Am I cynical to not expect to find a virgin?

[waterbear]

I know, but given that people raised as Christians are much more likely to abstain from premarital sex than those who were not, I think an I-only-date-virgins policy can be viewed as a de facto I-only-date-people-from-Christian-families policy.

I mentioned this earlier that not only was I an atheist virgin for awhile, but I also had a virigin-only dating policy then. It was definately not my intent on any subconcious level to date only Christians - in fact my ideal spouse has always been my mental equivalent, so I would have preferred an atheist virgin at that time.

Christianity isn't the only culture which promotes virginity. Japanese culture, Indian culture, Buddhist cultures, Muslim cultures...

And to those who are so sure that God is going to "bless" them with a virgin, as though someone who screwed up once 15 years ago can't be a blessnig as a spouse, He may surprise you. His ways are higher than our ways.

If God does not "bless" me with a virgin, I shall take up a life as a monk Seriously, I wouldn't fall in love with a (known) non-virgin...

 

[waterbear]

Well I don't, right now atleast, to read through all of the posts after the first page.

I'll just say this:

Seems trivial. Are any of us virgins in God's eye? Have you never embaced a thought of lust for more than a moment before rejecting it? If embracing the thought of lust towards another, is adultery in Gods eyes... Can one who's committed adultery really be a virgin?

We might justify it by saying we're not adulters because we're under Grace and Forgiveness from God. We might say there's a "difference" to us (not God though) between embracing sin in thought and carrying it out.

Oh well, would go further, and possible refute my own thoughts but ... alas, lack of time.

- Virginity is a concept applied to the coporeal world, not the spiritual world. The spiritual equivalent is purity I would think. A lustful thought can affect our purity much as adultry affect our purity. However, virginity is defined by an action in the coporeal world - a virgin has not had sex. Sex in the coporeal world is very different from a thought about sex in the corporeal world, the later of which is only manifested as a bit of brain activity.

- You may be assuming the only consequence of premartial sex is sin. Consider the scenario where cutting off your nose is a sin. One person has committed the sin in thought and repented, the other in deed and repented. So they are both cleansed of any sin. Now, would you prefer to date the person who has his/her nose or the person who now lacks his/her nose? The point of this is that while the sin of the action may be annulled, the action itself is not annulled and will have it's own consequences. Most sin has nasty consequences tied directly to the action, adultry, murder, lying, etc. Premartial sex is no different.

- The sin is sin approach which seems to state something to the effect that all sin is imperfect and that-is-that is a simplification. If a poor artist draws my face as , the representation is obviously imperfect. If a skilled artist draws my face, the representation at some level of detail is still imperfect. Are they equally imperfect or is one closer to perfection than the other? Someone who limits themselves to lustful thoughts would seem closer to perfection than someone who allows lustful thoughts and the subsequent adultry/fornication.

 

[HermesTrismegistus]

- You may be assuming the only consequence of premartial sex is sin. Consider the scenario where cutting off your nose is a sin. One person has committed the sin in thought and repented, the other in deed and repented. So they are both cleansed of any sin. Now, would you prefer to date the person who has his/her nose or the person who now lacks his/her nose? The point of this is that while the sin of the action may be annulled, the action itself is not annulled and will have it's own consequences. Most sin has nasty consequences tied directly to the action, adultry, murder, lying, etc. Premartial sex is no different.

So would you refuse to date a young widow whose late husband was her first and only? After all, she would never have committed the sin of premarital sex, so those consequences would not be present, right?

 

[waterbear]

So would you refuse to date a young widow whose late husband was her first and only? After all, she would never have committed the sin of premarital sex, so those consequences would not be present, right?

The consequences are tied to the action. It just so happens that sinful actions tend to have nasty consequences - i.e. they should probably be avoided for your own sake even if God didn't tell you to avoid them (i.e. if God had not made them sin).

Since the action, sex with someone else, has occurred, I would not date a young widow, though I will agree that she had not committed sin as defined in the Bible. Given her blameless state in all of this, my approach is about as justified as refusing to date someone to whom I was not physically attracted to (as being physically ugly is often a blameless fault).

Edit: Essentially the importance of the consequences is subjective. I've mentioned earlier, I think, that I also don't agree with re-marriage which plays into this particular scenario. The Bible, via sins, creates a set of actions that are sins and those that are not sins. In the instances of virginity in re-marriage, I'm not saying that re-marriage or dating non-virgins is sin, rather that it is within the set of actions that are not-sins for me to not engage in those actions. That something is not a sin does not need imply I agree with it.

