rebuilding trust with fiance

[Chevaleresse]

"It can say whatever it wants. Show me a study that gives the divorce rate on virgins with no morals, then we can continue the discussion. "

ROFLMAO, “moving the goalposts” much? Seriously ValPal, I haven’t seen you give anything but anecdotal evidence.

“Given that over 90% of people have sex before marriage, and about half divorce (if statistics are correct), that an incredibly large number that have learned from their mistakes”

LOLOL. Not true. It’s about 87%, and more than half divorce. But you’ve conflated two populations. The 87% statistic is better described as extramarital. Of those 87%, fewer and fewer get married. Those relationships break up at a higher rate (see the studies on cohabitation above and one below). Your personal experience cannot skew the statistics, despite your best efforts.

“A number of factors make U.S. cohabiting unions potentially disadvantageous environments for raising children, including lower incomes, lower relationship quality, and higher dissolution rates than marriages”

"Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements"
Sheela Kennedy, Larry L. Bumpass
Demographic Research, VOL. 19: 47 (2008): 1663 - 1692

“That’s utter garbage.”

Really? Let’s see you back up that claim. Just try. And no, it’s not insulting to anyone. If you read my comment, and comprehended it, you’d see that. (Sample size n=1, much?).

 

[BlueEyedLady]

BEL, I have a lot of respect for you on these forums, but I just wanted to point out that your assumption that the only reason somebody would think it is a good idea to wait until marriage to have sex is because they will be damned to hell if they don’t is very false. I am someone who, even if I lost my faith tomorrow, would still be 100% committed to no sex before marriage. The reason being that that level of self-giving is only appropriate within an unconditionally comitted relationship. And seeing as I view solemn promises and vows as things of substance (versus just a piece of paper, which, your right, is just a piece of paper and I couldn’t care less about it) I see it as unfitting and inappropriate to give yourself fully to another without first making solemn vows wherein you commit yourself unconditionally to the other. Getting married is about so much more than ‘just a piece of paper’.

I can totally respect that point of view.

I think my views on marriage are almost a cultural difference. My family has never really cared who is legally married and who isn’t. They use the phrases ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ when a couple lives like it and presents themselves that way. Moving in together has always been the universal ‘this is permanent’ sign in my family. They treat and recognize couples as permanent when its clear that the commitment has been made. But my brother, stepdad, and I are all atheists, and my mom is a proud Protestant who has that whole “more spiritual than religious” thing going on. When I see the level of love, respect, and commitment that my family has always shown, especially the sacrifices my brother has made for his wife’s kids from a previous marriage (she’s a widow) or the extreme sacrifices my fiance has made for me I have a really hard time believing that we are all just amoral jerks using each other for whatever we can get until something better comes along.

If you don’t believe or place a lot of value in the wedding ceremony or believe in a supernatural meaning to marriage than a lifelong commitment that is shown every day is enough. I certainly don’t look down on people who feel otherwise. But I don’t buy the whole “disrespectful” thing when my brother works 60 hour weeks to pay for specialists to work with my autistic niece. Once again, not biologically his child, not legally his stepchild.

 

[ValPal]

ROFLMAO, “moving the goalposts” much? Seriously ValPal, I haven’t seen you give anything but anecdotal evidence.

You don’t have any evidence contradicting my point.

People tend to look at effects and not the the underlying issue the that causes the effect. It’s all about morality, morality, morality.

Really? Let’s see you back up that claim. Just try. And no, it’s not insulting to anyone. If you read my comment, and comprehended it, you’d see that. (Sample size n=1, much?).

You stated:

Based on models I’ve seen (and the ones I’ve constructed), people learning from their mistakes before marriage and never returning to their old ways is highly, highly unlikely.

If that is true, why isn’t the divorce rate 87%?

What you saying is garbage. People grow, mature, and learn from their past mistakes. My experiences are actually not representative of the general public, given that I used to hang out with a wild crowd (the creative musician crowd). Yet, many of people straightened their act out and have had stable family relationships for decades.

