Husband's addiction to pornography is devastating

[whm]

Pomme, I’m sure we are all different people, but I would never date a woman who dresses like that, thus I would hopefully never end up in the nightmarish situation of finding myself married to a woman who dresses immodestly. To tie back the discussion to the case of the OP, I really feel for her - whether on purpose or accidentally, she was misled. She found out very late, 5 years into her marriage, that her husband is a porn addict. Hopefully I could avoid a nasty surprise like this, because if I started to date a woman, and I saw her dressed immodestly, I would dump her. But if she somehow maliciously misled me, dressing modestly during the courtship phase, and then changing her wardrobe after we tied the knot, I think I would divorce her and seek an annulment… I don’t think I could put up with a wife who dressed immodestly.

What if you married a woman who dressed immodestly while she was 15 or 16, changed her life and married you at say age 25, then at age 30 started dressing immodestly again (oh by the way you have 3 children under age 5 at that point too)? What if she never dressed immodestly until 5 years after you were married? The question is is the ability to get an annulment all that relevant in the decision making process for leaving your spouse?

I forgot to mention in the above paragraph your spouse has agreed to stop dressing immodestly too and is seeking help in that regard.

 

[whm]

Yes, I agree that they should see a priest. However, what hit me while reading the OP’s posts, was that she might actually have a valid case for insisting to get divorced, and get her marriage declared null, under existing Canon Law. Of course, this needs to be discussed with a priest and Canon lawyer.

I know, my opinion is that suggestions of this type should come from the priest after weighing all of the facts of the situation, not from a brief, one sided post from a very (rightfully) upset spouse. Second if that situation does exist there are two choices the other choice is renew consent.

 

[L_piperatus]

I don’t think it’s different and I think women should dress more modest. The stripper is not innocent she is provoking lust in her customers for money. It’s unfortunate that the times we live in make young girls believe they are only valued for how they look. The main stream media shows men like women who dress and act trashy. The break down of the family is to blame. Both boys and girls need strong and healthy mothers and fathers. We as parents need to work on overcoming our addictions so we can take care of our families.

The stripper is not innocent but she is less depraved than the woman who dresses immodestly in public. My example of women coming to church with all hanging out, into the faces of 12-year old altar boys is real - it’s not fiction. One of the altar boys looks like 12, the other one looks like 8 or 9. And a lot of women come to church with their breasts exposed right down to the nipples, and when the priest and the altar boys walk through the isle to start the celebration of Mass, they are flanked left and right by ladies standing in their pews and turning towards the priest and altar boys, with their breasts all falling out. Then when it comes to communion time, the priest is being assaulted by more of the same: a long line of women with deep cut blouses, exposing their breasts to the line of just above the nipple, coming up for communion and practically pushing their breasts into the priest’s face, as they stand right in front of him. I think I would freak out if I was the priest, I would refuse to deal with these women and distribute communion to them.

My point is, a woman assaulting 12-year old boys and celibate priests like this, in the church, is more immoral than a nude dancer exposing herself to a select audience who went into a strip-tease bar of their own will, specifically to see her, and where 12-year old and 9-y.o. boys are not allowed. Those visitors to the strip-tease club chose to go there and see immoral stuff, but the priest and the altar boys never chose to see anything immoral. The immodest women in the church are scandalizing the priest and the altar boys as well as all the other visitors, they are trying to ensnare them and lead them to fall into sin. That’s why their behavior is more depraved than the strip-tease dancer’s behavior.

I don’t agree w women dressing immodestly at all,but please,nobody comes to church with the SAME attire as those women in the Pink PussyCat Club,let’s be fair…Stri-tease is really the worst kind of immodesty-please!!
These sins will all make us go to hell but all of these sins do not have the same consequences depending on the seriousness.For instance going to a strip-tease will affect a marriage much more than watching pornography which will affect the marriage much more than dressing immodestly(like showing some inappropriate parts but NOT like the girl in the Pink PussyCat Club,of course.)

However, the girl in the strip-tease club is not preying on innocent victims who never signed up to see anything immoral. To use another analogy, the strip-tease dancer is like a martial arts fighter who beats up folks who volunteered to enter the cage or octagon, and fight against him. In contrast to this, the immodest woman is like those bullies who assaulted peaceful and innocent elderly citizens, women, and children traveling in the subways of NYC.

