Hypocrite "Christian" men

[Paidiske]

When it comes to men preferring virgins for marriage, I wonder what the alternative is. Can men help their preferences anymore than women do? Virgin women are more desirable and have been more desirable than virgin men because female virginity is much more valuable than a man's is.

Doesn't this strike you as problematic, though? It seems to me that this supposed greater value of women's virginity has at its root two things; the desire to be assured of paternity of children, and the desire to control women's sexual experiences. In a day and age when paternity tests are highly reliable, the first is robbed of its impetus; and the second has always been a grave problem.

If for no other reason than that many girls or women lose their virginity through force rather than choice, we ought to be wary of prizing virginity over the current character and virtue of any given woman. And that is before we consider the situation of women who are young widows or whose marriages break down due to reasons outside their control (eg. abuse, infidelity of their husbands).

I am in no way an advocate of casual sex, but I can see that making virginity the be-all and end-all of sexual virtue we do many people a great disservice.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Doesn't this strike you as problematic, though? It seems to me that this supposed greater value of women's virginity has at its root two things; the desire to be assured of paternity of children, and the desire to control women's sexual experiences. In a day and age when paternity tests are highly reliable, the first is robbed of its impetus; and the second has always been a grave problem.

If for no other reason than that many girls or women lose their virginity through force rather than choice, we ought to be wary of prizing virginity over the current character and virtue of any given woman. And that is before we consider the situation of women who are young widows or whose marriages break down due to reasons outside their control (eg. abuse, infidelity of their husbands).

I am in no way an advocate of casual sex, but I can see that making virginity the be-all and end-all of sexual virtue we do many people a great disservice.

It strikes me as a naturally desirable trait to have in women and to encourage in them. If I had a choice between an average looking Christian woman whose a virgin and a supermodel who has had over a hundred sexual encounters, I would pick the former. I suspect most Christian men would as well (at least I would hope so). Even God desired a virgin in whom to dwell and come into the world through. Attempting to rationalize it as rooted in the desire for paternity I think is simply trying to reprogram us into a different cultural mindset, more based on secular liberalism than anything authentically Christian. Christians since the beginning have valued virginity and Paul speaks explicitly of the engaged bride as the virgin. He presumes a mode of being where women and men find their sexual fulfilment in marriage. I see no problem in this since in modern western society we've drifted so far away from this expectation.

Rape and sexual violence is a different issue than that of casual sex, which I assume most women in western society currently engage in (along with most men). I'm not going to shame a woman who was raped. I would suggest we castrate men who can be proved to have raped women.

It's ultimately up to people who they want to marry. I will note however that it seems that women have most of the choice in whom they want to marry these days. We're not in the time of a patriarchy where men have full authority over their daughters but women have full authority over themselves. They'll naturally chose the best option. This has led to the Incel phenomena. Though I suspect there are other factors in play beyond just that. Either way. sexuality in western society is broken.

Loosening Christian standards won't strengthen the faith but only weaken it in the long run, more than it already has been.

 

[Paidiske]

Either way. sexuality in western society is broken.

Loosening Christian standards won't strengthen the faith but only weaken it in the long run, more than it already has been.

I'd argue that sexuality in fallen humanity is broken; it's not a peculiarly western thing.

But I didn't see myself in any way as arguing for loosening Christian standards, but rather arguing for a better-integrated set of Christian standards (one which doesn't fixate on only one aspect of a person's experience).

 

[bèlla]

If everyone selected a partner based on virtue and faith you wouldn’t have a singleness problem. It exists because that isn’t the lone criteria they’re using to choose companions. There’s little difference between secular and Christian wants. We overestimate our wholesomeness but the facts say otherwise.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Noxot]

in some ways I see no difference in wanting a virgin because she's a virgin and wanting someone because they're attractive. on the other hand there's a possibility that there is some kind of virtue in the woman if she is a virgin, but this is not always true. It's often especially not true for males.

 

[bèlla]

Just because a person didn’t have intercourse doesn’t mean they’ve never been sexually active.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'd argue that sexuality in fallen humanity is broken; it's not a peculiarly western thing.

But I didn't see myself in any way as arguing for loosening Christian standards, but rather arguing for a better-integrated set of Christian standards (one which doesn't fixate on only one aspect of a person's experience).

You might not see it as a loosening but inevitably it will lead to it, if accepted. If men are to be told that they can't expect certain things of women, soon women will have to be told that they can't expect certain things of men. At which point, is there a principle we are willing to affirm that ought not be changed or moderated? If we are no longer going to value virginity as Christians (which many of us don't), what else are we going to not value? Monogamy? Marriage itself? Too many are in the habit of making exceptions to rules that exist for a reason and I see no reason to do away with them. Especially not on the grounds explicated in this thread.

