# lying about the past (past partners) vs lying about the present(porn)?



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Having seen a lot of posts hear about spouses lying about porn use and past partners and how people and the responses they seem to follow the same pattern, someone is in turmoil about discovering what their spouse has hidden from them and the responses are pretty similar. There grievance is either dismissed telling the op they're insecure or they are answered with compassion (depending on the responders having the same/opposite view on the subject).
Assuming someone told their future spouse there views/want's and the partner lied about their past/porn use, are the past partners lie/ discovering porn lie really any different? 

Porn is images/videos/books, no physical contact with anyone else BUT for some this is a no go in a relationship and deeply effect how they view/feel about their partner (and the fact their partner is doing this presently in the relationship and trying to hide what they knew was a partners deal breaker). 
Does anyone really have the right to call them controlling since they told their partner straight up they don't want to be in a relationship and their partner went into the relationship and/or marriage?
Is it right calling them insecure because their deal breaker/ views or turn offs are different to many others?
Is it fair to tell them to be understanding to something their partner willingly deceived them to continue the relationship when this person was fully aware how they would view/feel in the relationship?

Past partners are lies about the past and (excluding cheating) what they did before they met they're current partner isn't happening in the present.
But again does anyone really have the right to call them insecure because their views on sex are different to others and they wanted to share their life with someone that shared the same views on sex as them? 
Is it really their fault that they feel different about their partner discovering their partner willingly lied to them about something they knew would be a deal breaker their partner?

On the other side if someone's partner has a higher drive than they do is it realistic to expect them to not watch/look/read at porn to subsidize this?
No one has a crystal ball and people will have had years of life experience before they knew they're partners even existed, they're views on sex could have totally changed before or after they met you, is it realistic not to expect someone to lie if they're partners views are extreme. 
Are the expectations of a partner not lying about porn/ past partners as realistic/unrealistic as each other if someone has a very set views?

Both lies seem like 2 sides of the same coin to me.

Sorry about the long post saw someone saying lying about porn/partners aren't comparable and didn't want to thread jack


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Any kind of misrepresentation of yourself will eventually backfire.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

_Everyone_ lies and misrepresents themselves. To _some _degree.

Everyone wants to present themselves in the best light so they are liked and have the approval of others. Usually, there is no intent to truly deceive in any meaningful way, IMO, but who can really predict how the other person will react if/when they find out?

Honesty is the best policy - but that does not necessarily mean detailed disclosure in most cases.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

I think one should be honest about one's past with a prospective spouse. But I think porn and partners are two different categories. Number of past partners is correlated with risk of divorce, so lying about past partners is withholding important information from one's spouse.

Porn use is more tricky. I'm not aware of any risk correlations of porn use. It's almost ubiquitous. And not using it in the past is no real guarantee that one won't check it out one day during marriage.


----------



## JustHer (Mar 12, 2013)

TiggyBlue said:


> Does anyone really have the right to call them controlling since they told their partner straight up they don't want to be in a relationship and their partner went into the relationship and/or marriage? *There are many things we don't "have the right" to do but we do it any way because many people are selfish and seek their own satisfaction at the expense of others, even those they profess to love. It is easier to blame others than it is to face our own weaknesses.*
> Is it right calling them insecure because their deal breaker/ views or turn offs are different to many others? *Same answer as above*
> Is it fair to tell them to be understanding to something their partner willingly deceived them to continue the relationship when this person was fully aware how they would view/feel in the relationship? *Same answer as above*
> 
> ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TiggyBlue said:


> Having seen a lot of posts hear about spouses lying about porn use and past partners and how people and the responses they seem to follow the same pattern, someone is in turmoil about discovering what their spouse has hidden from them and the responses are pretty similar. There grievance is either dismissed telling the op they're insecure or they are answered with compassion (depending on the responders having the same/opposite view on the subject).
> *Assuming someone told their future spouse there views/want's and the partner lied about their past/porn use, are the past partners lie/ discovering porn lie really any different? *


 They are both a *breach of trust*...and this is the bottom line... what is the purpose of honest communication and digging deep to get to know someone while dating, sharing what matters to us, our needs, what will hurt us....and the other giving us their "TRUTH"....this is where trust is built after all, these are our foundations... .if we struggle, have done things we wish we could take back... BE HONEST about it [email protected]# .. both are a betrayal of trust -if we have spoken only to appease - to not be judged...

