Virginity

[Sketcher]

Virginity in and of itself would be a non-issue for me. I think the church tends to turn virginity into a god of its own right. God is my god, not virginity, and far be it from me not to accept someone who's already been accepted into the Book of Life by God.

God is my god, too. We do not turn virginity into a god, far from it. Just because we value something and refuse to cheapen it does not mean we have made a god out of it.

 

[CinematicD]

still a virgin, till marriage

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I think this thread would be more telling, if people would say whether or not they actually are a virgin before casting their opinions...

I forgot this part: I am not just a "technical virgin".

When I said that I am a "male virgin" I meant no partner sex of any kind, ever--I have never even kissed a woman or held a woman's hand.

 

[traingosorry]

I forgot this part: I am not just a "technical virgin".

When I said that I am a "male virgin" I meant no partner sex of any kind, ever--I have never even kissed a woman or held a woman's hand.

All by choice?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

All by choice?

Yes.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

God is my god, too. We do not turn virginity into a god, far from it. Just because we value something and refuse to cheapen it does not mean we have made a god out of it.

I didn't read the rest of the replies. Would you patently refuse to continue to date a non-virgin? My reply is only for those who are.

 

[Sketcher]

I didn't read the rest of the replies. Would you patently refuse to continue to date a non-virgin? My reply is only for those who are.

I would give it serious thought. But that doesn't mean I'm making virginity a god.

 

[Tamara224]

Well I think you have to look at this in a lot of different ways.

First of all history may be a role, back in history it was quite often women who where suppose to be the gate keepers of sexuality. And so often it was considered ok for a guy to do something like that but not for a girl. I mean just look at WW2 . . . in Hawaii where troops would stay for a little while before shipping off to the front the military took over the whole state. One of the very first things they did was suspend prostitution laws. The public knew about this and most of them where pretty fine with it, not a lot of complaining. Now one could argue that it had to do with the fact that these kids where going off to face possible death so people figured it would be ok if we let them get laid a bit before they did, but I think a lot of it had to do with culture and expectations of men and women.

Second of all is the method of thinking, I tend to belive that men are at the very least raised to place a higher importance on sex then a woman is. So I think a lot of guys who waited might feel robbed if they had to marry a woman who hasn't.

Also think about this in terms of culture. Imagine a father with his daughter. . . very protective, he really wants his daughter to be sexually pure til marriage. I mean thats why there is the joke about father's cleaning their shotguns when their daughter's date comes in to meet them.

But no one ever considers mothers to be the same way with their sons. And really that is because they arn't the same way at all. My mom was ok with my dad buying me a condom when I went off to college, and she was further ok in telling me that I was being stupid in trying to wait, and even once offered to pay for me to see a prostitue. (Yes this surprised me too, because I've had great parents they just never where Christians.)

I honestly don't know what it is but culturally speaking men have almost no discouragement from having sex and while women have only a little they do have some. So I think this may lead to that attitude. . .

And I also wonder if the actual physicality of the sex act and the woman being the "receiver" doesn't have something to do with it.

These are all good points.

But you forgot the one I was really alluding to... That is, the history of women being seen and treated as property of men.

I think we're still dealing with that in our culture, to some extent. It is the root of the things you listed.

Extramarital sex is more permissive with men: Why? Because they are not anyone's property, they belong to themselves and so their sexual affairs are only their own business.

Women are expected to be the "gatekeepers": Why? Because they do not belong to themselves, they are not free to engage in sex.

Fathers protect their daughters' virginity: Why? Because their daughters belong to them and their virginity is directly related to their marketability. You cannot "give" a daughter away (i.e. "sell her") if she is not a virgin. This was especially true in ancient times and is still true in some cultures - If a woman was found to not be a virgin, the father would often be responsible for breach of the marriage contract. Hence, he guards her virginity with a gun, if need be.

IMO, although our culture has supposedly come a long way in getting rid of this type of Patriarchal mentality, much of it is simply bred out of fallen human nature, so we're not free of it yet. Men still have a (perhaps unconscious) tendency to view women as their property. IMHO.

