For Better or for Worse

[thewanderer]

I don’t think that every troubled marriage thread ends up with people advising divorce. I had my own troubled marriage thread last year and nobody suggested this. I got a lot of emotional support, people prayed for me, I got some good advice on what to do. It was all very positive, ie geared towards what can be done, rather then negative: divorce as an option.

We recently had a thread where not a single person advised the OP to divorce, but all offered suggestions on what could be done and tried to get the OP to see the situation in a different light. I thought that showed serious respect for the sacrament of marriage by our posters.

But then, when a person claims they are abused by their spouse I don’t think it is moral to advise that person to stay and suffer. My father mentally and emotionally abused my mother and us children and I know what kind of damage that does. I’m not sure that such arrangements are marriages to start with. I guess this poses a question of where the boundaries of ‘worse’ are. I don’t know. I guess we all have a limit of what we can take. I put up with a lot during my own marriage crisis, but I would not put up with continual abuse from my husband.

 

[freiabereinsam]

I see a lot of people here talking about “abusive situations”, which is frankly a red herring, because many of the situations (in which people suggest divorce) are not abusive situations, or at least not abusive situations that necessitate an instant recommendation of divorce. I think that the problem of people disregarding the meaning of the marriage vows, even in the church, is a large one. Part of the problem is being quick to bring any marriage problem under the banner of “abuse” and then to divorce.

I’ve noticed the same thing, not just on here but in real life was well. To be clear, I’m not talking about when people suggest divorce in severe cases like abuse and whatnot, but when people are telling someone to leave their spouse over things that I’d consider everyday or unexceptional problems. So what if you found out that your wife slept with more people than she admitted to before you were married? It’s in the past and certainly not something to leave her over. [SNIP]

I agree with most of what you said, but I take serious exception to the situation of a wife sleeping with more men than claimed, which is most definitely grounds for divorce. If the man’s marriage depended on the wife’s history–if he wouldn’t have married her had he known the whole truth–then the marriage is fraudulent and the husband was denied the opportunity to make an informed decision. In fact, that’s grounds for annulment as well.

 

[takers]

Totally off-topic but whenever I see this thread title I immediately think someone must have found a funny Catholic bit in the For Better or Worse comic strip.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I’m sorry that you’re going through a rough time with your marriage, but not everyone has the same problems and situations. It’s not possible to judge whether or not another person is warranted in seeking a divorce when their home has turned into a battlefield.

Thanks, and we’re doing what we can to overlook the worst of it and draw strength from one another.

As far as the issue of finding out that your spouse was more promiscuous than they let on, maybe it’s just my perspective, but I think if that’s the worst problem someone ever has to deal with in their marriage, they should fall down and thank God for being so merciful. I mean, if you wake up every morning next to a spouse who loves you and your kids are all happy and healthy, why on earth would you nitpick over something that happened years before they met you? If that’s so terrible an offense that someone can’t get past it, I can’t fathom what they would do in the face of real hardship. I can’t tell you how many times over the last few months I’ve felt that I was the end of my endurance, that I’d reached my breaking point, only to have the bottom fall out from under me yet again. As bleak as it gets, though, I know God’s there for me, and if I reach over on the other side of the bed in the morning, I’ll feel my wife right there. Nothing she did in the past is going to change that.

 

[Herrobp]

Thanks, and we’re doing what we can to overlook the worst of it and draw strength from one another.

As far as the issue of finding out that your spouse was more promiscuous than they let on, maybe it’s just my perspective, but I think if that’s the worst problem someone ever has to deal with in their marriage, they should fall down and thank God for being so merciful. I mean, if you wake up every morning next to a spouse who loves you and your kids are all happy and healthy, why on earth would you nitpick over something that happened years before they met you? If that’s so terrible an offense that someone can’t get past it, I can’t fathom what they would do in the face of real hardship. I can’t tell you how many times over the last few months I’ve felt that I was the end of my endurance, that I’d reached my breaking point, only to have the bottom fall out from under me yet again. As bleak as it gets, though, I know God’s there for me, and if I reach over on the other side of the bed in the morning, I’ll feel my wife right there. Nothing she did in the past is going to change that.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s devastating, though, when she doesn’t want to wake up by your side. And it’s also devastating for Catholics to suggest that you give up and let her “learn her lesson.” That’s implied a lot on these forums. I couldn’t agree more with what you just wrote. I wouldn’t give a care in the world what my wife did before we were married as long as she loved me and was faithful now. I’d give anything to have that situation in my marriage!

