Would you...

[rodimus321]

My wife did, I was the one who wasn't a V. It did take her some time to get used to the idea bout our relationship is great.

 

[Butterfly4Christ]

I would no doubt. A lot of people (including myself) make mistakes. All that matters is that know we are forgiven, all those other things are in the past. I hate people that get cuaght up on things that happened in the past like they are perfect. We have all made mistake whether they are sexually or not. If God can forgive us and look past that then who are we not to.

 

[Sketcher]

I personally don't believe in "reborn virginity". Virginity in both a physical and a spiritual sense, is about being in a state where you have not "given" yourself yet to another person. It can only be given once. Once you do give yourself to someone you lose your virginity. I believe the concept of virginity being reborn can send out a wrong message (mainly to younger people) that you can have sex, and give yourself to another person, but you can once more reclaim your virginity, is misleading (bar those whose physical virginity was lost against their will). However, I do believe in the concepts of forgiveness and understanding, and trying to look deeper, into what someone is like on the inside.

I agree with this. I do not believe in "second virginity" as it contradicts the very nature of virginity. I do believe in total forgiveness, and I believe healing is possible (though there isn't any real evidence for it, at least none that is proper to be made known in public).

That said, forgiveness is not enough. God would have to fix what was broken by the premarital sex, and break what was built during it. I can forgive and accept someone as a sister without considering her a realistic dating option.

 

[Spicy McHaggis]

I'd date a girl who wasn't.

I tend to roll my eyes at the whole "born again vigrin" concept. You did what you did, you are who you are, the blood of Christ cleanses sins, etc...

 

[Niels]

I suppose... if it's clear that her experiences aren't a recent/current behavioral pattern. A mistake may simply be a mistake (though I'd want to know the context), a past ideology is a past ideology (if someone wasn't a Christian before their change in lifestyle, I'm not overly concerned.) but a character flaw is a character flaw. I do my best to avoid women with the latter, especially in terms of her sexuality, because I'm looking for a woman that I can reasonably trust with confidence. That said, it's hard to arrive at a conclusion about how I'd deal with someone without knowing more about the particular individual. So yes, I will certainly date someone with a past... but I will break it off with her if it becomes clear that she isn't the kind of person who can be trusted.

I have personally waited, and feel that a woman who's lived through a similar experience of waiting might happen to have a similar temperament and outlook, in terms of relationships. While not causal (virginity in and of itself will not make her compatible with me... if she's pushed boundaries, doing "anything but", and still has that kind of attitude, that is by far a worse turn-off for me than if she just made a few innocent mistakes or was wild before being saved), the choice to abstain from sexual activity may represent something else behind the scenes. It may possibly provide some information about how she relates to the world in general. This cannot be regained through a "second virginity"... since it's not the virginity itself that's the issue, but what was behind it to begin with. That said, my default position is to look for someone like me in terms of sexual experience, but as I seek to understand everyone as an individual, I'm certainly not going to arbitrarily hold a woman's past against her.

As far as being "whole" or not, you can certianly can regain integrity, and are as forgiven as the rest of us. Not being a virgin shouldn't put a damper on your dating life. Please don't be so hard on yourself. It's not beneficial to simply assume that "most Christian guys" will no longer be interested in you... if you do assume as much, you might end up selling yourself short.

 

[Tink]

I'd date someone who'd repented of their sexual past.

God makes us new creatures. That means we're washed clean.

In His love,
Tink

 

[ivanisavich]

I wouldn't

No reason to lower my standards in that area even if they are "born-again". I wouldn't hold it against them on a person-to-person level of course....but when it comes to a potential mate, I don't want used/damaged goods (unless it was something like past sexual abuse or rape obviously, where it was out of the person's control).

 

[Chosen One]

I personally don't believe in "reborn virginity". Virginity in both a physical and a spiritual sense, is about being in a state where you have not "given" yourself yet to another person. It can only be given once. Once you do give yourself to someone you lose your virginity. I believe the concept of virginity being reborn can send out a wrong message (mainly to younger people) that you can have sex, and give yourself to another person, but you can once more reclaim your virginity, is misleading (bar those whose physical virginity was lost against their will).

However, I do believe in the concepts of forgiveness and understanding, and trying to look deeper, into what someone is like on the inside. I've only fallen for a couple of girls in my life, and I'm pretty sure none were virgins. I admit that I would be a bit jealous of the other men, if that topic ever came up. But they were lovely people, smart, with good character. I had no need to judge them. In fact I felt more of a need to prove myself to them. I have no concerns at all in the future about whether the woman I'm going to marry is a virgin or not. As long as there is love, unstanding, and forgiveness, nothing else is important. After all, in one way or another, we have all sinned. You can't change it, you can only learn from it.

Amen to you brother. While God may be forgiving, and we should be too-- herpes, HIV, crabs, clamidia-- these things DO NOT forgive. AIDS does not simply decide to rid your body of itself because you are "born again".

People can be forgiven for their actions- but they must learn to live with the consequences of what they have done.

