who needs to know?

[_Dr. Shades]

Moniker, with all due respect to you, I think you might be projecting your own assumptions on "some of the men on this board," as you put it. Let's examine:

Here's why I think I'm having knee jerks to this topic. I think that just knowing someone was abused does not correlate to this impacting this person necessarily.

EXACTLY. ALL THE MEN ON THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN SAYING PRECISELY THAT.

Knowing something about someone does not fill out the full spectrum of their personality, their life -- who they ARE. I think if someone has actions that make it a bumpy relationship that's one thing. Yet, someone that had a bump in the road in their past (that they are or have worked through) is quite different than someone still living it.

YES! EXACTLY! THAT'S WHAT ALL THE MEN ON THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN SAYING!!

I just don't know if I see these being separated by some of the men on this board.

How can you NOT see these being separated by some of the men on this board? THEY'VE CONSISTENTLY DONE ***NOTHING OTHER*** THAN SEPARATE THE TWO!

If a woman was struck by a car and she had to limp about in a cast for a while would you dump her? Would you call off the wedding? That would more than likely impact the day to day than her having been molested 20+ years ago! I just think when SEX is involved the men have red flags flying. Why? Sex creates MORE of an emotional baggage then other issues people deal with in their life?

THIS DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT SEX!!

It's the sex that is the hang up... this is my honest opinion.

NO NO NO!! The hang-up is with potentially lingering psychological and/or intimacy problems!

It's sooooo damn superficial!

IT WOULD BE IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THAT'S ***NOT*** WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

[_Sam Harris]

Perhaps the bottom line is that when you come into any sort of relationship with a person who is hurting, unless you are a therapist who has been tasked with helping this person on the path to healing, you don't need to "fix" this person. If they are not damaging you, if they are not damaging others, if they are not damaging themselves, then it is safe to get to know and love them. Writing them off because of their "issues" is crass, selfish, and wrong.

I've seen it happen so many times, I've seen so many women hurt because of it, and I stand outright against it.

[_The Nehor]

I think that Nehor is just stoking the fire.

Scottie, Jesus never left anyone alone who was damaged goods emotionally. If anyone is going to call themselves a disciple of him (I don't know what your spiritual path is), they need to take the mantle on completely.

I would never have fared well with some of the men in this forum, and it's not because I'm a bad person, it's not because I'm ugly, it's not because of any fault of mine. It's because I was a victim. That's sad.

I'm not, I'm just saying if she feels the need to vent on me I'm okay with it. If not, I'm okay with that too.

I don't think bringing Jesus in here works unless we switch from romantic relationships to general relationships.

Um, why can't romance and Jesus be compatible?

When Jesus told me to love everyone it is not eros he had in mind. If I didn't help anyone I didn't want a romantic relationship with I would be borderline amoral.

That didn't answer my question at all. I'm not talking about free love. When you get married, if Christ isn't in your relationship Nehor, then your whole faith construct is hypocritical.

This I agree with but you seemed to be saying that if I was not romantically interested in someone that I was not following Christ. I apologize if I misunderstood.

[_The Nehor]

Scottie, you drew a line that Nehor didn't. You mentioned having dealt with it. Nehor's comments show that he really has little experience with this issue.

To be fair to Nehor, I think you are misrepresenting him a bit. He stated that his last two serious relationships involved women who had gone through abuse. From how he described these situations, it sounds like he grew frustrated because he tried to fix things that he really couldn't fix.

After being involved in two emotionally charged relationships, I don't think it is unfair of Nehor to state that he would prefer to not be placed in that type of situation again. It doesn't sound to me, however, that he would completely rule out a relationship with another woman who went through abuse if he loved her.

Stop fixing. Just love. Simple. Realize that you cannot fix, but if you love, you can help the person to heal themselves. Nehor should stop labeling people who he doesn't know based on the bad choices he made in past relationships. His "fixing" was his fault, not the victims.

Hence why I said this is an issue for me. It is my fault. It's not something I'm sure I can change so to avoid pain to me and someone else, I avoid the situation.

Minor correction Liz, I did have two relationships where this was an issue, but they were not the most recent ones. Just worried that if I bring my most recent relationship up someone will make assumptions. Thanks for what you said though. I don't usually try to fix things for everyone else to that degree but some hurts (especially in women) make me get paternal (not really a good outlook for a romantic relationship).

[_asbestosman]

If a woman was struck by a car and she had to limp about in a cast for a while would you dump her? Would you call off the wedding?

I would probably postpone it while we try working things out. I would also talk about her expectations of me when she has such a condition and then work out whether or not she thinks I'm qualified.

It's sooooo damn superficial!

Compatibility when looking for a mate can be. Would I have married my wife if she were bald? Maybe, maybe not. I mean, a might be able to stand a wig, but baldness would be a big turn-off for me. It's absolutely superficial, but I'm pretty sure she understands. Will I stick with her if she becomes bald? Of course. Commitment seems different than looking for someone in the first place.

