Re sexual past, what would be a complete deal-breaker?


#1

Since there have been a number of posts here recently (as well as before) about virgins dating non-virgins, I wondered what, if anything, would be a complete deal-breaker in this aspect. The standard answer given out by many here seems to me, that if the person is truly repentant and has confessed and received absolution, then the past should be treated as if it was completely erased. Also, the idea that past sexual sin has temporal consequences often seems to be ignored by those who say “confession wiped his (or her) soul clean and now it’s pure as the driven snow!”. (Even though it seems people around here don’t accept the “secondary virginity” notion sometimes hawked in evangelical circles).

Okay, but would you advise a friend or family member to date someone who has a child out there who he only pays child support for and otherwise ignores, or who was responsible for an abortion? Or someone who’s not even sure how many children he has? What if he’d had homosexual encounters? How about a man who has in the past committed date rape, perhaps while intoxicated, or as part of a “gang-bang” under pressure from other men? And while I get the feeling that no one here would ever advise dating a man who has engaged in pedophilia, what if he was a 17 year old who had sex with a 13 year old who he was dating? That can get a teenage boy arrested if the parents of the girl want it, and even onto a registered sex offender list.

It seems that in order to be consistent with some concepts I’ve seen espoused here, even grievous, criminal sexual sin has to be forgiven and forgotten if the sinner has truly repented. Yet I must admit, while I wouldn’t exactly be running for the door, any of the scenarios I’ve discussed would give me serious food for thought when it comes to dating and marriage…

So, am I being cold-hearted, cruel, and judgemental by this? Now, I’m not saying I’d turn away anyone with a sexual past, but I don’t want to be the “good girl” that some guy decides to settle down with after having a grand ole time “sowing his wild oats”, either. I’ve also seen male posters rebel against the notion that they should be happy to be the “nice guy” that girls settle down with after getting tired of having their hearts broken by the “bad boys”. Are people who feel this way just being bitter and resentful?

ETA: I don’t want to say that truly repentant people should be rejected just because of the past. However, the idea that repentance takes away all of the consequences of sexual sin, seems to be implied by many around here who advise people contemplating these issues to just “forgive and forget”. Especially as some sexual sins, such as porn and masturbation, seem to be very tenacious, almost addictive. I guess I find it hard to believe that someone who, say, has had 100 sexual partners wouldn’t carry some of the effects of such a lifestyle, even after they repent of it.


#2

If their sexual sin was a matter that could have them incarcerated I don't want anything to do with them relationship wise. As a matter of fact this is one of my ground for annulment - that prior to marriage one of these matters existed and was not disclosed. (obviously he didn't want to go to prison)


#3

Deal breakers for me would be if she (I'm a guy) didn't learn from it. IE-She slept with 9000 men and doesn't care or feel any shame. (yes, a guy who sleeps with 9000 women should be ashamed as well)

I'd date a former stripper if she learned form the past and didn't want to repeat it. I know that no one likes this phrase, but "judge not lest you be judged" is still relevant. And if you don't think it is, then turn the other cheek and move on.


#4

[quote="ToeInTheWater, post:1, topic:224709"]
Since there have been a number of posts here recently (as well as before) about virgins dating non-virgins, I wondered what, if anything, would be a complete deal-breaker in this aspect. The standard answer given out by many here seems to me, that if the person is truly repentant and has confessed and received absolution, then the past should be treated as if it was completely erased. Also, the idea that past sexual sin has temporal consequences often seems to be ignored by those who say "confession wiped his (or her) soul clean and now it's pure as the driven snow!". (Even though it seems people around here don't accept the "secondary virginity" notion sometimes hawked in evangelical circles).

