why do people always make fun of virgins

[Trashionista]

As a Jonas Brothers fan, I am quite shocked by your accusation especially when you're a Christian and a sister-in-Christ to those boys. Firstly, the Jonas Brothers (JB) started wearing the rings BEFORE they became famous. Joe made that vow when he was 12 and he's now 19. The other brothers made that vow to God around the same time. Even before they became very famous, they have been interviewed by reporters and never once did they stop giving glory to God for giving them the gift of music, and for being there to love them, and for getting them through the hard times. They even preached the idea of accountability, just like how the brothers were accountable to each other as they knew each other's weaknesses. How could you accuse them of publicizing their virginity for the purpose of selling records, when they have been Christians who are against pre-marital sex their whole lives? Have you ever thought that they are trying to change the world's view that single boys being virgins are abnormal, and that the truth is that God intends sex to be within a marriage only? Because of JB, several virgins I know are now speaking up against pre-marital sex, which is something they didn't have guts to do before, because it was considered "weird". When celebrities could testify for God in front of millions, it encourages us to do the same. I am just shocked that you don't seem to be siding with Christians who could do that. I pray for JB from time to time in the hope that they don't fall into temptation, and that they will continue to be the light in this dark world, and that they never be ashamed of the gospel.

And how are you so sure they actually did wear them before getting famous? Their word is not nessecarily true. Again, Britney did the whole virgin til marriage routine; and I honestly feel bad for her as it's clear the press was unfair to her, and she clearly has issues; but that's another thread. However, to assume that something is true just because someone says it is, and not be critical if they make it so public, is not very becoming to the discussion of virginity pledges.

The point being I don't understand Purity Balls, Purity Rings, or public pledges. It's no-one's business - and I have no idea why the Jonas Brothers woul announce such a vow if it is supposed to be a personal, private decision. Why announce it if not for the fringe benefits? I just think it's curious that one will assume Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton released their sex tapes, and that Britney lied about her own virginity for record sales and to further a manufactured image; but heaven forbid one thinks that the Jonas Brothers could also be lying for the PR.

That has nothing to do with being a Christian - and has everything to do with taking a critical look at the media, pop culture, and public personas.

In your decision to bold one sentence of my original post, you missed a very important point that summs up uh, exactly what I said here and expanded upon several times.

And if we're going to accuse celebrities of leaking nude photos and sex tapes to the press for the publicity, why is it so hard to believe someone who's trying to appeal to twelve year olds isn't wearing a Purity Ring in order to appeal to the parents who will likely be buying the albums/tickets for their kids?

Point being? May not be impossible that so-and-so who's famous and appeals to 7 year olds has to take on a different persona than one who appeals to 25 year olds. However, it's naiive to assume that just because someone says someone stole our sex tape, or that they believe in Purity Pledges, there are no fringe benefits or other motivations whatsoever to going public with something that private. Just as there fringe benefits to David Lee Roth acting like a sex-crazed, chauvinist pig throughout his career.

 

[Luther073082]

Not everyone who engages in premarital sex ends up with an STI. Furthermore, married couples having sex get pregnant in less than ideal circumstances - paging Sarah Palin.

And whats wrong with Mrs. Palin's circumstances? Her age??

I think I'd rather have a mom and a dad that are old but have things like a solid marriage and financial security then to have a mom and a dad that isn't even around.

And just because these things don't happen to everyone doesn't mean that doing it is necessarily a good idea. Not everyone who plays Russian Roulette dies at the end. You gonna play?

Fact is you are far less likely to get an STI if you are monogamous and the circumstances will in general be far better if you are married. Can exceptions be found. . . yes exceptions can be found in everything.

 

[Trashionista]

And whats wrong with Mrs. Palin's circumstances? Her age??

I think I'd rather have a mom and a dad that are old but have things like a solid marriage and financial security then to have a mom and a dad that isn't even around.

Call me crazy, but no, I would not want to be turning 20 as my ma was turning 65.

And just because these things don't happen to everyone doesn't mean that doing it is necessarily a good idea. Not everyone who plays Russian Roulette dies at the end. You gonna play?

Condoms, the Pill. These things can be utilized when having sex even if one is not married.