 

[Luther073082]

These are all good points.

But you forgot the one I was really alluding to... That is, the history of women being seen and treated as property of men.

I think we're still dealing with that in our culture, to some extent. It is the root of the things you listed.

Extramarital sex is more permissive with men: Why? Because they are not anyone's property, they belong to themselves and so their sexual affairs are only their own business.

Women are expected to be the "gatekeepers": Why? Because they do not belong to themselves, they are not free to engage in sex.

Fathers protect their daughters' virginity: Why? Because their daughters belong to them and their virginity is directly related to their marketability. You cannot "give" a daughter away (i.e. "sell her") if she is not a virgin. This was especially true in ancient times and is still true in some cultures - If a woman was found to not be a virgin, the father would often be responsible for breach of the marriage contract. Hence, he guards her virginity with a gun, if need be.

IMO, although our culture has supposedly come a long way in getting rid of this type of Patriarchal mentality, much of it is simply bred out of fallen human nature, so we're not free of it yet. Men still have a (perhaps unconscious) tendency to view women as their property. IMHO.

Well I'm going to disagree, I don't think they view women as their property but I think they view women as often being innocent and helpless. Women because of this will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Just think about two teenagers that start making out. Who's fault is it? It's the boy's fault. . . He can say she was hitting on him and she can even affirm that is the truth and somehow in some way especially in the eyes of her father, it is still his fault.

I don't think its a property view so much as its a "weak and helpless" view. The line of thinking is, I have to protect you because you can't protect yourself. Not because I own you.

 

[Brotherfromanothermother]

Well I'm going to disagree, I don't think they view women as their property but I think they view women as often being innocent and helpless. Women because of this will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Just think about two teenagers that start making out. Who's fault is it? It's the boy's fault. . . He can say she was hitting on him and she can even affirm that is the truth and somehow in some way especially in the eyes of her father, it is still his fault.

I don't think its a property view so much as its a "weak and helpless" view. The line of thinking is, I have to protect you because you can't protect yourself. Not because I own you.

Or maybe as the "weaker" sex. Biblcally speaking. Men having been given the charge of protector.

 

[Tamara224]

Well I'm going to disagree, I don't think they view women as their property but I think they view women as often being innocent and helpless. Women because of this will always get the benefit of the doubt.

LOL, you can't disagree with history Luther - it is what it is. You can disagree with how much of an impact it has now... But most of my post was with regard to history.

Just think about two teenagers that start making out. Who's fault is it? It's the boy's fault. . . He can say she was hitting on him and she can even affirm that is the truth and somehow in some way especially in the eyes of her father, it is still his fault.

How does this fit in with what you previously said about women supposedly being the "gatekeepers"?

And, I guess it just depends on the father in your scenario. Some fathers would blame their daughters. But that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have a property issue.

Keep in mind... I've so far made no distinction between Christian and non-Christian fathers.

For myself - my own father never saw me as property, as far as I can tell. He raised me to be an independent woman. But there are many men out there who still view their daughters as their property (in our culture it is not as obvious as in some others - for example, Muslim cultures).

I don't think its a property view so much as its a "weak and helpless" view. The line of thinking is, I have to protect you because you can't protect yourself. Not because I own you.

Can't both be true? I believe both can be (and often are) the case.

 

[ido]

I think it's partially a societal issue, too. Boys are typically brought up to be expected to be promiscuous and "sow their wild oats", so they pursue girls sexually from a young age. Daughters are "protected" by their fathers, but are not necessarily taught to respect their bodies and themselves enough - so they end up equating sex with love.

I have sons and I am going to do my very best to teach them that they should respect themselves and the girl enough to practice restraint and not pursue a sexual relationship. Parents don't do a good enough job, IMO, of talking about this subject with their kids - or helping their kids find a trusted adult to discuss it with. My mom's attitude was "Don't have sex, but if you do, I don't want to know about it." That hardly taught my sister and me anything - other than if we were going to have sex, we needed to sneak around about it. Kind of counterproductive if you ask me. I'd want to know if my kids were considering having sex, b/c maybe we could talk about it and they would change their mind and abstain after all.