 

[hurting]

I see a lot of people here talking about “abusive situations”, which is frankly a red herring, because many of the situations (in which people suggest divorce) are not abusive situations, or at least not abusive situations that necessitate an instant recommendation of divorce. I think that the problem of people disregarding the meaning of the marriage vows, even in the church, is a large one. Part of the problem is being quick to bring any marriage problem under the banner of “abuse” and then to divorce.

Abuse is a trigger word designed to end debate.

I agree with most of what you said, but I take serious exception to the situation of a wife sleeping with more men than claimed, which is most definitely grounds for divorce. If the man’s marriage depended on the wife’s history–if he wouldn’t have married her had he known the whole truth–then the marriage is fraudulent and the husband was denied the opportunity to make an informed decision. In fact, that’s grounds for annulment as well.

A person’s dishonety toward one’s spouse is a grave matter even if the subject is of lesser importance. A person’s number of sexual partner’s is a topic of utmost significance to the health of a marriage.

 

[Rence]

As far as the issue of finding out that your spouse was more promiscuous than they let on, maybe it’s just my perspective, but I think if that’s the worst problem someone ever has to deal with in their marriage, they should fall down and thank God for being so merciful. I mean, if you wake up every morning next to a spouse who loves you and your kids are all happy and healthy, why on earth would you nitpick over something that happened years before they met you?.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but the Church disagrees with you. So obviously, it’s not nitpicking. In addition, if it’s no big deal, then why not be honest with your spouse-to-be and let them decide? The reason why the more promiscuous spouse was NOT honest is because they knew (or highly suspected) that it would be a deal-breaker. Either way, the other spouse didn’t have true consent if full disclosure wasn’t given. Without full consent, a valid marriage doesn’t exist.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but the Church disagrees with you. So obviously, it’s not nitpicking. In addition, if it’s no big deal, then why not be honest with your spouse-to-be and let them decide? The reason why the more promiscuous spouse was NOT honest is because they knew (or highly suspected) that it would be a deal-breaker. Either way, the other spouse didn’t have true consent if full disclosure wasn’t given. Without full consent, a valid marriage doesn’t exist.

There are definitely valid reasons why a person may not disclose their actual number to a prospective spouse. One is abuse. Theoretically speaking, let’s say that shortly after we started dating, my wife told me that she’d been with six other guys. I’d imagine that, as a cradle Catholic who was doing his best to honor the Church’s teachings on chastity, it would have been extremely hard for me to deal with and she likely would have gotten a sense that I had a problem with it. Then let’s say, after a couple years of courtship and a couple years of marriage, I find out that the actual number was closer to ten. Her reason for not telling me, though, was that most of the other guys had molested/raped her, while the last one or two she simply didn’t remember due to her extremely troubled and abused state of mind. Since the molestation/rapes weren’t consensual, she didn’t see it as dishonest when she told me that she’d only been with six guys. She’d never chosen those encounters, didn’t contract any diseases and didn’t see it as something she could discuss. At that point, with a loving wife and son who relied on me completely, would I have been right to cast her aside? The Church apparently believes I was absolutely entitled to do so. I personally believe it would have made me a horribly petty, inconsiderate, disgusting person. I can assure you, though, that there are far, far worse things to deal with than finding out your wife slept with more guys than she admitted to.

Now, that being said, if she claimed to be a virgin when you got married, knowing full well it was a deal-breaker, I’d have a little more sympathy for you. Not much, but a little. However, if she hid the fact that she carried an STD or two, I’d have no problem supporting you wanting an annulment.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are definitely valid reasons why a person may not disclose their actual number to a prospective spouse. One is abuse. Theoretically speaking, let’s say that shortly after we started dating, my wife told me that she’d been with six other guys. I’d imagine that, as a cradle Catholic who was doing his best to honor the Church’s teachings on chastity, it would have been extremely hard for me to deal with and she likely would have gotten a sense that I had a problem with it. Then let’s say, after a couple years of courtship and a couple years of marriage, I find out that the actual number was closer to ten. Her reason for not telling me, though, was that most of the other guys had molested/raped her, while the last one or two she simply didn’t remember due to her extremely troubled and abused state of mind. Since the molestation/rapes weren’t consensual, she didn’t see it as dishonest when she told me that she’d only been with six guys. She’d never chosen those encounters, didn’t contract any diseases and didn’t see it as something she could discuss. At that point, with a loving wife and son who relied on me completely, would I have been right to cast her aside? The Church apparently believes I was absolutely entitled to do so. I personally believe it would have made me a horribly petty, inconsiderate, disgusting person. I can assure you, though, that there are far, far worse things to deal with than finding out your wife slept with more guys than she admitted to.