Okay, but would you advise a friend or family member to date someone who has a child out there who he only pays child support for and otherwise ignores, I wouldn't recommend someone dating a person that has a kid that they ignore paying for child support or not. Someone like that is selfish and rude.or who was responsible for an abortion? responsible as in performed it or took his girlfriend or she had one done? there have been doctors that have repented, the apostle Paul was a murderer of Christians. I know someone that took his girlfriend to an abortionist and he's since repented and hardcore prolife with the graphic signs outside the clinics to prove it, and I have a family member that had abortions and cries over her part in it and her dead children Or someone who's not even sure how many children he has?if he's repentant of his player ways I'd be his friend but I don't know about setting him up with my family/friends What if he'd had homosexual encounters?that means he was a homosexual and I wouldn't recommend someone going with him because most homosexuals stay homosexual or have some lifelong struggle with it How about a man who has in the past committed date rape,my brother was found guilty of this but we KNOW he didn't do it from the lies the girl told on the stand that conflicted with credible witness like a hospital nurse and a professional anethesiologist yet my brother was still found guilty I would recommend him as a boyfriend to any female friend, he may have been a fornicating sinner since repentent but he was/is no rapist perhaps while intoxicated,see above or as part of a "gang-bang" under pressure from other men? And while I get the feeling that no one here would ever advise dating a man who has engaged in pedophilia*one can repent and be forgiven but to marry them and have children it's a trust issue but fact is most pedophiles don't stop being "attracted" to children, what if he was a 17 year old who had sex with a 13 year old who he was dating?he could have been a stupid kid and be 30 by now and repentent* That can get a teenage boy arrested if the parents of the girl want it, and even onto a registered sex offender list.

It seems that in order to be consistent with some concepts I've seen espoused here, even grievous, criminal sexual sin has to be forgiven and forgotten if the sinner has truly repented. Yet I must admit, while I wouldn't exactly be running for the door, any of the scenarios I've discussed would give me serious food for thought when it comes to dating and marriage..

So, am I being cold-hearted, cruel, and judgemental by this? Now, I'm not saying I'd turn away anyone with a sexual past, but I don't want to be the "good girl" that some guy decides to settle down with after having a grand ole time "sowing his wild oats", either. I've also seen male posters rebel against the notion that they should be happy to be the "nice guy" that girls settle down with after getting tired of having their hearts broken by the "bad boys". Are people who feel this way just being bitter and resentful?

ETA: I don't want to say that truly repentant people should be rejected just because of the past. However, the idea that repentance takes away all of the consequences of sexual sin, seems to be implied by many around here who advise people contemplating these issues to just "forgive and forget". Especially as some sexual sins, such as porn and masturbation, seem to be very tenacious, almost addictive. I guess I find it hard to believe that someone who, say, has had 100 sexual partners wouldn't carry some of the effects of such a lifestyle, even after they repent of it.

[/quote]


#5

[quote="joandarc2008, post:2, topic:224709"]
If their sexual sin was a matter that could have them incarcerated I don't want anything to do with them relationship wise. As a matter of fact this is one of my ground for annulment - that prior to marriage one of these matters existed and was not disclosed. (obviously he didn't want to go to prison)

[/quote]

Isnt that the point the OP is trying to make? Why are some sins so readily forgiven as if nothing happened but others are unforgivable? Why is it that jail time means no forgiveness but sleeping around is something we should readily forgive despite both being serious sins and the ability of both to confess and repent. If a criminal repented, shouldnt he be given the same consideration as any other repented sinner? If we make exceptions for some sins and not others we start to become unforgiving and tolerant of sinful behavior.

I know I would never advise a friend to date a girl that slept around even if she claimed to be repentent. You are gambling your future on the fact that she says shes changed. Only if there is a track record of change before I would recommend a friend dating a girl with a sexual past.

My dating experience with a non-virgin ended when I found out she fell sexually multiple times after the time she claimed to have converted and changed her ways. I look at her history and see a preview of my future if I stayed with her.


#6

That’s an individual question. It will vary by person. Deal-breakers are personal, not universal.

Yes, they should be welcomed in the parish community and freely participate in the liturgy and sacraments, and whatever other activities are their right under canon law.

Those with criminal sexual offenses would not be able to participate in any activity involving children, they are disqualified via the background check.

The fact that they are free to exercise their faith does not mean you are under any obligation to date or marry them.

No.

But it would be your perogative to do so.

I think they are being honest regarding what they need in a marriage partner.

People come on here asking for opinions. They are going to get as many opinions as there are people. It doesn’t mean that they must follow that advice. It doesn’t mean that everyone’s advice equals church teaching. This isn’t a doctrinal area anyway.

