What Gives?

[Lil Red]

As a general preface to my comments that follow, I have to say I'm surprised, even shocked, at the level judgment, assumption, and presumption in the comments so far. How do I justify this observation? Mainly the fact that my original post was completely ignored; everyone seems to have read "Begin the virgin vs non-virgin debate!" Clearly I did not write anything of the sort, nor did I desire to start any such debate. The fact that men seeking virgins was immediately assumed, without prior instigation is another consistent example that people have jumped to conclusions. The presumption of bad faith, that is, everyone who wants to marry a virgin must have evil or selfish intentions is quite judgmental. I suppose the ascribing of malicious intentions to desires that need not be malicious only seeks to justify the judgmental attitudes. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?

 

 I expected much more learned, balanced, and charitable responses.

 

-AK

 

the answer to your post is right here:

 

We definitely have the right to sit down and figure out what it is we want or need in a potential spouse. Everyone is different. I know for some it can be hard marrying/giving yourself to someone knowing they've already shared that experience with someone else.

 

They tend to be eviscerated because -- and this is the honest truth -- most people we have seen in this community wanting to marry a virgin *are* unforgiving and condescending toward others.

 

That is not a reflection on you, Augusta. But conversations about this subject in the past have turned heated and very personal. People who are not virgins were treated as though they were unworthy of a virgin's love or damaged goods. A lot of people were hurt. Again, that has nothing to do with you ... but please try to be patient as this is a sensitive topic in the phamily.

 

I mean this in charity and love: I can't help but notice your original post seems highly defensive and almost confrontational. Perhaps a little gentleness and a helpful explanation of why you'd like to marry a virgin would have better results. :)

God bless you. Welcome aboard!

[MissyP89]

Augusta, please read my post above from a few minutes ago.  :bounce:

ETA: Red beat me to it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by MissyP89

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

As a general preface to my comments that follow, I have to say I'm surprised, even shocked, at the level judgment, assumption, and presumption in the comments so far. How do I justify this observation? Mainly the fact that my original post was completely ignored; everyone seems to have read "Begin the virgin vs non-virgin debate!" Clearly I did not write anything of the sort, nor did I desire to start any such debate. The fact that men seeking virgins was immediately assumed, without prior instigation is another consistent example that people have jumped to conclusions. The presumption of bad faith, that is, everyone who wants to marry a virgin must have evil or selfish intentions is quite judgmental. I suppose the ascribing of malicious intentions to desires that need not be malicious only seeks to justify the judgmental attitudes. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?

 

 I expected much more learned, balanced, and charitable responses.

 

-AK

 

 

[Augusta]

Personality is a fine filter for marriage. 

 

Ethnic background or color, ummmm hell no. 

 

Demanding a virgin to marry reduces another person to a sexual object in the same way that sleeping around reduces other people to mere sexual objects. We do not deserve spousal love. It is a gift. Even if it is not "perfect" in the package. Also, it is IS harsh and unforgiving to reduce someone to the sum of their sin. God does not do that to us, we should not do it to others. 

 

Preferring or desiring to marry a virgin seems like it would be normal (I've never cared, so I don't have anything to compare it to). But refusing to marry anyone who wasn't as "holy" as someone veiws himself to be is self righteous and wrong. And that is why other Christian take issue with it. It displays a certain sense of entitlement that is not healthy for a Christian. 

 

Firstly, you've ignored other possible criteria, and only focused on two. Some people suggest it is unChristian to reject people if they aren't attractive enough. Do you agree with that? What is the line between desiring certain qualities and being selfish? Perhaps you could lend us your definition?

 

The language you use is very telling. Are people really "demanding a virgin"? That is very negative language. In lieu of a further response, please read my reply to Emily.

 

Your statement of "But refusing to marry anyone who wasn't as "holy" as someone veiws himself to be is self righteous and wrong" is confusing. Are you stating that someone can't reject someone if they have a sexual past? Also, forgiving someone does not mean one must marry them.

[zabbazooey]

What if someone was unchaste as a teen, converted to the Church, abstained until marriage? This person knew nothing of the sacraments, never went to church prior, family not religious.

I find that pretty cold to connect with someone and say "Oh, I know you were a dumb kid but you're not a virgin through and through, moving on now" way to make someone feel like garbage.

I get your point, but mission is right, it deduces that person down to their sexuality only.

Plus others have said, what about masturbation? Doing everything BUT the actual act? I knew many people at a catholic school I went to that did that, technically they were virgins.

A repentant heart is the most important factor if the person you are courting is not a virgin. Virginity is something to aspire to, but sometimes it doesn't happen.

[CatherineM]

I expected much more learned, balanced, and charitable responses.

-AK

If it makes you feel any better, these threads usually Ho downhill so fast that the get closed, so you probably won't have to endure it for long.