Fact is you are far less likely to get an STI if you are monogamous and the circumstances will in general be far better if you are married. Can exceptions be found. . . yes exceptions can be found in everything.

Who says everyone who has premarital sex doesn't believe in or practise monogamy?

 

[kevlite2020]

Quirk, it is certainly possible that people like the Jonas brothers use purity rings to boost sales. It does work, parents are encouraged to use them as a role model for their children. I cannot fathom why you think this is a bad thing though. Of course, the using it for profits thing is bad, sure, but why would you be mad with people who are setting a good example at that level of fame. There are so many celebrities in this world who live sinful lives, give all the glory to themselves, and no recognition to God, and that is who our children (and our adults) look up to in the world. If there was no celebrities like Jonas brothers (even though I can't stand their music, I respect them) all we would have is bad examples on tv. You would rather have that?

I am sorry if I'm coming off offensive Quirk, I do not mean to. I'm simply trying to understand your viewpoint because I can't understand it from your posts so far. It seems like you are saying that Christians should quietly keep to themselves, but anyone else is entitled to say and do whatever they want in public.

 

[deepgreen11]

And how are you so sure they actually did wear them before getting famous? Their word is not nessecarily true. Again, Britney did the whole virgin til marriage routine; and I honestly feel bad for her as it's clear the press was unfair to her, and she clearly has issues; but that's another thread. However, to assume that something is true just because someone says it is, and not be critical if they make it so public, is not very becoming to the discussion of virginity pledges.

The point being I don't understand Purity Balls, Purity Rings, or public pledges. It's no-one's business - and I have no idea why the Jonas Brothers woul announce such a vow if it is supposed to be a personal, private decision. Why announce it if not for the fringe benefits? I just think it's curious that one will assume Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton released their sex tapes, and that Britney lied about her own virginity for record sales and to further a manufactured image; but heaven forbid one thinks that the Jonas Brothers could also be lying for the PR.

That has nothing to do with being a Christian - and has everything to do with taking a critical look at the media, pop culture, and public personas.

In your decision to bold one sentence of my original post, you missed a very important point that summs up uh, exactly what I said here and expanded upon several times.



Point being? May not be impossible that so-and-so who's famous and appeals to 7 year olds has to take on a different persona than one who appeals to 25 year olds. However, it's naiive to assume that just because someone says someone stole our sex tape, or that they believe in Purity Pledges, there are fringe benefits to going public with something that private. Just as there fringe benefits to David Lee Roth acting like a sex-crazed, chauvinist pig throughout his career.

There are "fringe benefits" to everything. I mean, if someone's lifestyle appeals to someone, the stuff will sell.
Here's what I'm getting from your post: it is easier to decide that every move of a celebrity is a ploy or that they are lying, it is easier to doubt, wag fingers, than to say "Maybe they were just one of those kids who got swept up in the movement and are now living it up the right way." yes, they could be lying. But so could I.

 

[Luther073082]

Who says everyone who has premarital sex doesn't believe in or practise monogamy?

I'm talking about lifetime monogamy not momentary monogamy.

 

[Trashionista]

There are "fringe benefits" to everything. I mean, if someone's lifestyle appeals to someone, the stuff will sell.
Here's what I'm getting from your post: it is easier to decide that every move of a celebrity is a ploy or that they are lying, it is easier to doubt, wag fingers, than to say "Maybe they were just one of those kids who got swept up in the movement and are now living it up the right way." yes, they could be lying. But so could I.

No, it's not easier to decide their lying - it's just incredibly easy to be critical of the truth or validity of something when you make this vow public right before your album drops. Just as it looks suspicious when a sex tape is released right before one's reality show premieres.

As I said, I don't think it's impossible - I just don't understand announcing it at such a conveinient time.

 

[kevlite2020]

Condoms, the Pill. These things can be utilized when having sex even if one is not married.

Being able to prevent a majority of diseases/unwanted child births by protective means, does not make premarital sex okay. It just lessens the amount of consequences to deal with. It also increases the severity when these methods fail. Many people have sex, who wouldn't do it if they had no protection and knew there was a huge risk involved in it. When those same people end up pregnant or with a std, it is twice as devastating for them.