 

[fishstix]

I know, but given that people raised as Christians are much more likely to abstain from premarital sex than those who were not, I think an I-only-date-virgins policy can be viewed as a de facto I-only-date-people-from-Christian-families policy.

I would say it would be more of an I'm-more-likely-to-date-people-from-Christian-families policy. BTW, many people do have a policy of only dating Christians since the Bible does tell us not to be unequally yoked. Again, that would make them more likely to date people from Christian families as it is more likely that someone from a Christian family will be a Christian. But it doesn't mean that they won't date someone who is the only Christian in their family just because that isn't as large a segment of the population. Same kind of thing. Just because a given situation is more likely doesn't mean that it is the only situation the person will accept.

 

[evesummernight]

virginity is one of those things that is so odd... at one point, to me, it doesn't matter... a woman who realises that sex can be destructive in the wrong context is as good as a virgin to me... glory to the wise woman... heck, they both are wise... and both are strong...

it takes a strong person to realize that sex can be a destructive component of one's being and admit it... and it takes a strong person to resist the temptation of sex in this culture too...

heh... i'm so weak...

 

[vinc]

It is a natural thought nowadays to not expect to find a virgin bcoz majority of us have lost our virginity in our teens or before marriage.

Most would have lost their virginity before they were born-again. And after they were born-again were serious and did not fall into sexual sins.

IMO how a person has lived a life after he/she was born-again is important. And not whether he/she is a virgin or not.

Whether he/she is in the Lord and seriously working out his/her salvation and is living as an overcomer is more important for me.

Will he/she be committed after marriage is more important for me?

So, choosing a life-partner has to be done carefully, wisely and prayerfully.

Virgin or Non-Virgin is not the question.

Committed or Non-Committed is the question IMO.

Serious or Non-Serious is the question IMO.

I have no problems marrying a non-virgin who has a good record of NOT indulging in pre-marital sexual sin after she has been born-again and provided she is indeed God's will for me.

Just my thoughts
Vincent

 

[PandaGirl]

I get asked this all the time (Aren't you afraid you're not going to find a virgin?)!! Especially by parents who say "You know...my son isn't exactly *pure*....."

This is what I have to say to that:

Yes I am 20 years old and still pure but that doesn't mean I have anything against anyone who isn't. It is a fine line. I don't condone sin, and especially brothers and sisters who continue to live in it...but I also don't hold people's past against them. God is full of grace and mercy and I want to be also! People mess up...sometimes they need a little kick in the butt (I do too!!) and sometimes they need encouragement and love!!

Do I pray that my future husband is pure....yes. Will I kick someone to the curb once I learn they have "a past" ...no way! My purity is a gift to my husband on our wedding night and it will be my greatest joy to provide that to him. If I don't get the same gift back...thats ok. It would be great! But a gift is a gift. I will love my husband regardless and look towards our future together...that God would bless us for OUR relationship before him and not for things of the past.

My Little Personal Story:
**My ex (the one and only) did not have a perfect past. He had "been" with 7 girls prior to our courtship and knew that I was pure. Our relationship was pure...it can happen regardless of someones past. It took a lot of prayer and a lot of leadership. We had a lot of very serious talks...the past does affect people! There were nights I was sad that the person I wanted to marry had given themselves away...there were days I felt compared...days I didn't think I could ever "match up"...but with God we made it through all of those rough patches. I believe part of the reason he left was becuase he didn't think he was good enough for me...which breaks my heart. I still love him very much, and I pray that God's will is done in each of our lives.**

 

[MetalBlade]

You are probably right, since you live in today's society!

 

[makkulu]

Hi all,

Just an observation, most of these posts are equating a lack of virginity with past sin (the "what about a widow, would you date a widow?" question to waterbear being a notable exception).

There are a whole lot of folks (and some at CF, I wonder how they would feel reading these posts) who have sexual experiences through no choice of their own. Usually before the age of 9 or 10 if you look at average ages of child sexual abuse victims (although not all are raped) in both the US and Australia (sorry haven't seen stats for elsewhere) plus, of course, people may be raped when they are older, too. That is a fact often overlooked in a lot of the "purity before marriage" debates all over the place, not just on this board. So, I am pointing it out. It's not just about asking "has my future spouse's attitude changed since they became a Christian?" although that is a good question depending on the situation. There aren't just two categories of people, the "virgin" or the "repentant previous sinner but born again virgin". Ouch I hate categories. There are just people.

