For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?I agree with Fr. Lord. When we confess our sins to the priest we are forgiven and those sins are buried and we rise to a new life in Christ.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?Would you rather your spouse found out about it some other way? See my signature. I think it prudent to be open and honest with a potential spouse.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
You should have thought about that before fornicating. So a virgin would have every right to have expectations to marry the same. Just because you confess and are forgiven a sin of theft doesn’t mean that there isn’t an injustice there that has to be made up for by restitution. Now, the party from who you stole could forgive the debt but they don’t have to. In having fornicated you are depriving the prospective spouse of something they have a right to ... exclusive lifelong intimacy. So if you were to date a virgin, that person must be told that you’re not one so they can decide whether to forgive that debt. If a prospective spouse asks you, you have to give an honest answer and not lie. Lying could be grounds for annulment. If you lied and claimed you were a virgin, that’s misrepresentation that could have altered the person’s decision to marry you.
But let me pose this question --- would substantial error about the sɛҳuąƖ past of a spouse have been grounds for annulment before Vatican II? I know, nowadays, you can often get an "annulment" just for your jib having been cut differently than what your partner had in mind, but "back in the day"? If it would have been, can someone supply a source?.
1577. Is self-detraction, that is, the revelation of some real fault or defect, lawful?Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
(a) If there is question of faults or defects that are of a public nature and generally known, a disclosure made in a good spirit and in a proper manner, and from which beneficial and not harmful results can be foreseen, is lawful, and sometimes obligatory. Example: Balbus has calumniated his neighbors, and he now admits the fact, not to boast about or excuse it, but to make satisfaction; he does not repeat the details of his defamatory remarks, but merely states that he wishes to retract what he had no right to say; he has every reason to think that his present course will undo the harm caused by the defamation. Balbus does right in thus acknowledging his mistake.
(b) If there is question of faults or defects not generally known, the reasons for mentioning them should be more serious, unless the sins are of a trifling nature. Examples: Caius once served a term in jail for dishonesty, but he is now a decent citizen. His family would be scandalized and would feel disgraced, if they knew this. But Caius thinks it would be a suitable reparation to tell them of his former guilt. Caius is wrong. To speak of his past experience would only add the sin of scandal to the old one, and there are other ways in which he can do penance in further expiation of dishonesty. Claudius wishes to marry Sempronia, but the latter insists that there must be no secrets between husband and wife, and that he must give her complete and accurate answers on certain questions about his past career—for example, whether he has ever been drunk, whether he has ever wished to be drunk, whether he has ever had questionable relations with other women, etc. Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later. Titus has stolen a considerable sum, and, for the sake of getting advice and direction on how to make restitution, he consults a prudent friend who will regard his communication as confidential, just as if he were a confessor. Titus does not act against his own reputation by telling his case to this friend.
This is the question of self-detraction:
McHugh & Callan Moral Theology (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=5547):Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?.
Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.
I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.
Also if someone has viewed pornography intentionally even ONE time it should be disclosed. Why? Because pornography use by men has the similar effect against pair-bonding that pre-marital sex has on women. We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life. Every woman has a right to know if her potential spouse is a habitual self-abuser. That will ruin a marriage.If every trad followed your advice, then no trad marriage would ever happen again or... porn usage will be increasingly publicly normalized in trad circles because of the commonplace admission of committing the sin. I do not calumny trads when I say that 95% of trad men have viewed pornography "even one time" in their life. Multiple trad priests said that the #1 and #2 confessed sins from men in the twin sins of viewing pornography and self-abuse. Put yourself in their shoes: they have strong desires as young adults but moral qualms against fornication and adultery.
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...What about medical proof the fiancé's not impotent or the fiancée's a virgin?
Here's one solution to deal with non-virgin "non-disclosers" -- make sure you make it clear -- perhaps before witnesses and in writing -- that you would only marry a non-virgin, and that you'd divorce anyone who deceived you on this matter. Then if it comes out later that he lied, at least you'd have some chance of getting an annulment for his blatant misrepresentation and deception to procure the marriage contract. Such fundamental, cut-and-dried deception would clearly invalidate the marriage.That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?