A monkey wrench gets thrown in though..and often when a High drive partner is met with a Low driver... rejection, too many headaches...the suffering begins...resentment climbs...then what one might have promised not to do.... (porn use) - he falls prey.. out of desperation and not burdening his wife...now in these cases.. sorry women.. I feel bad for the husbands....the allure to view porn under those circumstances would just be too tempting... He needs to talk to her ...and speak where he is headed.. but will she care or immediately start calling him a liar, and throw it back in his face?



> Porn is images/videos/books, no physical contact with anyone else BUT for some this is a no go in a relationship and deeply effect how they view/feel about their partner (and the fact their partner is doing this presently in the relationship and trying to hide what they knew was a partners deal breaker).
> *Does anyone really have the right to call them controlling since they told their partner straight up they don't want to be in a relationship and their partner went into the relationship and/or marriage?*


Hopefully as the woman stated her wishes.. the man also spoke up and stated his...that he will need ____ amount of sex on a happening basis for his satisfaction ...and the "what if's if this falters..... most lovers aren't going to spell all this out.. just assume we have their backs... and wouldn't do anything to hurt them... 



> *Is it right calling them insecure because their deal breaker/ views or turn offs are different to many others?
> Is it fair to tell them to be understanding to something their partner willingly deceived them to continue the relationship when this person was fully aware how they would view/feel in the relationship?*


 I'm not against a little porn myself.. it seems most DON'T talk about this while dating..and many men do LIE.. because they KNOW it will put them in the doghouse immediately..... women don't generally understand this allure of men, testosterone's effect...so this too is a huge problem.. but if all was discussed, and agreed upon..... I don't feel we have the right to call the woman controlling- *if he lied*......but many men should make it clear up front, if they feel any amount of suffering, understand he will GO there. (I can't imagine that conversation going well however- most do not care for brutal honesty like this)



> *Past partners are lies about the past and (excluding cheating) what they did before they met they're current partner isn't happening in the present.
> But again does anyone really have the right to call them insecure because their views on sex are different to others and they wanted to share their life with someone that shared the same views on sex as them? *


 What you speak here is something that bothers ME on this forum a great deal ...I just want to come to the defense of every poster who is getting their a$$ put down, called insecure because they have a different lens they see out of -*to what sex represents to them personally*.. No, they should not be so easily called Insecure, the segment who do this do not share their sexual views....so they do not "get it" emotionally speaking. 



> *On the other side if someone's partner has a higher drive than they do is it realistic to expect them to not watch/look/read at porn to subsidize this?*


My personal opinion is -it's unrealistic to expect a man to never stumble and fall in this area... even on Marriagebed.org...(a christian forum) ...what section has more activity over any other... Pornography! 



> No one has a crystal ball and people will have had years of life experience before they knew they're partners even existed, they're views on sex could have totally changed before or after they met you, *is it realistic not to expect someone to lie if they're partners views are extreme.*
> *Are the expectations of a partner not lying about porn/ past partners as realistic/unrealistic as each other if someone has a very set views?*


 Each has a role to play - to ensure honest communication can come forth ....meeting each other half way.....

The EXTREME partner (frowns on all Porn use, never had sex outside of marriage / committed relationships for yrs, etc)....hopefully will be open & approachable enough ... so the other feels an atmosphere of comfort to share what he/she has learned along the way..how we have changed, grew, what we struggle with.... 

And on the other end... the one who fears judgement...(using the porn, had ONS's, a wilder lifestyle)...needs to be courageous enough to bring forth *the truth* -out of love & respect of someone they want to be with ..... realizing if they are not accepted for who they are NOW... even with the things of the past, or admitted current struggles (explained).. this partner did them a favor.. and it's time to move on.

Maybe I am unrealistic.. I am not the type to expect perfection from anyone -we all have some DIRT somewhere...but I DO expect honesty..in all things.. if I ask a question, no dodging, or trying to appease me ...give it to my straight....