Of course, I tend to be sort of idealistic - but I'm that's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Luther073082]

LOL, you can't disagree with history Luther - it is what it is. You can disagree with how much of an impact it has now... But most of my post was with regard to history.

Oh yeah sure in history thats true, I just don't think thats true now.

How does this fit in with what you previously said about women supposedly being the "gatekeepers"?

Historyically that was true. . . look at a Cosmo and you will see that really isn't expected anymore. However its a role that fathers want them to take about their sexuality. Again I don't think its ownership I think it has to do with the view that she is hurt easier and has more to lose in it.

For myself - my own father never saw me as property, as far as I can tell. He raised me to be an independent woman. But there are many men out there who still view their daughters as their property (in our culture it is not as obvious as in some others - for example, Muslim cultures).

Can't both be true? I believe both can be (and often are) the case.

Well for some maybe, I just don't belive its that much ingrained into us. Few fathers would ever demand that their daughters live at home until they are married. (Although my mom's father wanted her to do that, but did not force it.)

Most fathers know that once their daughter is an adult they can't tell her what to do. Its difficult to think of something or someone as property if you can't control them. However no matter what their "little girl" does he's still going to try and protect her.

I mean I guess you can view it as property as you want but I think its just a view that she is helpless.

 

[RonnyRulz]

I haven't read what you guys are talking about, but I want to say a simple fact....

You can disagree with history as much as you want. History isn't exactly what people say or think it is. Or maybe it is.
And although I have no idea what history you're talking about, I'm sure he can disagree with history as much as he wants.

History is not all a bunch of facts that are proven. They are mostly what people think happen or what other people say happens. Some history may be backed up with evidence, but evidence isn't always enough to prove it. You could have a lot of evidence in your favor, but still be wrong because the real evidence was lost in history.
History is a much debated subject. If you've ever heard "History is written by the winners" then there's your start.

I had a really good history teacher, and he loved debating people about history, because he knew no one could ever be right. Really, you can believe whatever you want about history to an extent.
For example, you might not be able to say Germany won WW2, but you sure could debate it heavily on who really did win.

IMO, although I believe more what historians say probably happened or what life was probably like, I don't ever think there is enough evidence to prove it. I'm sure in history there are a lot of assumptions, and I hate assumptions. I'll believe it when it's proven, any other time I'll just not care.

 

[RonnyRulz]

Viewing women like property? Is that the historical discussion?


I think that people in the "old days" probably treated women the same that they do now. A lot of men now-a-days treat women like property, and a lot of women let themselves (or don't realize) they are treated like property.
Today it just might be a little different, but the basis is the same. Just look at rich old men with trophy wives, or "players" and all the women who let themselves get played.

Not to mention the the entire world isn't "civilized" like the Western World. Life and society goes beyond the USA and Western Europe. Then there's also a lot of religious people in the western world who STILL treat women like property, and women thinking they are property. A lot of Christians and Muslims treat women as lessers, which is how they treated women thousands of years back.

And there's some people who treat women as equals, or as superiors where the women has the power and man is property. This is the same, as throughout history women have had power over men who were in-love with them.
Not to forget that in the old days, there were status levels for economy just like today. Kings and Rulers, Dukes and Knights, they all probably had trophy wives, just like the millionaires of today. While the poor probably treated each other better, and you'd find poor families who treated their wives as equals, or beat their wives, just like the poor of today. A story of romeo and juliet perhaps? A poor farm boy who falls in love with his neighbor's daughter and treats each other as equals?

I would not be surprised if the entire history of the human race was exactly the same as it is now in almost everything we do. A little of this, a little of that, and a whole lot of sin.