They likely do, and a consequence may be that it is difficult to find a spouse who accepts this about them.


#7

[quote="mjs1987, post:5, topic:224709"]
Isnt that the point the OP is trying to make? Why are some sins so readily forgiven as if nothing happened but others are unforgivable? Why is it that jail time means no forgiveness but sleeping around is something we should readily forgive despite both being serious sins and the ability of both to confess and repent. If a criminal repented, shouldnt he be given the same consideration as any other repented sinner? If we make exceptions for some sins and not others we start to become unforgiving and tolerant of sinful behavior.

I know I would never advise a friend to date a girl that slept around even if she claimed to be repentent. You are gambling your future on the fact that she says shes changed. Only if there is a track record of change before I would recommend a friend dating a girl with a sexual past.

My dating experience with a non-virgin ended when I found out she fell sexually multiple times after the time she claimed to have converted and changed her ways. I look at her history and see a preview of my future if I stayed with her.

[/quote]

It is not the jail time that is the reason for not staying. (Granted there are many others as well.) In this case he is not yet charged. It is the fact that these types of things come with such a lack of respect for the dignity of human persons that if it is something that you "find out about" rather than are told than chances are there as been no repentance. For instance in this case being an ephebophile or in other cases such as violence or using prostitutes one would want to think twice about dating and discerning marriage with such a person - especially if the person is not repentant enough to be honest with a potential spouse.


#8

We forgive them as *brothers and sisters *in Christ. We welcome them to the table of the Lord in the assembly.

It doesn’t mean we are under any obligation to date them or discern **marriage **with a person we do not believe to be well suited for us, whatever the reason.


#9

Let’s just say that reading the OP made me very grateful that I am not God. All the sins in the OP are forgiveable if the person repents. However, as my mom always tells me ‘I have this life to get through and God understands certain choices I make’ Would I be able to stand by a repented husband that society hates because he one abused a kid. Definetely not

Would I be able to live with a man who has a kid with another woman. Definetely not. I realize this is not fair since the only difference between him and the other guy is the other guy never got a girl pregnant even if they both did the same think.

So in a nut shell, since I am NOT God I give myself permission to NOT be as forgiving as him and would not date someone who seriously repented until I consider all the consequences

CM


#10

Well, my point is more that it seems that whenever a virgin dares to express any reservations about a suitor's sexual past, they are guaranteed to be showered with accusations of being judgmental, holier-than-thou, "who do you think you are", etc. Which seems very, well, judgmental, to me! Yet, it seems most people would draw a line somewhere, even if it's at a different point.

I also find it rather ironic, that often when a woman finds out her boyfriend has ever had any kind of porn habit, she is advised to break up with him, because such behavior is very addicitive and ingrained, and that even if he sincerely repents, he is very likely to fall back into that sin, and that his attitudes toward sexuality will have been affected badly.

Yet, a woman who finds out a boyfriend was having frequent sex with actual real, live women in the past is pretty much told to just get over it with and suck it up. Any concern that such behavior would affect the marriage bed seems to be dismissed out of hand, and it seems any concerns someone has about the effects of this kind of sin are dismissed as just arising out of irrational jealousy or cold-hearted legalism.

Now, to me, a man having a porn habit is not as big a deal as him actually committing fornication. Yet, I wouldn't pooh-pooh the concerns of women who do have a problem with men who view porn, or label them as judgmental.

I think it is legitimate for anyone, man or woman, to say that they don't think they can deal with the effects of past sexual sin in a prospective spouse, much as it's legitimate for someone to say they can't deal with stepchildren and/or an ex-spouse (even if the marriage was declared null). Or someone who still lives with his or her parents and expects to do so, and have the spouse move in with them too, and take care of them until they die of old age. (Even though that's normal and expected behavior in many cultures.) Or because they don't see eye-to-eye about whether a mother should stay home with the children. (Often, these days it's the husband who wants the wife to work when she'd rather stay home, not vice versa.) Everyone has deal-breakers when it comes to marriage, and it seems silly to single out some people for saying they, personally, draw the line at a different point than someone else.


