Hypocrite "Christian" men

[bekkilyn]

I don't at all understand this fascination with virgins (or non-virgins). I mean who really cares all things considered? It's just ONE factor out of many when considering a relationship with a PERSON.

 

[NerdGirl]

I don't at all understand this fascination with virgins (or non-virgins). I mean who really cares all things considered? It's just ONE factor out of many when considering a relationship with a PERSON.

I do understand it. Though I hesitate to explain what I mean. I'd probably get reported.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

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."

If she's a wiser choice for a particular man, doesn't that make her the better choice for that man by default?

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.

True, but how can one reliably establish that enough learning, repentance, and growth has happened in her life to make her a good choice?

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.

Life circumstances are very relevant in determining who she is. After all, the guy who gets together with her is going to get more of who she is than you are ever likely to see, either personally or professionally.

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!

Quite true, but if we're going to address that honestly, we need to control for everything else. If you're going to bring up an "everything but" person as a hypothetical example, make that person equally repentant or unrepentant as whichever ex-fornicator you are comparing them to.

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.

One thing it can do - it simplifies things greatly. There are multiple ways that a woman can lose her virginity, either if she is at fault, or if she is not - but they will shape who she is today. And each and every one of those can result in issues that a particular man may not wish to deal with, or is ill-equipped to deal with. If a man recognizes that, and that informs his desire to marry a virgin, do you still have a problem with it? Assume that virginity is NOT his only criteria, it's one of several that are important to him.

 

[Paidiske]

If she's a wiser choice for a particular man, doesn't that make her the better choice for that man by default?

But that's not what Ignatius said. His phrasing suggested an intrinsic value to the person.

True, but how can one reliably establish that enough learning, repentance, and growth has happened in her life to make her a good choice?

A question one might ask of assessing any potential marriage partner, no? Or do we only scrutinise those who have particular known behaviours in their past?

Quite true, but if we're going to address that honestly, we need to control for everything else. If you're going to bring up an "everything but" person as a hypothetical example, make that person equally repentant or unrepentant as whichever ex-fornicator you are comparing them to.

My point is simply that whether or not someone has ever had penetrative sex is not, in and of itself, useful information with regard to that person's character and potential as a spouse.

One thing it can do - it simplifies things greatly.

Over-simplifies them in ways that cause problems, as noted.

There are multiple ways that a woman can lose her virginity, either if she is at fault, or if she is not - but they will shape who she is today. And each and every one of those can result in issues that a particular man may not wish to deal with, or is ill-equipped to deal with. If a man recognizes that, and that informs his desire to marry a virgin, do you still have a problem with it? Assume that virginity is NOT his only criteria, it's one of several that are important to him.

My argument is that a man ought to look at the whole person a woman is. If, on getting to know her, he decides she is an unsuitable potential spouse, fine; but if he, before getting to know a particular woman, decides only a virgin could possibly ever be suitable, that is the line with which I'm taking issue.

 

[Sketcher]

But that's not what Ignatius said. His phrasing suggested an intrinsic value to the person.

Well, I'm not going to speak for him, but in the parlance that I'm familiar with, a wiser choice for a potential spouse is a better choice for the person making that choice.

A question one might ask of assessing any potential marriage partner, no? Or do we only scrutinise those who have particular known behaviours in their past?

You scrutinize everybody, but when there's a known event that can cause problems that affect the present, it's natural and logical to scrutinize the heck out of those areas.

My argument is that a man ought to look at the whole person a woman is. If, on getting to know her, he decides she is an unsuitable potential spouse, fine; but if he, before getting to know a particular woman, decides only a virgin could possibly ever be suitable, that is the line with which I'm taking issue.