Who says everyone who has premarital sex doesn't believe in or practise monogamy?

You and I must have a different definition of monogamy. For me, it's one partner. Not one partner a day, not one a week, but one partner period. There are people in the world who have had sex with over 100 partners (literally) who consider themselves monogamous. Doesn't that sound a bit wrong to you?

 

[Trashionista]

I'm talking about lifetime monogamy not momentary monogamy.

And how many people [including Christians] get married more than once?

 

[jpcedotal]

Answer to original question:

Because you have something they can never get back...ever.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Maybe I sound like Quirk, but I really doubt that most who have had it taken from them ever want it back. Are there exceptions, sure. But I said "most".

 

[Luther073082]

And how many people [including Christians] get married more than once?

Depends on what you mean. If they get remarried because their last partner died. Thats still monogamy because their last partner is dead.

If you are talking about divorce. . .

Well far too many get divorced and remarried. But that does not for a second make it right.

If something is not right, its not right period. I don't care if every single person in the world does it. It NEVER makes it right.

Right and Wrong is not determined by a vote, nor by culture, nor is it determined by how many people succeed at the ideal and how many fail. Right and wrong is determined only by God.

 

[Trashionista]

Being able to prevent a majority of diseases/unwanted child births by protective means, does not make premarital sex okay. It just lessens the amount of consequences to deal with. It also increases the severity when these methods fail. Many people have sex, who wouldn't do it if they had no protection and knew there was a huge risk involved in it. When those same people end up pregnant or with a std, it is twice as devastating for them.

First, I'd like some proof of this notion that when a method of contraception fails it's somehow worse. If the Pill fails, and one ends up pregnant, they end up as pregnant as someone who wasn't using any protection whatsoever and get pregnant. Neither are in ideal getting pregnant circumstances.

Second, no-one's saying premarital sex is okay for everyone; if one believes sex should only be enjoyed between married people, that's fine. However, suggesting that people who have premarital sex are doomed to getting the clap, herpes, or having a kid out of wedlock is not giving the whole story. It is possible to be married, have a spouse who runs around, and end up with gonorrhea. Let's not turn into the gym teacher from Mean Girls and reduce a discussion on sex into "Don't have sex. Because you will get chlamydia. And die."

You and I must have a different definition of monogamy. For me, it's one partner. Not one partner a day, not one a week, but one partner period. There are people in the world who have had sex with over 100 partners (literally) who consider themselves monogamous. Doesn't that sound a bit wrong to you?

You don't have to make vows in a church to be monogamous to one person for the rest of your life. Enter... the commonlaw marriage.

Furthermore, I don't see how being married to 2 people over a lifetime is somehow that different than one woman or man who doesn't believe in marriage having 2 sexual partners over their lifetime.

And if we're so against people making fun of virgins, why would we lambast and characterize all who have premarital sex as sex-crazed fools who can't keep it in their pants?

 

[Trashionista]

Answer to original question:

Because you have something they can never get back...ever.

Yes, you can.

 

[Trashionista]

Depends on what you mean. If they get remarried because their last partner died. Thats still monogamy because their last partner is dead.

If you are talking about divorce. . .

Well far too many get divorced and remarried. But that does not for a second make it right.

If something is not right, its not right period. I don't care if every single person in the world does it. It NEVER makes it right.

Right and Wrong is not determined by a vote, nor by culture, nor is it determined by how many people succeed at the ideal and how many fail. Right and wrong is determined only by God.

Point being, you can be monogamous & legally married, but it may not actually be all that different to the serial monogamy the average single person practises.

 

[Varik]

Double post.

 

[Varik]

Condoms, the Pill. These things can be utilized when having sex even if one is not married.

I have a cousin who utilized both of these and still got his girlfriend pregnant. They are not foolproof your odds are still about 1 in 10 of contracting an STD or getting pregnant.

Who says everyone who has premarital sex doesn't believe in or practise monogamy?

If their out there I don't know them. All the guys I know that practice premarital sex float from one girlfriend to the next like the plague.