 

[L_piperatus]

What if you married a woman who dressed immodestly while she was 15 or 16, changed her life and married you at say age 25, then at age 30 started dressing immodestly again (oh by the way you have 3 children under age 5 at that point too)? What if she never dressed immodestly until 5 years after you were married? The question is is the ability to get an annulment all that relevant in the decision making process for leaving your spouse?

I forgot to mention in the above paragraph your spouse has agreed to stop dressing immodestly too and is seeking help in that regard.

I think these are more difficult cases to judge from a Canon Law standpoint. However, when one party perpetrated fraud by deceit, i.e. deliberately misled the other party by hiding an important factor (porn addiction, mental disease, putting on a show of modesty during courtship and then promptly switching behavior after marriage, bait-and-switch, sexual history - lack of virginity, pre-existing STDs, etc) that can gravely disturb the marriage and the knowledge of which would have influenced the other party’s decision to marry, that’s a clear-cut case.

If I understand it correctly, the Church’s position is this: Cheaters and liars beware! You can’t contract a valid marriage by deceiving your groom/bride. And the deceived party is under no compulsion to convalidate the marriage. The deceived party is free to walk away and marry someone else, even if (s)he had been married for several years and has children with the deceiver.

 

[GraceDK]

Pomme, I’m sure we are all different people, but I would never date a woman who dresses like that, thus I would hopefully never end up in the nightmarish situation of finding myself married to a woman who dresses immodestly. To tie back the discussion to the case of the OP, I really feel for her - whether on purpose or accidentally, she was misled. She found out very late, 5 years into her marriage, that her husband is a porn addict. Hopefully I could avoid a nasty surprise like this, because if I started to date a woman, and I saw her dressed immodestly, I would dump her. But if she somehow maliciously misled me, dressing modestly during the courtship phase, and then changing her wardrobe after we tied the knot, I think I would divorce her and seek an annulment… I don’t think I could put up with a wife who dressed immodestly.

I find you very rude.
Coming into a thread started by a lady whose marriage is falling apart because of the adultery of her husband, and you compare porn to showing a bit of cleavage…
You must be aout of your mind to excuse the unexcusable.

You owe the people affected by cheating spouses a huge apology for even comparing such things. May I again remind you that actual nudity, sex, and degrading acts go in porn movies. I can give you any list of resources so you can check out what goes on precisely … I recently read an article about a man who used to direct porn-movies. he became a Christian and repented of his evilness. He was then asked: are you sometimes tempted to go look at porn?
He said: “When you work in that business, the image that remains with you is a woman crawled up in a corner, stoned out of her mind and trembling at the thought of what she has just been part of /let people do to her… so no, I am not tempted.”

I guess from your logic you would be equally disturbed if your wife was wearing a low cut blouse and if she was masturbating while looking at blown up male nudes while lacking sexual interest in you.

People like you cannot be helped. For some reason known only to yourself you are in denial…

 

[GraceDK]

piperatus;9049930: The stripper is not innocent but she is less depraved than the woman who dresses immodestly in public.

The stripper is a broken existence taken advantage of sexually often as a child, and then again and agian throughout life… people who support the prostitution industry are also enabling her continual exploitation and trauma.

My example of women coming to church with all hanging out, into the faces of 12-year old altar boys is real - it’s not fiction. One of the altar boys looks like 12, the other one looks like 8 or 9. And a lot of women come to church with their breasts exposed right down to the nipples, and when the priest and the altar boys walk through the isle to start the celebration of Mass, they are flanked left and right by ladies standing in their pews and turning towards the priest and altar boys,

have a tendency to exaggerate alot, have we? I think you should find another parish, because in all the Catholic churches where I have been I have never ever experienced what you are describing. There might be one lady at times (always the same one) who thinks its pretty to wear a low cut blouse… but your scenario, sorry… how can we take such exaggerations seriously?

practically pushing their breasts into the priest’s face, as they stand right in front of him. I think I would freak out if I was the priest, I would refuse to deal with these women and distribute communion to them.

Would you now?