Why is it particularly a burden for Christian women to be expected to be virgins? They have throughout the entire history of Christianity. It seems a good means of preserving marriage and family life when compared to women who sleep around and have trouble not divorcing when they do decide to marry. Abandoning this expectation doesn't seem like an integrated Christianity, rather it's an integrated secular expectation into Christianity. That we not care about one's sexuality as long as it doesn't do physical harm.

 

[bèlla]

The prohibition against fornication was given to all. The glorification of virginity never applied to men. You altered His intentions by esteeming obedience in one sex over the other. That was never God’s plan.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The prohibition against fornication was given to all. The glorification of virginity never applied to men. You altered His intentions by esteeming obedience in one sex over the other. That was never God’s plan.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

Have you read monastic literature? Or immersed yourself in the lives of the saints of the fourth century where male virginity was prized, especially upon entering the monastic life? To a great extent we've fallen far from that to the point where most men, even most Christian men, can't imagine a life without sex. So of course the prohibition against fornication is for all but you're simply wrong historically. Even biblically there are injunctions for men not to lie with prostitutes and ruin themselves. I think it's Proverbs 7.

I'm not esteeming one sex over the other but can realize there are differences between the sexes, just practically speaking. Male virginity isn't as valuable and it's not as attractive a trait to women as female virginity is to men. Egalitarianism here won't explain the innate attraction some men have towards it or their desire for a virgin wife. It's rooted into our very civilization and goes back to biblical desires and even Greco-Roman desires.

It doesn't seem like a bad thing to encourage in women. Scripturally there is the best example in Mary as a model all women can look to. Men have their own problems they have to deal with. Pornography being at the top of that list and becoming a productive person.

 

[bèlla]

You can’t pick and choose which biblical principles to apply. If the mandate is no fornication that’s the standard. It doesn’t matter one whit whether male virginity is less appealing than its female complement. God said no and that’s the final word.

If you require virginity in a suitor while failing to abstain you’re a hypocrite. If you’re admonishing women for having sex and you’ve done the same the identical term applies.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You can’t pick and choose which biblical principles to apply. If the mandate is no fornication that’s the standard. It doesn’t matter one whit whether male virginity is less appealing than its female complement. God said no and that’s the final word.

If you require virginity in a suitor while failing to abstain you’re a hypocrite. If you’re admonishing women for having sex and you’ve done the same the identical term applies.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

I believe I only said that virginity in women was a desirable trait. One derived biblically and ingrained into our societal consciousness. Although it's less expected of women today. Even then I don't see how what you're saying follows. Perfect equality in relationships doesn't exist and nor do we expect it to in many circumstances. Women desire in men a high income earner, someone whose physically fit/beautiful or any number of markers. Men desire women in their twenties rather than in their late thirties. No one thinks it a fault of the woman if she's not the breadwinner or if she marries a well off older man.

For that same reason then it appears that virginity as a desirable trait is unique in women. Even if men don't live up to it. This isn't to justify a lothario lifestyle or any sexual sin in particular, only to realize the dynamics of human relationships and what each sex expects.

I would rather hold women and men to higher standards. Especially as Christians.

 

[bèlla]

I would rather hold women and men to higher standards. Especially as Christians.

For my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips. —Proverbs 8:7

The OP addresses sexual hypocrisy between Christian men and women. Not preferences or anything else. It pinpoints the want to hold women to a biblical standard the other doesn’t maintain.

He speaks with a forked tongue. He says one thing and does another.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Paidiske]

You might not see it as a loosening but inevitably it will lead to it, if accepted. If men are to be told that they can't expect certain things of women, soon women will have to be told that they can't expect certain things of men. At which point, is there a principle we are willing to affirm that ought not be changed or moderated? If we are no longer going to value virginity as Christians (which many of us don't), what else are we going to not value? Monogamy? Marriage itself? Too many are in the habit of making exceptions to rules that exist for a reason and I see no reason to do away with them. Especially not on the grounds explicated in this thread.

Why is it particularly a burden for Christian women to be expected to be virgins? They have throughout the entire history of Christianity. It seems a good means of preserving marriage and family life when compared to women who sleep around and have trouble not divorcing when they do decide to marry. Abandoning this expectation doesn't seem like an integrated Christianity, rather it's an integrated secular expectation into Christianity. That we not care about one's sexuality as long as it doesn't do physical harm.

I'm not saying you can't have expectations or standards. I'm suggesting that virginity, as a stand-alone standard, is a poor one.

