What is virginity?

[Niels]

I've been thinking... what does virginity have to do with purity? Saving sexual relations for marriage is the right thing to do. It's a good choice. Nobody is naturally pure. We are all sinners, born of original sin, and are all equally forgiven in God's eyes when we accept Christ. Some choices are simply better than others. Why not regard good and bad choices for what they are, and leave it at that?


(Yes, I understand the Christianese lingo... but it leads to erroneous implications, IMHO.)

 

[Sketcher]

But isn't a person who thinks about having sex with a woman a fornicator who didn't actually have sex?

Yeah. Thus, since he didn't actually have sex, he retained his virginity. Not to say that he's 100% pure by any means.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Yeah. Thus, since he didn't actually have sex, he retained his virginity. Not to say that he's 100% pure by any means.

That's a wonderful definition by man's standards, but does God actually see that person as a virgin?

 

[Sketcher]

I've been thinking... what does virginity have to do with purity?

A lot. A friend of mine who had fornicated told me that no matter how perverted you think you are, that's nothing until you've had sex. Or something to that effect.

 

[Sketcher]

That's a wonderful definition by man's standards, but does God actually see that person as a virgin?

In His wisdom, probably.

 

[WileyCoyote]

In His wisdom, probably.

Let's hope you're right.

 

[Fremdin]

Hmm... so if any of you reading this are virgins, would you feel more comfortable having sex with someone on your wedding night if they had oral sex but were technical virgin than with somebody who has had traditional intercourse or is it all the same?

It's all the same. Sexual contact is sexual contact. I really think that oral is something that you do after an established sexual relationship. It isn't a greeting card, like so many people treat it. It's just become such a lax thing. Well I'll do this but I won't do this. What's the difference? Do it or don't. It's all the same. There aren't loopholes

 

[Supplanter]

It's all the same. Sexual contact is sexual contact. I really think that oral is something that you do after an established sexual relationship. It isn't a greeting card, like so many people treat it. It's just become such a lax thing. Well I'll do this but I won't do this. What's the difference? Do it or don't. It's all the same. There aren't loopholes

 

[Im_A]

I recently read an article about prostitution in Afghanistan. Apparently, many Afghani prostitutes only have anal sex in order to save their virginity for marriage. I don't get it.

What do you consider to be virginity? Are these Afghani "women of the night" virgins in your eyes? For those of you who only plan on marrying a virgin, does virginity only mean traditional intercourse?

unaswerable question as far as i'm concerned.

 

[deliciousBass]

unaswerable question as far as i'm concerned.

What makes it so?

 

[Im_A]

i hate it when i do this. click submit reply before i add more of my opinion. ok...
i think its an unaswerable question. if one would use a definition of lets say with the Bible, how would that be defined?
(NOTE: my response is not touching on the issue of the specialness of sexual acts, because a mere definition doesn't include emotional specialness as far as i'm concerned. its black or white.)
like, kissing is ok, but not kissing another body part?
oral is ok, but no penetration?
finger penetration is ok, but not private pentetration?
is masturbation/self-pleasure ok, but not any kind of sexual contact with someone else?

so what standard did let's say the Bible say, that the writers define what fornication as? i don't remember specifics ever being said in the scriptures of the actual listed out, black and white saying this

(another note. i'm using the Bible because this is a christian forum, but also because, its an ancient document that many people use as an authority in their lives here. i'm not using it as an example to show any kind of negative feelings towards the Bible. the same points go with any ancient scriptures.)

we have the same problem when those of us who don't use the Bible as authoritative. what real standard do we have that fills in the "grey" areas. i think its safe to say that you know when your at a point of no return. the point of no return that we all know is full sexual intercourse. so, what's the answer beyond adding some personal, idealistic definition of purity/impurity involved with it? as far as i'm concerned, there is no black and white definition of it.

 

[Im_A]

What makes it so?

my above post explains my thoughts on that. i apologize for not putting it with my first response.

 

[Fremdin]

you know what? I bet this question is a lot less difficult to answer for people who don't associate sexual activity with emotion

 

[deliciousBass]

i hate it when i do this. click submit reply before i add more of my opinion. ok...
i think its an unaswerable question. if one would use a definition of lets say with the Bible, how would that be defined?
(NOTE: my response is not touching on the issue of the specialness of sexual acts, because a mere definition doesn't include emotional specialness as far as i'm concerned. its black or white.)
like, kissing is ok, but not kissing another body part?
oral is ok, but no penetration?
finger penetration is ok, but not private pentetration?
is masturbation/self-pleasure ok, but not any kind of sexual contact with someone else?

so what standard did let's say the Bible say, that the writers define what fornication as? i don't remember specifics ever being said in the scriptures of the actual listed out, black and white saying this

(another note. i'm using the Bible because this is a christian forum, but also because, its an ancient document that many people use as an authority in their lives here. i'm not using it as an example to show any kind of negative feelings towards the Bible. the same points go with any ancient scriptures.)

we have the same problem when those of us who don't use the Bible as authoritative. what real standard do we have that fills in the "grey" areas. i think its safe to say that you know when your at a point of no return. the point of no return that we all know is full sexual intercourse. so, what's the answer beyond adding some personal, idealistic definition of purity/impurity involved with it? as far as i'm concerned, there is no black and white definition of it.