I knew my husband had 300 magazines he yanked too before we got together... even though I was a christian back then. I can't say this bothered me.. I had the "Boys will be boys" attitude I guess as far as wanting to LOOK... He was always at my beck & call, I never felt anything was more important than me.. this makes all the difference in the world to us women.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> *Both lies seem like 2 sides of the same coin to me.*


:iagree:
Beautifully said.
That's as " _black & white _" as it gets.

The whole " _controlling and insecure _" thing is an effort to mask the culprit or accusers own feelings of insecurity.
It's a form of projection, and a " power play " method of control.

The thing is that some women can't deal with porn. Maybe it's because of their upbringing or perception of sex , and the value they place on it. People have no right telling them that they should abandoned their personal , core values. And realistically there is no law that says they must allow for porn in their relationship, if they are totally against it , and made it known before.

The same principle applies to a person's sexual history.
Nobody should be forced whether by lying , omission or emotional bullying , to accept another person's past sexual history. People have certain intangible values that makes up the core of their being. If you love and respect a person enough , you will understand that. 

The ability to empathize and compromise is a sure sign of emotional maturity in a person.
However , honesty and truthfulness comes before this and is the foundation of all successful relationships.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

PHTlump said:


> Number of past partners is correlated with risk of divorce, so lying about past partners is withholding important information from one's spouse.


I'm not trying to argue, I'm just a little confused about that statement.

By "past partners" do you mean people your SO would have had sex with? Or do you mean relationships?

Obviously, I can see by # of past relationships how that COULD correlate to the chances a marriage will work out, however the # of sex partners, I don't see how that matters.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> On the other side if someone's partner has a higher drive than they do is it realistic to expect them to not watch/look/read at porn to subsidize this?
> No one has a crystal ball and people will have had years of life experience before they knew they're partners even existed, they're views on sex could have totally changed before or after they met you, is it realistic not to expect someone to lie if they're partners views are extreme.
> Are the expectations of a partner not lying about porn/ past partners as realistic/unrealistic as each other if someone has a very set views?
> 
> Both lies seem like 2 sides of the same coin to me.


It's wiser for people to seek out partners with similar values etc to their own. No matter how extreme we might find someone else's views, it doesn't give us the right to deceive them into having a relationship / marrying us. Far better to get it out in the open from the beginning and let the chips fall where they may, because, IME, the truth has a way of bubbling to the surface sooner or later.


----------



## CaptainLOTO (Nov 6, 2013)

alexm said:


> Obviously, I can see by # of past relationships how that COULD correlate to the chances a marriage will work out, however the # of sex partners, I don't see how that matters.


Number of past sexual partners has a high correlation with the likelihood of infidelity. According to research, if a woman has had more than 10 sexual partners before her marriage the likelihood of her being unfaithful is 250% higher than for women who had fewer sexual partners.

The numbers are similar for men but not quite as dramatic. A man with more than 10 sexual partners before a marriage is about twice as likely to cheat than a man with fewer sexual partners.

BTW, this was research conducted about 5 years ago and was focused on first time marriages between two partners who were both under 30 at the time of their marriage.

If you knew you were with a partner that was 2-3 times more likely to cheat would you keep dating them and get engaged. The other MAJOR factor was divorce in the parents or grandparents. Children of divorce are almost twice as likely to be unfaithful.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

CaptainLOTO said:


> Number of past sexual partners has a high correlation with the likelihood of infidelity. According to research, if a woman has had more than 10 sexual partners before her marriage the likelihood of her being unfaithful is 250% higher than for women who had fewer sexual partners.
> 
> The numbers are similar for men but not quite as dramatic. A man with more than 10 sexual partners before a marriage is about twice as likely to cheat than a man with fewer sexual partners.
> 
> ...


It was risk of divorce, not infidelity, that I was inquiring about, but eye-opening anyway.

And yes, I'd still marry this person, because I'd love her. I'm not going to let statistics dictate how I go about choosing of a mate.


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

I have had more than 10 sexual partners and I was a child when my parents divorced...a very messy and bitter divorce...but I've NEVER cheated and never would. I don't need to play about or experiment and I know how much pain divorce and cheating brings. I was also deemed high risk when I applied for the police because of my father having a serious prison record so had to be approved by a psychiatrist - something I wouldn't have had to do if I hadn't reported my father and been the key witness for the prosecution - how ironic!