But he's more likely to find out if she's a virgin or not before he will really know the whole person that she is, so what you're saying he ought to do is impossible. A wise man will do his best, but he's also going to be self-aware enough to know how much he is willing and able to deal with. I don't see why he shouldn't form a standard based on that analysis. If you see this as a problem, then I suggest that you be part of the solution to it. Highlighting the hurt feelings of women that occur because certain standards exist only works on white knights, and only a fraction of the male population, faithful Christians or no, are white knights. If you want to chip away at this more effectively, I suggest highlighting why someone who had lost her virginity through no fault of her own would be desirable rather than pitiable. And provide tools by which a man can recognize such women who really are ready to be good wives. If that catches on, perhaps more men will consider more women more seriously.

 

[Paidiske]

But he's more likely to find out if she's a virgin or not before he will really know the whole person that she is, so what you're saying he ought to do is impossible.

Why is it impossible for someone to suspend their judgement about another until really getting to know them?

If you see this as a problem, then I suggest that you be part of the solution to it. Highlighting the hurt feelings of women that occur because certain standards exist only works on white knights, and only a fraction of the male population, faithful Christians or no, are white knights. If you want to chip away at this more effectively, I suggest highlighting why someone who had lost her virginity through no fault of her own would be desirable rather than pitiable. And provide tools by which a man can recognize such women who really are ready to be good wives. If that catches on, perhaps more men will consider more women more seriously.

I was highlighting sexism (reducing women to a function of our biology), not "hurt feelings."

That said, I'd suggest a man looking for someone ready to be a good wife focus on character; is she faithful, hopeful, loving, joyful? Is she peaceable, patient, kind? Does she have goals in her life, and the discipline to work towards them? And so on. Sure, it's going to take more work than knowing whether or not she's ever had sex, but it's work that will pay off.

 

[Noxot]

Self-control is probably a pretty important thing if you want loyalty. a person that has had sex very many times with multiple partners is probably not prepared to rule over their bodies when their bodies tell them that they are done. part of the human tragedy is that we are always being born and are very inexperienced. The chaos of the teenage part of human life is very difficult to properly control.

Is there a lack of proper teaching of Virtues in today's modern world? The general humor of saying sex before marriage is bad is not enough sustenance. Hey at least you guys learn arithmetic in school though right.

The sexual nature is one of the most difficult Beast to tame. Perfection is a rarity.

 

[Noxot]

It just seems like one of those impossible things to expect someone to be perfect with their sexual nature. Society is too fragmented. We don't depend on each other as much as we used to. Very many immature people are having babies. The norm in this world is rampant sexuality. What a mess.

I think it's fair to say that for the most part non-virgins hardly even had a chance to preserve themselves.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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?

I don't believe I said that. I believe all I said was that the majority of non-virgin western women today are not widows. The same would be true of non-virgin males as well.

WOW. Just wow.

I don't understand the shock here. Are men not allowed to have preferences? What about female preferences that exclude many men? Short guys have a harder time than tall men finding partners. It's not the fault of the man but I don't blame any woman for preferring a six foot guy over a five foot guy.

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

Depends on the circumstance doesn't it? Were they married when they decided to have children? No? Why should I feel pity for her when she made a bad decision by not getting some security in marriage or married a bad man who was totally unreliable? That's on the woman for engaging in reckless sexual behavior. Another reason why it's good to be a virgin before marriage I might add.

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.

I don't think it's 'worshipping woman's virginity,' to think it a desirable trait in a woman you want to marry. I think it simply a good thing for a woman or anyone to have if they want to have a life of Christian marriage.

Yet the tactic here to say I'm disparaging widows, rape victims and etc by pointing out the reality of preference is kind of desperate on your part. I never compared them to promiscuous women, rather it was you and Paidiske who have lumped all women in together with my remarks. As if I can't distinguish between the rape victim, who has had a tremendous wrong done to her and the women of low moral character.

Also, you shouldn't take what I say about preference as indicating anything about morality. I'm merely pointing out preference, which exists for both sexes. Those preferences are even or equal and both expect different things.

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

I think for Christian men they are the ideal marriage partner. How am I wrong here? You could judge me on the grounds of sexual liberation but I reject that whole project. What would you say is the Christian ground for not valuing virginity in women? Bear in mind I am not condemning widows and rape victims. In fact, I wonder which one of us values the rape victim more, since I see that they lost something by violence which cannot be given back. Something that demands justice and the castration of the perpetrator.