Now, that being said, if she claimed to be a virgin when you got married, knowing full well it was a deal-breaker, I’d have a little more sympathy for you. Not much, but a little. However, if she hid the fact that she carried an STD or two, I’d have no problem supporting you wanting an annulment.

We should not confuse culpability with validity. A person might lie and not be culpable for lying in the sense of being guilty of a sin, but their lie is still a lie and the information that one person deserved to have was still withheld.

It doesn’t matter why someone lies. What matters is that they lied in order to gain consent, or in order to not lose it. They denied their spouse the opportunity to give an informed “yes” or “no”. It isn’t up to anyone else to tell that spouse that they don’t have the right to informed consent. If substantial information was withheld, then the consent was not validly obtained.

In the case you pose, it would not be the premarital sexual encounters that rendered the consent invalid, and so whether or not they had an STD would have nothing to do with it. It would be the lying that was the issue. It is not for you to decide that someone is “disgusting” for saying that they would not have given the consent they did if they had not been lied to. No one has the right to lie to someone else in order to unfairly obtain their consent for marriage, and it is not right to say that they do. If they have no right to lie, then the person lied to has every right to leave on account of the deceit, and every right to be free to marry someone who tells the truth.

As for the wife and the son who depended on you, that is the direct result of the wife’s decision to lie. It was her deceit that caused that situation, not some later decision by the deceived husband to not tolerate a lie that he would never have tolerated if he had found out about it sooner. There does not get to be a point where we say to him, “Well, you’ve been deceived for this long, so now you are the one who is responsible for the effects of the deception.”

 

[Gordon_Sims]

In the case you pose, it would not be the premarital sexual encounters that rendered the consent invalid, and so whether or not they had an STD would have nothing to do with it. It would be the lying that was the issue. It is not for you to decide that someone is “disgusting” for saying that they would not have given the consent they did if they had not been lied to. No one has the right to lie to someone else in order to unfairly obtain their consent for marriage, and it is not right to say that they do. If they have no right to lie, then the person lied to has every right to leave on account of the deceit, and every right to be free to marry someone who tells the truth.

In the case I cited, though, she wasn’t lying to gain consent. She withheld information that she felt wasn’t necessary. She didn’t believe the rapes counted as consensual sexual encounters. If I (or she) wanted to nitpick, the Church would agree with her on that matter. She felt that not mentioning them wasn’t entirely dishonest. By the time it came to light, I personally don’t see how someone could turn their back on someone they professed to love over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is truly insignificant. I’ll admit, though, that I’ve seen this happen and, based on the particulars of their situation, I won’t change my opinion about the people I know who did this to their loved ones.

 

[Xantippe]

“Then let’s say, after a couple years of courtship and a couple years of marriage, I find out that the actual number was closer to ten. Her reason for not telling me, though, was that most of the other guys had molested/raped her, while the last one or two she simply didn’t remember due to her extremely troubled and abused state of mind.”

I would say that that information is if anything even more relevant to a prospective husband. A prospective spouse deserves to know if the person he or she is marrying has experienced severe psychological trauma, may have trouble dealing with sexuality in a healthy way and/or needs special consideration (as certain seemingly harmless behavior may trigger memories of abuse). This should perhaps call for extra pre-marriage counseling.

That’s speaking of US circumstances, of course. I fully understand that in countries where female virginity is a huge big deal while men get a pass, full disclosure might be a terrible burden for the woman. In our culture, however, I think that a person with any history of abuse should be upfront with that with their betrothed, as this is definitely need-to-know information when entering into what should be a life-long relationship.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

A person’s dishonety toward one’s spouse is a grave matter even if the subject is of lesser importance. A person’s number of sexual partner’s is a topic of utmost significance to the health of a marriage.

If we take away the dishonesty aspect, is a person’s number of sexual partner still significant to the health of a marriage? I’m honestly trying to seek insight and perspectives. I wonder baring STI’s/health issues and prior children how important numbers are generally.

 

[Xantippe]

“If we take away the dishonesty aspect, is a person’s number of sexual partner still significant to the health of a marriage? I’m honestly trying to seek insight and perspectives. I wonder baring STI’s/health issues and prior children how important numbers are generally.”

Whatever the number is, it shouldn’t be a total surprise to the prospective spouse, even if the exact number is somewhat fuzzy. 1-4, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, 41-100, etc. I think one should have a pretty amazing conversion story if one is in three digits, although I expect that does happen from time to time (for instance a retired prostitute).