I don't judge people on statistics, but the smallest of lies makes me panic about what else is untrue.


----------



## CaptainLOTO (Nov 6, 2013)

MissFroggie said:


> I have had more than 10 sexual partners and I was a child when my parents divorced...a very messy and bitter divorce...but I've NEVER cheated and never would. I don't need to play about or experiment and I know how much pain divorce and cheating brings. I was also deemed high risk when I applied for the police because of my father having a serious prison record so had to be approved by a psychiatrist - something I wouldn't have had to do if I hadn't reported my father and been the key witness for the prosecution - how ironic!
> 
> I don't judge people on statistics, but the smallest of lies makes me panic about what else is untrue.


I totally agree that truthfulness (this includes not lying through omission or commission) is vitally important. Nobody should judge based just on the statistics but if you start with a partner that hides things, that's not good. Even in the case of the police force you were subject to a little extra due diligence due to your background. In a relationship with a partner that has some potential "gotchas" one should just proceed with extra caution. Lots of people beat the odds but I wouldn't want to be ignorant of the background of a partner that I'm going to invest my entire life into.

The OP dealt with lying about the past and whether the past is irrelevant. Lots of ways to argue over whether the past has relevancy to the current relationship - statistics prove that it can have an impact.

The other thing I'd want to have a very clear understanding about a future partner is what their childhood was like. As parents we proceed with certain paradigms which are established in childhood. Some people accept how they were raised and follow that model, others think they were raised poorly and swing the opposite direction. Either one may be good or bad but if we're going to marry and have kids, I deserve to know where you're coming from. And vice-versa. Complete disclosure or somebody is in for a surprise down the road.


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

I agree with what you're saying with the exception of judging someone purely by stats (if this isn't what you meant then we are probably in full agreement!):



CaptainLOTO said:


> I totally agree that truthfulness (this includes not lying through omission or commission) is vitally important.I agree  Nobody should judge based just on the statistics but if you start with a partner that hides things, that's not good.Unfortunately you usually don't know at the start they were lying from the start is it only comes up later  Even in the case of the police force you were subject to a little extra due diligence due to your background. It was actually standard for anyone who had a close blood relative with serious convictions and I think that is counter-productive and in some cases constitutes secondary abuse. They singled me out despite the fact I had been the one to work with them to convict him - I think it is clear who's side I am on lol. It was held against me though and goes against everything they claim about encouraging victims of abuse to come forward and supporting them. It was inappropriate to question my loyalty or motivations when I had proved beyond others that I will seek to uphold the law EVEN when it is a family member involved! After using it as free therapy and getting a glowing reference from the psychiatrist I withdrew my application because I don't want to work for a company who hold someone else's actions against me and question my motives because I am known to have been abused as a child. IMO there are plenty of reasons they should do a psych analysis on ALL applicants, only one small reason being that it would not be discriminatory against someone who happens to have a criminal in their family. In a relationship with a partner that has some potential "gotchas" one should just proceed with extra caution. Lots of people beat the odds but I wouldn't want to be ignorant of the background of a partner that I'm going to invest my entire life into.I see what you mean and for me, in some things, my view on their past would be very much influenced by whether they had an understanding of why they did xyz and what they learned from it and how it came to change them.
> 
> The OP dealt with lying about the past and whether the past is irrelevant. Lots of ways to argue over whether the past has relevancy to the current relationship - statistics prove that it can have an impact.I value some statistics over others, so some I wouldn't consider at all - eg. someone who's parents divorced are more likely to cheat is something I wouldn't hold against a potential partner - that was their parents and there are many other factors that influenced who they grew up to become. But the stats on someone who has cheated on previous partners being more likely to cheat on you, well that I do consider - I won't date a known cheat lol. I know I'm picking and choosing, but I think filtering info - be it stats or personal experience etc is normal. There would have to be more than just a statistic to influence me - the cheating stats is something I'd see as relevant because I've been accepted a cheat and then been hurt (yeah, pretty stupid of me) by believing he'd changed when he hadn't.
> 
> The other thing I'd want to have a very clear understanding about a future partner is what their childhood was like. As parents we proceed with certain paradigms which are established in childhood. I totally agree - I do think it is relevant and has helped to shape that person and their expectations and what they want for their family and children in the future. Core values are established during childhood and most of those remain throughout our lives, it is very difficult to change them and if you don't have the same core values it could be (probably will be) problematic, especially with raising children, but also in your relationship between the two of you. Some people accept how they were raised and follow that model, others think they were raised poorly and swing the opposite direction.I think that's where stats cloud things a bit. Most people accept the core values from childhood and replicate them, they are the people making up the majorities for stats. Some people however, question core values and the way they were brought up and change things, they are the minority values within stats. They are also, just my opinion, more open to changing their views and not just replicating things for the sake of it and really thinking things through and considering different ways of doing things. That, IMO can be better in a relationship than someone who had a great upbringing and simply copy what their parents did whether it is best for their family or not. Either one may be good or bad but if we're going to marry and have kids, I deserve to know where you're coming from. And vice-versa. Complete disclosure or somebody is in for a surprise down the road.Totally agree


