Would you pursue a romantic relationship with someone who has been sexually abused?

This is an intersting question:
From my own experience again:

When I married my first wife, I was a mere 20 year old struggling to find my identity.
She was a member of the Salvation army and 8 years my senior.
The Salvation army allow after discussion a marriage of inter faith. I was at the time agnostic.
Any way we decided to have children and part of that decision was to maintain a state of open mindedness in all things to do with religion. The main ambition was to allow our children to determine their own religious destiny with out undue conditioning from us parents.

To empower our children to make up their own minds if and when they felt they could.

The issue you raise is about conditionality. Our children were as we saw it an unconditional gift and to place conditions upon them would be to us a grievious mistake.

I have discussed this with my children and they have both expressed their appreciation of being able to determine their own religious destiny.
Btw my ex-wife and my current wife have actually become best friends and often we will all share a dinner and moment or two. Including my exwifes current defacto husband of 15 years whom has become a great friend of mine.

This situation did not come easy and required diligently maintaining an unconditional position by all parties. Of course my now adult children have benefited from this ongoing friendship.

So I have had some success for which I am very grateful for.
This was only when I realised so many years ago the issue of self determination and unconditionality in relationships. Funnilly enough it was the separation from my first wife that showed this to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Understanding, affection, attention! Love is not enough!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ,

By all means! I've had a lovely relationship with a cat for 20 years. I know very well how wonderful animals are. I get to rely almost exclusively on my intuition, and I enjoy that.

Human relationships can be so tedious, employing all that intellect! Blegh. Instead of just loving someone, you go after the logic in what they are saying, and in what you are saying. And this can become really frustrating. It is necessary, up to a point, but it isn't crucial.

However, I think that depending on one's religion and on how one practices it, there may emerge irreconcilable differences that exclude intuitive harmony between two people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Marriage is the one place where non-self-centredness really becomes crucial. That's the only way people with differences can reconcile them in a mutually beneficial and secure environment. Only when a marriage is greater than the sum (and the difference) of its parts, can such a marriage survive. This goes for every difference, from liking different colours to having different worldviews. For some people the fromer is just as non-negotiable as the latter! Compromise and sacrifice is what makes any compatibility possible, because a mutual willingness to compromise is the greatest thing two people can share. The principle is: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8). Love is most visible when someone sacrifices something for its sake.

But there are things that can't be compromised on, and things that can't be sacrificed, because doing so would be self-defeating. It's for this reason that interfaith marriages are complicated and often discouraged - but they're not impossible. It is possible to gain a common understanding of God, and to allow this understanding to transcend issues of faith. The other option would be to simply "agree to disagree" and not impose one's faith on the other person. If the practice of a religion does not diminish the love between two people, they are already making their religion obedient to love. They do not allow "religion" to make itself centre. (Hopefully this conveys something of the significance of John's words, that "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.") James also applies this principle to religion:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.​

In other words: "Love and compromise, but do not let this love be compromised". This is something that can be taught to children by example. But compromised love would be a neutralized mess, since it wouldn't be consistent. It would give the message that the sacrifices and promises made were conditional, that the love was conditional - which is why divorce or infidelity are so destructive in people's lives.

Non sequitur. People don't have abortions unless the decide to have them. And to use contraception to prevent pregnancy is not the same decision as to have a pregnancy aborted. Most people who take care not to have more children than they can afford are logically opposed to the carelessness and irresponsibility that would be implied by having an abortion. They would not think twice about having a child that was conceived despite contraception, just as they would not think twice about having a child that was conceived without contraception.

And people who are willing or planning to have an abortion are equally likely to make that decision whether they used contraceptives or not. In fact, why would they even bother with contraception if they consider abortion to be a valid option?

 

water,
my apologies for the terribly late response, it is quite rude of me. i just don't have as much free time on my hands nowadays. but in response to your question:

"Consider this example: You are seeing someone, things are going really great, you like eachother very much -- and one day you find out the other person has been raped or sexually abused prior to your meeting, or recently.

What do you do? Do you break up with them? If yes, why?"

i suppose it would depend on how i found out about it. if she told me, i suppose my first response would go something like, "okay, seeya." as for why, i believe there is a reason she is bringing this up, and i believe i will not like that reason. furthermore, i am tempted to think that this person is dating me because of what she has been through. finally, i am not really looking for somebody to love, so i would probably break up with people for less significant reasons than this.

this probably needs more clarification, but when i'm not so hungover. feel free to work with what's there though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have stated your position, thank you.