I think compulsive masturbation has to be figured in, also. There’s no great glory in “virginity” if one has been busy being unchaste all by oneself. Also, let’s face it, some people have way more opportunities to be unchaste. If one is homely, having low numbers may only reflect one’s options, not one’s amazing self-control.

I also think that there has to be a lot of weight put on the length of time the prospective spouse has been chaste. For instance, if one has had 3 sexual partners but the last one was a month ago, that might in fact be worse than having had 20 sexual partners, the last being five years ago. The person with 3 sexual partners has not actually demonstrated much in the way of self-control.

 

[Xantippe]

There’s also the issue of introversion versus extroversion.

So, let’s say Person A is good-looking and outgoing and has had 10 sexual partners, whereas Person B is homely, introverted and masturbates a lot. It’s hard to compare the two of them purely numerically.

 

[EasterJoy]

In the case I cited, though, she wasn’t lying to gain consent. She withheld information that she felt wasn’t necessary. She didn’t believe the rapes counted as consensual sexual encounters. If I (or she) wanted to nitpick, the Church would agree with her on that matter. She felt that not mentioning them wasn’t entirely dishonest. By the time it came to light, I personally don’t see how someone could turn their back on someone they professed to love over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is truly insignificant. I’ll admit, though, that I’ve seen this happen and, based on the particulars of their situation, I won’t change my opinion about the people I know who did this to their loved ones.

It is not for her to decide unilaterally that he does not need to know something about her in order to give her informed consent. If she knew a piece of information was something her prospective spouse would probably feel was important and she chose to withhold it, she* was* being dishonest…and your use of the qualifier “entirely” shows that you know it was dishonest, too! Hiding information in order to maintain consent and lying in order to obtain consent are the same thing, unless you obtain consent to keep it hidden.

This has nothing necessarily to do with her being at fault for something in her past. That is not why the marriage would be invalid. Having been raped is not an impediment to marriage. Having been a prostitute by choice and not being able to accurately count the number of persons one has been sexually intimate with is not an impediment to marry, if we want to consider the extreme example. Hiding information that you do have because you fear the truth would ruin your chances of gaining consent would render the marriage invalid. This has to do with her knowing that her prospective spouse would consider certain information important in making his decision, and yet hiding it from him precisely because she thought he wouldn’t give his consent if he knew! How could that not be necessary information, if she withheld it because she judged it something that could change his mind?

I do not see how you think it is the husband who was deceived and not the wife who made the decision to deceive who is responsible for this unfortunate situation. As far as the passage of years are concerned, wouldn’t he reasonably wonder what else she has kept hidden from him as the years have gone by because she has decided to keep him on a “need to know” basis in which she was the only one with the right to decide what he had a “need to know”? Wouldn’t the very first questions in the mind of this wronged husband be: “What else haven’t you told me? What else have you decided I didn’t need to know? How can I trust you to be on the up and up with me?” Do you see how this can be not so much an issue of her past, but an issue of whether or not she can be trusted to be honest? (And honestly, how much would it hurt to know she did not trust him with the truth about herself?)

She had the right to keep anything in her past private from anyone she liked, she had the right to refuse to marry someone who would not consent to marry even she though she openly told them that there are things in her past that she will not disclose, but she does not have the right to imply she has disclosed the truth when in fact she knows full well that she kept facts hidden that she believed could have kept her from obtaining the consent she wanted.

If their attempt at marriage failed, it wouldn’t have been the husband that ruined their chances.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

EasterJoy, I get that the Church could allow for the possibility of an annulment in the case I cited, but I don’t agree that they should. I think that it’s a petty, insignificant reason to leave someone with whom you stood before God and vowed to love and support through better and worse.

Take a closer look at the couple I referenced. He knew early on that she was “experienced.” He asked about her sexual history and she refused to answer. She finally gave him a figure and told him she expected him to leave her because that’s what every guy did after asking about her past. He stuck with it, though and tried to get past her history.

It turned out there were a lot more skeletons in her closet. Thanks to the years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, she hated the thought of getting serious with this guy because she knew from experience that he would abuse and abandon her. So she did every possible thing she could to ruin their relationship and drive him away but nothing she did worked. He proposed, she accepted.

He couldn’t quit asking about her past, though, and every time he did a new trove of skeletons was unearthed. This upset him more than he thought it would and he started demanding facts and figures. How many? Who was it? Which ways? Etc. He didn’t realize he was effectively abusing her as well and while she was open about some things she always held back because she knew what the next step was.