Waterbear, you can feel free to date whomever you want, with whatever conditions on it you want, please don't think I am trying to suggest otherwise, even if it were any of my business

. You have said you would not date a non-virgin (even a widowed one who hadn't sinned). I understand what you mean about having personal preferences in dating and it just being one of those. I don't agree with your reasoning, but that is cool, since we won't be dating any time soon hehehe. But I know a lot of people who wouldn't want to date someone who had a "virgins only" dating rule (and not just non-virgins!). Just like there may be many people who won't date someone who is not blonde. And there may well be blondes who don't want to date that person because they don't agree with the rule. (I am blonde, hence the example, I am not trying to start a blonde joke thread).

Also, I disagree that a "non-virgin" cannot become a "virgin" (except quite obviously in the technical sense); and much depends on whether virginity is defined that technically. I don't believe it should be, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here, some of which have been well explained by other posts. The biggest reason is that Christ does not give us His purity, nor His righteousness, in vain, whatever the nature or reasons for a person's sexual experiences. He is not so small that He is unable to bring total restoration to a person and their future relationship with their spouse in a marriage covenant. I personally do not think that a virgin has any more purity of their own than a non-virgin. The only purity that anyone has is in and through Christ anyway, whether it is to do with their sexual "status" or any other area. (I don't mean to suggest that there is no point or benefit to be gained from living purely, or that doing so is not to be cherished and respected, but it is nothing that makes any of us better than anyone else, since our purity doesn't start with us anyway).

The reasons for reserving sex for marriage have to do with the depth and richness of a sexual relationship and the way we see the closeness and intimacy of the Godhead in it; it is as close as we can get to another human being, but the physical act itself does not create that closeness. It is an expression of relationship, we have a relational God in whose image we are created after all. Thus to focus on only one aspect of it for the definition of non-virgin, ignores the spiritual and emotional and relational aspects to a degree; and to believe all is irretrievably lost because of physical actions which are probably long regretted, may have been quite fleeting or quite possibly not consensual anyway, is to give our own actions more power than those of Christ, IMO.

Having said all that, getting off my soap box and back to the OP, I reckon there is a really good chance that you will find a virgin, though that may depend on how you define the term. Seek God on it and don't worry about it, and don't worry about whether or not you might be cynical either!

Hope that all made sense. It's late and I gotta get some sleep

Blessings all round
Makk.

PS Butting in on another issue raised on this thread, I dislike the terms virgin and non-virgin. I think it is because I have an ideological problem with defining people by labelling and putting in boxes. I avoid all labels where I can; adjectives that describe them, yes, but nouns no. No-one is defined by anything except the love of God for them.

 

[invisiblebabe]

Since the action, sex with someone else, has occurred, I would not date a young widow, though I will agree that she had not committed sin as defined in the Bible. Given her blameless state in all of this, my approach is about as justified as refusing to date someone to whom I was not physically attracted to (as being physically ugly is often a blameless fault).

I'm with him. A great deal of it is an experiential thing for me as well.

As for the thing about rape.... the stats say that most guys are *not* raped.... and like I said earlier, even if one was, I could not emotionally deal with that situation.

 

[invisiblebabe]

As for technicalities, and physical vs. mental.... well, I'll use this example. I was a gymnast. Say I imagine doing double back flips... I do them in my head all the time. Does that automatically put me on the same experiential level as a high-level gymnast who actually does double backs out on the floor?

I am separating the purity issue from the experience issue. It is true that inner purity comes from Christ alone, but Christ does not take our past experiences away, and it is often our experiences that make us either able or unable to relate to others.

 

[Sketcher]

And to those who are so sure that God is going to "bless" them with a virgin, as though someone who screwed up once 15 years ago can't be a blessnig as a spouse, He may surprise you. His ways are higher than our ways.

Yes, but His ways are firmly anchored in Scripture, which endorses and even commands a lifelong commitment to whoever you've had sex with. Our society, church and world alike, is discarding that. Yes, He forgives and remembers our sins no more. That's why I won't judge or protest a Christian or two who have repented of a sexual past when they marry. But the best way to be sure that God is fully in my future marraige (if it happens) is for myself and my future wife to remain pure. Now, that's not the only thing, other things need to happen, but I consider this to be a key element in how much joy I would get during marraige. I don't need to have any doubts in this lifetime commitment, and I would have doubts sometime down the road if I did anything less than marry a virgin and stay pure myself.