[_The Nehor]

To inject a little sanity into this thread, I present me discussing my ideal girl:

http://xkcd.com/108/

[_guy sajer]

I'd like to see truthdancer comment here. My answer is: no one. No one needs to know.

I disagree. I'd go further and say that the potential mate has the "right" to know. He will eventually find out one way or the other, and besides, what basis does the marriage start out one when it begins with one spouse withholding significant and relevant details from the other?

What is it relevant? If for no other reason that the sexual abuse/rape might be the cause of emotional-psychological issues down the road and the spouse (potential mate) has the right to know what he is or may be signing up for. To me, this falls under the category of a "material" fact that should be disclosed. I would not personally reject a potential mate for this reason, but I WOULD be pissed off if she hid it from me.

[_Scottie]

Stop fixing. Just love. Simple. Realize that you cannot fix, but if you love, you can help the person to heal themselves.

This is oversimplifying things QUITE a bit. This is like telling a meth addict to "just stop doing it". Simple. Fact is, it's NOT simple.

I believe this is one of those gender boundaries that we will never understand. A woman wants to nurture and heal, which is what I see you projecting here, Sammy. Conversely, like Nehor said, it is INCREDIBLY difficult for a man to just sit back and let the healing happen naturally. We're just not good at loving and nurturing. We want to fix it. If we can't, we feel useless.

This doesn't make men bad. It just makes us men.

[_Moniker]

Moniker, with all due respect to you, I think you might be projecting your own assumptions on "some of the men on this board," as you put it. Let's examine:

Here's why I think I'm having knee jerks to this topic. I think that just knowing someone was abused does not correlate to this impacting this person necessarily.

EXACTLY. ALL THE MEN ON THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN SAYING PRECISELY THAT.

Really? 'Cause this is what tapped on my knee:

It has nothing to do with seeing victims as damaged goods. I've just learned a little something about my limits. I should also note that I have two agnostic friends who won't date anyone who has been abused either. I don't think it has to do with the LDS Church. It's guys in general. In case you haven't picked up on this, we don't like lots of painful baggage in the past. I blame the Y chromosome.

Knowing something about someone does not fill out the full spectrum of their personality, their life -- who they ARE. I think if someone has actions that make it a bumpy relationship that's one thing. Yet, someone that had a bump in the road in their past (that they are or have worked through) is quite different than someone still living it.

YES! EXACTLY! THAT'S WHAT ALL THE MEN ON THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN SAYING!!

Well, apparently I missed it. 'Cause someone making a blanket statement about how they wouldn't date 'cause of something in a woman's past seems to ME to make a correlation between a woman's past and WHO SHE IS and her not being worthy of the Mighty Nehor and his agnostic friends!

I just don't know if I see these being separated by some of the men on this board.

How can you NOT see these being separated by some of the men on this board? THEY'VE CONSISTENTLY DONE ***NOTHING OTHER*** THAN SEPARATE THE TWO!

I see MEN stating TRAITS about a woman and making a correlation between her traits and past abuse. There is not a NECESSARY correlation. If they guys just said IF she has "issues" that would be different. But then they come in stating well, I don't want a woman that does this and that and somehow that correlates to something that may or may NOT have anything to do with a woman's day to day? Seems like there were some qualifiers at different points, and some NOT so much.

If a woman was struck by a car and she had to limp about in a cast for a while would you dump her? Would you call off the wedding? That would more than likely impact the day to day than her having been molested 20+ years ago! I just think when SEX is involved the men have red flags flying. Why? Sex creates MORE of an emotional baggage then other issues people deal with in their life?

THIS DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT SEX!!

Then what is it about? It's about SEXUAL abuse, Shades! If a woman was hit by a man and cried about it for a few days would the men have the same reaction? Or is it different 'cause she was SEXUALLY assaulted?

It's the sex that is the hang up... this is my honest opinion.

NO NO NO!! The hang-up is with potentially lingering psychological and/or intimacy problems!

It's sooooo damn superficial!

IT WOULD BE IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THAT'S ***NOT*** WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

[/quote]

I understand that SOME women have lingering problems with sexual assault. I do NOT deny that. I am not saying a man should enter a relationship with someone where he's not comfortable with that. Actually the woman deserves better than that from a man. Yet, thinking a woman is flawed or damaged 'cause she's been with a man --consensual or NOT is what this IS about -- if you don't see it I don't know how to make you see it. READ the OP -- see the comments from Nehor drawing parallels about how a woman is a different person 'cause she has sex.

[_asbestosman]

If a woman was hit by a man and cried about it for a few days would the men have the same reaction? Or is it different 'cause she was SEXUALLY assaulted?

If a woman was physically abused (without being sexually abused) by a man, I would have the same questions as I would for one who was sexually abused. Physical abuse can (but doesn't always--just like sexual abuse) create difficult issues to deal with. Same with emotional abuse too. I would have a few extra follow-up questions in all three cases and wouldn't have dismissed a woman from my possible marriage pool out-of-hand for it.

And again, I think it's important to keep in mind that the possibility of marriage is seen as a measurement of compatibility and personal taste, not a assesment of inherent worth.