healthy manner. I'm not talking about people who have codependency issues or addiction issues, but nice, caring people who may still be mending broken hearts.

That was me. I was terrified of a good person because of what I'd been through. Had he had the attitude you've been espousing Nehor, who knows who would have been next in line...yet another loser who would have been ashamed to call me his, who would have treated me as if I mattered little, who would have used my body had I let him...list goes on...

But someone was strong enough to see through and withstand the fear and issues. And I'm returning the favor. It's called unconditional love. We don't have enough of it in this world today. We have plenty of self-preservation, though. Ironic that those who are busy preserving themselves are often doing it alone...

So true! I think we all need to start realizing that when you point at another, three fingers are pointing at you!

[_Sam Harris]

I'm still 100% against ruling someone out because of something that happened to them that they might be dealing with in a healthy manner. I'm not talking about people who have codependency issues or addiction issues, but nice, caring people who may still be mending broken hearts.

That was me. I was terrified of a good person because of what I'd been through. Had he had the attitude you've been espousing Nehor, who knows who would have been next in line...yet another loser who would have been ashamed to call me his, who would have treated me as if I mattered little, who would have used my body had I let him...list goes on...

But someone was strong enough to see through and withstand the fear and issues. And I'm returning the favor. It's called unconditional love. We don't have enough of it in this world today. We have plenty of self-preservation, though. Ironic that those who are busy preserving themselves are often doing it alone...

I would see that person not being me as a gift from God then.

Someone thinks differently. But having never sampled the chocolate, I can understand your sentiment. :-)

[_Sam Harris]

I'm still 100% against ruling someone out because of something that happened to them that they might be dealing with in a healthy manner. I'm not talking about people who have codependency issues or addiction issues, but nice, caring people who may still be mending broken hearts.

That was me. I was terrified of a good person because of what I'd been through. Had he had the attitude you've been espousing Nehor, who knows who would have been next in line...yet another loser who would have been ashamed to call me his, who would have treated me as if I mattered little, who would have used my body had I let him...list goes on...

But someone was strong enough to see through and withstand the fear and issues. And I'm returning the favor. It's called unconditional love. We don't have enough of it in this world today. We have plenty of self-preservation, though. Ironic that those who are busy preserving themselves are often doing it alone...

So true! I think we all need to start realizing that when you point at another, three fingers are pointing at you!

I look at the women in my family, almost all of them mothers before 21, one probably being sentence to jail time today (she just gave birth, too), some with past drug addictions...and I think about where they would be if the family as a whole were more supportive, loving, accepting...and also if they were involved with men who saw them as the diamonds in the rough that they STILL are. I still see potential in all the women in my family, from my mom's generation to mine. But I'm the only one who is about to tuen 27 without conceiving, I'm the only on in school, the only one with a good job, one of the few who graduated from high school...it's sad...and I know these women look in the mirror and want to scratch their faces, because that was once me. What changed between myself and them...I have no idea. But knowing that the change can occur, and that there can be people in one's life to support you on the way to positive change, no matter how f'ed up you may be (the scars on my wrist will never fade), that's a beautiful thing.

[_asbestosman]

I demanded a woman who could deal with my baggage. I didn't mind that most may dismiss me out of hand for what I am: nerdy, unsocial, kinda immature in tastes and emotions. I was willing to take some strangeness in return. However, the simple fact remains that if I'm immature (and I am) then it would be good for me to marry someone who could not handle my immaturity. It has nothing to do with dismissing someone out of hand for what happened to that person. It has to do with excluding myself becase I am not qualified to bring reasonable happiness to said person. I met many great women in my life. Statistics say that chances are a few of them have been abused but I wouldn't know who. I never got to know many of them not because I thought they were damaged goods but because I knew I wouldn't have been able to make them happy. It never dealt with an out-of-hand dismissal for something beyond a person's control. One woman I know I broke up with because I couldn't handle her excessive quietness.

[_Moniker]

Asbestosman, you and some of the other men keep talking about what you're looking for in a partner. Certain TRAITS -- there is NOTHING wrong with that! If you don't want a woman that has been with another man -- fine! If you don't want a woman that has been abused -- okay (good luck with that 'cause chances are that 1/4 of the men on this site are married to women that HAVE been). The thing is that men and women make ASSUMPTIONS about certain people that do not follow.

ASSUMING that someone HAS certain traits 'cause they had sex or were sexually abused is completely different then just flat out stating that I desire someone that is this and that. ASSUMING that someon is emotionally damaged 'cause of this that and whatever is different.

You see what traits appeal to you, you like them, you're attracted to them... that's fine! Other traits you are not attracted to. That's fine too! I wouldn't be with a man that was a gigolo. I ALSO wouldn't be with a man that had sexual hangups -- my choice! Yet, I wouldn't ASSUME I knew all this stuff about him 'cause I just THINK I knew something which I really didn't.

