Would you marry a woman who was a former stripper or X-rated star if she turned into a Christian ?

[2PhiloVoid]

Possession?

For the purposes of this thread, I'm only using Mary Magdalene as a metaphor for multiplicity ...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

... I'd like to point out here that just because some guy or gal is a virginal Prince or Princess Charming when getting marriage does little these days to guarantee that either or both stay that way through the rest of the marriage. Either can still sin and betray the other at almost any point.

Moreover, in light of this thread, I think it's time to point out that for every female SW out there, there are many more men who have supported her trade in "the industry" whether directly or indirectly, especially where [inappropriate content] has been the mode of engagement and not just those who have traveled the nighttime streets or utilized brothels.

So, I think we can stop the double-talk in this thread that comes by insinuating the notion that there is a bunch of ultra-righteous men out there who've been unjustly pushed to accept women as wives who have had sinful, dysfunctional backgrounds. I think we all know that isn't happening.

p.s. I also find it odd that in this thread, it is mainly those of us who are older and married who are generally suggesting that there isn't anything wrong with applying grace and mercy to a Christian who formerly worked in the "industry." But those on this thread who are apparently single, and primarily male, are those who are contesting the general application of Jesus' grace and mercy where consideration might be given for sisters in Christ who have come out of a "Mary Magdalene" sort of life.

Who do reckon is more likely to remain faithful in a marriage, the promiscuous or those who havent been promiscuous? Or are both equally likely to cheat? Does it therefore not matter if we are promiscuous at a certain point of our lives? Since there are seemingly no negative consequences to it?

 

[timothyu]

multiplicity

Not sure I follow... multiple unclean spirits and the topic don't seem related

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You might note that I've very clearly articulated the opinion that anyone can freely dismiss anyone. I am not telling people "you must marry - or be willing to marry - xyz."

Perhaps that's true. I do think that abuse of any kind, and especially child sexual abuse, is of a completely different nature than promiscuity. Not all sin is the same in terms of its severity or consequences. But part of what I'm trying to point out is that child sexual abuse comes with a whole bunch of other life baggage which may make the choice of a child molester as a spouse unwise or undesirable.

Well, fundamentally, I think that's true. Casual sex in our past - once repented of - does not degrade us in a permanent way. It's exactly the idea that someone who had sex before marriage is permanently "degraded" or unworthy that I'm pushing back against.

Given that casual sex has no lasting negative affects and that it is more the fault of the person judging you if they reject you for it, what reason is there to abstain from it? Other than it making God angry until you repent? Or other reasons like stds or pregnancy. Those other things can be controlled and you're still a saved Christian in the eyes of God at the end of the day. Why should we restrain ourselves?

Also, since Child molesters are always devalued for their sin and can be pertually judged for it, are there other sins which can be grounds for rejecting marriage? I get that promiscuity is fine in your eyes, but what about infidelity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who do reckon is more likely to remain faithful in a marriage, the promiscuous or those who havent been promiscuous? Or are both equally likely to cheat? Does it therefore not matter if we are promiscuous at a certain point of our lives? Since there are seemingly no negative consequences to it?

These days, it's really difficult to tell. Much of the success of any one marriage can only be considered on an individual level rather than a probabilistic one. Besides, if Jesus said there is such a thing as adultry of the heart and that He sees that form of adultry to be as culpable as the outward activities of an SW, then I don't know that we can clearly define "who" is clearly righteous from those who are clearly unrighteous, nor do we know what each "who" will do after marriage is entered into, particularly in an age where the Sexual Revolution has permeated most of society. We can guess what any "who" might do in the long term of marriage, but I'd lean away from using our spiritualized prejudices to assert any firm conclusions either way. I'm sure that there are a lot of "virginal men" who got married, maybe even to very lovely ladies, and still engaged in some form of sexual immorality, either mentally or physically, after marriage and found themselves in a truck load of marital problems and/or divorce.

As for negative consequences, I can assure you there are consequences. They might be psychological in nature rather than corporal, but there are often consequences. We don't have to necessarily read Paul's admonitions to the churches in Corinth, Thessalonica or Rome to know this, although I will say that reading those admonitions surely helps.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure I follow... multiple unclean spirits and the topic don't seem related

Oh, good gravy! The point, brother Tim, is simply that in the same way that Mary Magdalene had a factor of multiplicity in her dysfunction (i.e. her possessions), very often so do those women (and men) who are in the "SW industry." It's usually not a one-time gig for them. It's many.