But hey, apparently I'm a misogynist.

 

[Paidiske]

What would you say is the Christian ground for not valuing virginity in women?

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't value virginity. What we're arguing is that making non-virginity (without consideration of the circumstances) a deal-breaker is both unwisely narrowing your field of potential good wives, and unjust to the women concerned.

Treat the rape victim (and every other woman) as a whole person in her own right, not as defined by what has happened to her.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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).

It’s unfortunate. Yet it points to the fact that the victim lost something precious, not incidentally, not without value. Her virginity was not something that should have been stolen, but given willingly in loving union. So I’m keen with this accusation of yours that I somehow am disparaging the rape victim. The opposite is true. Why do you devalue the rape victim as if what she lost was something incidental and unimportant?

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.

Which is part of my whole point. Preferences exist and I see no reason why virginity is something that cannot be valued in a prospective partner.

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 not making a moral judgement on the woman who was raped. So stop with the special pleading. But I will say this and hope you agree with me. It’s better to marry a virgin than it is to marry a prostitute or a harlot. Agreed? It’s better for a woman to marry a honest man than a lout or manwhore no?

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.

Maybe so, but statistically that is unlikely. I’m not against exceptions to the rules or shaming anyone forever based on their decisions. Mary of Egypt made some terrible decisions but she abandoned them for Christ to live for him. She was a lot holier than I am.


[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75508004, member: 386627] 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. [/QUOTE]


But it is a factor. An attractive factor. Which has been my point this whole time. Why is this controversial? Do you think women should be encouraged to explore their sexuality or something?




[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75508004, member: 386627] 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... [/QUOTE]


Well, who is she? So far the only women you’ve defended are rape victims and widows and not the sexually promiscuous. Are you now defending the latter? In which case, why is it wrong for a man, who thinks he can find a more suitable partner in someone else to go somewhere else?



[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75508004, member: 386627] 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! [/QUOTE]


I never said it was the determining factor in anything. Only that it is an attractive factor that many men would consider desirable. Men aren’t obligated to marry women they don’t want to marry, any more than women are obligated to. Except in Hindu society I guess.



[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75508004, member: 386627] 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.[/QUOTE]


I think there is something virtuous in retaining one’s virginity in this day in age. Depending on the person. Let’s say there’s a stunning woman or woman who is a perfect ten in looks. She or he can get any man or woman, she or he wants and have any casual fling. Yet they decide that it’s more important to retain their faithfulness to Christ. That is actual virtue, though it is rare.


Less attractive people, who find it more difficult to attract the opposite sex might simply not have the opportunity to fornicate. Their virginity doesn’t then necessarily reflect virtue but reflects a lack of access to sinful opportunities. Yet I don’t think their virginity is valueless, especially if they dedicate their lives to higher things and not merely material pleasure.



Still, when it comes to selecting a partner, virginity in a woman will be an attractive proposition for a Christian male. Virginity in women is an attractive proposition to men in general. That’s all I’ve ever really said or talked about in this thread. I haven’t made it the ultimate factor, I haven’t said widows and rape victims are disgusting. All I’ve done is affirmed that virginity to some degree is valuable.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't value virginity. What we're arguing is that making non-virginity (without consideration of the circumstances) a deal-breaker is both unwisely narrowing your field of potential good wives, and unjust to the women concerned.

Treat the rape victim (and every other woman) as a whole person in her own right, not as defined by what has happened to her.

What I disagree with you is when you use the word unjust. This implies a wrong has been done, when as far as I can tell no wrong has been done. It may be unfair. You might not like it. Like how some men don't like a lot of things women expect of them, but that's just the reality. Our preferences aren't equal and each sex values different things in the other and the attempt to make the standards equal I think is foolish and contrary to nature.

Of course a lot of men will be happy to get what they can when it comes to a marriage partner. My only concern is that we not devalue virginity as Christians when the bible so clearly expects it and how it has been lauded in the Christian Church for centuries. Then again, I'm an Orthodox Christian, we extol the Virgin.