----------



## CaptainLOTO (Nov 6, 2013)

@MissFroggie - Always trust your gut and if your gut was wrong that's just life... Statistics are just a way to offer some evidence that in the population at large these things do matter. But no individual is a statistic and I always go with trust your gut. Mine has been wrong in the past but it's been right fairly often.

That's pretty bad ass and upstanding that you stood on the side of the law and right even when it was your own family on the other side. Speaks volumes about your character and I'm sure it was difficult.


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

CaptainLOTO said:


> @MissFroggie - Always trust your gut and if your gut was wrong that's just life... Statistics are just a way to offer some evidence that in the population at large these things do matter. But no individual is a statistic and I always go with trust your gut. Mine has been wrong in the past but it's been right fairly often.
> 
> That's pretty bad ass and upstanding that you stood on the side of the law and right even when it was your own family on the other side. Speaks volumes about your character and I'm sure it was difficult.


Thanks  I was 15 and walked into a police station and said, "I need to talk to someone about my dad". He ended up spending the rest of his life in prison (14 year sentence). Without me they wouldn't have had a case at all, they'd have had no evidence or witnesses and definitely no conviction...but on applying to work for the police (I wanted to work in child protection) they decided they wouldn't trust me as much as they would have if I had never helped them at all! That really hurt me and makes me feel angry just thinking about it. It was grossly unfair and secondary abuse. They had all the information on the forms I filled in and all of it was on record of course too. It really hurt me to be singled out as being more likely to be corrupt than if I had said nothing and not helped them lock him up. I guess that is a big reason for my feelings against judging people by certain aspects of their past due to statistics. If I'd followed the statistical routes for the things in my past I'd probably be in prison or dead, probably an addict, almost certainly a dead-beat mother, lacking qualifications, lacking morals or having very warped morals etc etc...lots of young people rebel and with my family it was a HUGE rebellion to make something of my life and be a decent member of society


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I don't care about statistics but I needed to know a couple things about my wife and she needed to know some things about me.

Her past partners weren't important to me but if they were, she would have needed to be honest. At the time, I still watched porn and she would sometimes watch it with me but we decided soon into our relationship that porn would not be included.

Honesty is what is important and if someone lies to get someone into a relationship, they deserve the pain that will probably come their way later, but the one who was lied to sure doesn't deserve it.
Calling someone insecure because they were lied to about something fundamental to their relationship is not a well thought out response.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

alexm said:


> I'm not trying to argue, I'm just a little confused about that statement.
> 
> By "past partners" do you mean people your SO would have had sex with? Or do you mean relationships?


Number of sexual partners.



> Obviously, I can see by # of past relationships how that COULD correlate to the chances a marriage will work out, however the # of sex partners, I don't see how that matters.


It's just how the numbers play out. Causation doesn't always conform to one's preconceived beliefs.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

alexm said:


> And yes, I'd still marry this person, because I'd love her. I'm not going to let statistics dictate how I go about choosing of a mate.


Do you have that attitude on statistics, in general? For example, do you let statistics dictate whether you smoke, based on the increased risk of adverse health effects? Do you let statistics dictate whether you wear a seat belt, based on the increased risk of injury in a car accident? If you were promiscuous, would you let statistics dictate whether you practiced safe sex, based on the increased risk of STDs? Or do you generally engage in risky behavior because you dismiss the conclusions of statistical studies?