I was thinking the exact same thing, particulary with the kissing/fondling stuff. Where do you draw the line between an act of affection and sexual immorality/lack of purity? Is one act "better" than the other? Is it preferable to date somebody whose only had oral intercourse as opposed to someone whose participated in "the real deal?" This is why I question when I hear people say, "Oh, I only want to marry a virgin."

NO ONE is pure. Whether they be a virgin from having abstained from sexual intercourse or whether they made a mistake at 15 behind the bleachers.

I think you're right, it's a very hard thing to define and it becomes even more difficult when you try and mesh what the Bible says with secular culture.

 

[deliciousBass]

you know what? I bet this question is a lot less difficult to answer for people who don't associate sexual activity with emotion

Why do you think that is? Is it just a means to an end for them you think?

 

[Fremdin]

Why do you think that is? Is it just a means to an end for them you think?

If you don't equate sexual closeness with emotional closeness than sex loses a lot of its import, it just becomes some other pleasure seeking impulse like eating ice cream or smelling a flower. It's just; "Hey, this feels good and I'm going to continue."

 

[Im_A]

If you don't equate sexual closeness with emotional closeness than sex loses a lot of its import, it just becomes some other pleasure seeking impulse like eating ice cream or smelling a flower. It's just; "Hey, this feels good and I'm going to continue."

but the definition of what is virgin is still left out.

in your example, you know you've eaten ice cream why? because you tasted what ice cream is. so what defines losing one's virginity? one could ask you, how have you really had ice cream because you've only experienced eating the cone?

 

[deliciousBass]

If you don't equate sexual closeness with emotional closeness than sex loses a lot of its import, it just becomes some other pleasure seeking impulse like eating ice cream or smelling a flower. It's just; "Hey, this feels good and I'm going to continue."

In that case, I can see them defining it by the "technical" definition.

I don't believe somebody who does not equate sexual closeness with emotional closeness is a healthy individual.

 

[Im_A]

I was thinking the exact same thing, particulary with the kissing/fondling stuff. Where do you draw the line between an act of affection and sexual immorality/lack of purity? Is one act "better" than the other? Is it preferable to date somebody whose only had oral intercourse as opposed to someone whose participated in "the real deal?" This is why I question when I hear people say, "Oh, I only want to marry a virgin."

NO ONE is pure. Whether they be a virgin from having abstained from sexual intercourse or whether they made a mistake at 15 behind the bleachers.

I think you're right, it's a very hard thing to define and it becomes even more difficult when you try and mesh what the Bible says with secular culture.

i agree with you. then you get into more areas of confusion. is that act of affection immoral but does that still constitute you as losing your virginity? say for an example, a couple, descides to have oral sex. does that act of sexual affection, let's just say for sake of discussion, is pure, have they lost their virginity?

your probably a lot kinder than me when it comes to questioning those people who say, "i only want a virgin." to me, the desire to only want a virgin is solely a repressed lustful reason. no one can tell me they can truly love someone when their sole requirement is for their significant other to never had any kind of sexual contact and then they know they will they find their God's chosen one, or their life partner because they will be the only one they did anything sexual with. that's why i stay out of those discussions. i have no respect towards views like that.

what was the secular culture back in the Biblical times? i think its hard to say. one way i can illustrate this is with me, and in the 21st century. i'm secular. agnostic. but i'm very "conservative" in regards to my sex life. i have a strong disdain towards people that live stupid in their sexuality. i see it all the time, and i hate how people are so open with their legs, their privates. not because they are slighting against God, or invading what is meant for marriage, because they have no self-respect, and they make themselves our as but nothing more than a machine. so in a way, i hope that is on topic, how would i find, moral sexual living, when the bible is not my authority of approval of what to do, but the way we see the "secular" is not my way either?

(i hope i have stayed on topic here bro.! )

 

[Im_A]

i don't know about anyone else, but a kiss on the lips, can make me going even if it wasn't inteded to. so still a grey area. the intention was not for stimulation but the affect of soft, moist lips on my lips draws a 3rd party to arise to the occasion