My point is, a woman assaulting 12-year old boys and celibate priests like this,

Assaulting, huh?

in the church, is more immoral than a nude dancer exposing herself to a select audience who went into a strip-tease bar of their own will, specifically to see her, and where 12-year old and 9-y.o. boys are not allowed. Those visitors to the strip-tease club chose to go there and see immoral stuff, but the priest and the altar boys never chose to see anything immoral. The immodest women in the church are scandalizing the priest and the altar boys as well as all the other visitors, they are trying to ensnare them and lead them to fall into sin.

What planet are you on? Your post is so exaggerated that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry… ah I now understand. You were joking, right!

 

[PrayerShark]

Guys, I think some of your view points are getting a little extreme. Why on earth would we want to advocate avenues for divorce…whoops…I mean annulment? This idea that the husband’s viewing of pornography is equivalent to cheating on his spouse is only going to enable a further division between husband and wife.

irishluck09:

If I cannot trust him, unfortunately, yes. But, I am in no place to make decisions right now. I need to worry about myself and getting myself to a healthy place. This takes a horrible toll on every part of who you are.

Didn’t anyone else find this a bit selfish?

And to the person (I think it was GraceDK) who would rather have their spouse be drink 100 alcoholic beverages than look at a single image of pornography. I had a friend whose step-father loved his alcohol. He used to come home from the local bar most nights, and beat the **** out of my friend and her mum. I’m sure to this day, both women are thankful that he wasn’t a porn addict…

 

[GraceDK]

Guys, I think some of your view points are getting a little extreme. Why on earth would we want to advocate avenues for divorce…whoops…I mean annulment? This idea that the husband’s viewing of pornography is equivalent to cheating on his spouse is only going to enable a further division between husband and wife.

The division is already there mate… because the cheating and deception already took place… sorry, its sad but its like that.

Didn’t anyone else find this a bit selfish?

And to the person (I think it was GraceDK) who would rather have their spouse be drink 100 alcoholic beverages than look at a single image of pornography. I had a friend whose step-father loved his alcohol. He used to come home from the local bar most nights, and beat the **** out of my friend and her mum. I’m sure to this day, both women are thankful that he wasn’t a porn addict…

**Alcoholism and porn addictions are like comparing the plague and colera. None of them are tolerable to live with. My point was this, that porn use destroys something deeper between married people than sometimes drinking too much alcohol because drinking is not adultery… it does not touch on that deepest sexual intimacy connection where fidelity is crucial. Hidden alcoholism and porn use are both grounds for annulment if the partner had the problem and hid it. The fact that both problems seem to become more and more widespread does not mean that the victims should just suck it up… I certainly hope your friends mother seperated from that man and took her child with her into safety. Children do not deserve to grow up in homes of violence anymore than they deserve to be in homes where prostitution is going on. **

 

[kelvinf]

I think a problem with us is that we are too self-centred. It’s not just a matter of us–either seeking gratification or being hurt as a result–but God and the sinner’s soul (in eyes of the sinner), and God and the sinner’s soul (in the eyes of the victim) should come first. But all too often, we put ourselves first (both the sinner and the victim–where applicable).

It’s bizzare to be singling out certain sins like pornography or alcoholism and saying that they are grounds for a divorce.

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:9-10

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:19-21

So the idea of singling out any of these sins as supposedly worse than the other without even the issue being that the person might not inherit the kingdom of God is just making it all about one’s self.

For me, what can really vex and hurt me most is lying. Why? Because lying could encompass any of the above. But I can never say that a sin (lying, pornography or whatever the sin is) is grounds for a divorce. This is just wrong, because, by our very nature, we are sinners and have all sinned. So picking out a sin simply because it hurts us most as grounds for an annulment is just way out of the ordinary.

Also, for me, picking out a sin (which has been identified and is being dealt with) as grounds not to marry is still off-the-wall.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.

 

[PrayerShark]

GraceDK:

The division is already there mate… because the cheating and deception already took place… sorry, its sad but its like that.

He hasn’t cheated though and I think making adultery and self-gratification equivalently damaging to a marriage is somewhat misleading. Pornography, to put it simply, is a lie; and we can go pretty deep with that line of thought, but to keep it simple there is no emotional connection, there is no love, there is no union between the viewer and the ‘viewee’ (I’m making up a word here). Adultery on the other hand, you have both an emotional and physical connection between the two parties, and this corrupted union is a more direct assault on the true union of the marriage. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think those are pretty two important distinctions.