Surprisingly, that next step never came. He stuck with her. They got married and tried to be happy. They loved each other, but he was hung up on her past, her dishonesty and what else she didn’t tell him. After a couple years it came to a head one day and she told him a lot of those secrets she hadn’t been able to relive previously. Not just secrets but absolute horror stories. He’d known a bit about the abuse before this, but now he heard about every other terrible thing that had left her such a wreck. He saw how insensitive he’d been and got past a lot of it. They seemed happy for a while but they had a real secular mindset so little setbacks were seen as huge tragedies.

Then, one day, they went through a genuine tragedy. It opened their eyes and they finally saw how silly the other stuff had been. They also finally understood what those vows really meant. Unfortunately, despite some wonderful bright spots, they spent several years going through even more genuine tragedies, one right after the other. Just when they thought it couldn’t get any worse, that they couldn’t be kicked anymore or fall any further, the bottom absolutely dropped out and they found a whole new understanding of what the priest meant when he said, “or worse.”

But despite all that, she was right next to him every night and still there every morning. They were as low as they’d ever been and had been stripped of all sense of stability, security, sanity and pride. However, that love they’d discovered, then rediscovered over and over again was still there, tempered by their misfortune and was stronger then ever.

What you’re saying, though (and, believe me, others have as well), is that because of those lies she told him all those years ago, those things she couldn’t bring up due to her own personal trauma and absolute fear of losing him, he could and should be allowed to leave her and exorcise their marriage from existence? Those denials and half-truths about something that, in the grand scheme of things, is totally insignificant, are graver matters than the utter hells they’ve lived through? I just can’t buy that.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I would say that that information is if anything even more relevant to a prospective husband. A prospective spouse deserves to know if the person he or she is marrying has experienced severe psychological trauma, may have trouble dealing with sexuality in a healthy way and/or needs special consideration (as certain seemingly harmless behavior may trigger memories of abuse). This should perhaps call for extra pre-marriage counseling.

That’s assuming he had any inkling to ask about it, or was mature enough to understand what the effects of that sort of abuse really are. Pope Francis recently quoted Cardinal Quarracino, who said that half of all marriages could potentially be declared null. Think about the 18-24 year olds you know. How many of them are truly mature enough to understand what a lifelong commitment is? How many of them in this day are truly chaste or understand the Church’s teachings on marriage and chastity? I could come up with at least a couple dozen reasons why, if I pushed for it, my marriage could be declared null. A lot of people I know are in the same boat. But just because they could be declared null doesn’t mean that they should. We’re supposed to discourage divorce and avoid annulments. We need to stress the notion of for better or for worse, especially in this divorce culture that’s been built up around us. Conflating little problems into huge matters does a disservice to everyone involved. And if they can’t work through the minor things, how on earth will they cope when a real problem arises?

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, I get that the Church could allow for the possibility of an annulment in the case I cited, but I don’t agree that they should. I think that it’s a petty, insignificant reason to leave someone with whom you stood before God and vowed to love and support through better and worse.

Take a closer look at the couple I referenced. He knew early on that she was “experienced.” He asked about her sexual history and she refused to answer. She finally gave him a figure and told him she expected him to leave her because that’s what every guy did after asking about her past. He stuck with it, though and tried to get past her history.

It turned out there were a lot more skeletons in her closet. Thanks to the years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, she hated the thought of getting serious with this guy because she knew from experience that he would abuse and abandon her. So she did every possible thing she could to ruin their relationship and drive him away but nothing she did worked. He proposed, she accepted.

He couldn’t quit asking about her past, though, and every time he did a new trove of skeletons was unearthed. This upset him more than he thought it would and he started demanding facts and figures. How many? Who was it? Which ways? Etc. He didn’t realize he was effectively abusing her as well and while she was open about some things she always held back because she knew what the next step was.

Surprisingly, that next step never came. He stuck with her. They got married and tried to be happy. They loved each other, but he was hung up on her past, her dishonesty and what else she didn’t tell him. After a couple years it came to a head one day and she told him a lot of those secrets she hadn’t been able to relive previously. Not just secrets but absolute horror stories. He’d known a bit about the abuse before this, but now he heard about every other terrible thing that had left her such a wreck. He saw how insensitive he’d been and got past a lot of it. They seemed happy for a while but they had a real secular mindset so little setbacks were seen as huge tragedies.