 

What is a non-sequitur? If the couple decides not to have children, but still has sex, this means that if and when she conceives, she will go and abort; this is clear from the beginning on, it is just a matter of time before it happens. If she's lucky and the contraceptives don't fail, then she'll never have to have an abortion. But if she is among those not so lucky (and according to some informal statistics, about one half of all pregnancies occur in women who were using some form of contraceptives), then she will have an abortion, if she is to be true to the decision they have made, to not have children.

And why "carelessness and irresponsibility that would be implied by having an abortion"? If they don't want to have children but still have sex, then abortion is the course of action to take, eventually. It is careful and responsible to have an abortion if one has decided not to have children.

Such are some of the possible prospects for a woman in a romantic relationship with a man.

 

If they don't want to have children, contraception or abstinence is the direction to take. If that fails, it fails, and they have children. Having sex is simply a chance they take, and they may still be prepared to bear the consequences of it. But if they want to kill children, abortion is the action to take. See the difference?

In one instance, they simply try to minimize their chances for conception - either through natural or artificial means (another way of doing this is not to get married and live a chaste life) - in the second instance, they play God over another life.

Non sequitur means it does not automatically follow, i.e. there is a false/forced causality. The "slippery slope" fallacy is one such example. "If this happens, that must happen" - when the reality is that something else must happen for "that" to happen.

 

But "women" don't go into romantic relationships with "men", unless you're a hedonist. Person A comes into a relationship with Person B, which develops and may become romantic later on. And even then, if you're talking about love and morality, it does not have to mean sex. That's why you find out what the other person's moral and religious convictions are (for instance about abortion and contraception) before you marry them and are faced with such dilemmas. You don't just entrust your body to anyone, or marry anyone, and hope for the best.

 

I don't understand you. The decision to make is the same with or without contraceptives. Either way, they have to decide about having children. Of course, it is possible to not make this decision and just wait for whatever happens.

 

But if you aren't willing to do that, then you can forget about romantic love.

 

So they end up having children they didn't want? And accept them as some necessary evil? Or talk themselves into "We didn't really want children, but God sent us this one, so we kept it and we *must* love it ..."?

If they don't want children, and conceive despite contraceptives, that child is then an UNWANTED child. That it has been conceived doesn't somehow magically make it a wanted child.

Few things are as bad as being an unwanted child to parents who "took their chance" and had sex. Lukewarm parents.

 

I understand your reasoning that not wanting children leads to unwanted children, which are either born and rejected or simply aborted. It makes sense, but it would apply only to absolutes. It's true, if a couple want no children, and can't stand the thought of having any, then the decision to abort any resulting pregnancy is already made in their minds - they're only delaying that eventuality with contraception.

But most people know that contraception in any form, whether mental (through abstinence and self-control) or physical (through natural or artificial means), is fallible. So even though they might practice such forms of planning, they are still prepared to have children. If they are willing to let their love for their own children be diminished, they don't need contraception as an excuse.

That's the difference between wanting no children, ever (in which case they're only fooling themselves by depending on contraception, and they should rather have themselves sterilized) and simply wanting to plan the timing and amount of children to the best of your abilities. Some people really do want children, but don't feel ready for them at the time. Then it's not a question of whether they want children or not, just of when and how. They realize they don't have the final say anyway, contraception or not, but they have some say. (Since nobody knows for certain whether conception will take place, all children are "unexpected" to an extent).

If you only want confirmation that it's a choice between black and white, I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for disappointment. That would be a choice between celibacy or hedonism, which are personal decisions only you can make. And how they are justified can depend only on your own beliefs, not the beliefs of others.

I'm afraid you can only speak for yourself here, since everyone can only speak for their own body.

Everybody has the choice of how much worth they themselves attach to their bodies. If having sex is more important to someone than discriminating between partners, then obviously their choice of partners will reflect that: it can be bought for that price. But if someone considers his body worth more than any value people could attach to it, no minimal compensation will be enough, and he won't relinquish it to the first "taker" - no matter how desperate he is for approval. Since it's their identity that seeks approval, not just their bodies, they won't be satisified until they are accepted in totality. But if they are willing to compromise on that, it's their decision. Nobody can force you to be who you don't want to be.

Personally, I don't believe anything less than complete acceptance even counts as romantic love - I would simply call it lust: Two bodies seeking mutual satisfaction while their mind and soul remains distant; not two people in an integrated relationship.

You're taking this much too personally. If this has something to do a personal experience you've had, then obviously what I say doesn't apply for that situation. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to any (or even most) situations. Neither of us may generalize.