This is the question of self-detraction:Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later.
McHugh & Callan Moral Theology (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=5547):Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".
.See, I would want to actually read what Fr Lord said before going on what the OP said he said.
Fr. Daniel Lord was a Jesuit before Vatican 2. He lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He devoted his whole life to guiding young people. He wrote dozens of books and pamphlets on youth, marriage, and family life.
.
In addition to the spectacular Jesuit formation he received, he possessed a level of experience in the care of souls, and trust from his superiors, that no priest alive today could claim, let alone someone on an internet forum.
.
Go with what Fr. Lord says.
It's borderline misrepresentation, which is grounds for an annulment..
Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART I
Problem: I am engaged and looking forward to a very happy marriage. But there is one doubt in my mind that seems to cast a shadow over my happiness. Long before I met my fiance, I fell into sin with another person. This has long since been confessed and deeply repented. The doubt in my mind is whether I should tell my husband-to-be about this previous fall. Is such a confession necessary or even advisable for persons about to be married? I dread the thought of it; but do not want anything to stand in the way of our happiness.
Solution: It is neither necessary nor advisable to make a confession of your past life to the man you are about to marry. You made your confession through the priest to God, and your sin was forgiven. The only lasting effect the sin should have on your life is to keep you humble, grateful for the forgiveness you received, and more and more dependent on God’s help to remain good. But there is no reason for your revealing the past to anyone. Sometimes a man who wants to marry a girl tries to insist that she tell him whether she had ever in her life lapsed from virtue. This is an unjust demand, an uncalled for probing into the secret and sacred conscience of another. A girl has no obligation of making a personal confession even in the face of such demands. Indeed, she may even recognize in such demands a danger sign: they may be motivated by an excessively jealous spirit that would cause her great sorrow after marriage. Even in the case that a boy or girl in love might suggest that they make mutual confessions to each other, the idea should be resisted and rejected. Lovers and engaged couples should be content to be able to say to each other that they cherish the grace of God and freedom from sin above all other goods, and that they will be loyal to each other for the whole of their lives. Moreover, it is more important that they help each other to avoid sin in their own pre-marriage association than that they worry about their own or their partner’s repented past.
Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART II
Problem: We are several girls in our late teens who would like to disagree with an opinion you expressed several months ago. You said that a man had no right to ask a girl whom he wanted to marry whether she had previously fallen from virtue, and that the girl had no obligation of admitting anything about her past to her fiance. We think that if a man wants to know what kind of girl he is marrying he should be allowed to ask her about her past, and that she should honestly tell him. After all, it is important to a man to know that he is marrying a good girl.
Solution: We are in perfect agreement with the statement that it is important for a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. It is the purpose of the period of company-keeping to provide a man with assurance on this point, and equally so to provide the girl with assurance that he is a good man. By going together for several months, a man and woman can learn all they need to know about the ideals and moral characters of each other, if both are interested enough in this matter to look for and draw out from the other the spiritual and moral principles that are considered of greatest importance. A girl who lacks character and sound moral principles will not be able to hide her lack from a man who really considers such things necessary for a happy marriage. And a man who has not acquired solid virtue will clearly manifest his weakness to a girl who realizes that without it a happy marriage could not be hoped for. This testing of each other’s characters on the part of a boy and girl keeping company does not require open and complete revelations of each one’s past. We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves. themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them. It still remains possible, we believe, for a man to learn all he needs to know about a girl, even up to whether she has ever been a sinner or not, without asking direct questions or demanding revelations. And it is possible for a girl to learn through company keeping whether the man she is going with hates sin, loves virtue, and is willing to face the sacrifices and responsibilities involved. The sad thing is that so many are not interested in these supremely important matters.
It's borderline misrepresentation, which is grounds for an annulment.
