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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

May I ask you women a question.

If you started to date a man, and you later found out that he has a well known history of spousal abuse, do you feel like you would be justified in walking out on him? Or should you accept him, baggage and all, with love and compassion until he is able to work through his anger issues by himself?

Because, just as this man has great potential to physically harm you, an abused woman that has not dealt with her problems has great potential to harm a man emotionally.

I know you all want us to just sit and love this woman until she heals, but the reality is that there WILL be collateral damage. The husband will bear the brunt of that. The children will as well. Is that fair to him? Or should he be given the choice to say, "I really don't want that in my life" without being labeled superficial?
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
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Moniker wrote: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?


Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa

*snort*
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Scottie wrote:May I ask you women a question.

If you started to date a man, and you later found out that he has a well known history of spousal abuse, do you feel like you would be justified in walking out on him? Or should you accept him, baggage and all, with love and compassion until he is able to work through his anger issues by himself?

Because, just as this man has great potential to physically harm you, an abused woman that has not dealt with her problems has great potential to harm a man emotionally.

I know you all want us to just sit and love this woman until she heals, but the reality is that there WILL be collateral damage. The husband will bear the brunt of that. The children will as well. Is that fair to him? Or should he be given the choice to say, "I really don't want that in my life" without being labeled superficial?


I think knowing someone has emotional needs that you can not meet is different than assuming someone has emotional problems. I would NEVER involve myself with a man that had anger control issues. Been there, done that.

I think assuming that someone's past makes them emotionally damaged is a bit different than KNOWING they are. When my blog was up I was told I was raped. WTF? No, I wasn't! Hahaaa! I was a woman that had sex while under the influence of drugs. I did it consensually -- I enjoyed it. I looked forward to it, and PLANNED to do so with my partner. This assumption that a woman that does things that may seem *off* to others and then labeling her a victim strikes me as absurd.

This board has put me in CULTURE shock!!!!
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Moniker wrote:
I think knowing someone has emotional needs that you can not meet is different than assuming someone has emotional problems.


Quite true, and some here are mistaking the two. Sadly...
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sam Harris wrote: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.

Moniker wrote: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.


I think that in situations like these, there's just as much fear on the part of the person doing the assuming as there is on the part of the person doing the healing. But I do beg to differ that there is not a "damaged goods" mindset in the church. Just look at Bourne's quotes on my thread...the mindset does exist.

We're such a self-medicating culture now, that when people find out someone has a problem and is willing to talk on it, the assumption is that this person is a prozac-popping individual who can't stand up straight.

If a person wants to let you know about something that happened to them in their past, they have every right to. That doesn't mean they're still deeply traumatized. I talk about my abuse all the time, but I don't get upset over it. There are certain situations when I do, but that's dealing specifically with the issues of my abusers, not random people. I know not to dump my problems on society, what good would that do?

Most people who know me would not be able to tell the things I've been through. In fact, when I start revealing things, they often say, "OMG, I had no idea...". You can go through hell and come out sane.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

Moniker wrote:
Scottie wrote:I think knowing someone has emotional needs that you can not meet is different than assuming someone has emotional problems. I would NEVER involve myself with a man that had anger control issues. Been there, done that.
I completely agree.

Which is why I have qualified myself as saying "and hasn't sufficiently dealt with 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
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Moniker wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote: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?


Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa

*snort*


Uh, thanks for that, but it still doesn't answer my question.

Sam Harris wrote:I think that in situations like these, there's just as much fear on the part of the person doing the assuming as there is on the part of the person doing the healing. But I do beg to differ that there is not a "damaged goods" mindset in the church. Just look at Bourne's quotes on my thread...the mindset does exist.


Oh, I'm sure there is. But I don't think it's being displayed by any of the males on this board. That is what ought to be recognized.
Last edited by Alexa [Bot] on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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?"

--Louis Midgley
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Scottie wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Scottie wrote:I think knowing someone has emotional needs that you can not meet is different than assuming someone has emotional problems. I would NEVER involve myself with a man that had anger control issues. Been there, done that.
I completely agree.

Which is why I have qualified myself as saying "and hasn't sufficiently dealt with it".


Listen, I UNDERSTAND that there are people that have emotional problems. I get that! I'm not denying that. I understand that most of you guys commenting on this are attempting to correlate how a woman acts with the abuse in her past. I think it is WISE to not enter into a relationship with someone that needs more emotional support than one is willing to give. I don't disagree with that at all.

My issue comes in with some making blanket statements -- and how the Church views women. Especially women that have been sexually assaulted. It bothers me how WOMEN are viewed in the Church. That they ARE damaged. That they are emotional basketcases 'cause they had a rough patch.

I know FIRST hand how those that are ex-LDS and some LDS on this board ASSUMED I was raped or something was super wrong with me 'cause I've had sex in my past. It stuns me... 'cause I've NEVER dealt with this mindset before this board and MAD. That women that are sexual are seen as *off* in some manner.
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Scottie wrote:May I ask you women a question.

If you started to date a man, and you later found out that he has a well known history of spousal abuse, do you feel like you would be justified in walking out on him? Or should you accept him, baggage and all, with love and compassion until he is able to work through his anger issues by himself?

Because, just as this man has great potential to physically harm you, an abused woman that has not dealt with her problems has great potential to harm a man emotionally.

I know you all want us to just sit and love this woman until she heals, but the reality is that there WILL be collateral damage. The husband will bear the brunt of that. The children will as well. Is that fair to him? Or should he be given the choice to say, "I really don't want that in my life" without being labeled superficial?


The man I'm dating now had a domestic violence charge with his ex-wife. I will not justify his behavior or explain hers. Not appropriate for this thread. He has answered every question I've asked him. Bottom line, we both walked into this eyes open, knowing what "baggage" lay where, and what needed to be worked on. Perhaps it's that honesty that is working for us.

I told him flat out. Hit me, I'll kill you. I don't look well in institutional orange, but hey...

Am I working with him on his issues? Yes. Does he have a "history". If you count one incident as a history, then yes. If you don't, then no. But I'm aware that he tried to choke his former wife. I don't go down like that...

I know you all want us to just sit and love this woman until she heals, but the reality is that there WILL be collateral damage. The husband will bear the brunt of that. The children will as well. Is that fair to him? Or should he be given the choice to say, "I really don't want that in my life" without being labeled superficial?


Wow...if I think had I had a man sit in front of me and tell me that a few years ago I'd have lost it. I'm not worthy because someone else hurt me...wow...YES...THAT IS SUPERFICIAL.

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...

Okay, checking out for the evening. Too many assumptions about damaged people for one night.

But before I go:

Damaged children? I grew up being stripped and beaten. NEVER ONCE have I abused a child. Let go of that stereotype, those of you who hold them. People have trusted me to mother their children DESPITE my pain, and one woman (my former employer and good friend) knows a lot of what I went through.

Damaged psyche? I harmed myself growing up rather than lash out at my abusers. Perhaps I should have just taken something upside their heads, but I valued them as human beings, even as they abused me. So much for my worth as a person, dump me to the side, eh?

Let me tell you this: The LDS church lost one hell of a woman. And a flawed and scared REAL MAN got her. And we might just live happily ever after in our imperfection.
Last edited by consiglieri on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

Mon, you ignored my previous post.

If this mindset is so rampant in the church, and 1 in 4 women were abused, shouldn't there be a plethora of single, abused women out there?
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
Post Reply