FWIW, I support knowingly engaging in risky behavior because the benefit outweighs the risk. But I don't support engaging in risky behavior because one doesn't believe in the risk. Smoking DOES cause cancer. If you want to smoke anyway, God bless you. Promiscuity DOES increase the risk of divorce. If you want to marry anyway, God bless you.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MissFroggie said:


> We all choose to take on board some stats but not others - we filter them according to our experiences and what we want from life and our experiences.


That's probably true. But it's a dangerous game. I know smokers who don't put much stock in studies showing increased risk of health problems in smokers. They have a friend, or family member, who smoked for decades with no ill effects. They trust their own anecdotal experience over the experience of the hundreds, or thousands, of smokers that are contained in the statistical studies.



> I think he was saying that some stats about things from someone's past statistically making them more likely to cheat or divorce etc are things that would not be enough on their own to justify not being in a relationship with someone. Deciding not to have a relationship with someone lovely because their parents were divorced (making them statistically more likely to have a divorce later) would IMO be a bit closed-minded.


I think it is more closed-minded to dismiss the preferences and risk tolerance of others than it is to use all available information, including demographic risk factors, in choosing a mate.

Divorce can be devastating for those involved. Children of divorce are worse off by every standard of measurement. They are more likely to be incarcerated, to join a gang, to drop out of school, to have low self-esteem, to use drugs and alcohol as teenagers, to have a child as a teenagers, etc. Many spouses are financially devastated in divorce. Some men are even imprisoned when they aren't able to meet their support obligations. Being risk averse in today's environment seems prudent.



> There is nothing wrong with being aware of stats and making informed decisions with those in mind, but to dismiss someone JUST because of a stat could be a very unfair judgement of that person and also unfair on yourself. Stats have their place but so does your past experience and also what you know and see of how that person is now.


Statistics is just a useful tool for making informed decisions. There is nothing that is perfectly predictive. If a woman has been married 11 times, and cheated on all 11 husbands, there is no guarantee that she will do it again. I would think that her risk of repeating her past behavior is fairly high. But, I'm comfortable assessing risk. Someone who isn't comfortable assessing risk may think that it would be unfair to use a red flag like that to determine that a particular person is risky to marry.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Statistics is just a useful tool for making informed decisions. There is nothing that is perfectly predictive. If a woman has been married 11 times, and cheated on all 11 husbands, there is no guarantee that she will do it again. I would think that her risk of repeating her past behavior is fairly high. But, I'm comfortable assessing risk. Someone who isn't comfortable assessing risk may think that it would be unfair to use a red flag like that to determine that a particular person is risky to marry.


This example is not about stats at all, but knowledge of a particular person's history of behaviour. Judging on the basis of this is a far cry from turning away a prospective partner because, say, people who have 10+ past partners are 8% more likely to cheat than those with <10.

In other words, the value of knowing the person is much greater than the value of knowing the stats.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

always_alone said:


> This example is not about stats at all, but knowledge of a particular person's history of behaviour.


All stats are is a collection of behaviors across many people. As Stalin said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." What's the difference? The number. It seems illogical to ignore the consequences of the behavior of large groups of people in order to focus on the behavior of a single individual.



> Judging on the basis of this is a far cry from turning away a prospective partner because, say, people who have 10+ past partners are 8% more likely to cheat than those with <10.


Oh, the risk is more stark than that. 80% of women aged 30+ who have never had an extramarital sex partner are in stable, 5+ year marriages. The percentage of women with more than 10 extramarital sex partners in stable marriages is somewhere between 18% and 30%.

Now, does that mean that every single woman with more than 10 prior partners will definitely divorce? Of course not. But, were I to choose a wife, I would probably want one from the 80% success category rather than the 20% success category.



> In other words, the value of knowing the person is much greater than the value of knowing the stats.


Sadly, I doubt very much that very many people get married expecting to divorce. I think divorce usually takes people by surprise. I would estimate that 99% of newlyweds expect their marriage to last the rest of their lives.