 

[ValPal]

If you don’t believe or place a lot of value in the wedding ceremony or believe in a supernatural meaning to marriage than a lifelong commitment that is shown every day is enough. I certainly don’t look down on people who feel otherwise. But I don’t buy the whole “disrespectful” thing when my brother works 60 hour weeks to pay for specialists to work with my autistic niece. Once again, not biologically his child, not legally his stepchild.

FWIW, I understand your POV since I was there myself. However, after becoming a practicing Catholic again, having children, and having an extraordinary wife (in terms of beauty, personality, and parenthood), sex has changed. Many people say that sex, and the thrill of it, wanes after time. For us, it has intensified, and has become a spiritual as well as a physical act. It’s an amazing experience; something I never experienced while having premarital sex.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

What you saying is garbage. People grow, mature, and learn from their past mistakes. My experiences are actually not representative of the general public, given that I used to hang out with a wild crowd (the creative musician crowd). Yet, many of people straightened their act out and have had stable family relationships for decades.

That’s so common that it’s a cliche. The stable family man who had those wild college years with lots of parties, alcohol, and sex. Now he has a beautiful wife, 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, etc. I’m sure everyone knows a ton of people like that.

And its a cross-culteral thing too. I was talking to a middle aged Indian man a few months ago who was telling my about living in Bombay (now Mumbai) when he was in his 20’s riding a motorcycle and chasing girls. He now runs an IT company and has the wife, kids, house, etc.

 

[thewanderer]

I can totally respect that point of view.

I think my views on marriage are almost a cultural difference. My family has never really cared who is legally married and who isn’t. They use the phrases ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ when a couple lives like it and presents themselves that way. Moving in together has always been the universal ‘this is permanent’ sign in my family. They treat and recognize couples as permanent when its clear that the commitment has been made. But my brother, stepdad, and I are all atheists, and my mom is a proud Protestant who has that whole “more spiritual than religious” thing going on. When I see the level of love, respect, and commitment that my family has always shown, especially the sacrifices my brother has made for his wife’s kids from a previous marriage (she’s a widow) or the extreme sacrifices my fiance has made for me I have a really hard time believing that we are all just amoral jerks using each other for whatever we can get until something better comes along.

If you don’t believe or place a lot of value in the wedding ceremony or believe in a supernatural meaning to marriage than a lifelong commitment that is shown every day is enough. I certainly don’t look down on people who feel otherwise. But I don’t buy the whole “disrespectful” thing when my brother works 60 hour weeks to pay for specialists to work with my autistic niece. Once again, not biologically his child, not legally his stepchild.

I just wanted to clarify that I don’t care about being legally married either, that makes no difference to me, that is the part that is just a piece of paper. What I see as important is the couple actually sitting down and officially making a solemn unconditional commitment to each other. Whether its legal or not, whether they have a huge ceremony or not isn’t important, but what is important is an explicit unconditional commitment. To be perfectly honest, I don’t even care if there is anyone besides themselves there to witness this vow giving, but it must be explicit and it must be truly meant as unconditional, or else, in my view, they are not being fully respectful to each other.

(I should probably add that I expect Catholics to live up to a different standard than non-Catholics in this regard, in that I expect Catholics to actually have witnessess etc because of the theology behind it all, but that is another topic)

 

[ValPal]

I just wanted to clarify that I don’t care about being legally married either, that makes no difference to me, that is the part that is just a piece of paper. What I see as important is the couple actually sitting down and officially making a solemn unconditional commitment to each other. Whether its legal or not, whether they have a huge ceremony or not isn’t important, but what is important is an explicit unconditional commitment. To be perfectly honest, I don’t even care if there is anyone besides themselves there to witness this vow giving, but it must be explicit and it must be truly meant as unconditional, or else, in my view, they are not being fully respectful to each other.

(I should probably add that I expect Catholics to live up to a different standard than non-Catholics in this regard, in that I expect Catholics to actually have witnessess etc because of the theology behind it all, but that is another topic)

Actually, Divine Law pertaining to marriage is very simple. It only requires the couple to bestow marriage upon each other, which is basically what you are stating in your posts. That’s why marriage for non-Catholics is automatically assumed valid (barring certain impediments) regardless of whether the were married civilly, in a Church, or some other way. The Church has applied additional conditions for Catholics.