That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you. On the other hand, the wisdom nowadays is that some women's hymens can remain intact after intercourse --- not to get too crude, but they "stretch" --- and that hymens can grow back together. Both would be more likely "if she'd only done it once or twice", as many claim. Being jaundiced as I am about any propaganda coming from the secularized world, and a world that cares nothing about premarital virginity, I suspect that the "conventional wisdom" is exaggerated (to help women concoct lies about themselves, and to "slap" men to whom such things are important), but not entirely false. Think of the non-Western cultures that demand premarital examination, and the consequences for women in those cultures who have lost or damaged their hymens through no fault of their own.
(my responses in italics with asterisks for ease of reading --- SM)
You can't tell me a spouse doesn't have a right to know these things about their spouse-to-be. How can you consent to something you don't know? If he's had lots of women in the past, it's highly likely in this age of DNA tests and the Internet that one of these women will come around seeking child support, or one of his bastard children will want to meet their dad. How would that not screw up a "good Catholic family" he started later with a virgin Catholic woman?
Think of all the explaining he'd have to do to his legitimate children -- of all ages. How they have brothers and sisters they hadn't met yet for some reason. Think of all the birds-and-bees discussions that would have to take place before the proper time.
***How true, how true! It absolutely tickles the you-know-what out of me, that DNA tests now allow paternity to be proven, as part of the larger picture of gaining knowledge of one's family tree and hitherto unknown distant relatives. You always know who the mother is, but as for the father... how many men have been duped into raising another man's child? Isn't that cuckolding in the extreme? That's why I say, birth control (and even more so, sterilization) allows both husbands and wives to make fools out of each other, because they can have all sorts of sɛҳuąƖ exploits without ever getting caught up, or having fear of unwanted pregnancies. But what about when it fails, or one or the other strays in a moment of recklessness and doesn't use the BC? A woman can always pass off the child as her husband's, barring any drastic difference in appearance (most of all an obvious racial one! --- "I can explain, dear, my family was Dark Irish!" :jester:) --- and the man who fathered the child, without paternity testing, is likewise scot-free.
Now here's a soap opera for you. Recently I got my son an AncestryDNA test, like the one I took myself about a year ago. Sure enough, my son is absolutely, positively, infallibly mine, but... lo and behold, in the past month or so, guess what, I've got a new cousin out there, that I'd never heard of before, and I know who all my first and second cousins are (or I thought I did!). The number of centimorgans (DNA markers, or something like that) is right on the cusp of his being my full-blood first cousin, or a first cousin once removed. IOW, he is the son of either one of my four blood uncles (more likely), or one of my male first cousins (less likely). Three of my four blood uncles had, ahem, issues with fidelity, one very much so. My male first cousins, all over the map, from relative chastity to absolutely whoremongery. Interesting family. The question "who could his father have been?" has been a huge topic of discussion with my parents the past few days. (I have long ago drifted apart from my extended family, that happens when people move, don't see each other, and die.) For us, it's merely a point of speculation. But think about the poor man who is my hitherto unknown cousin! In all likelihood, he's gone his whole life, thinking that his father is someone that he really wasn't! Talk about getting emotionally hit by a semi-truck! (My son knows it all, knows everything about "the birds and the bees" that it is possible to know --- very curious kid --- and I was able to use this as an object lesson in chastity, IOW, "keep it zipped!".)
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...
***You will never waste money on a good private detective. Without getting too specific, I had reason to hire a PI, as well as an attorney who obtained some information for me that, let's just say, I'm not supposed to know. It was to protect a family member. Cost me $450 in all, and boy oh boy, was it ever worth every penny! If you ever even think there's an issue that needs looking into, do it. Hire that PI. I know. How well do I know! And there was another incident in my life where I didn't hire a PI --- didn't want to spend the money (oooh, that's right, gotta save that money, don't spend that money) --- and I could have saved myself a lot of heartache, if I had hired one. It's water under the bridge now, but it could have saved not only me, but people I care about, a ton of suffering. Let me repeat. Hire that PI.