The OP’s husband likely has a habit of looking at porn; it is unlikely he has an addiction. It’s something he’s done since he was a teenager and hasn’t really stopped. The husband can really only speak for himself as to why he resorts to porn so much and that is something his wife should sympathetically find out from him. Overcoming the habit isn’t impossible, it just takes time and willpower and support from those that love him. The last thing we want to do is encourage feelings of despair or self-righteousness in the mind of the OP.

GraceDK:

My point was this, that porn use destroys something deeper between married people than sometimes drinking too much alcohol because drinking is not adultery… it does not touch on that deepest sexual intimacy connection where fidelity is crucial. Hidden alcoholism and porn use are both grounds for annulment if the partner had the problem and hid it. The fact that both problems seem to become more and more widespread does not mean that the victims should just suck it up… I certainly hope your friends mother seperated from that man and took her child with her into safety. Children do not deserve to grow up in homes of violence anymore than they deserve to be in homes where prostitution is going on.

How destructive particular vices are to a person will vary among people. Alcoholism can and does destroy as deeply as pornography though. It assaults not only on a persons self-worth, but feeds an endless hunger that can only be satiated temporarily; you’re always looking for that one more drop of liquid gold. It destroys marriages, families, friendships and communities, and violence is a very common derivative of it. To answer your question relating to my friend, her mother stayed with the alcoholic (who ended up getting help I believe), but the damage to my friend has been done. She did for a time sleep around quite a lot to feel ‘loved’ by men, she has very low self-esteem, is self-destructive and not very stable mentally. She is married now and I hope she is in a happy place, but the lingering effects of being abused as a child will remain with her for the rest of her life.

 

[The_Bucket]

He hasn’t cheated though and I think making adultery and self-gratification equivalently damaging to a marriage is somewhat misleading. Pornography, to put it simply, is a lie; and we can go pretty deep with that line of thought, but to keep it simple there is no emotional connection, there is no love, there is no union between the viewer and the ‘viewee’ (I’m making up a word here). Adultery on the other hand, you have both an emotional and physical connection between the two parties, and this corrupted union is a more direct assault on the true union of the marriage. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think those are pretty two important distinctions.

The OP’s husband likely has a habit of looking at porn; it is unlikely he has an addiction. It’s something he’s done since he was a teenager and hasn’t really stopped. The husband can really only speak for himself as to why he resorts to porn so much and that is something his wife should sympathetically find out from him. Overcoming the habit isn’t impossible, it just takes time and willpower and support from those that love him. The last thing we want to do is encourage feelings of despair or self-righteousness in the mind of the OP.

This is spot on. I have a tough time using the word “addiction” because there is no true chemical dependency involved the way there is in smoking, drinking or drug use, but it’s certainly a terrible and destructive habit that is exacerbated by chemical reactions in the brain. For the poster that said I misquoted the Catechism because I used a line about culpability related to masturbation in this discussion, all I can say is viewing pornography and self-abuse intrinsically go together. I think that’s well-established.

And finally, L piperatus, dial it back man. I really REALLY doubt women are showing up at Sunday Mass dressed like strippers. Maybe they show a bit more skin than you find appropriate, but no one is showing up in attire you’d see at a strip club. They just aren’t.

 

[Pomme]

I believe to get an annulment the deceived spouse would have to produce a proof(like a written letter or something like that) from BEFORE the marriage that she would never get married to a porn addict.Then probably she would have brought up the subject with her futur husband who,if he lied,was really deceiving her in getting married while not disclosing his addiction.
It is not THAT easy-Thank Goodness-to “get” an annulment!
If you find out a grave weakness in your spouse(physical mental or moral) after getting married it is no luck but no reason to dismiss him or her.You didn’t expect it and you need to grieve the marriage you dreamt of -and try make it more beautiful than what you dreamt of…But marriage is marriage !You cannot dismiss a spouse who cannot bear children-and this you only find out years later,you cannot dismiss a spouse who is immoral(look at the married saints who had difficult spouses)-even if you found out years later…
There is even a duty to help save each other’s soul-you stay married ,even in separation in th case of violence for example…

And I think the OP is entitled to have a reaction to this traumatizing discovery:if she needs time and space,then it’s better than yelling at her husband all the time.Maybe she can figure out what are the next steps better if she is on her own,we cannot judge that.