 

[ValPal]

ROFLMAO, “moving the goalposts” much? Seriously ValPal, I haven’t seen you give anything but anecdotal evidence

FWIW, I should also add that I have tremendous respect for people that are virgins when they get married. It’s not because they are virgins per say, but rather because the have and live by and extremely high set of morals in a society that often does not respect such things, and their virginity is the epitome of that expression.

They haven’t made the same mistake many of the rest of us have made, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t learn from those mistakes.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s so common that it’s a cliche. The stable family man who had those wild college years with lots of parties, alcohol, and sex. Now he has a beautiful wife, 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, etc. I’m sure everyone knows a ton of people like that.

And its a cross-culteral thing too. I was talking to a middle aged Indian man a few months ago who was telling my about living in Bombay (now Mumbai) when he was in his 20’s riding a motorcycle and chasing girls. He now runs an IT company and has the wife, kids, house, etc.

You would count on this amendment happening more often than not, let alone usually? No. That is a bad idea. It is not common. What is the cliche is getting married and finding that you had conned yourself into hoping that marriage would make a frog into a prince. Oh, surprise, surprise, he is still a frog.

Read through some of the saddest threads on this forum, and you will see very clearly that some people (male and female) never grow up and some people are just bad news and stay that way. Of all who are the worst bad news, it is the two-faced and the deceivers As Ol’ Dr. Phil famously says: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If you don’t believe me, attend some high school reunions. There are suprises, but the surprise that the old class con man has come clean is usually not one of them. You put him in a suit and tie, but he opens his mouth around the old gang and you know he’s still running on the same software package as way back when.

You can earn enough to buy a house and put a picket fence around it, you can even run a company, and that doesn’t guarantee that you’ve become any kind of a prize as a husband. Some of them never quit running aroun, some of them never learn to be honest with their wives, and some of them never learn to respect women. “The rules don’t apply to me” is “cross-cultural”, too. It is a very bad habit that human nature is prone to, and it is an exceptionally hard habit to break, even for the few who really want to.

If the guy is immature and especially if he has serious character flaws, throw him back. If he ever becomes a good catch, somebody else can catch him. If he’s lied repeatedly to you, though, you will be too much of a temptation.

And what is with the arguments over virginity? It’s like arguing over the whether a house has a roof that is vulnerable to hurricane when you know the foundation is a wreck. What possible difference could it make? Sometimes the roof is a big deal, when the whole house is sound, it is a big deal, but when the foundation is rotten the kind of roof a house has is entirely a moot point.

The OPs fiance has lied to her repeatedly. He has never come clean when caught and when he’s been caught he’s sometimes made up stories that she later found out weren’t true, either. He also made rude comments in public about her father, when he didn’t think it would get back to her, and shared her personal information on the internet.

If she had a past as a prostitute, I’d tell her to run and not look back. Heck, if she were currently working as a prostitute, I’d tell her to run and not look back!!

***OP!! RUN!! BREAK OFF THIS ENGAGEMENT AND DON’T LOOK BACK!!! ***

When he amends his life, if he amends his life, it will be no mystery to him why you are never ever going to marry him. When he gets it, he’ll get it: Integrity Matters. When he knows better, he’ll do better, and someone will appreciate his honesty when he says that he lost his last fiance because he lied to her, and that he vowed he’d never do that to another woman. Do everyone a favor and call this wedding off for good. Maybe someday he will even thank you for it. If he doesn’t, that automatically implies that boy, oh, boy you will!!

 

[thewanderer]

Actually, Divine Law pertaining to marriage is very simple. It only requires the couple to bestow marriage upon each other, which is basically what you are stating in your posts. That’s why marriage for non-Catholics is automatically assumed valid (barring certain impediments) regardless of whether the were married civilly, in a Church, or some other way. The Church has applied additional conditions for Catholics.

Thanks for pointing this out, it made me realize that part of mine and BEL’s disagreement probably comes from a misunderstanding of what marriage is. When I talk about marriage being the only appropriate context for sex I am not talking about legal marriage. I am talking about the exchange of uconditional promises of self to the other. Thats what makes a true marriage, not some peice of paper the govt. gives you. Sexual self-giving just does not belong outside of this context just as romantic kissing does not belong outside of an exclusive relationship.