So would you refuse to date a young widow whose late husband was her first and only? After all, she would never have committed the sin of premarital sex, so those consequences would not be present, right?

That is definitely OK Biblically. If she was my type and if I didn't feel as though I had to come out of her departed husband's shadow, then yes.

 

[Sketcher]

*shrug* 20 and never kissed here... plus I know *counts* 12 others who are the same way, all 16 or over, all but one 19 or over. Besides that, I know so many more virgins that I doubt I can count 'em all, haha. So yes, you 're being cynical.

Good! I was very surprised to learn that a coworker of mine is in the same boat. What's surprising is she's attractive, very outgoing, and very un-religeous. I almost couldn't believe it. I hope she starts seeing that as a blessing rather than a curse. It makes me wonder, how many more virgins are out there than I previously thought?

 

[makkulu]

I am separating the purity issue from the experience issue. It is true that inner purity comes from Christ alone, but Christ does not take our past experiences away, and it is often our experiences that make us either able or unable to relate to others.

Hi Invisible babe, I get what you mean about separating purity from experience and to an extent I agree with you. I guess that what I mean about Christ's restoration is that it does more than get our spiritual purity back for us (just like he doesn't only forgive us our sins). The past experiences aren't taken away but they don't need to be. Jesus doesn't change the past in that sense, he goes one better and heals it. It is Christ's healing which enables us to still relate to others despite our experiences, since healed experiences do not plague us and we don't drag that baggage into the marriage covenant. Or, if it doesn't get healed prior to marriage, or bits and pieces come up later, they can be healed at that point. Not easily and not without a lot of effort, I am not trying to make light of that here. It is doable, but only Jesus can bring it about.

You also mentioned that most guys don't get raped. Not sure why you pointed that out, but I didn't say they did. Only 1 in 7 or 8 or so guys get abused and that doesn't always involve rape. Most gals don't either, only one in three or four, and again, that doesn't always involve rape. It always brings with it a sense of a loss of sexual purity though, which fits with this discussion, (and is a lie from the pit of hell in my opinion, but it can take a lot of healing to get to that point for an individual). I was simply trying to point out that a significant number of non-virgins were not getting a mention in the conversation, because it is not as clear cut as a person either being a "virgin" or a "sinned but now forgiven born again virgin", and how we should see them. For my money, we should see everyone as beloved pure righteous children of the Father. Easy.

Having said that, I gotta say that for many practical reasons, I would like to marry someone with as little sexual stuff to sort out as possible. But if that isn't the case, it is no biggy, since I know Jesus can sort that out. A full and blessed marriage is dependent on Him, not my history nor my spouse's.

Hope that makes what I meant a little clearer. Or if it is overkill, feel free to ignore me. It is past midnight here, so I am probably raving.

Makk

 

[invisiblebabe]

Good! I was very surprised to learn that a coworker of mine is in the same boat. What's surprising is she's attractive, very outgoing, and very un-religeous. I almost couldn't believe it. I hope she starts seeing that as a blessing rather than a curse. It makes me wonder, how many more virgins are out there than I previously thought?

Yep, we are more common than you think.

That is very surprising that she isn't religious yet is still in the same situation as myself. I definitely had to make the choice to wait for everything, as I've had the chance more than enough times.

 

[invisiblebabe]

Hi Invisible babe, I get what you mean about separating purity from experience and to an extent I agree with you. I guess that what I mean about Christ's restoration is that it does more than get our spiritual purity back for us (just like he doesn't only forgive us our sins). The past experiences aren't taken away but they don't need to be. Jesus doesn't change the past in that sense, he goes one better and heals it. It is Christ's healing which enables us to still relate to others despite our experiences, since healed experiences do not plague us and we don't drag that baggage into the marriage covenant. Or, if it doesn't get healed prior to marriage, or bits and pieces come up later, they can be healed at that point. Not easily and not without a lot of effort, I am not trying to make light of that here. It is doable, but only Jesus can bring it about.