I hope of course that for the sake of all involved the marriage can get back on tracks!

 

[magabear]

I know that pornagraphy is sinful, and can be an addiction. Many men including myself can be lured into it. But it’s not fair to place all the responseablity on men only. After years of marraige, desire is lost and husbands feel neglected and left out. Most are left out, especially when children come first, some wives forget that the spouse needs attention and love. If more effort by both wife and husband were made to make sure that both are just as important and all their needs are met, maybe more marriages would be happy and many won’t stray and end in failure. They may not separate or end but they certainly are not happy. Love and affection is just as important in the later years of marriage as they were in the honeymoon stage.

 

[L_piperatus]

have a tendency to exaggerate alot, have we?

No. What I said is accurate down to the last detail.

And finally, L piperatus, dial it back man. I really REALLY doubt women are showing up at Sunday Mass dressed like strippers. Maybe they show a bit more skin than you find appropriate, but no one is showing up in attire you’d see at a strip club. They just aren’t.

I didn’t say they are showing up dressed like strippers. I said “women with deep cut blouses, exposing their breasts to the line of just above the nipple, coming up for communion and practically pushing their breasts into the priest’s face, as they stand right in front of him.” And the reality is even worse than that. The reality is bridesmaids having nipple slips in front of the altar as the wedding parties are arranging themselves for having their photographs taken, women having nipple slips while bending forward at the sign of the peace, and women wearing the anatomically shortest possible shorts and miniskirts in church. I live in the Miami metro area, I attend 6 different churches (geographical and time schedule reasons), and anywhere from 20% to 50+% of women are always dressed objectively inappropriately (there’s no way they would be admitted into the churches of Vatican, Rome, Italy), women of all age groups from 10-y.o. pre-teenagers to 70-y.o. grandmas. The one exception is Gesu church in the downtown business district where inappropriate and scandalous attire is less frequent (but I can’t always go to Gesu church).

P.S. And then we shouldn’t be surprised and feel betrayed that priests like Fr. Alberto Cutie end up having affairs and leaving the Church to get married. Fr. Alberto Cutie’s parish church had some of the worst offenders of modesty, attending.

 

[Walking_Home]

piperatus;9049930: The stripper is not innocent but she is less depraved than the woman who dresses immodestly in public.

The stripper is a broken existence taken advantage of sexually often as a child, and then again and agian throughout life… people who support the prostitution industry are also enabling her continual exploitation and trauma.

My example of women coming to church with all hanging out, into the faces of 12-year old altar boys is real - it’s not fiction. One of the altar boys looks like 12, the other one looks like 8 or 9. And a lot of women come to church with their breasts exposed right down to the nipples, and when the priest and the altar boys walk through the isle to start the celebration of Mass, they are flanked left and right by ladies standing in their pews and turning towards the priest and altar boys,

have a tendency to exaggerate alot, have we? I think you should find another parish, because in all the Catholic churches where I have been I have never ever experienced what you are describing. There might be one lady at times (always the same one) who thinks its pretty to wear a low cut blouse… but your scenario, sorry… how can we take such exaggerations seriously?

practically pushing their breasts into the priest’s face, as they stand right in front of him. I think I would freak out if I was the priest, I would refuse to deal with these women and distribute communion to them.

Would you now?

My point is, a woman assaulting 12-year old boys and celibate priests like this,

Assaulting, huh?

in the church, is more immoral than a nude dancer exposing herself to a select audience who went into a strip-tease bar of their own will, specifically to see her, and where 12-year old and 9-y.o. boys are not allowed. Those visitors to the strip-tease club chose to go there and see immoral stuff, but the priest and the altar boys never chose to see anything immoral. The immodest women in the church are scandalizing the priest and the altar boys as well as all the other visitors, they are trying to ensnare them and lead them to fall into sin.

What planet are you on? Your post is so exaggerated that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry… ah I now understand. You were joking, right!

---

Agree. His imagination goes out of bounds.