Would you rather for me to simply refer to such men and women as Prodigals? Look, I'm purposely using loose language here to simply describe the contexts of what the OP originally referred to. I'm not trying to teach a bible lesson or break down the terms with analytic acumen. We're just talking here about seeing Christian women formerly from the SW background as human beings and, possibly, worthy of marriage despite all of that. That's it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

These days, it's really difficult to tell. Much of the success of any one marriage can only be considered on an individual level rather than a probabilistic one. Besides, if Jesus said there is such a thing as adultry of the heart and that He sees that form of adultry to be as culpable as the outward activities of an SW, then I don't know that we can clearly define "who" is clearly righteous from those who are clearly unrighteous, nor do we know what each "who" will do after marriage is entered into, particularly in an age where the Sexual Revolution has permeated most of society. We can guess what any "who" might do in the long term of marriage, but I'd lean away from using our spiritualized prejudices to assert any firm conclusions either way. I'm sure that there are a lot of "virginal men" who got married, maybe even to very lovely ladies, and still engaged in some form of sexual immorality, either mentally or physically, after marriage and found themselves in a truck load of marital problems and/or divorce.

As for negative consequences, I can assure you there are consequences. They might be psychological in nature rather than corporal, but there are often consequences. We don't have to necessarily read Paul's admonitions to the churches in Corinth, Thessalonica or Rome to know this, although I will say that reading those admonitions surely helps.

There appears to me to be very little in terms of negative consequences. If we can so dissociate from sexual sin, one wonders why such a standard even exists.

Would you reccomend promiscuity? Given that we can repent of it and easily deal with its co sequences and as Padiaske says, still be worth the same value in the eyes of God?

I'm kind of not seeing a net negative here.

 

[timothyu]

The point, brother Tim, is simply that in the same way that Mary Magdalene had a factor of multiplicity in her dysfunction (i.e. her possessions), very often so do those women (and men) who are in the "SW industry." It's usually not a one-time gig for them. It's many.

Ok sorry, I thought perhaps you were saying MM had a promiscuous background

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There appears to me to be very little in terms of negative consequences. If we can so dissociate from sexual sin, one wonders why such a standard even exists.

What specifically are the sorts of negative consequences you're vaguely referring to?

Would you reccomend promiscuity? Given that we can repent of it and easily deal with its co sequences and as Padiaske says, still be worth the same value in the eyes of God?

Am I recommending promiscuity? ... I guess you've missed all of the times that I've prescribed Hellfire and Brimstone for Hugh Hefner and his ilk over the past several years. So, my answer would be a hearty "no."

I'm kind of not seeing a net negative here.

I'm seeing HUGE negative(s) here. I wonder why the difference, brother Kiwi?

 

[PloverWing]

HUH? This makes no sense.

The thread title and the original post asked if I would consider marrying a woman who had a particular background. I'm a straight woman, and I'm married, so for both those reasons, I'm not looking to marry a woman regardless of her background. I was having a bit of fun with the implicit assumption in the thread title that all the readers of the thread are men. I did go on to answer the more generic question that the OP intended to ask.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, I thought perhaps you were saying MM had a promiscuous background

Well, there is the possibility that she didn't live in an exaclty "clean" way. But we don't know that from the biblical text. All we know is that Mary had 7 demons. But being that they were unclean spirits, I'm thinking they led her to do things that were also unclean. But only the Lord knows.

Whatever Mary's situation was in full, I'm glad that Jesus came along in her life and set her free.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What specifically are the sorts of negative consequences you're vaguely referring to?


Am I recommending promiscuity? ... I guess you've missed all of the times that I've prescribed Hellfire and Brimstone for Hugh Hefner and his ilk over the past several years. So, my answer would be a hearty "no."


I'm seeing HUGE negative(s) here. I wonder why the difference, brother Kiwi?

I'm not seeing the negatives, so long as one repents. In fact I see massive benefits in the Christian community for past promiscuity that has been repented of. It doesn't seem to matter and the problem lies with those who might reject a formally promiscuous person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not seeing the negatives, so long as one repents. In fact I see massive benefits in the Christian community for past promiscuity that has been repented of

If you're not seeing the negatives, then all I can do is point you to both pertinent passages in the Bible and to any medical and psychological journals that might tell us about consequences for promiscuity.

So, with that, my context for answering the OP is in assuming that the former SW woman (or man) who is now Christian doesn't have:

1) Lingering STDs​

​

2) Deep rooted psychological breakdown due to various abuses​

​

3) Past partners who try to come back into her life and with whom she'd be tempted to reunite​

​

4) Drug and Alchohol addictions, etc.​

​

So, no. Being the philosopher and socially educated person I am, I'm not assuming an utterly naive position in my answer in this thread. I know very well there could be serious contengencies to consider if relating with a now Christian woman who was formerly a SW.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you're not seeing the negatives, then all I can do is point you to both pertinent passages in the Bible and to any medical and psychological journals that might tell us about consequences for promiscuity.

So, with that, my context for answering the OP is in assuming that the former SW woman (or man) who is now Christian doesn't have:

1) Lingering STDs​

​

2) Deep rooted psychological breakdown due to various abuses​

​

3) Past partners who try to come back into her life and for which she'd be tempted to reunite with​

​

4) Drug and Alchohol addictions, etc.​

​

So, no. Being the philosopher and socially educated person I am, I'm not assuming an utterly naive position in my answer in this thread.

Do you think that is the average pornstar or sex worker? That they've completely dealt with those issues after conversion?