[_asbestosman]

ASSUMING that someone HAS certain traits 'cause they had sex or were sexually abused is completely different then just flat out stating that I desire someone that is this and that. ASSUMING that someon is emotionally damaged 'cause of this that and whatever is different.

The only assumption I've made is that someone who is abused is more likely to have certain personality quirks than someone who isn't. I believe statistics back me up on this. The key here is "more likely". I do not think it's that way in every case so I think it's worth not assuming that any one particular individual has traits because of circumstances. Rather, I think it is something I might need to ask some follow-up questions about how it may effect her expectations from me. If I would have found those expectations reasonable for me to meet, then great. If not, then that's life.

I admit that I would make some assumptions about a woman voluntarily having sex because of how the LDS church works. Since abstinence before marriage is seen as an important commandment, I would assume that an LDS woman born in the church who voluntarily gave that up would share my level of commitment to the church. Now I grant that I could be wrong there. Perhaps she repented and is more commited than I am. All I know is that even when my commitment has waned at times in my youth, I never went that far. Could she convince me that she is committed enough? Yes, but it would be harder than for one whose actions in the past also demonstrate it. Converts are a bit different though. It would be easier for a convert to convince me of such than a lifelong member.

Also, keep in mind that I consider marriage different than other relationships. I do not think marriagability should be used as some kind of ruler of worthiness or goodness or whatever. For me it only properly measures compatability which is not at all the same thing as human worth. I considered some in my past to be beyond my scale of potential marriage partners because they just seemed to be too many leagues above me. My wife, of course, seemed a bit high on the scale, but I think I've managed to keep her satisfied so far--at least enough anyhow.

[_Dr. Shades]

How many men from the LDS culture or left the culture wish their life partners were MORE sexual? I know quite a few!!! :D Yet, could it be (let's just think for a moment here fellas) that maybe the way ya'll view women and their sexuality has a bit to do with this as well???

So, which is it? You SAY you want a certain woman and then bitch 'cause she doesn't put out after you marry her... hmm...

Find a woman to marry that is pristine and "perfect" then bitch 'cause she doesn't give out? I think there is the madonna/whore complex that runs RAMPANT in this culture!

With all due respect, I think you're describing the active, hardcore-LDS gentlemen, not any of the males on this board.

What does any of that have to do with us here?

[_asbestosman]

Find a woman to marry that is pristine and "perfect" then bitch 'cause she doesn't give out? I think there is the madonna/whore complex that runs RAMPANT in this culture!

I found and married a virgin just like me. I have no complaints about it and in fact I'm looking forward to how much more we'll learn in the next 40 years just as we have learned much in the past 5.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm still 100% against ruling someone out because of something that happened to them that they might be dealing with in a healthy manner. I'm not talking about people who have codependency issues or addiction issues, but nice, caring people who may still be mending broken hearts.

That's what all the rest of us are talking about, methinks. Going back to the original post, I think the mistake these LDS guys who dated harmony's daughter made is that they made assumptions about her without bothering to get to know her better first. THAT was their major flaw. I.e., they assumed she had "codependency issues or addiction issues" rather than being a nice caring person who may still be mending a broken heart.

The issue did NOT have to do with any "damaged goods" mindset.

Asbestosman, you and some of the other men keep talking about what you're looking for in a partner. Certain TRAITS -- there is NOTHING wrong with that! If you don't want a woman that has been with another man -- fine! If you don't want a woman that has been abused -- okay (good luck with that 'cause chances are that 1/4 of the men on this site are married to women that HAVE been). The thing is that men and women make ASSUMPTIONS about certain people that do not follow.

Right. And that's the only problem. I don't think anyone is laboring under the "damaged goods" mindset. They're only laboring under a lack of understanding that there's a whole spectrum of where an abuse survivor might be.

[_Scottie]

According to stats posted somewhere, 1 in 4 women were sexually abused.

Shouldn't there be a WHOLE lot more single women out there if LDS men were really as shallow as you're claiming??

I'd be willing to bet donuts to dollars that the WOMEN are the ones saying that the guys are dumping them SOLELY because they were abused/raped. I'm betting the guys don't tell them, "Well, you WERE abused/raped, therefore I see you as damaged goods and not worthy of a life with me."

These women will take no accountability for the fact that they are suffering from a myriad of emotional problems (baggage, if you will) that is only a natural byproduct of these kinds of traumatic events. How can you women sit and call men shallow bastards because we don't want to put up with this kind of BS in a marriage???

Or, perhaps it just wasn't working out for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the abuse. The guy dumps the girls and she says to herself, "It's because I was abused. I just know it!!!" Then goes on to further perpetuate the myth.

Now, I believe that there ARE men out there shallow enough to dump a girl solely on her virginal status. But they represent the vast minority of the men out there. Like I said, since 1 in 4 women have had some kind of abuse, and obviously MANY of these women are now married to good, upstanding LDS men, the idea that LDS men are rejecting women solely on this falls flat.