"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you. On the other hand, the wisdom nowadays is that some women's hymens can remain intact after intercourse --- not to get too crude, but they "stretch" --- and that hymens can grow back together. Both would be more likely "if she'd only done it once or twice", as many claim. Being jaundiced as I am about any propaganda coming from the secularized world, and a world that cares nothing about premarital virginity, I suspect that the "conventional wisdom" is exaggerated (to help women concoct lies about themselves, and to "slap" men to whom such things are important), but not entirely false. Think of the non-Western cultures that demand premarital examination, and the consequences for women in those cultures who have lost or damaged their hymens through no fault of their own.Oh bullshit. I've been hearing that crap about women "riding horses or playing sports" for decades. Almost no women riding horses and very few women play sports. Also, what kind of sports would break a hymen?
Oh bullshit. I've been hearing that crap about women "riding horses or playing sports" for decades. Almost no women riding horses and very few women play sports. Also, what kind of sports would break a hymen?Actually, your thoughts echo my own to a large extent --- I've had to roll my eyes at the "riding accident" scenario myself (just anecdotal, I've never heard anyone claim that) --- but that said, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt in certain cases. It's my understanding that the fragility of women's hymens varies widely. I do realize, also, that in less sɛҳuąƖly liberal times, many women felt the need to have a "cover story" to explain their lack of intactness to their husbands. Perhaps nowadays, that kind of bullshit, as you put it, isn't seen as being nearly as necessary.
Because pornography use by men has the similar effect against pair-bonding that pre-marital sex has on women. We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life. That will ruin a marriage.Take it from a former porn/self-abuse addict: the destruction of the man's natural attraction for women is NOT "for life". It bounces back within days and within months the porn-addled mindset, which usually causes fetishistic desires, is gone. Don't believe me? Look up the NoPorn and NoFap movements. Hundreds of thousands of secular men are fighting their battles with porn and self-abuse. Even science shows that the "rewiring" that porn does to the brain is undone when porn is no longer used. I also disagree that looking at pictures destructs pair-bonding, similarly to what fornication does to women. I think most any trad woman would prefer that her potential husband watched porn and self-abused thousands of times rather than fornicated with even one woman. I think men would agree in the opposite situation. Those priests are wrong on those points.
It's definitely something they need to know before committing to you for the rest of their lives. Omitting the truth can often be just as bad as lying.People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.
People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.Well, that may be true, but we are all our own free agents, we all have lives to live and try to make sure they turn out halfway right, and just for my part, I'd want to know, at least in broad brushstrokes, and I would both be willing to, and be willing to be expected to, paint my own broad brushstrokes. If I were single in the Eyes of God, and contemplating marriage, my intended and I would, at some point, be having the "now, there aren't going to be any 'Easter eggs' come up one of these days than neither of us expect, something or someone that could pop out of the woodwork, are there? --- anything that I'd want to know about now, instead of finding out later, right?".
People have cited two priests that have said otherwise. That's much more compelling than your opinion.Priests don't get married. Cheers!
"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man. The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you.
Priests don't get married. Cheers!That's a Prot argument. Might as well ignore all moral theology about sex, since priests don't have sex, right? Hell, why listen to them on marriage at all? I want to divorce my haggard old wife and marry my hot young secretary.
Again, if in doubt --- or maybe even if there is no doubt --- just do yourself a favor, and hire that PI. If you don't, and it blows up in your face later,If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.She'd never know. If my investigation turned up nothing, no harm done. If it did turn up an unknown deal-killer, then better to know, and then move on. I would not have a problem in the world with being investigated, without my knowledge, by a potential spouse. In fact, in today's world, especially when people often marry someone they haven't known until they were in their twenties, thirties, forties, or even beyond, I think a woman who did not have me investigated, would be just a little naive. Wouldn't bother me in the least. If she never told me, then I'd never know (just to state the obvious). If she did tell me, I'd say "you didn't know me from childhood, I don't blame you in the least, shows me you've got a good head on your shoulders". Different people have a problem, or don't have a problem, with different things.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.It's a catch-22. If you marry a woman without investigating, then you risk marrying someone you wouldn't want to marry. But if you investigate a woman you intend to marry, then you run the risk of her not liking that you had her investigated.