 

[Paidiske]

Who do reckon is more likely to remain faithful in a marriage, the promiscuous or those who havent been promiscuous? Or are both equally likely to cheat? Does it therefore not matter if we are promiscuous at a certain point of our lives? Since there are seemingly no negative consequences to it?

Interestingly, the research I've been able to find says that men who have been promiscuous before marriage are more likely to cheat than men who have not; but women who have been promiscuous before marriage are less likely to cheat than women who have not. Perhaps that speaks to different motivations in men and women (in general) for both promiscuity and adultery.

However... I agree with @2PhiloVoid that there might be quite a range of negative consequences. But we don't need to add to them by effectively punishing that person in an ongoing way.

Given that casual sex has no lasting negative affects and that it is more the fault of the person judging you if they reject you for it, what reason is there to abstain from it? Other than it making God angry until you repent? ...Why should we restrain ourselves?

Why abstain from any sin? Or to put that another way, if the only reason for not sinning is that your community will punish you for sinning, isn't that a problem in and of itself?

Also, since Child molesters are always devalued for their sin...

NB: Not what I actually said.

are there other sins which can be grounds for rejecting marriage? I get that promiscuity is fine in your eyes, but what about infidelity?

Also, I didn't say "promiscuity is fine."

Look, each person has to get to know another person, find out their character, their gifts and strengths, their flaws and weaknesses, and make a call about whether that person looks like a good life partner. I think the key issue there is not about "what was their biggest sin?" but "how much is whatever their sins have been, either truly in the past, or something that doesn't prevent us from building a loving life partnership?"

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Interestingly, the research I've been able to find says that men who have been promiscuous before marriage are more likely to cheat than men who have not; but women who have been promiscuous before marriage are less likely to cheat than women who have not. Perhaps that speaks to different motivations in men and women (in general) for both promiscuity and adultery.

However... I agree with @2PhiloVoid that there might be quite a range of negative consequences. But we don't need to add to them by effectively punishing that person in an ongoing way.

Why abstain from any sin? Or to put that another way, if the only reason for not sinning is that your community will punish you for sinning, isn't that a problem in and of itself?

NB: Not what I actually said.

Also, I didn't say "promiscuity is fine."

Look, each person has to get to know another person, find out their character, their gifts and strengths, their flaws and weaknesses, and make a call about whether that person looks like a good life partner. I think the key issue there is not about "what was their biggest sin?" but "how much is whatever their sins have been, either truly in the past, or something that doesn't prevent us from building a loving life partnership?"

Do you believe female promiscuity leads to marital fidelity? If so, how would you counsel a young woman in that lifestyle not to engage in it?

I suppose all you're doing for me is convincing me that it doesn't matter.

 

[timothyu]

Interesting no one might have a problem befriending a repentant worker but as soon as marriage is mentioned, things get uncomfortable.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Cannot a person change without living a life of prejudice and persecution at the hands of busybodies. There is a saying, What you don't know, can't hurt you. That might apply to new people in your life. That can also mean what others don't know can't hurt you... and increase your chances of escaping a past.

Most people don't have to know your past.

When busybodies ask you questions you can tell them you prefer not to talk about a past Jesus forgave.

But certain people really do have to know.

A person's pastor is one. I believe pastors need to know exactly who is joining the church he's required to pastor, and as Christians it's our job to be honest with them.

Someone your considering for marriage is another. Like a bandaid the sooner the better, quick and dirty.

Does this leave you open to the church busybodies potentially finding out? Yes, it does.

But honestly, that doesn't matter when weighed against doing what is right, all things considered. We are called to serve Christ, and if that means called to sitting in a pew surrounded by our enemies, their own actions to their account before God just as ours to our account, then so be it.

While the wheat and the chaff grow together it's always a possibility. Let our actions speak only of Christ, maybe then by our good example we can help a few become better Christians, including ourselves.

I pray God gives us all the strength to do what is right.

 

[Hazelelponi]

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new"

Yes but there are still challenges for us. If we are to be pastored, and God has determined we will be, then we need to be open with what our needs might potentially be.

For a former stripper, her challenges might be financial struggles trying to make ends meet in a lower paying job or have to do with when her past enters her present (such as a new coworker having seen her dance)

Former anything outside of societal norms will have it's own challenges and the pastor should know upfront, that way he can start learning more about the new challenges he might need to pastor someone through.

And being honest with someone your considering for marriage is simply a must. If you can't trust someone with your truth then you can't marry them because marriage is based on trust.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The thread title and the original post asked if I would consider marrying a woman who had a particular background. I'm a straight woman, and I'm married, so for both those reasons, I'm not looking to marry a woman regardless of her background. I was having a bit of fun with the implicit assumption in the thread title that all the readers of the thread are men. I did go on to answer the more generic question that the OP intended to ask.

I just keep answering from a general Christian point of view and noted in my first post (and two more posts since I think) that I'm a woman.

I figure that covers it, likely a young man wrote the OP - it was originally placed in the advice forum I think so I keep thinking for the OP this is a real life issue but I think forum admin decided it's not.