Indeed... and it is a huge commitment (that would require a lot of emotional energy, time, and likely much hurt) to decide you want to be with someone and sort that out together. Personally, I have had enough to deal with of my own and would not choose to deal with that.

So basically I agree with you; I am just commenting that a Christian is not any less forgiving if she chooses that she cannot handle being with a future spouse who is not a virgin.

You also mentioned that most guys don't get raped. Not sure why you pointed that out, but I didn't say they did.

I was mainly pointing that out to say that in my case, being a girl, that isn't so much of an issue. Perhaps I went off on a tangent though

I was simply trying to point out that a significant number of non-virgins were not getting a mention in the conversation, because it is not as clear cut as a person either being a "virgin" or a "sinned but now forgiven born again virgin", and how we should see them. For my money, we should see everyone as beloved pure righteous children of the Father. Easy.

Very true We should treat our brothers and sisters in Christ as the spotless children of the Lamb that Christ sees them as. BUT... my point here is that it takes much more than a common faith to be compatible enough to marry. For me, marrying a non-virgin would be equivalent to the idea of marrying an extrovert... we are just too different to relate romantically. My specific case is likely not true for everyone, but I am sure everyone has (or should have) at least one quality other than strong faith that matters in a future spouse.

Having said that, I gotta say that for many practical reasons, I would like to marry someone with as little sexual stuff to sort out as possible. But if that isn't the case, it is no biggy, since I know Jesus can sort that out. A full and blessed marriage is dependent on Him, not my history nor my spouse's.

Hope that makes what I meant a little clearer. Or if it is overkill, feel free to ignore me. It is past midnight here, so I am probably raving.

Makk

It makes sense

 

[waterbear]

There are a whole lot of folks (and some at CF, I wonder how they would feel reading these posts) who have sexual experiences through no choice of their own. Usually before the age of 9 or 10 if you look at average ages of child sexual abuse victims (although not all are raped) in both the US and Australia (sorry haven't seen stats for elsewhere) plus, of course, people may be raped when they are older, too. That is a fact often overlooked in a lot of the "purity before marriage" debates all over the place, not just on this board. So, I am pointing it out. It's not just about asking "has my future spouse's attitude changed since they became a Christian?" although that is a good question depending on the situation. There aren't just two categories of people, the "virgin" or the "repentant previous sinner but born again virgin". Ouch I hate categories. There are just people.

I have no issues dating people who have had sexual experiences through no choice of their own (yea, my terminology usually doesn't make that clear). I require life-long devotion, that you have always had your spouse on your mind to some extent. Since marriage is a sexual relationship, for devotion to your spouse to have existed in any sense prior to your marriage, consenusal sex with someone who is not your spouse cannot have happened.

Waterbear, you can feel free to date whomever you want, with whatever conditions on it you want, please don't think I am trying to suggest otherwise, even if it were any of my business

. You have said you would not date a non-virgin (even a widowed one who hadn't sinned). I understand what you mean about having personal preferences in dating and it just being one of those. I don't agree with your reasoning, but that is cool, since we won't be dating any time soon hehehe. But I know a lot of people who wouldn't want to date someone who had a "virgins only" dating rule (and not just non-virgins!). Just like there may be many people who won't date someone who is not blonde. And there may well be blondes who don't want to date that person because they don't agree with the rule. (I am blonde, hence the example, I am not trying to start a blonde joke thread).

I've met a few myself. Refusing to date a non-virgin gets alot of attention, I think, because it relates back to a choice the person made. We cannot escape our choices, we cannot turn the blame anywhere, and being rejected for a choice is being rejected for who you. Yet, refusing to date non-virgins seems less callous than refusing to date people I'm not physically attracted to. A person could be perfect in all ways, yet through no fault be extraordinarily ugly. If one refuses to date this person, one has rejected him through no fault of his own, whereas when I reject a non-virgin I am rejecting someone for a fault of their own.

Also, I disagree that a "non-virgin" cannot become a "virgin" (except quite obviously in the technical sense); and much depends on whether virginity is defined that technically. I don't believe it should be, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here, some of which have been well explained by other posts. The biggest reason is that Christ does not give us His purity, nor His righteousness, in vain, whatever the nature or reasons for a person's sexual experiences. He is not so small that He is unable to bring total restoration to a person and their future relationship with their spouse in a marriage covenant. I personally do not think that a virgin has any more purity of their own than a non-virgin. The only purity that anyone has is in and through Christ anyway, whether it is to do with their sexual "status" or any other area. (I don't mean to suggest that there is no point or benefit to be gained from living purely, or that doing so is not to be cherished and respected, but it is nothing that makes any of us better than anyone else, since our purity doesn't start with us anyway).

