Virginity

[LongLegs]

How important is it that your spouse is a virgin when you get married? Do you think that you could "deal" with it if that had made a mistake in the past and weren't...or would you feel like you had been "cheated" out of something with that person?

Do you really think there are any virgins out there?????

I doubt it ... at least not above 18!

Kathy

 

[Braticus]

Do you really think there are any virgins out there?????

I doubt it ... at least not above 18!

Kathy

That was very rude! I think that you should actually read the threads before you post. There have been numerous people on here state that they are. These threads are meant for encouragement, please keep that in mind.

 

[Sketcher]

Completely irrelevant. The point is that respectable women were respectable because they followed the accepted social norms which often allowed them much less freedom and independence. There were certain jobs that women did: governess, teacher, maids, etc, that could only be done by single women. If they got married, they lost their job - not because they got pregnant shortly thereafter but because it was not considered acceptable (and possibly was not legal) for a married woman to work outside the home. That's not true in every single case. Nevertheless, it was true much of the time.

That's only irrelevant if you devalue the role of motherhood.

 

[KarrieTex]

Do you really think there are any virgins out there?????

I doubt it ... at least not above 18!

Kathy

Well, then you are wrong.

I happen to be a virgin and I am well over 18. Virgin and proud of it.

 

[Tamara224]

That's only irrelevant if you devalue the role of motherhood.

You're going to have to go into a little more detail on this because I'm not following how you got from point A to point B. Nothing I said devalues the role of motherhood.

But let me try to help you understand me. Because I am certainly NOT devaluing the role of motherhood.

From my point of view, it is not necessarily wrong from women to be dependent on men. I value equality and my own independence, but I do not think that the past is all evil or that men are all evil for the fact that history has often placed women in dependent situations.

That said, the topic at hand is independence vs. dependence. It is solely the topic in discussion which determines what is or is not relevant.

So I did not say that the issues are always irrelevant, just that it is irrelevent to determining whether women were or were not independent.

[If I'm losing you, please let me know. I have a tendency to do that].

Anyway, the point I was responding to was one in a line of a conversation. It was first claimed that historically speaking one of the only lines of work for independent women was prostitution. People argued that there were other jobs available for women. It was countered that many of those women, even though working, were not really independent and one reason for that was that upon marriage they were no longer able to work. The response to that was that it was due to the fact that they often had babies. Unfortunately, that response is completely irrelevant to whether or not the women were independent because that was not historically the only reason for their dismissal from jobs.

Now, perhaps I missed your point. But as it was rather cryptic, I hope you'll excuse me and elucidate it a bit.

 

[Tamara224]

That was very rude! I think that you should actually read the threads before you post. There have been numerous people on here state that they are. These threads are meant for encouragement, please keep that in mind.

Don't let it bother you. People see the world the way they are. It's human nature to think that everyone else is just like us. Liars think everyone is a liar. Thieves think everyone is a thief. Sexually promiscuous people think that everyone else is sexually promiscuous (or wants to be).*

To the pure, all things are pure.



*Disclaimer, I am NOT calling anyone sexually promiscuous. It's just an example.

 

[Sketcher]

You're going to have to go into a little more detail on this because I'm not following how you got from point A to point B. Nothing I said devalues the role of motherhood.

That said, the topic at hand is independence vs. dependence. It is solely the topic in discussion which determines what is or is not relevant.

So I did not say that the issues are always irrelevant, just that it is irrelevent to determining whether women were or were not independent.

I see. I didn't follow that totally. But I will say that the old arrangement of working OR being married, not both, isn't a bad concept. This is because of the value of motherhood.

But let's talk about what you said for a minute. Your claim is that even working women, who were single, were not independent. If you're going to take independence that far (having a job or being married indicating dependence), then most men of that era weren't independent either, because most men had to work for a living.

 

[Trashionista]

Umm... I think LongLegs made a valid point. I don't think she intended to mock virginity - but face it, the amount of people waiting is in large decline.

I certainly don't place much thought in finding a virgin to marry - as it would cut out quite a large portion of the population.