Anyway, sorry to help with derailing the thread, I’ll bow out now.

 

[Lucky7]

It works both ways, but also, women who engage in premarital sex do not respect themselves. Men USED TO BE the initiators of sexual encounters, but no longer. Now females are just as likely if not MORE likely to be the aggressor in a sexual encounter. The roles have reversed. Premarital sex is disrespect for YOURSELF as a child of God and for the other person.

I completely disagree that all women in serious relationships who have had premarital sex do not respect themselves. Again, huge generalizations, but it is clear that those who presribe to such generalizations are not willing to see otherwise. I think that line of thinking borders on judgmental if you ask me. Youre not only saying that premarital sex is wrong/a sin (which the Church teaches and I agree with), you are saying that every person who engages in it is disrespectful to every person of the opposite sex. I’m pretty sure the Church doesn’t teach that part.

Wrt to the statistics that divorce is higher in couples that were non-virgins than virgins, I think that we see what we want to see in statistics. I could also argue that the virgins are less likely to divorce because it’s probably against their religion/values to divorce. The lower rate of divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that the virgins have more successful marriages. They could have pretty awful ones in fact…they just choose to stay in them.

 

[Lucky7]

And again, I’d like you to define respect. It’s not (supposed to be) hard.

Just one example of your condescending remarks. I find it quite ironic that the poster with the most disrespectful and condescending comments in this thread is the one arguing for “respect”.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“Show me a study that gives the divorce rate on virgins with no morals, then we can continue the discussion.”

Look, the study I cited above already controlled for all confounding variables. That includes a presence/lack of a religion/moral system. The atheists I know (who are waiting until marriage) have completely secular reasons for waiting. (Self-)respect is one of the core reasons for both sides.

Just to prove my point, here’s another study that confirms that religiosity has an insignificant effect on marital stability:

"Compatibility or Restraint? The Effects of Sexual Timing on Marriage Relationships"
Busby, Dean M.; Carroll, Jason S.; Willoughby, Brian J.
Journal of Family Psychology
Issue: Volume 24(6), December 2010, p 766–774

“You don’t have any evidence contradicting my point.”

Don’t talk about providing evidence if you haven’t provided any yourself.

“If that is true, why isn’t the divorce rate 87%?”

Did you read my comment?

Here it is again:

"It’s about 87%, and more than half divorce. But you’ve conflated two populations. The 87% statistic is better described as extramarital. Of those 87%, fewer and fewer get married. Those relationships break up at a higher rate (see the studies on cohabitation above and one below). Your personal experience cannot skew the statistics, despite your best efforts.

“A number of factors make U.S. cohabiting unions potentially disadvantageous environments for raising children, including lower incomes, lower relationship quality, and higher dissolution rates than marriages”

"Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements"
Sheela Kennedy, Larry L. Bumpass
Demographic Research, VOL. 19: 47 (2008): 1663 - 1692"

“What you saying is garbage. People grow, mature, and learn from their past mistakes. My experiences are actually not representative of the general public, given that I used to hang out with a wild crowd (the creative musician crowd). Yet, many of people straightened their act out and have had stable family relationships for decades.”

Prove it. Anything beyond “me and what I see” would be good.

“They haven’t made the same mistake many of the rest of us have made, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t learn from those mistakes.”

There’s a difference between learning that they make mistakes and then breaking from them, and just simply recognizing mistakes and not actually (successfully) changing. You are not in the majority. I know, you’ve told me before. Your own experience is not representative of the population.

Some experience doesn’t scale well for the general population.

 

[Kelfa28]

There’s a difference between learning that they make mistakes and then breaking from them, and just simply recognizing mistakes and not actually (successfully) changing. You are not in the majority. I know, you’ve told me before. Your own experience is not representative of the population.

Some experience doesn’t scale well for the general population.

The general population has yet to come to accept Christ in their lives.

 

[thewanderer]

Just to prove my point, here’s another study that confirms that religiosity has an insignificant effect on marital stability:

To be fair, what was asked for was a sense of morals, not religiosity, there is a pretty big difference. I’m not trying to take sides in this debate, but it is important to recognize what others are actually saying and address their points, so I thought I should point this out.