Why is it a burden for Christian women to be expected to be virgins? Where does that leave the woman who was raped as a little girl? Where does it leave the young widow? Where does it leave the woman whose husband beat her black and blue until she fled for her life? These are not questions which only pertain to such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant.

By all means expect self-control, modesty, and so on. But making virginity the place marker of those virtues isn't a good means of preserving marriage, its a good means of stigmatising women through no fault of their own.

And that's not arguing for licentiousness or sleeping around. It's arguing for recognising that not everyone gets to live the fairytale of a sheltered life until their happily-ever-after.

 

[lismore]

Part of the problem is the plethora of false teachings that makes grace a license to sin, such as the hyper-grace teachers that lie and say there’s no need to repent of any sins as a Christian because future sins were forgiven when they were saved, and the OSAS lie is part of that.

Then you have many Catholics that make going to confession a license to sin, because they live like the devil during the week, then confess their sins to a priest (who claims he can absolve their sins as if he were God), and their sins don’t matter.

Hello chad. That might be a little unfair on both the OSAS and the Catholic position.

As for OSAS, I believe the idea is that Jesus died for our sins, according to the scriptures. Therefore salvation is by Jesus' work not a person's works. But anyone who wants to commit more sins because they've received this gift of salvation from God, they really haven't understood it. God's grace brings thanksgiving and repentance. God Bless

 

[lismore]

I've noticed there's a specific mold in the "Christian" community:

Hello. It might to an extent be based on former culture and differences in biology:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.(Deuteronomy 22)

I note that the wife in that situation could not take the husband to court and challenge his virginity or have him stoned for promiscuity. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying.

God Bless

 

[chad kincham]

Hello chad. That might be a little unfair on both the OSAS and the Catholic position.

As for OSAS, I believe the idea is that Jesus died for our sins, according to the scriptures. Therefore salvation is by Jesus' work not a person's works. But anyone who wants to commit more sins because they've received this gift of salvation from God, they really haven't understood it. God's grace brings thanksgiving and repentance. God Bless

Except...

Paul makes clear that after we have been saved, there is a continuing conflict between our wanting to walk in the flesh, (that wants us to live in sin)- and our desire to walk after the Holy Spirit that now dwells in us - and Paul warns that choosing to live in sins (works of the flesh), will keep us out of heaven:

Shalom.

 

[lismore]

I am not suggesting hiding sin, and I agree that ideally we ought to be able to feel comfortable approaching our ministers for help. But I also realise that building that level of trust and comfort takes time; it is not a given. And for people who are, for whatever reason, vulnerable, it may well take more time or never reach the degree we might like; and that is not something on which we ought to push. That's not about pride, it's about safety and not engaging in emotional and spiritual abuse.

Yes I agree that any counselling should be done safely and gently, with full consent.

I think the first resort for a Christian should be to take it to the Lord in prayer. Only God can really see and understand what a person has done or what they've been through. Counselling from pastoral staff can be good but has very obvious weaknesses and limitations. Human beings are biased, to an extent a product of their experiences and background. They might be trying to counsel someone they cannot understand, whose life experience is so different from their own as to be unfathomable. There are some experiences that only those who have been through them will understand.

I have also occasionally run into one or two pastors that I would not trust at all. I recall in a Pentecostal Church the Pastor sharing confidential information about a person from the pulpit as a way of reacting against someone after a disagreement. According to my Auntie, 'tearing into the sheep' as she called it is sometimes known to happen in such circles. It's possible in some situations going to a pastor may do more harm than good. God Bless

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm not saying you can't have expectations or standards. I'm suggesting that virginity, as a stand-alone standard, is a poor one.

Why is it a burden for Christian women to be expected to be virgins? Where does that leave the woman who was raped as a little girl? Where does it leave the young widow? Where does it leave the woman whose husband beat her black and blue until she fled for her life? These are not questions which only pertain to such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant.

By all means expect self-control, modesty, and so on. But making virginity the place marker of those virtues isn't a good means of preserving marriage, its a good means of stigmatising women through no fault of their own.

And that's not arguing for licentiousness or sleeping around. It's arguing for recognising that not everyone gets to live the fairytale of a sheltered life until their happily-ever-after.

You want to point out rape cases as if they represent the majority of women who have lost their virginity. They don't and obviously it depends on the guy. Victims of rape have emotional problems they might be dealing with for the rest of their lives and as unfortunate as that is, it is a consideration in choosing a marriage partner. Same with men who were molested as boys. They might have scars that never heal and it's not their fault but neither should women be expected to pick up the man's burden in that case. Nor does the widow today represent those who have most lost their virginity. Maybe a hundred years ago, but not today. Yet even in those circumstances, it seems to me entirely reasonable for a man to not want to be with a widow if he feels like he can do better.

