And the prudent person, faced with the ‘answer’ you provide above (in bold), should run away as fast as humanly possibly and never, ever look back for even a second. Someone with that kind of history has not, no can not, put that behind her.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.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. While it is possible that a person who might truly repent of a promiscuous lifestyle, there is simply too much possibility for heartache for that individual’s significant other. Could it work? Sure, anything is possible, but is it likely? Not in the slightest.“And the prudent person, faced with the ‘answer’ you provide above (in bold), should run away as fast as humanly possibly and never, ever look back for even a second. Someone with that kind of history has not, no can not, put that behind her.”
It all depends how long ago it was and what the person has done with themselves since. If it was last week, it would be imprudent to marry that person, but if it was literally years ago, that’s totally different.
Behind* her*? Let us openly remind ourselves that some of these someones are men. At any rate, the woman who washed Our Lord’s feet with her tears and dried them with her hair might be surprised to hear that turning from a life of promiscuity is impossible.And the prudent person, faced with the ‘answer’ you provide above (in bold), should run away as fast as humanly possibly and never, ever look back for even a second. Someone with that kind of history has not, no can not, put that behind her.
If the person has a significant recent history of continence, saying that the likelihood of a permanent change is slim is too pessimistic. Maybe not too pessimistic for you, but too pessimistic to say that someone who has a less drastic attitude is not a “prudent person.”I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. While it is possible that a person who might truly repent of a promiscuous lifestyle, there is simply too much possibility for heartache for that individual’s significant other. Could it work? Sure, anything is possible, but is it likely? Not in the slightest.
St. Mary Magdalene is not identified in Holy Scriptures as having been promiscuous. She is the one who had been possessed by seven demons. It has been suggested that she could be the patron saint of the slandered.Just a brief interjection here … There is no indication that (St) Mary Magdalene married after her repentance. There are stories of the lives of the saints that talk about unfaithful women of the king’s court who turned from their lives of sin and ultimately gave up their riches and their place in the court. Some even took to the streets in rags and publicly announced their past disgrace and their new found faith in God. They practiced penance for the rest of their lives.
I cannot think of one saint that had lived promiscuous life who subsequently got married. Does anyone here know of one?
I suppose they can marry each other, and let the virgins marry the other virgins and the people with a sexual past that is far worse than they’ll ever admit to anyone marry each other, too. That way, there will be no room for complaining when the whole truth comes out, and even the people who want to be hypocrites about it won’t be too put out when they’re asked to cover for their own spouses in order to save face…“On that account, it cannot be said that no “prudent person” would ever marry anyone who admits to promiscuity in their past, including the distant past.”
For one thing, who are the other repentant promiscuous people supposed to marry?
Thank You for answering but I think I need to clarify my question a bit more. I don’t mean discounting dishonesty, I mean if there is no dishonesty. If someone has a sexual past and has not tried to cover it up and lie about but was honest and forthcoming and said “this is my past” In that situation they were honest, and there were no health issues I’m trying to understand why it is a risk for divorce. I’m also trying to understand why a woman’s sexual past holds more weight than a man, we were all handed down the same rules of engagement so to speak.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.
I’m curious how you came to that conclusion. Unless I’m misunderstanding, what you’re saying is that a woman who had a horrible childhood, full of abuse and promiscuity, who repented and led a long, faithful, married life, after 40 years of being committed to her husband, will most likely run out and start being promiscuous again at some point?And the prudent person, faced with the ‘answer’ you provide above (in bold), should run away as fast as humanly possibly and never, ever look back for even a second. Someone with that kind of history has not, no can not, put that behind her.
First, let’s not conflate promiscuity with abuse (assume that the former is necessarily driving the latter). Even where the two are know to coincide, my advice stands, particularly for men as they will bear the fallout of the heightened risk of divorce.I’m curious how you came to that conclusion. Unless I’m misunderstanding, what you’re saying is that a woman who had a horrible childhood, full of abuse and promiscuity, who repented and led a long, faithful, married life, after 40 years of being committed to her husband, will most likely run out and start being promiscuous again at some point?
Unchastity is not an easy habit to break, and having kept one’s virginity does give evidence of the development of self-control that some people never really develop (the strength of the evidence does depend on what opportunities to offend purity presented themselves, however). Having said that, if a person has amended his or her life in a serious manner for a substantial amount of time, and renounced the idea that there are times when unchastity is justified, then a person can get beyond that past habit and be reliable. If this were not true, seminaries would not accept men who had sexual experience, but they do, provided the fellow has amended.Thank You for answering but I think I need to clarify my question a bit more. I don’t mean discounting dishonesty, I mean if there is no dishonesty. If someone has a sexual past and has not tried to cover it up and lie about but was honest and forthcoming and said “this is my past” In that situation they were honest, and there were no health issues I’m trying to understand why it is a risk for divorce. I’m also trying to understand why a woman’s sexual past holds more weight than a man, we were all handed down the same rules of engagement so to speak.
I also wanted to reiterate that I’m just trying to have a frank discussion and get answers and insight into things I don’t understand, it is not my intention to inflame.