 

[RonnyRulz]

Most fathers know that once their daughter is an adult they can't tell her what to do.

This may be true in most parts of america, but in other parts of the world, if a daughter thought her dad couldn't tell her what to do, she'd be taught very quickly that she's wrong. If the father is a king, ruler, or some form of powerful man who is above the law, he could kill her if she disobeyed him. Everyone must keep in mind that the rest of the world is not like the western world or the USA, and in some places is even the opposite. Of course, that isn't always the case. Some powerful rulers would actually care for their daughter just like someone in the USA would, and they would do what you said, so you would be right.

I really don't think it has anything to do with society or what decade we talk about. Really, it does and probably always has depended completely on the individual.

I agree with both of you.
Well, that is my opinion anyways.

 

[Luther073082]

This may be true in most parts of america, but in other parts of the world, if a daughter thought her dad couldn't tell her what to do, she'd be taught very quickly that she's wrong. If the father is a king, ruler, or some form of powerful man who is above the law, he could kill her if she disobeyed him.

We talking about Dearbourne Michigan?

 

[RonnyRulz]

We talking about Dearbourne Michigan?

I have no idea, I just posted random comments and only read a few posts.

I don't think it matters though, cause like I said, I believe it has nothing to do with society, decade, or laws. I believe completely it has to do with individuals alone, and throughout history in every culture, there have been a little bit of everything. The only difference might be a law or two to prevent murdering someone when you otherwise would, but you still disown them the same. I'm confident that throughout history, everyone has always acted the same, which is NOT one particular way, but every which way.

A modern-day USA father might be the exact same as a ruthless monarch father in 1200 BC. The only difference might be instead of cutting off her head, the father can't so he cuts off her family ties, excommunicating her. Or a modern-day loving father might allow his daughter to do whatever and support it, just like a father back in 1200BC who was above the law.

 

[Tamara224]

Viewing women like property? Is that the historical discussion?

I think that people in the "old days" probably treated women the same that they do now. A lot of men now-a-days treat women like property, and a lot of women let themselves (or don't realize) they are treated like property.

Well, while I agree that much of the attitudes are the same, I don't think we can go so far as to say the treatment is exactly the same. It is historical fact (not reasonably debatable) that until relatively recently women were legally considered the "chattel" of their husbands or fathers. Women couldn't vote, women couldn't own property, women didn't get to choose who they married, they couldn't divorce their husbands, in some cases they couldn't even "bring charges" against a man for rape.

These things are not debated, they are accepted as true because of the overwhelming body of evidence in the form of statutes and other laws.

So, while some of the underlying mentality may be the same... We have come a long way towards equality.

Today it just might be a little different, but the basis is the same. Just look at rich old men with trophy wives, or "players" and all the women who let themselves get played.

Not to mention the the entire world isn't "civilized" like the Western World. Life and society goes beyond the USA and Western Europe. Then there's also a lot of religious people in the western world who STILL treat women like property, and women thinking they are property. A lot of Christians and Muslims treat women as lessers, which is how they treated women thousands of years back.

This is true... and definitely true about treatment of women in, for example, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

And there's some people who treat women as equals, or as superiors where the women has the power and man is property. This is the same, as throughout history women have had power over men who were in-love with them.

I would not be surprised if the entire history of the human race was exactly the same as it is now in almost everything we do.

In some things, I would agree with you. Human nature is human nature. But... I can't agree that life for me is exactly the same as it would have been 200 years ago. 200 years ago, I wouldn't be a lawyer, I'd be a housewife. So... it's not all exactly the same.

 

[Luther073082]

True with the trophy wives . . . for the most part I think women are their own worst enemy if seeking out equality is what they want.

There are internet sites out there where you can seek out a attractive woman to be your girlfriend (I belive in *every* respect) in exchange for a large sum of money per month.

I just had to look and most of these women wanted $2000 to $3000 a month. I don't now about you but where I live, $3000 a month is actually the average income here. Makes me wonder if being some rich guy's girlfriend is their full time job?