 

[Paidiske]

It’s unfortunate. Yet it points to the fact that the victim lost something precious, not incidentally, not without value. Her virginity was not something that should have been stolen, but given willingly in loving union. So I’m keen with this accusation of yours that I somehow am disparaging the rape victim. The opposite is true. Why do you devalue the rape victim as if what she lost was something incidental and unimportant?

You are treating the rape victim as if her virginity or non-virginity says anything about her value as a human being. That's where I have an issue.

Of course she lost something valuable and precious. But that would be equally true of a non-virgin who is raped. The act of rape - the act of coercion and violation and dehumanisation in that way - is the problem here, not a person's status as virgin or non-virgin.

Preferences exist and I see no reason why virginity is something that cannot be valued in a prospective partner.

Preferences exist, sure, but some of them exist for bad reasons. I'm not saying you shouldn't value virginity, as long as it doesn't lead you to devalue non-virgins.

But I will say this and hope you agree with me. It’s better to marry a virgin than it is to marry a prostitute or a harlot. Agreed? It’s better for a woman to marry a honest man than a lout or manwhore no?

Ask Hosea.

Seriously, though, I can understand not wishing to marry someone who works in the sex industry. After all, there can be no expectation of fidelity there. But treating women as if we all exist in the virgin/harlot dichotomy is exactly part of the problem I'm trying to highlight here. (There's some interesting commentary on that - and how it's a problem for men, too - here: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals ).

But it is a factor. An attractive factor. Which has been my point this whole time. Why is this controversial?

Because women aren't defined by our virginity.

Do you think women should be encouraged to explore their sexuality or something?

If by that you mean, sleep around, then no.

Well, who is she? So far the only women you’ve defended are rape victims and widows and not the sexually promiscuous. Are you now defending the latter? In which case, why is it wrong for a man, who thinks he can find a more suitable partner in someone else to go somewhere else?

This isn't about defending any particular person's choices or history. It's about arguing that reducing women to one fact in their history is deeply problematic.

Let’s say there’s a stunning woman or woman who is a perfect ten in looks. She or he can get any man or woman, she or he wants and have any casual fling. Yet they decide that it’s more important to retain their faithfulness to Christ. That is actual virtue, though it is rare.

Sure. That's a virtue. But it's not about the fact of their virginity, it's about the character they've nurtured and expressed. You could have someone of equal character and virtue who happens not to be a virgin.

Still, when it comes to selecting a partner, virginity in a woman will be an attractive proposition for a Christian male. Virginity in women is an attractive proposition to men in general.

And that is what I'm saying is a very real problem.

 

[Paidiske]

What I disagree with you is when you use the word unjust. This implies a wrong has been done, when as far as I can tell no wrong has been done.

Reducing a person to one particular facet of their history is a wrong, though. It's objectifying and dehumanising.

Like how some men don't like a lot of things women expect of them, but that's just the reality. Our preferences aren't equal and each sex values different things in the other and the attempt to make the standards equal I think is foolish and contrary to nature.

I think there's a real problem in this discussion of preferences and expectations. As if we get to put our shopping list out to the universe and deserve to receive exactly what we've decided we want. Rather than choosing a spouse as someone to whom we can pour out our lives in loving service. Is that not the Christian ideal of marriage?

People have raised matters like height in this discussion; I would say something similar to a woman who had an arbitrary height threshold to consider a potential suitor as I am saying to you. A man is not defined by his height. Look at his character and his outlook on life and see whether they indicate someone with whom you can be a team in life for the next sixty (or more) years. That's the sort of thing we ought to be encouraging Christians to consider. "Human nature" can be as much an expression of sin as of virtue.

And you know, as someone who has been happily married for some time now, I'll add that some things we think will be important before we marry end up being trivial, and others we never considered end up being a big deal. We have to be open to marriage as a process of learning and growth together.

My only concern is that we not devalue virginity as Christians when the bible so clearly expects it and how it has been lauded in the Christian Church for centuries.