The fact that around half of all marriages end in divorce means that many of those people were wrong. Spend some time on the infidelity, or divorce forums to see story after story of a spouse complaining that he had no idea his spouse was capable of such behavior. Of course, the red flags are obvious in hindsight. But most people can rationalize away red flags because they just know the person so well.

One ignores red flags at one's own peril. I simply suggest being aware of one's actions.


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> That's probably true. But it's a dangerous game. I know smokers who don't put much stock in studies showing increased risk of health problems in smokers. They have a friend, or family member, who smoked for decades with no ill effects. They trust their own anecdotal experience over the experience of the hundreds, or thousands, of smokers that are contained in the statistical studies.


I don't really see the issue of smoking with that of whether your parents divorced as something as a good comparison. A smoker chooses to smoke. A child does not choose whether their parents divorce. A smoker does not choose to get cancer, they get it because of their choice of action. A child of divorce can choose not to replicate the mistakes their parents made, whether they get divorced or not is entirely within their control and being a child of divorce can not force that upon them.



PHTlump said:


> I think it is more closed-minded to dismiss the preferences and risk tolerance of others than it is to use all available information, including demographic risk factors, in choosing a mate.


I'm not dismissing your risk tolerance at all, nor that of anyone else. But if you genuinely take all stats as sufficient enough on their own to judge someone completely, it follows you would avoid each and every black man because statistically they are more likely to end up in prison...so we should avoid them ALL in ALL things and in EVERY way possible. Perhaps you do that, it's your life and that's up to you, but I would be surprised if you didn't sometimes ignore stats on the basis of who the person is and what you know about them instead. However, if you really do rely on stats so completely I would like to know what happens when you get two lots of stats, both from reliable sources, that contradict each other? 

If you purely use stats you can find a reason to have nothing to do with anyone else ever. Just as you are using stats to rule out whole groups of people regardless of their choices and lifestyles, we could rule out whole countries and continents. I could just say statistically people in America are more likely to be obese, which is a health issue I don't want in a partner, so if someone is from the USA I won't date them. The UK is not far behind either and catching up to those stats too, so I won't date anyone from there either. Men are more likely to cheat with one of their partner's female friends, so I'd better avoid men. So now I am a lesbian who can't date anyone in the UK or USA ... stats are interesting in understanding society, but not so useful when it comes to understanding individuals. There has to be some kind of filtering of stats or we'd never get out of bed...except statistically there is a high likelihood of dying in bed, so that's probably not a good plan either...aaaaarrrrgggghhh!!!


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> All stats are is a collection of behaviors across many people. As Stalin said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." What's the difference? The number. It seems illogical to ignore the consequences of the behavior of large groups of people in order to focus on the behavior of a single individual.


But I would be dating/marrying the individual not the group.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Is omitting things as bad as lying especially if your partner doesn't ask?

Should you volunteer information anyway?


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> Is omitting things as bad as lying especially if your partner doesn't ask?
> 
> Should you volunteer information anyway?


Omitting something when they have asked - definitely!

Omitting when they haven't asked, I think it is wrong if you know it would matter to them or if by saying it it changes something else (eg. I went to university...but omitting to say you only went for 2 weeks before dropping out and don't actually have the degree your partner believes you to have). I guess the way to know if you are withholding information or not, is whether you think of it! If you are wondering about it, you know it matters or could matter, so you should say it. I don't consider it omitting if I don't mention I went to Holy Island on holiday when I was 12...so I'd never think, 'maybe I should tell them that'. However, if I was working with an ex (it has happened) it would come into my mind 'should I mention that?' and it is a sure way to know YES YOU SHOULD!


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

MissFroggie said:


> Omitting something when they have asked - definitely!
> 
> Omitting when they haven't asked, I think it is wrong if you know it would matter to them or if by saying it it changes something else (eg. I went to university...but omitting to say you only went for 2 weeks before dropping out and don't actually have the degree your partner believes you to have). I guess the way to know if you are withholding information or not, is whether you think of it! If you are wondering about it, you know it matters or could matter, so you should say it. I don't consider it omitting if I don't mention I went to Holy Island on holiday when I was 12...so I'd never think, 'maybe I should tell them that'. However, if I was working with an ex (it has happened) it would come into my mind 'should I mention that?' and it is a sure way to know YES YOU SHOULD!