It's a catch-22. If you marry a woman without investigating, then you risk marrying someone you wouldn't want to marry. But if you investigate a woman you intend to marry, then you run the risk of her not liking that you had her investigated.As I said above --- don't tell her. Private investigators don't go to the people they've investigated and say "hey, I investigated you". Who else is going to tell? The banker on whom you wrote the check to pay the PI? You don't find out anything, nothing comes of the investigation, then no harm done. Find out something, then you know.
I'd rather take the latter risk.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man."If he can't handle me at my worst, he doesn't deserve me at my best". Feminist BS.
A woman who would insist that a man believe her word, in this day and age, that she hasn't...
I know 2 priest who said, tell all. Also, the sin is forgiven by God,not forgotten by humans. Then there is STD's. There are some that men have no symptoms and the woman gets them. STD's that are hidden for awhile and then show for themselves. Answer is tell all!Name them. Also, give imprimaturs from traditional or pre-Conciliar bishops. Regarding STDs: there are tests.
If you are so inclined to hire someone to spy on her then she should not marry YOU. I would never trust a man who had such little trust in me. Better not to marry at all. Or find another man.Sounds like there's something in your past that you wouldn't want a suitor to know about. Hm.........
OP here. I was mistaken about the authorship. It was not a Fr. Lord pamphlet but rather QUESTIONS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ASK BEFORE MARRIAGE by Donald F. Miller, C.Ss.R.I can't help but notice that this priestly advice consistently includes warnings about men who demand or insist to know the past of their potential spouses. I assume that this would also apply to women who would do the same (although they do not say this explicitly). It seems to me that if one were to willingly offer this information without provocation that would be a much different scenario.
Imprimi Potest: John N. McCormick, C.Ss.R, Provincial, St. Louis Province, Redemptorist Fathers November 20, 1961
Imprimatur: + Joseph Cardinal Ritter, Archbishop of St. Louis, November 24, 1961
Here is the relevant text:
Does a woman have a right to know that her fiance has same sex attraction but not acted on it?
Does a woman have a right to know that her fiance has had relationships with men in the past? She could be exposed to AIDS or other disease by marrying him.
How does a member of the Resistance get an annulment?Probably with a "Resistance tribunal"…
We have been told by our priests that one use of porn can destroy a man's natural attraction for real women for life.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice..
By all means, yes, get a medical test to determine if your fiance has a venereal disease, have a PI look into whether they have an illegitimate child somewhere, ... but ... asking someone about what they confess in confession??! Seriously?? I couldn't imagine myself ever asking anyone such a thing, under any circuмstances. Is nothing sacred with you people?I would never advocate spouses "going to confession" to each other. That makes a mockery of what I'm talking about.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice.These are the words of someone who has been looking at porn, and has deluded himself (with the assistance of the enemy) into the false belief is that it's harmless.
This is just retarded. Here is an example of why the faithful shouldn't take every word of advice from priests as infallible. This is an example of priests who know not the real world and can't give good pragmatic advice.well to be fair it looks like the priest said “can” not “absolutely will” which seems to have a lower burden of proof
Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc. I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...Very good advice. People may have one "face" to their relatives and co-workers but have freely photograph themselves living a wild private life. A five or ten minute social media search could save years of misery.
"If he can't handle me at my worst, he doesn't deserve me at my best". Feminist BS.Marilyn Monore said that. She had three weddings, caused Joe DiMaggio to abandon his Faith, reportedly had 10-12 abortions and apparently was miserable for most of her adult life.
These are the words of someone who has been looking at porn, and has deluded himself (with the assistance of the enemy) into the false belief is that it's harmless.