I've tried to explain my position above. Maybe I'm not using the right words for you to hear me. You are arguing from personal theory to general reality, and I am arguing from personal reality to general theory. My own parents used contraception before they had me, and have used contraception intermittently while having three more children. I don't think any couple could ever love each other more, or that there are four children on this planet who've been loved more. And I don't have the luxury of calling myself lucky, since I know exactly what decisions and beliefs were involved. The same goes for most of their family.

So the data I have to work with is this: 1) Contraception isn't an issue, even among the doctors and most health-conscious members of these families - some used it and some preferred not to; 2) They wouldn't consider abortion under any circumstances except certain death, and 3) The love that exists between them and their children are evident for the world to see. As for the effect on their health, I can only say that the only two deaths until now were both my grandfathers, while their wives (who must have used female contraception or some form of birth control, or in 60 years they would have had more than six children) are still alive and well 10 to 20 years later. The rest are all in general good health. For some female members the pill has been contra-indicated, for others the pill has actually been prescribed to correct hormone imbalances.

So you see why I won't pronounce a black or white judgement over it. No unwanted children, no lukewarm parents, no cheap rationalizations. Only love. The shortest marriage among my parents' families is 20 years and going. All have at least four children but no more than six. So this is my conclusion: if love exists and comes foremost, the use of contraception is a secondary issue. No decision made in a loving relationship will force anybody to suffer for it.

 

Thank you for you most insightful post. I agree with almost everything you have said, but would like to comment on the below excerpt from your post:

I think that if the identity seeks approval, the choice whether to abstain from sexual relations or not is not impossible, but much more difficult to make. You have stressed that parents have a huge influence over their children's perception of reality and that it is their example that is, among others, the deciding factor. If someone' parents gave them the wrong example by abusing them, how should they know how to make constructive choices?

To answer Water's question. I would have a romantic relationship with someone who was sexually abused, but only if they would be willing to work on the issues that has resulted from the abuse, for example getting counsiling. This is not an example of conditional love. I would insist on this dealing with issues due to the simple fact that without it, the relationship would be impossible as a result of projection of issues onto the partner.

 

If she would be projecting those issues onto you, then there would likely be not much of a relationship between the two of you anyway. So for all practical purposes, you likely never actually would have a romantic *relationship* with someone who has been sexually abused.

Why would you insist on counselling and WAIT in that unhappy relationship until improvement shows? How much time would you give her?

Would you not rather break up with that person, seek to remain friends with her if possible, but move on and find someone new?

So here's the scenario: You meet someone, date them, things go well for a while, but something is wrong. You find yourself in a dysfunctional relationship. You find out they have been abused, and it affects the way they treat you. You tell them to seek counselling. They do it, but progress is slow, and the relationship stagnates, leaving you no satisfaction. Why would you stay in such a relationship and wait for things to get better? No commitment has been made so far, nothing serious, nothing keeps you from breaking up with that person and finding someone new. Why pursue a romantic relationship with the abused person, if all you are looking ahead for quite some time is a lot of trouble and a dysfunctional relationship which may or may not work out?

 

For whom?

 

I want to answer this in a slightly different way.

There is a reward to be had for the patience you would need to show. A person who has had sex spoiled for them through abuse or whatever has the whole world of good sex to discover, almost like a virgin. When the abused person has had enough councilling to view their body in a positive light or sex in a positive light, helping this person to actually discover the joys of sex again would be a tremendous priviledge and the sensitivity and love involved in building up that person's sexual confidence again would make the experience wonderful for the non abused partner if they were indeed looking for a sensitive, long term, loving sexual relationship themselves.

peace

c20

 

That's true. A person may have developed a skewed self-image (and I don't think anybody goes through adolescence without issues about their self-image), but that should not be the deciding factor. In fact, part of maintaining an independent self-image is not to allow anybody's opinion to be a deciding factor. We talked about empowerment earlier in the thread, and there are definitely good influences out there that can empower someone to realize this. The catch is that they have to be believed above the manipulative arguments of the abuse.

There will always be flaws in our character and weaknesses we'd rather hide, but part of developing a self-image is not to let those faults determine who we are. That is when we give them the power to shame us and determine our choices. As Forrest Gump liked to say: stupid is as stupid does.

PS. I concede that for someone with a low self-esteem, their "totality", as I have called it, might not be very large, and they might experience even partial acceptance as of equal weight than full acceptance. With full acceptance, I mean the commitment, self-sacrifice and devotion sealed by marriage.

 

non-self-centred love.

 

But only if the person in question is beautiful enough to be loved.
I cannot count on anyone to love me, ever.