But it's self evident that total restoration does not happen. If I murder someone, Christ may forgive my sin of murder, but the victim will remain dead. Furthermore, I would think I'd still be haunted by what I had done, that I remember I murdered someone is alone evident that I'm not restored. That someone remembers they had sex, even knows they are not a virgin, they are not restored.

Also, will a forgiven adulterer be competely restored in his/her relationship? No, there will continue to be uncertainity and lack of trust, even if the spouse forgives. I think the problem with this argument is that you're assuming fornication is a victimless sin - it isn't.

Edit: What I mean is, you aren't the same person coming out of the sin as going in. As perfect to God, but a different person. Your relationships in this world will likely reflect that. A lot of the people who refuse to date non-virgins are doing so because of certain differences in the person that will arise from the sin - these differences don't make the person less perfect in God's eyes, but many of us have values in addition to Christian values - the person may not be as perfect in those respects. E.g. if you place a lot of value on sharing your first intimate relationship with your spouse, a personal value, then the person is less perfect in your eyes in the context of a spouse because your subjective values add to your Christian values.

The reasons for reserving sex for marriage have to do with the depth and richness of a sexual relationship and the way we see the closeness and intimacy of the Godhead in it; it is as close as we can get to another human being, but the physical act itself does not create that closeness. It is an expression of relationship, we have a relational God in whose image we are created after all. Thus to focus on only one aspect of it for the definition of non-virgin, ignores the spiritual and emotional and relational aspects to a degree; and to believe all is irretrievably lost because of physical actions which are probably long regretted, may have been quite fleeting or quite possibly not consensual anyway, is to give our own actions more power than those of Christ, IMO.

Fundamentally, marriage is sexual. A non-virgin has not devoted himself/herself sexually to his/her spouse, since sexual fidelity defines marriage, the non-virgin has not always devoted to his/her spouse in the sense that a virgin has. I think this lack of devotion parallels adultry after the "official" vows, and in my mind reduces the question to: Do I want to have a marriage relationship with an adulterer?

Having said all that, getting off my soap box and back to the OP, I reckon there is a really good chance that you will find a virgin, though that may depend on how you define the term. Seek God on it and don't worry about it, and don't worry about whether or not you might be cynical either!

May your relationships be blessed as well

 

[luckynugget]

If you pray for your wife and ask God to keep her holy then he wont disapoint you. I personally am waiting for my husband and i don't date. I know alot of girls who are waiting too. It is possible. Just put it into God's hands and he will take care of it.

 

[makkulu]

Hey waterbear,
thanks for your response and well wishes. And for clarifying what you meant by non-virgin. I think we may be talking at cross purposes about restoration. There are consequences of sin, that is true, and fornication is not victimless, no. I agree about a person being a different person in the sense that you mean, but my point is that Jesus doesn't leave them there. He uses all circumstances for good. Think of people who only "find God" as a result of being in prison for murder. One of the best ministers I know has a record for armed robbery. That didn't get wiped out, but it didn't get in Jesus' way either in that more fundamental sense. So I guess what I would add to your point about the person being different though is that those changes in them as a result can be healed and restored also. Just like an alcoholic can be delivered from that addiction. It is flat out miraculous, and no it doesn't happen automatically, but it is possible. That is why I said in a different post that Jesus doesn't change what happens, but that he doesn't need to.

We are all haunted by our sin unless we realise that we are forgiven, and can forgive ourselves also, as a result (that is harder, I reckon). One of the wonderful things about grace is that we don't have to beat ourselves up for our past sins but can move forward and realise that they don't define us. Jesus takes away the shadows. He is "how we set our minds at rest whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater than our hearts, and He knows everything". (Um 1 John 3 18-19 I think!)

By the way, I do understand the desire to just plain share sexually with one person for life, literally, with no need for any kind of restoration, probably more than you realise just from my posts. That is why I value Jesus' ability to ensure that we have something just as precious with our spouse, regardless of history.

I think there are a few areas we are talking at cross purposes about, but I am happy to agree to disagree with you waterbear, no worries, and I wish you a life and when the time comes a marriage that is blessed indeed.

Makk