Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
If she's a wiser choice for a particular man, doesn't that make her the better choice for that man by default?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."
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 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.
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'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.
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.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!
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.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.
If she's a wiser choice for a particular man, doesn't that make her the better choice for that man by default?
True, but how can one reliably establish that enough learning, repentance, and growth has happened in her life to make her a good choice?
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.
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.
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.But that's not what Ignatius said. His phrasing suggested an intrinsic value to the person.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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 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.WOW. Just wow.
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.
What would you say is the Christian ground for not valuing virginity in women?
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).
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."
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.
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.
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?
Preferences exist and I see no reason why virginity is something that cannot be valued in a prospective partner.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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, 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.
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 ).
I suppose the issue I have with what your saying is that virginity is meaningless.
I’m legitimately curious how you deal with the biblical text here as a progressive liberal.
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.
It seems to me your more married to ideas of sexual liberation, than any Christian commitment to 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 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.
It’s problematic how exactly? That it reduces her desirability?
It’s a preference I’m arguing for.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?