My issue is that, in valuing virginity, we ought to be very careful not to devalue our actual living brothers and sisters.

 

[lismore]

Talking of rape. rapecrisis.org.uk puts the number of 'rape, attempted rape or sexual assault by penetration' victims in England at 85,000 per year. Which is not an insignificant amount.

God Bless

 

[All Glory To God]

Well the OP is a 31 year old unmarried woman, complaining about men preferring virgin brides.

Could this possibly be a vent on her part and frustrated that she doesn't meet that criteria and missed her chance? The best women get the best men. I would ask but she hasn't signed on since posting this thread.

 

[Ramon1]

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

The-"Christian"-man-who-thinks-its-ok-to-watch-porn-and-have-premarital-sex-with-women-yet-somehow-believes-he-deserves-to-marry-a-virgin

This mold is everywhere, probably in this forum. The arrogance of this behavior Is ungodly. Nowhere in the Old Testament or New did our father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tell men to engage in as much premarital sex as possible to whoever will give it to him, but be sure to marry a virgin. Both men and women are to remain virgins until marriage, and if a man chooses not to meet the standard, he has no right to disqualify women for marriage simply because they have done what he himself has also done. Disgusting.

Time and time again we see in the Bible that God hates hypocrites and this area is no different. Study the scriptures and you will find that it turns out that God isn't your 'bro' who wants you to score all the chicks before settling down. Study the scriptures and you will find He holds both sexes to the same standard.

And all you "Christian" porn/masturbation addicts out there, continuously deleting your browser history yet professing to be sexually pure, watching pornography is a sin, too. Pray about it. Look it up.

Being overly judgmental is hypocritical too. You don't know what runs through these mens minds. Usually they feel great guilt. Everyone is committing great sins according to the bible. You shouldn't just cherry pick the ones you don't do and judge those who do them.

 

[Noxot]

Honestly her post seems like she was experiencing someone that was like that to her. So she might have been personally hurt by someone when she made that post.

There is potential for good and evil in many kinds of remarks but it might be hard to understand the depths of a person's heart. Since we cannot know perfectly the inner intentions of people we have to be careful with our judgment. The pure in heart are blessed and they shall see God.

Even the outer evils in us that might outwardly influence us are not necessarily willed by our Inner Man. If it is not us then it is sin in us. Those that call upon the Lord shall not be disappointed. We may inwardly be slaughtered like sheep but we are more than conquerors.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are treating the rape victim as if her virginity or non-virginity says anything about her value as a human being. That's where I have an issue.

I suppose the issue I have with what your saying is that virginity is meaningless. Do you have the same problem with God in choosing a virgin over a harlot? Or Saint Paul assuming the bride is a virgin? I’m legitimately curious how you deal with the biblical text here as a progressive liberal.

Of course she lost something valuable and precious. But that would be equally true of a non-virgin who is raped. The act of rape - the act of coercion and violation and dehumanisation in that way - is the problem here, not a person's status as virgin or non-virgin.

No one’s arguing that the non-virgin being raped hasn’t been violated.

Preferences exist, sure, but some of them exist for bad reasons. I'm not saying you shouldn't value virginity, as long as it doesn't lead you to devalue non-virgins.

You’re very much saying we shouldn’t value virginity and trying to shame men into thinking it’s something bad to take into consideration. You haven’t affirmed it as valuable in any meaningful way, only pointed out obvious exceptions. It seems to me your more married to ideas of sexual liberation, than any Christian commitment to chastity.

Ask Hosea.


Seriously, though, I can understand not wishing to marry someone who works in the sex industry. After all, there can be no expectation of fidelity there. But treating women as if we all exist in the virgin/harlot dichotomy is exactly part of the problem I'm trying to highlight here. (There's some interesting commentary on that - and how it's a problem for men, too - here: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals ).

