Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Possession?
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?... 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.
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?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.
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?
Not sure I follow... multiple unclean spirits and the topic don't seem related
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.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.
Ok sorry, I thought perhaps you were saying MM had a promiscuous backgroundThe 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.
What specifically are the sorts of negative consequences you're vaguely referring to?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.
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.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.
HUH? This makes no sense.
Ok, I thought perhaps you were saying MM had a promiscuous background
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.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
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 STDs2) Deep rooted psychological breakdown due to various abuses3) Past partners who try to come back into her life and for which she'd be tempted to reunite with4) 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.
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.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?
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?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?
NB: Not what I actually said.Also, since Child molesters are always devalued for their sin...
Also, I didn't say "promiscuity is fine."are there other sins which can be grounds for rejecting marriage? I get that promiscuity is fine in your eyes, but what about infidelity?
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?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?"
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.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new"
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?