 

[Trashionista]

I have a cousin who utilized both of these and still got his girlfriend pregnant. They are not foolproof your odds are still about 1 in 10 of contracting an STD or getting pregnant.

The Pill is 99% effective if you're taking it properly. I don't know where this 1/10 odds are coming from, but it's quite clear from any ad for Alesse on television, that the Pill with consistent and correct usage will keep you from getting pregnant. The odds then would be more 1 in 100, and not 1 in 10. Furthermore, one could also argue that Pill manufactuers use that 99% ad to cover their butts, but that's another discussion.

Again, that's like buying ProActiv; using it once in a while or only after eating a burger, and complaining that you still have acne.

If their out there I don't know them. All the guys I know that practice premarital sex float from one girlfriend to the next like the plague.

It's serial monogamy then. It's still being monogamous to one person at a time. And not all men are like that.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

All the guys I know that practice premarital sex float from one girlfriend to the next like the plague.

Yah, but that is just what you have expereinced. There are bound to be plenty of individuals who have done the deed in a committed relationship before tying the knot.

For the record as a social conservative, I oppose premarital sex on practical grounds, as even the most seemingly stable relationship can go south, but demonizing those who do engage in it certainly isn't helpful.

 

[kevlite2020]

First, I'd like some proof of this notion that when a method of contraception fails it's somehow worse. If the Pill fails, and one ends up pregnant, they end up as pregnant as someone who wasn't using any protection whatsoever and get pregnant. Neither are in ideal getting pregnant circumstances.

Second, no-one's saying premarital sex is okay for everyone; if one believes sex should only be enjoyed between married people, that's fine. However, suggesting that people who have premarital sex are doomed to getting the clap, herpes, or having a kid out of wedlock is not giving the whole story. It is possible to be married, have a spouse who runs around, and end up with gonorrhea. Let's not turn into the gym teacher from Mean Girls and reduce a discussion on sex into "Don't have sex. Because you will get chlamydia. And die."

Unless I really missed something in this thread, nobody said that. What Smac was saying (as a joke, by the way) was that if people who have sex want to laugh at virgins, and some of them end up with std's/unwanted pregnancies, he would be happy to laugh right back at them as their decisions proved to put them worse off then the person who is a virgin that they were laughing at.

Also, I'm not downplaying the severity of surprise pregnancies/std's for anyone, my claim is that people who use protection are going to be hit harder by the news because there is the shock of how could this happen to go with all the typical shocks of why did this happen. I don't know why you ask for proof in this as emotional reactions, as far as I understand, aren't going to be very well scientifically studied in this area.

Also, while everyone who has premarital sex is not doomed to have any of those things, everybody that engages in premarital sex opens up that opportunity, which is not there if abstinent. Why is it wrong to warn them of the potential dangers? Should people jump into premarital sex without even knowing the possible consequences? They may not be doomed to a certain fate, but they also are in no way safe if they continue these activities.

You don't have to make vows in a church to be monogamous to one person for the rest of your life. Enter... the commonlaw marriage.

Furthermore, I don't see how being married to 2 people over a lifetime is somehow that different than one woman or man who doesn't believe in marriage having 2 sexual partners over their lifetime.

The problem is, if you're using that logic, you have to be able to extend it. I think the record holder for divorces is something like 17 partners. Within marriage this person has had sex with 17 different people. I have a problem accepting that as okay to do. That is a lot of sexual diversity for a lifetime...

You also say people who don't believe in marriage having one or two partners. If you want to argue that point, you have to be able to extend the logic. What about people who don't believe in marriage who have had 100 partners? If you can't reconcile that, what's right about the person having a couple partners that's wrong for the person having 100? They both have the same concept and application, one is just more busy than the other. If you agree that the 100 partners is bad, it only follows logically that the 1 or 2 is also bad. It's only within marriage that sex is safe.

And if we're so against people making fun of virgins, why would we lambast and characterize all who have premarital sex as sex-crazed fools who can't keep it in their pants?

Who said that? The only claim I've seen is that those who have premarital sex are not safe and are at risk of disease and pregnancy (which cannot be argued, that is fact). The only people who have premarital sex and are fools are the ones who actually think there is no inherit danger in premarital sex and that what they are doing is right.