#11

What would be a complete deal breaker....not much. What could be said that would make me walk:

1) I molested a child, took advantage of someone who was mentally, physically challenged
2) I have no intention of being faithful.

After that, it really becomes a matter of being more being more concerned about where we're going together not where you've been with someone else.


#12

Aside from criminal things... Complete deal breaker? I don't have a 'number' in my head, but there is a certain point at which even if a girl told me she had learnt from her past I would not have the ability to believe her. In other words, someone who made a mistake once, twice or three times is more easily forgiven than someone who says that it was on their 30th time they learnt. I believe that in most cases that kind of behaviour has supplementary behaviour that I would disagree with and an underlying problem that would most likely not be dealt with. Don't care if CAF disagrees, they don't need to marry me.


#13

Definitely homosexual sex because I would be concerned that he may eventually leave me for another man.

Anything criminal. Especially involving children. I would not want to have children with some one that has abused women or children.

Child out of wedlock - just adds too much stress to a marriage.

I do not have a problem with how many previous partners as long as he is tested for STDs. I would want to know if he was faithful while in a steady relationship.

Most on this website would disagree with me but I would not marry a virgin.


#14

Homosexual sex and the possibility of children he doesn't know about would be a deal breaker for me. I don't want all our money going to child support.


#15

What if that person had been chaste for years or even a decade since then?


#16

Pride dictates that she would have to be less experienced than me. :o I know, terribly unfair.


#17

[quote="KostyaJMJ, post:16, topic:224709"]
Pride dictates that she would have to be less experienced than me. :o

[/quote]

Thats some honesty!!! LOL


#18

A huge deal breaker for me would have been if he had caught an STD. Sorry, but that just ain't gonna happen. This is going to sound so egotistical, but I did not personally remain chaste until marriage only to risk getting an STD.


#19

No STD's... No Violent history. Probably No repetitive casual sex. And there are probably a handful of fetishes that would give me the willies. Being more of a turnoff and resulting in breaking the deal.

There are so many other deal breakers prior to asking about a sex life!


#20

Repentive and forgiven or not, I'd still feel a little sad that the man I wanted to marry hadn't had the self control to maintain his purity, I would be weary of a man who classed himself as "christian" while doing such things, but a guy who was an atheist or somethign at the time, well, he just wouldn't knwo any better.

But I'd go on a case by case basis, I mean, there are so many variables, how old, how stupid, how drunk et cetera, and how many women.

If marriage is for me, then I would expect a long courtship and engagement, if he hadn't repenteded and was only paying lip service, then he might not maintain his new found chastidy if he couldn't have sex until marriage so he'd show his true colours during this stage.

Anyway, homosexual acts, as someone else has said, I would be concerned he might take off with another man, but again, case by case basis.

If he had raped or molested a child, no. I can accept his repentence, his forgiveness, but I wouldn't marry him. Paedophilia is serious mental illness and a jail term might not have provided him the help he'd need. I wouldn't risk something as important as marriage and future children on this.

I don't view this as hypocritical, its simply making solid decisions about giving a future marriage teh best chance.

If they had children out there, well, why? I know girls who have gotten pregnant and not told the guy, just dumped him and left, so I could find myself with a gentleman who doesn't know and hence hasn't paid. Of course, even if he was involved in those children's lives, it brings a whole heap of other baggage to the table, an ex, an ex's family and friends, another family that tells that child all sorts, I wouldn't want to be seen as the woman trying to be the mum.

The other point, I would demand, regardless of whether they'd slept with one woman or a thousand or even one man, that they get tested for all STDs and HIV.

Long and short of it, its easy to not get involved with a guy who has kids from other relationships or find out about kids he may have and not be paying for. A guy who sleeps around or has records for paedophilia or any kind of rape or homosexuality, reputations can proceed.

Its one thing to forgive another person for their past deeds, but when it comes to Marriage, its a sacrament, its holy and forever, some say we shouldn't date outside the faith because it complicates, I see this as the same sort of thing. A case by case basis, and really, something as big as a homosexual past or rape is a huge complication to a marriage.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.