 

[septemberskies]

I wouldn't

No reason to lower my standards in that area even if they are "born-again". I wouldn't hold it against them on a person-to-person level of course....but when it comes to a potential mate, I don't want used/damaged goods (unless it was something like past sexual abuse or rape obviously, where it was out of the person's control).

Whoa... all i can say is to each his own. "Damaged goods" *rolls eyes*


Anyhow, although i would prefer someone who is a virgin like myself, i wouldn't close the door on the possibility. The reason why is because people make mistakes and sin. I'm not perfect and so i can't expect perfection but what i do expect is a God fearing man who has a loving heart and will be supportive of me. Nothing more, nothing less

 

[ivanisavich]

"Damaged goods" *rolls eyes*

Explain to me your reasoning behind your disagreement, before you roll your eyes at me.

 

[Tink]

Explain to me your reasoning behind your disagreement, before you roll your eyes at me.

Probably has something to do with being a new creature in Christ, WASHED CLEAN. Just my guess.

In His love,
Tink

 

[DailyBlessings]

Damaged goods?

*joins the eye rolling*

Unless you can honestly claim that you have never had an impure thought, you've no right to call someone else damaged goods. We're all in the same boat, and we'd do well to cut each other a bit of slack.

I don't believe in some mystical holy state of virginity. What are we, in the Middle Ages or something? It's just a physical fact, and it doesn't necessarily reflect on someone's current spiritual condition.

 

[GodsJewel]

I would consider dating someone that previously engaged in those types of things. No one can change their past. As long as that person is trying to prevent themself from making the same mistake and make sure they don't put themself in a compromising position then that person should be okay.

 

[ivanisavich]

Probably has something to do with being a new creature in Christ, WASHED CLEAN. Just my guess.

I didn't mean "damaged" as if there is something wrong with them....I thought I made that clear. I said "damaged/used" because I would want someone sexually pure like myself....someone who hasn't been around the block with someone else. Ie...used.

 

[DailyBlessings]

[/color][/font]

I didn't mean "damaged" as if there is something wrong with them....I thought I made that clear. I said "damaged/used" because I would want someone sexually pure like myself....someone who hasn't been around the block with someone else. Ie...used.

Uh, as I said, I highly doubt that you are sexually pure, whether you have had sex or not. What difference does the physical act really make? It's certainly no cause for name calling.

 

[ivanisavich]

Unless you can honestly claim that you have never had an impure thought, you've no right to call someone else damaged goods. We're all in the same boat, and we'd do well to cut each other a bit of slack.

I don't believe in some mystical holy state of virginity. What are we, in the Middle Ages or something? It's just a physical fact, and it doesn't necessarily reflect on someone's current spiritual condition.

Oh come on. *rolls eyes back*

a) There is a big difference between having an impure thought, and actually acting out those thoughts with someone else. Would you put someone who thinks about robbing a bank in the same catagory as someone who's robbed a bank? Of course not.

Certainly the Bible teaches that if we entertain sinful desires in our mind as opposed to actually acting it out it's a sin....but there is still a big difference between the two!

b) Well I'm sorry that you have such a low esteem for sexual purity and the importance of it.

 

[ivanisavich]

Uh, as I said, I highly doubt that you are sexually pure, whether you have had sex or not. What difference does the physical act really make? It's certainly no cause for name calling.

a) I really hope you're not serious about there being no difference between a sexual thought and a sexual act.

b) It's not name calling.

 

[ivanisavich]

Overall...I'm not trying to point anyone out or anything....I simply stated my opinion since the OP asked for it.

I wouldn't date someone who isn't a virgin just as much as I woulnd't date someone covered in tatoos or piercings. There's nothing wrong with doing the opposite, I simply choose not to based on my own personal standards/opinions.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Ivanisivich,

Actually it is God HIMSELF who said there was NO difference between the thought and the deed - remember that whole spiel about 'whoever thinks about a woman lustfully'.

That attitude that says 'oh she HAD sex, I only thought about it' is so pharaseeical, and is EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to combat.

I don't want to be TOO harsh on you, but you basically told God He was a liar with your words that 'there is a big difference between having an impure thought, and actually acting out those thoughts with someone else', because he says it is EXACTLY the same.

I have no problem with your standards/desires - what I DO have a problem with is you speaking contrary to scripture.

And I am NOT damaged goods. I am a wonderful, blameless, spotless Bride of Jesus Christ - and He sees me as perfect.



Sasch

 

[Tink]

Ivanisivich,

Actually it is God HIMSELF who said there was NO difference between the thought and the deed - remember that whole spiel about 'whoever thinks about a woman lustfully'.

That attitude that says 'oh she HAD sex, I only thought about it' is so pharaseeical, and is EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to combat.

I don't want to be TOO harsh on you, but you basically told God He was a liar with your words that 'there is a big difference between having an impure thought, and actually acting out those thoughts with someone else', because he says it is EXACTLY the same.

I have no problem with your standards/desires - what I DO have a problem with is you speaking contrary to scripture.

And I am NOT damaged goods. I am a wonderful, blameless, spotless Bride of Jesus Christ - and He sees me as perfect.



Sasch

AMEN!



In His love,
Tink