 

[The_Bucket]

The situation with “Father” Cutie was certainly repulsive but let me just say, speaking from experience, south Florida is hot as hell. And I mean that literally. It is horribly uncomfortable for nine months out of the year. Wearing articles of clothing that show more skin should be the norm there. Frankly I’d die in that climate without these newfangled breathable golf shirts. Saved my live.

It’s chief among the reasons I moved to slightly less hot in the summer Virginia. At least it’s cool for half of the year.

Thanks to technology there are ways for women to cover up more, but I should note that wearing less clothing and immodesty do not necessarily comport. There was a gigantic thread on that like… a year ago. Go to Africa or some areas of Asia or South America. Women walking around topless like it’s nothing. Is that immodest? No. Because they’re not being sexual about it. Same reason breastfeeding in public is not immodest. A nipple makes an appearance! Oh no! But wait, she’s using it to feed a child, not titillate. Move along.

 

[whm]

L piperatus,

I agree with you in the sense that porn is part of a much larger and interconnected problems with society. The point is not whether immodest dress or romance novels are as bad as porn and prostitutes. The point is toleration and worse yet participation of/in these types of things supports and validates porn use and all the other forms and levels of sexual and general immorality in society.

One great way to avoid a pornography problem developing in ones family is to be outspoken about all levels of sexual immortality. Don’t watch movies or TV shows that glorify immorality. Don’t listen to music that glorifies immorality. Don’t accept premarital sex as being ok. Don’t use or support the use of contraception and abortion.

 

[L_piperatus]

I believe to get an annulment the deceived spouse would have to produce a proof(like a written letter or something like that) from BEFORE the marriage that she would never get married to a porn addict.Then probably she would have brought up the subject with her futur husband who,if he lied,was really deceiving her in getting married while not disclosing his addiction.
It is not THAT easy-Thank Goodness-to “get” an annulment!

Indeed, it is necessary that the spouse made it clear before the marriage that s(he) would not marry someone who does not meet his/her pre-conditions or expectations. A classical example would be the person who said to the one s(he) was dating, “I only want to marry a virgin, I will not marry a non-virgin”. Then, if the other party lies about not being a virgin, and they go ahead with the marriage, the marriage is not valid. Declaration of nullity can be obtained on the basis of “fraud by deceit”.

But I wonder what happens when the prospective spouse never even thinks to ask something like “do you have a history of violence/are you a violent person” from someone who never gives a hint of violence during courtship, but then turns violent as soon as they get married, moreover, he has a history of violence with other people, pre-dating the marriage. It would seem unfair to me that the spouse who’s victim to violence should be stuck in the marriage, just because the other party masterfully disguised his violent past and violent personality during the courtship phase, so that our victim was tricked into marrying the offender whom she never even suspected of being a violent person.

 

[whm]

But I wonder what happens when the prospective spouse never even thinks to ask something like “do you have a history of violence/are you a violent person” from someone who never gives a hint of violence during courtship, but then turns violent as soon as they get married, moreover, he has a history of violence with other people, pre-dating the marriage. It would seem unfair to me that the spouse who’s victim to violence should be stuck in the marriage, just because the other party masterfully disguised his violent past and violent personality during the courtship phase, so that our victim was tricked into marrying the offender whom she never even suspected of being a violent person.

If one is married to a violent spouse, you are not stuck with that person. You should remove yourself (and children) from that situation regardless of the ability to get a decree of nullity. The ability to “remarry” should have little impact on the decision to leave a dangerous situation.

 

[The_Bucket]

There’s a little bit more to it than “not meeting expectations.” We all learn things about our spouses personalities, character, etc. that we didn’t know before marriage. And those things change over time. It’s not like you can have a checklist and if she turns out to not have met every little precondition you can say “Well I didn’t know that! Annulment please!”

I mean, what if I just liked blondes and won’t marry a non-blonde? Then I get married and a few years down the line my wife dyes her hair brown, decides she prefers it and won’t change it? Can I just go line up for my decree of nullity?

A hidden history of violence? Yes, there is a reason for an annulment because no one in his or her right mind would marry someone that they know may likely cause physical harm to family members.

Personally I think it’s wise to get relationship and/or sexual history (if any) out in the open before marriage. My wife and I certainly did. But I’m not going to pass judgment on people who keep it a bit closer to the vest.