Then, one day, they went through a genuine tragedy. It opened their eyes and they finally saw how silly the other stuff had been. They also finally understood what those vows really meant. Unfortunately, despite some wonderful bright spots, they spent several years going through even more genuine tragedies, one right after the other. Just when they thought it couldn’t get any worse, that they couldn’t be kicked anymore or fall any further, the bottom absolutely dropped out and they found a whole new understanding of what the priest meant when he said, “or worse.”

But despite all that, she was right next to him every night and still there every morning. They were as low as they’d ever been and had been stripped of all sense of stability, security, sanity and pride. However, that love they’d discovered, then rediscovered over and over again was still there, tempered by their misfortune and was stronger then ever.

What you’re saying, though (and, believe me, others have as well), is that because of those lies she told him all those years ago, those things she couldn’t bring up due to her own personal trauma and absolute fear of losing him, he could and should be allowed to leave her and exorcise their marriage from existence? Those denials and half-truths about something that, in the grand scheme of things, is totally insignificant, are graver matters than the utter hells they’ve lived through? I just can’t buy that.

I don’t blame her for not telling him the truth, but he can’t be blamed, either, if he made a promise that he would not have made except that she knowingly withheld information out of fear that he would not give his consent if he knew everything. She had an awful life, but that doesn’t take away his right for a full disclosure before he gave his consent. That is what I’m saying. The basic principle we cannot lose is that the hell they’ve been through after the fact does not change the nature of the consent he gave when they married. He can reveal things about the nature of his consent later, but as for the consent itself, either it was valid or it was not, from Day 1.

In the case you are describing, however, she did disclose that there were things she was not telling him, and disclosed their nature and why it was that she was not more forthcoming. She did not pretend after a partial disclosure that she was making a full disclosure, but made it abundantly clear that it was not a full disclosure. That is quite a bit different, because he did not make his promise unaware that there were issues in exactly that area that she was not ready to fully disclose. That is what I meant by “unless you obtain consent to keep it hidden”.

I think it can certainly be argued that because he *had *been told that she had these issues and had been told that she had reason to have serious difficulty in disclosing everything, the decision to let him give his consent prior to full disclosure was not unilateral. He knew there were many things she was not telling him, and he decided to make his vows in that knowledge. He knew where he stood…and in that sense, it hardly matters whether it was a “need to know” basis or an “ability to tell” situation. There are always things we don’t disclose, after all. When we don’t deny that these things are there and our partner doesn’t require “full disclosure” as a condition prior to giving their consent, then I think there is consent to make the vows without requiring disclosure, yes.

If he made his vows knowing that she had not made a full disclosure and yet willingly looked past that and made his vows, then I’d agree that in many cases that would be full consent. (I’m sure these are things that have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.)

 

[hurting]

If we take away the dishonesty aspect, is a person’s number of sexual partner still significant to the health of a marriage? I’m honestly trying to seek insight and perspectives. I wonder baring STI’s/health issues and prior children how important numbers are generally.

First, one can not discount the dishonesty element. It is arguably the most important consideration of all.

Yes, irrespective of the risk of STD’s and physical health, the number of sexual partners prior to marriage, particularly a woman’s, is positively correlated with risk of divorce. The secular world would have us believe that there ‘no strings attached’ sexual encounters really exist when in fact, they do not.

 

[EasterJoy]

First, one can not discount the dishonesty element. It is arguably the most important consideration of all.

Yes, irrespective of the risk of STD’s and physical health, the number of sexual partners prior to marriage, particularly a woman’s, is positively correlated with risk of divorce. The secular world would have us believe that there ‘no strings attached’ sexual encounters really exist when in fact, they do not.

Yes, there are quite a few people who don’t want to marry someone who is in the habit of doing things and then not wanting to admit they did them. That does not mean they do not admit exceptions, but that they do want to know that they are making an exception, and why. Not all the details, but just the reason that a particular person wants privacy about their past even from their spouse. When the answer is “I was so promiscuous, it embarrasses me. There may be things I did that I don’t know, because sometimes I drank so much I don’t remember what I did. It was awful, I don’t want to talk about it, and when it comes to the details, I won’t talk about it. All I can say is that I’ve put that behind me for X amount of time, my doctor’s given me a clean bill of health (or I still have this health issue as a result), and I never want anything to do with that kind of life again. You can count on me to never glamourize it for anything. Please, though, don’t make me talk about it. If that’s a condition, then we’re going to have to part ways.” From my point of view, that is being totally open for the purpose of exchanging marital consent, even though the person has deemed most of the details of his or her past something that they will not disclose.