 

[ValPal]

Look, the study I cited above already controlled for all confounding variables. That includes a presence/lack of a religion/moral system. The atheists I know (who are waiting until marriage) have completely secular reasons for waiting. (Self-)respect is one of the core reasons for both sides.

Self-respect is part of morality…it’s about time that your starting to see the blatantly obvious. Do you really need a government study to confirm the blatantly obvious?

It’s all about morality, morality, morality.

There’s a difference between learning that they make mistakes and then breaking from them, and just simply recognizing mistakes and not actually (successfully) changing. You are not in the majority. I know, you’ve told me before. Your own experience is not representative of the population.

Some experience doesn’t scale well for the general population.

My experiences are of a subset of the population that is likely to have less successful results, not greater as you seem to be implying.

 

[Lucky7]

“women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women were were virgin brides. A bivariate probit model is employed to examine three possible explanations for this positive relationship: (a) a direct causal effect, (b) an indirect effect through intervening “high risk” behaviors (such as having a premarital birth or marrying at a young age), and (c) a selectivity effect representing prior differences between virgins and nonvirgins (such as family background or attitudes and values). After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, nonvirgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins.”

And as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story”: from wikipedia (which seems to me quoting from the same article pp is quoting):

This article examines the relationship between premarital sexual activity and the long-term risk of divorce among U.S. women married between 1965 and 1985. Simple cross-tabulations from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth indicate that women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides. A bivariate probit model is employed to examine three possible explanations for this positive relationship: (a) a direct causal effect, (b) an indirect effect through intervening “high risk” behaviors (such as having a premarital birth or marrying at a young age), and (c) a selectivity effect representing prior differences between virgins and non-virgins (such as family background or attitudes and values). After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, non-virgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins. However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect.[54]

It’s important to mention all the findings.

 

[ValPal]

However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect.[54]

It’s important to mention all the findings.

Gee, now who’s been saying that for pages on end? These are characteristics of one’s moral set. These are things that are just common knowledge to anyone that has been married for number of years, and has friends in a similar situation (i.e., not living married in an isolated bubble).

 

[EasterJoy]

And as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story”: from wikipedia (which seems to me quoting from the same article pp is quoting):

This article examines the relationship between premarital sexual activity and the long-term risk of divorce among U.S. women married between 1965 and 1985. Simple cross-tabulations from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth indicate that women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides. A bivariate probit model is employed to examine three possible explanations for this positive relationship: (a) a direct causal effect, (b) an indirect effect through intervening “high risk” behaviors (such as having a premarital birth or marrying at a young age), and (c) a selectivity effect representing prior differences between virgins and non-virgins (such as family background or attitudes and values). After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, non-virgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins. However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect.[54]

It’s important to mention all the findings.

If the researchers are saying that mere “failure to have sex” prior to marriage doesn’t mean anything outside of a greater context of fidelity to God…well, yeah, who would argue that? It is kind of like saying “well, of course you won the race, you were willing to train harder than I was and to do drills I wasn’t willing to do, and you were running for a good cause.” In the case of the OP, the degree to which her boyfriend’s habitual–and secretively held!!–view departs from moral law is a huge red flag. (It is still additional to the lying, which is a felony class deal-breaker.)

And using Wikapedia as a source…really? The grade school kids aren’t even allowed to do that. That is not the same as actually finding the primary sources.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

If the researchers are saying that mere “failure to have sex” prior to marriage doesn’t mean anything outside of a greater context of fidelity to God…well, yeah, who would argue that? It is kind of like saying “well, of course you won the race, you were willing to train harder than I was and to do drills I wasn’t willing to do, and you were running for a good cause.” In the case of the OP, the degree to which her boyfriend’s habitual–and secretively held!!–view departs from moral law is a huge red flag. (It is still additional to the lying, which is a felony class deal-breaker.)

And using Wikapedia as a source…really? The grade school kids aren’t even allowed to do that. That is not the same as actually finding the primary sources.

No one is saying that the OP should stay with her fiance. The consensus was pretty much that he’s a dirtbag who cannot be trusted. The debate has been regarding the sweeping generalization that men who have sex before marriage don’t respect women and that they don’t make as good of husbands as virgins.