Doesn’t Hosea prove the point about the dangers of marrying a harlot? She won’t be faithful, she will go after other men. The obvious allusion aside where the harlot is actually Israel but God is still faithful to her. Still, I don’t treat all women in that category, though if a woman sleeps around with as many men as possible, do you know a better term for such a woman? Would you recommend to a Christian man to ignore such a woman’s history and say she’s a perfectly good choice in a bride? Maybe you would. Something tells me you wouldn’t expect a Christian woman to put up with imperfections of a Christian man. Just a feeling here.




[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75509266, member: 386627] Because women aren't defined by our virginity. [/QUOTE]


Never said you are. Only that it’s a valuable and desirable thing in a woman.



[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75509266, member: 386627] If by that you mean, sleep around, then no. [/QUOTE]


If a woman’s value is in no way connected to her status as a virgin or her sexual relations, why can’t the woman or the man just sleep around with whomever? Virginity afterall is not a big deal.




[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75509266, member: 386627] This isn't about defending any particular person's choices or history. It's about arguing that reducing women to one fact in their history is deeply problematic. [/QUOTE]


It’s problematic how exactly? That it reduces her desirability? Perhaps then there’s a reason to guard one’s chastity, not justify casual sexual encounters and say it shouldn’t matter in choosing a spouse.




[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75509266, member: 386627] Sure. That's a virtue. But it's not about the fact of their virginity, it's about the character they've nurtured and expressed. You could have someone of equal character and virtue who happens not to be a virgin.


You can also have men who will look upon virginity more favourably. It’s a preference I’m arguing for. Not the only consideration (so don’t misrepresent me again on this point).




[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 75509266, member: 386627] And that is what I'm saying is a very real problem.[/QUOTE]


There is no problem with it. Like there’s no problem with a woman wanting a tall or well off man. People will select based on what they can get and some will have better choices. It’s not too hard to accept this. Then again, I don’t live an egalitarian dream world.

 

[Paidiske]

I suppose the issue I have with what your saying is that virginity is meaningless.

No, I'm not saying that.

I’m legitimately curious how you deal with the biblical text here as a progressive liberal.

That's not a term I would apply to myself.

You’re very much saying we shouldn’t value virginity and trying to shame men into thinking it’s something bad to take into consideration.

No, I'm not. Value virginity, as an ideal, all you like. But I'm saying that someone's being a virgin or not doesn't necessarily translate into their value as a person or potential spouse.

Consider this: by this logic, should you one day marry a virgin, she will never be as valuable or desirable to you after the wedding night as she was before. That would be a deeply unhealthy thing for a marriage, no?

It seems to me your more married to ideas of sexual liberation, than any Christian commitment to chastity.

Not at all. I'm trying to point out that chastity and virginity are not synonymous. I would have much less difficulty with your position if you were arguing for a value placed on chastity.

Would you recommend to a Christian man to ignore such a woman’s history and say she’s a perfectly good choice in a bride? Maybe you would. Something tells me you wouldn’t expect a Christian woman to put up with imperfections of a Christian man. Just a feeling here.

If it is history - and not present behaviour - then I would possibly argue that she should be deserving of a fresh start.

Marriage is, for both parties, an exercise in not only putting up with, but exercising love and grace in response to, the imperfections of one's spouse.

If a woman’s value is in no way connected to her status as a virgin or her sexual relations, why can’t the woman or the man just sleep around with whomever? Virginity afterall is not a big deal.

There are reasons for virtuous behaviour that are not about our "value." In fact I would argue that pursuing virtue in order to have "value" is very, very warped.

It’s problematic how exactly? That it reduces her desirability?

No, that you judge someone's desirability on something which tells you nothing about their character, and on a factor over which they may never have made a choice, is exactly the problem.

It’s a preference I’m arguing for.

I know. I'm questioning whether that is a good thing.

There is no problem with it. Like there’s no problem with a woman wanting a tall or well off man. People will select based on what they can get and some will have better choices.

I think they're both problems. They're both shallow preferences and are not a reliable metric for building a healthy marriage, or a fair way to assess a potential spouse (especially for a Christian). And the whole thing of ranking people as "better" or "worse" on such shallow grounds is exactly the problem I'm highlighting. It is not a Christian attitude.