Good heavens. Conversion happens. People can change (with the grace of God)! Look at Saul/Paul. It doesn’t matter if there are any documented saints who married after promiscuity. God forgives, so should we. Who are we to judge? Obviously I’m talking about someone who has truly turned their back on old sinful ways.Just a brief interjection here … There is no indication that (St) Mary Magdalene married after her repentance. There are stories of the lives of the saints that talk about unfaithful women of the king’s court who turned from their lives of sin and ultimately gave up their riches and their place in the court. Some even took to the streets in rags and publicly announced their past disgrace and their new found faith in God. They practiced penance for the rest of their lives.
I cannot think of one saint that had lived promiscuous life who subsequently got married. Does anyone here know of one?
Technically there should be no reason why a woman’s history should be any different than a man’s, but the potential fallout from marital failure typically falls disproportionately on men despite popular misconceptions to the contrary.Thank You for answering but I think I need to clarify my question a bit more. I don’t mean discounting dishonesty, I mean if there is no dishonesty. If someone has a sexual past and has not tried to cover it up and lie about but was honest and forthcoming and said “this is my past” In that situation they were honest, and there were no health issues I’m trying to understand why it is a risk for divorce. I’m also trying to understand why a woman’s sexual past holds more weight than a man, we were all handed down the same rules of engagement so to speak.
I also wanted to reiterate that I’m just trying to have a frank discussion and get answers and insight into things I don’t understand, it is not my intention to inflame.
If there are saints who left behind a promiscuous life to become celibate bishops or to live in a cloister, why would it be hard to believe that someone could leave behind a habit of promiscuity and learn to be faithful to just one person? In terms of remaining continent, marriage is the easier context in which to manage “being on fire”, as the epistle puts it.Good heavens. Conversion happens. People can change (with the grace of God)! Look at Saul/Paul. It doesn’t matter if there are any documented saints who married after promiscuity. God forgives, so should we. Who are we to judge? Obviously I’m talking about someone who has truly turned their back on old sinful ways.
There is a simple issue that someone who used to fail to control himself or herself is more likely to fail the same way in the future than someone who has proven to be resistant to the same temptations that caused others to fall, and that the more total the failure in self-control, the less likely a total amendment is likely to be. Past behavior is predictive of future behavior. Past behavior, however, does not unfailingly force future behavior. People with a purpose of amendment can learn to control themselves, and can hold themselves to their promises. It does happen. Likewise, some people who have controlled themselves for a lifetime are going to throw caution to the four winds and disappoint what might have been fairly expected of them. It all happens.Technically there should be no reason why a woman’s history should be any different than a man’s, but the potential fallout from marital failure typically falls disproportionately on men despite popular misconceptions to the contrary.
Why does promiscuity increase the odds for subsequent marital failure? The prevailing theory is that it harms a woman’s ability to bond with her husband (there’s actually a biological component to the theory regarding the release of oxytocin, but I’m not competent to comment on that).
There is a massive difference between forgiving a person for his/her sins and/or acknowledging athat person’s turning away from sin and making that individual a spouse.Good heavens. Conversion happens. People can change (with the grace of God)! Look at Saul/Paul. It doesn’t matter if there are any documented saints who married after promiscuity. God forgives, so should we. Who are we to judge? Obviously I’m talking about someone who has truly turned their back on old sinful ways.
To be clear, I’m not trying to advocate promiscuity in any way, but I disagree with anyone who thinks it should be a deal breaker, just as much as I disagree that virginity equates to a good catch or guaranteed faithfulness. I have a friend who was a good Catholic boy all his life, never considered premarital sex and was about as wonderful a guy as a girl could ever hope for. To this day, though, his marriage suffers from the effects of his porn addiction, frequent visits to strip clubs & prostitutes and assorted affairs. He’s apparently broken himself of the affairs and prostitutes but he continues to spend huge amounts on porn and strippers and lies about it to his wife.There is a massive difference between forgiving a person for his/her sins and/or acknowledging athat person’s turning away from sin and making that individual a spouse.
Gordon,To be clear, I’m not trying to advocate promiscuity in any way, but I disagree with anyone who thinks it should be a deal breaker, just as much as I disagree that virginity equates to a good catch or guaranteed faithfulness. I have a friend who was a good Catholic boy all his life, never considered premarital sex and was about as wonderful a guy as a girl could ever hope for. To this day, though, his marriage suffers from the effects of his porn addiction, frequent visits to strip clubs & prostitutes and assorted affairs. He’s apparently broken himself of the affairs and prostitutes but he continues to spend huge amounts on porn and strippers and lies about it to his wife.
Now, he absolutely has a valid marriage. There’s no way you could question that as all these issues came up after they got married. They had a great, thorough pre-Cana and both entered into the marriage as fully educated and prepared as a couple could hope to be. Between this guy and the woman in my example above, though, going by the strict letter of the law, you’d be absolutely wrong to suggest that this lying, cheating guy’s wife go for divorce and an annulment. Yet the otherwise loving and faithful woman who wasn’t fully forthcoming before marriage should be kicked to the curb and their marriage declared null. I still have a big problem with that.