Eh, too each their own I guess. I don't think virginity or one's sexual status is all that important, and I probably never will. Just be responsible.

 

[Braticus]

Well, then you are wrong.

I happen to be a virgin and I am well over 18. Virgin and proud of it.

YOU GO GIRL!
I'm a virgin and proud of it too.

 

[Niels]

No one ever claimed prostition made a woman respectable. Respectable and independent are two entirely different things.

Being respectable, honorable etc. helps win friends, and can even keep a person out of jail. If somebody has to sneak about in order to conduct their business, then it’s safe to say that their independence is restricted.

Independence is not based on who does or doesn't like you. It is based on whether you alone have the right and ability to make decisions for yourself. If the woman had the right and ability to choose when to work, where to go, what to do, and the right to own the profits derived from the business, without the necessity of getting permission or acquiescence from her husband or father, then she is independent. None of that has anything to do with whether she is scorned by some people.

One loses a degree of independence upon becoming a prostitute. That can be attributed, in part, to the fact that prostitution has rarely been highly regarded. In fact it was, and still is, often viewed as criminal behavior.

Marginalization also has nothing to do with independence.

Incorrect. Humans are social creatures. Criminals are marginalized... often to the point where their freedoms are totally revoked. Otherwise, they act secretly. The greater their independence, the less they have to hide their activities.

(I do not believe that laws prohibiting prostitution are an example of women being repressed. My position is that prostitution itself is an example of repression... whereas you purport that prostitution is the sign of a liberated woman.)

Courtesans were/are not independent women. They are slaves.

Thank you for unwittingly supporting my point ! Prostitutes (courtesans were essentially the high-class variety) are not independent women. Other jobs available to women of the day provided more independence. The options weren’t great, but at least they were better than working at the local harlot house, picking up strange men on street corners etc.

Influence and clout have nothing to do with independence.

The more influence and clout a person has with their peers, the more freedom they have to do as they please among their peers. The art of persuasion is a powerful tool. It might seem paradoxical... but unless you're living totally on your own, in the middle of nowhere (without even a pack of wolves to keep you compnany), independence is a social construct. Without interdependence, there would be no independence. The more you can convince others that you are independent, the more independent you will become. Laws and money go a long way toward providing independence, but those things are still social constructs. They are only as meaningful as those pulling the strings allow them to be. Learn how to pursuade those who are pulling the strings, and you will become the ones with the influence. The thing is, that requires respectability. If they don't even respect you, then they're not going to listen.

Completely irrelevant. The point is that respectable women were respectable because they followed the accepted social norms which often allowed them much less freedom and independence. There were certain jobs that women did: governess, teacher, maids, etc, that could only be done by single women. If they got married, they lost their job - not because they got pregnant shortly thereafter but because it was not considered acceptable (and possibly was not legal) for a married woman to work outside the home. That's not true in every single case. Nevertheless, it was true much of the time.

Respectable women were respectable because they were shrewd, wise, and ultimately persuasive.

Anyway... if there was a social stigma that discouraged married women from working, then I can only imagine that it either existed to protect the woman and her potential children, or to show how wealthy her husband was (not having to work may have been seen as a sort of status symbol).

 

[Touma]

How important is it that your spouse is a virgin when you get married? Do you think that you could "deal" with it if that had made a mistake in the past and weren't...or would you feel like you had been "cheated" out of something with that person?

Well, when they became a Christian, I suppose they were made a virgin again in the eyes of God. So does it really matter? Nope.

 

[Sketcher]

Well, when they became a Christian, I suppose they were made a virgin again in the eyes of God. So does it really matter? Nope.

Only as far as placement is concerned. Not in practice unless you are very very blessed.

 

[Teufelhund]

Only as far as placement is concerned. Not in practice unless you are very very blessed.

The spirit of things in this case matter a good deal more than the actual nature of things.

 

[Sketcher]

The spirit of things in this case matter a good deal more than the actual nature of things.