Yet I'm not arguing on those two premises. I'm arguing about the promiscuous woman who has slept around. Obviously their promiscuousness is their fault and there are consequences to that choice. Do you think men should not take that into consideration or is this too much a burden? There are many women who are single mothers today, the man nowhere to be seen. Can you blame any guy for not wanting to get involved with such a woman? I'm not against women having that standard for men, especially if their faithful and devout Christian women. The Christian world would be better off.

There are all sorts of factors and imbalances between the sexes when each selects a spouse. They cannot all be equalized for either gender. Women for instance have created an entire industry off of the money of desperate simps. I do not think any female simp equivelent comes close.

I do agree however, not everyone gets a happily ever after. We aren't promised everything in this world and as sad as that is, we have to accept it. Where I disagree is that virginity should not be valued in women. Obviously we live in a culture which doesn't encourage virginity in anyone and the attempt to move further away from the Christian standard only plays into that secular liberal ethic. Please don't bring up the exceptions again, which I've dealt with here. Instead, if you must respond, explain to me how men should ignore a woman's willingly promiscuous sexual history.

 

[Paidiske]

You want to point out rape cases as if they represent the majority of women who have lost their virginity.

No. I don't care about the numbers. If even one rape victim suffers from being stigmatised for not being a virgin, that's one too many. (And I can assure you that that stigmatisation is very real).

Victims of rape have emotional problems they might be dealing with for the rest of their lives and as unfortunate as that is, it is a consideration in choosing a marriage partner.

Perhaps, but that's not really about the desirability of virginity. That's about measuring one's own resources that one brings to the lifelong work of marriage, and whether one is up to the task of taking on someone with particular needs.

Yet even in those circumstances, it seems to me entirely reasonable for a man to not want to be with a widow if he feels like he can do better.

Deciding that the virgin is "better" than the rape victim or the widow is exactly the disgusting attitude I'm arguing against. She may be a wiser choice for a particular man, for particular reasons, but she isn't "better."

I'm arguing about the promiscuous woman who has slept around. Obviously their promiscuousness is their fault and there are consequences to that choice. Do you think men should not take that into consideration or is this too much a burden?

I think that call has to be made on a case-by-case basis, not on gross abstract stereotyping and generalisations. You may have a woman with a promiscuous past who has learned and repented and grown; and she may end up being a "better" wife than a self-absorbed, sheltered, entitled immature woman who happens to be a virgin.

Again, the presence of absence of penetrative sex in someone's past isn't necessarily the deciding factor in assessing their suitability as a marriage partner.

There are many women who are single mothers today, the man nowhere to be seen. Can you blame any guy for not wanting to get involved with such a woman?

I'm not sure this is a discussion about blame. But I might think less of a guy who isn't willing to look past someone's life circumstances to see her for who she is. Although you could argue the woman concerned dodged a bullet there, so...

Where I disagree is that virginity should not be valued in women. Obviously we live in a culture which doesn't encourage virginity in anyone and the attempt to move further away from the Christian standard only plays into that secular liberal ethic. Please don't bring up the exceptions again, which I've dealt with here. Instead, if you must respond, explain to me how men should ignore a woman's willingly promiscuous sexual history.

I've never suggested men should ignore a woman's willingly promiscuous sexual history. I've suggested that you can't boil down a consideration of anyone's sexual history into the one matter of virginity. For one thing not yet raised, it doesn't deal with the question of the "everything but" people who've been robustly sexually active and yet are technically virgins!

Making sexual virtue about virginity (in women or men) over-simplifies the issues and tarnishes many people who don't deserve the stigma, while leaving out any consideration of several areas of sexual experience and character.

 

[NerdGirl]

Nor does the widow today represent those who have most lost their virginity. Maybe a hundred years ago, but not today.

Wait, what? You don't think women can still be widowed in 2020? Do you think it's some extreme rarity for married men to die? Do you assume only OLD married men die?

Yet even in those circumstances, it seems to me entirely reasonable for a man to not want to be with a widow if he feels like he can do better.

WOW. Just wow.

There are many women who are single mothers today, the man nowhere to be seen. Can you blame any guy for not wanting to get involved with such a woman?

How many of them were wrongfully abandoned? Do you know? Do you even care?

There are a lot of misogynistic undertones in your posts. And a lot of ignorance. If you want a virgin wife, then simply say so, without trying to act as though you aren't worshipping a woman's virginity. Because apparently, widows, single mothers, and rape victims are all too "tainted" for your taste. Throwing them under the bus along with promiscuous women is harsh and unjust.

Be honest about what you're trying to say. Virgins are the "best" women in your mind.