Well I did tell in the end. I don't think it was important per se but when you are married I think you should know as much as possible about your partner.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MissFroggie said:


> I don't really see the issue of smoking with that of whether your parents divorced as something as a good comparison.


It's about risk. Both are categories of people who are at higher risk of something bad (either divorce, or cancer, heart disease, etc.).



> A smoker chooses to smoke. A child does not choose whether their parents divorce. A smoker does not choose to get cancer, they get it because of their choice of action. A child of divorce can choose not to replicate the mistakes their parents made, whether they get divorced or not is entirely within their control and being a child of divorce can not force that upon them.


As far as determining risk, whether one is a voluntary member of a risky group is irrelevant. Assume, for argument's sake, that first hand smoke and second hand smoke are equally likely to cause cancer. Would you take issue with that conclusion, based on the fact that one behavior is voluntary and the other isn't?



> I'm not dismissing your risk tolerance at all, nor that of anyone else.


If you're not dismissing the risk tolerance of others, why are you dismissing some risk factors and endorsing others? Shouldn't all risk factors be available to be independently evaluated as part of an overall picture? I would think so.



> But if you genuinely take all stats as sufficient enough on their own to judge someone completely, ...


I never stated, or even implied, that. So, I will ignore the rest of your straw man based on that assumption.



> ... I would like to know what happens when you get two lots of stats, both from reliable sources, that contradict each other?


Then, it becomes more complicated. And, frankly, that's frequently the case. At that point, it becomes an exercise in weighting risk factors.

For example, smoking is a high enough risk factor for health problems that eating leafy green vegetables can't cancel it out. For marriage, one has to evaluate several different factors to try to come up with a full picture of risk.

What one shouldn't do is just dismiss a risk factor by insisting that one has peered into the soul of another and can accurately predict his behavior. None of us have that power.



> If you purely use stats you can find a reason to have nothing to do with anyone else ever.


The fact that statistics can be misapplied is not a sufficient reason to insist that statistics should be generally ignored.

When searching for a mate, very few people will readily admit to being a risky choice. Most people can rationalize their behavior, and the behavior of those they love, to minimize the impact. Sure, loverboy cheated on his last wife, but that's only because she was such a terrible person that he had no choice. The statistics suggesting that past infidelity predicts future infidelity don't apply. Sure, lovergirl slept with 15 guys before me. But, she was young and foolish. The statistics suggesting that she's much more likely to divorce than a virgin bride don't apply because she's matured.

Either one of those scenarios might apply. And they might apply to every single case that makes up the statistics. But, the thing is, they tend not to apply. Those red flags tend to be bad omens. Statistics become statistics because they apply over, and over, and over again.

I'm simply suggesting making informed decisions, rather than wishing away inconvenient truths.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MissFroggie said:


> But I would be dating/marrying the individual not the group.


You would be marrying a member of a group. If group A is three times more likely to divorce than group B, that means members of group A are three times more likely to divorce than members of group B.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Misogynists are much more likely to be violent toward women. This is something difficult to determine so it should be completely offered by the misogynist if he plans to marry, so the woman will know that her statistical likelihood of being abused is much higher than a woman marrying a non-misogynist.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

I suppose if you are being charitable it may be that a misogynist may not even realise they have a problem.

Do you think there are certain signs that may indicate a problem for a woman?

Maybe after the first bloom of a relationship has worn off an abusive man might revert to type?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Misogynists are much more likely to be violent toward women.












When the thread is about past partners and pornography, it's always important to bring up misogyny. Good job.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I wonder what smoking has to do with past partners and porn? Hmmm....


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I wonder what smoking has to do with past partners and porn? Hmmm....


It's an analogy.
Analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> I suppose if you are being charitable it may be that a misogynist may not even realise they have a problem.
> 
> Do you think there are certain signs that may indicate a problem for a woman?
> 
> Maybe after the first bloom of a relationship has worn off an abusive man might revert to type?


There's a super secret society where women teach each other what to look out for in men of this type. Sorry, I can't disclose it publicly. It is sad that some women don't get the memo before they end up hurt...but we do try to reach them all. Slowly, we're getting there.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

man boobz | misogyny. I mock it.


----------

