October 23, 2003
MAYBE SHE SHOULD RETHINK THE NAME OF THE COLUMN
Dear Prudence (Slate, 10/23/03)
Dear Prudie,I'm not going to take the position that having gone to prostitutes while in the Navy makes a man ineligible for dating thereafter (except with any woman related to me). But where in the world does the idea that "what he did before me has nothing to do with me and, frankly, is none of my business" come from? Does any actual human being older than 22 live her life this way? We are what we have done and although past performance is no guarantee of future returns there is no other way to judge what we are capable of. Presumably, this woman is considering dating, trusting, sleeping with and, potentially, marrying and having children with this man. Can she possibly believe that she is somehow obligated not to find out everything she can about him because its not her business? Posted by David Cohen at October 23, 2003 2:09 PM
I am 22 and recently met a 27-year-old man who seems to be wonderful. (I say "seems" because I've only known him a week.) He is attentive, has called me every day since we met, and genuinely seems to want to get to know me. My problem is that, in conversation, the subject of prostitution came up. I can assume from what he told me that he slept with prostitutes during his Navy days. This of course was an uncomfortable subject for him, and he didn't want to talk about it. I didn't push, but it bothers me. Granted, my past isn't exactly sparkling either, but I've never slept with someone in a foreign country for money! I also realize that what he did before me has nothing to do with me and, frankly, is none of my business. But it still bothers me. Should I just let it go and continue to try and have a relationship with him?—Baffled
This column hearkens back to the Ann Landers item where a woman asked if it was time for her to expect that her boyfriend of 2 years would begin to share the expense of birth control. Empty does not even begin to describe it.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 23, 2003 4:25 PMBaffled has to understand that the 27-year-old man is A Blank Slate.
Since he has just met her, that is really the beginning of his life.
Even better, something has even engraved "attentiveness" into the Slate. A bonus, if you will.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at October 23, 2003 4:38 PMIt seems very common now among the young to completely discount what a person used to do before she/he met you, is completely irrelevant.
While on the one hand I can see the usefulness of treating someone as he is now and not what he used to do, and I also think it needs to be tempered by OJ's point that the past is prologue. But such prudence is unlikely to happen in a society that wants to live based on specific aphorisms and not use their brains.
Pruddie, by the way, is an obnoxiously PC advice columnist. Last week someone asked her if she should tell the man who was dating her friend, that her friend is actually a very feminine looking transgender post-op. Pruddie said it was none of her business to care and not interfere. I know if I was ever dating someone hiding the fact "she" used to be a he, I'd want to be told!
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 23, 2003 5:54 PMI need to check where I am. I think I've stumbled on to an unknown website.
Posted by: genecis at October 23, 2003 9:13 PMThe young woman should ensure that he's free of disease, but, unless she's planning to marry him next week, shouldn't she have a very good idea of what he's currently like after dating him for a while ?
Past actions may not reveal much, unless the proper context is known.
Chris:
Unless the guy wants to have kids, if he's happy with his "woman", what's the difference ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 24, 2003 6:11 AMI thought we were all for full disclosure and the more information the better.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 24, 2003 10:02 AMMichael:
"The young woman should ensure that he's free of disease.."...
sorta like taking your tomcat to the vet to make sure he's up to date on his shots!
Posted by: John J. Coupal at October 24, 2003 10:50 AMDavid:
I think that if the relationship is long term, then all should be disclosed, but gushing out your entire autobiography on the first date can be counter-productive.
Certainly, all info that will affect the other person(s) must be given, such as incurable STDs.
John J.:
In the age of fatal, incurable STDs, one would be a fool NOT to ensure safety.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 25, 2003 4:51 AMMichael,
Since AIDS is an essentially 100% preventable incurable STD, shouldn't Baffled be interested in knowing what type of behavior her man has displayed in the past?
Because he'll probably display it in the future, creatures of habit that we are.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at October 25, 2003 8:32 AMJohn J.:
My opinion is that she should date him long enough to have a good idea of his behavior, even without knowing exactly what he may have done in the past.
As to humans being creatures of habit, I agree, but habits can be changed. Both my wife and I have changed life-long behaviors.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 25, 2003 6:15 PM