Since the future husband or wife has to live with the actual nature of things, I wouldn't take it that far. God's forgiveness benefits us in the next life. Consequences still follow us in this one. Repentance definitely has positive consequences for this life, but it can't completely undo the changes that sex does to a person, nor can it erase the memories, cure the diseases, or by itself mend the soul.

 

[Teufelhund]

Since the future husband or wife has to live with the actual nature of things, I wouldn't take it that far. God's forgiveness benefits us in the next life. Consequences still follow us in this one. Repentance definitely has positive consequences for this life, but it can't completely undo the changes that sex does to a person, nor can it erase the memories, cure the diseases, or by itself mend the soul.

Yes but we as humans are actually told under pretty strict circumstances to be forgiving. Besides which one can be absolved of sin, yes that will live with that person forever, but it is not the spouse's right to judge that person. Yes it is a good and desirable thing to be a virgin, and it is a good thing to find but it is not all there is, it does not destroy people, and it should not be permitted to destroy relationships.

 

[Touma]

Since the future husband or wife has to live with the actual nature of things, I wouldn't take it that far. God's forgiveness benefits us in the next life. Consequences still follow us in this one. Repentance definitely has positive consequences for this life, but it can't completely undo the changes that sex does to a person, nor can it erase the memories, cure the diseases, or by itself mend the soul.

Wrong 100% God's forgiveness benefits us now. He makes us into new creatures. He forgets all of our old things. Not only that, but aren't we taught to look to things from above aka spiritual things, and not things of the earth, aka of the flesh? Sure, the hymen might be broken, or what ever, but it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter. what matters is the fact that God has changed that persons heart. We are not to worry about things of the flesh, but of the spirit. Look to the partners heart. they are a virgin in God, and that is ALL that matters. If God forgives and forgets, then surely we can try to practice the same,no?

 

[Sketcher]

Yes but we as humans are actually told under pretty strict circumstances to be forgiving. Besides which one can be absolved of sin, yes that will live with that person forever, but it is not the spouse's right to judge that person. Yes it is a good and desirable thing to be a virgin, and it is a good thing to find but it is not all there is, it does not destroy people, and it should not be permitted to destroy relationships.

Who said anything about judgment? I don't care about past sins so much as I do about present effects. Acknowledging their reality doesn't have to mean that I am holding a girl's past sins against her. And quite frankly, someone would have to be very naive to not acknowledge the reality of the effects of such sins. It brings crap that I'd rather not have to deal with. If I can avoid that stuff, I will.

 

[Teufelhund]

Who said anything about judgment? I don't care about past sins so much as I do about present effects. Acknowledging their reality doesn't have to mean that I am holding a girl's past sins against her. And quite frankly, someone would have to be very naive to not acknowledge the reality of the effects of such sins. It brings crap that I'd rather not have to deal with. If I can avoid that stuff, I will.

You're oversimplifying what I said. If you can avoid that stuff all the better for you. I hope that you have an uncomplicated life. But it is a not always avoidable, and while I would rather have a virgin, I could live with my future not being one, and I would not hold it against her.

 

[Sketcher]

You're oversimplifying what I said. If you can avoid that stuff all the better for you. I hope that you have an uncomplicated life. But it is a not always avoidable, and while I would rather have a virgin, I could live with my future not being one, and I would not hold it against her.

Right. If she's not a virgin, that's just something I'll have to jump when I come to it. But there are several lines that I draw in what I will put up with from a person, and sexual sin causes people to cross them.

 

[JonMiller]

Umm... I think LongLegs made a valid point. I don't think she intended to mock virginity - but face it, the amount of people waiting is in large decline.

I certainly don't place much thought in finding a virgin to marry - as it would cut out quite a large portion of the population.

Eh, too each their own I guess. I don't think virginity or one's sexual status is all that important, and I probably never will. Just be responsible.

Actually, while non-vaginal sex has gone up (way way higher then it was 30 years ago), people (Especially girls) who had had vaginal sex before marriage has went down for the last 10-15 years.

Or at least, that is what I remember reading.

But yeah, I am not looking for a virgin, just looking for a girl who won't have another after me.

JM