I was a virgin, my husband wasn't. I didn't expect him to be either. It would have been cool if he had been, but he wasn't. It didn't make him defective, or non-marry able. He also has Schizophrenia. That also wasn't a deal-breaker. Now if he had been a smoker, forget about it.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Firstly, you've ignored other possible criteria, and only focused on two. Some people suggest it is unChristian to reject people if they aren't attractive enough. Do you agree with that? What is the line between desiring certain qualities and being selfish? Perhaps you could lend us your definition?

 

The language you use is very telling. Are people really "demanding a virgin"? That is very negative language. In lieu of a further response, please read my reply to Emily.

 

Your statement of "But refusing to marry anyone who wasn't as "holy" as someone veiws himself to be is self righteous and wrong" is confusing. Are you stating that someone can't reject someone if they have a sexual past? Also, forgiving someone does not mean one must marry them.

 

 

[zabbazooey]

As a general preface to my comments that follow, I have to say I'm surprised, even shocked, at the level judgment, assumption, and presumption in the comments so far. How do I justify this observation? Mainly the fact that my original post was completely ignored; everyone seems to have read "Begin the virgin vs non-virgin debate!" Clearly I did not write anything of the sort, nor did I desire to start any such debate. The fact that men seeking virgins was immediately assumed, without prior instigation is another consistent example that people have jumped to conclusions. The presumption of bad faith, that is, everyone who wants to marry a virgin must have evil or selfish intentions is quite judgmental. I suppose the ascribing of malicious intentions to desires that need not be malicious only seeks to justify the judgmental attitudes. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?

I expected much more learned, balanced, and charitable responses.

-AK

As my human relations teacher says, "Discrimimation and preference are two separate things"

I like tall men with dark hair. I don't discriminate against perfectly fine people because they made past mistakes. It's not that I don't like short guys, but maybe if the right one came along and had a rockin personality, I would see past that.

[Augusta]

It's true, there are some men who don't want to marry women who aren't virgins. But that doesn't mean non-virgins cant get married, or that it'll be impossible for them to find a spouse.

 

Which was never stated or implied by anything I've written so far, nor could be considered an adequate or relevant response to such.

 

I would like to believe that most men are beyond doing that kind of thing these days.

 

Upon further reflection, does your comment seem a bit judgmental?

 

I would think the important thing isn't whether you've sinned before, but if you've repented. Virginity is indeed a precious gift, but it should hardly come as a surprise in our society that it's not the most common of gifts. Yes, some women do give it away freely before marriage, but a greater number have it taken from them by coercion, rape, or manipulation. Even if she did choose it, she may not be fully culpable, etc.

 

Just like a person can lose their virginity in a range of ways, so to is there a range of reasons for someone to only want to marry a virgin. Surely you recognize that?

 

Doesn't this:

You can't judge a person based solely on if you think they have sinned.

contradict or conflict with this:

For Catholics you also need to look at whether a person has repented of their past life.

 

If you're looking at whether they've repented, you've determined that they've sinned. If they have to prove they've changed, you've judged them solely on that anyway.

 

 

And anyway, if the stats about porn and masturbation are to be believed, any man who acted like that would be a hypocrite anyway.

 

The above statement collapses your entire argument. Can you tell me why?
 

the answer to your post is right here:

 

Well, sort of. I was typing my comment while that reply was being posted. You'll notice the times were a few minutes off.

[Augusta]

Men who hold out for a virgin spouse aren't doing anything wrong.

This contradicts your last post, no?

 

There are some who in addition to holding our for a virgin spouse will also degrade other women who aren't virgins as being generically unworthy of marriage or affection. That's not right.

 

No attempt has made at doing that here. Why must you automatically assume bad faith in people's intentions? Why can no one see them as two completely separate things?

 

In addition to that, some men insist on holding out for a virgin while not doing a particularly grand job of protecting their own virginity. That just makes them look like jerks.

 

Again.

 

 

If you can avoid the last 2 bits, there is nothing wrong with waiting for a virgin spouse. Nothing at all wrong with it.

So, now for why I came here. Why then do people belittle, attack, spite, etc, people who (as virgins) would like to only marry a virgin? That's what I'm wondering.

 

That said, I think I've gotten my answer: because those people assume bad faith. Now I see the thought processes in action. It's been enlightening so far, though only incidentally.

 

-AK
 

[MissyP89]

I'm a virgin, by God's grace. But I'm not perfect. I haven't always been chaste. Sometimes I'm still not.

 

I want to marry a virgin for emotional and practical reasons, and at the moment it looks like that will happen in a few years.

 

But my other half is also not perfect. Sometimes we still fail each other, despite our best efforts.

 

Here's the thing: virgin or not, I love that man. I love his heart and the person God has made him to be. I can't let the things we have or haven't done with past partners get in the way of that.

 

Is he ideal? No. Neither am I. :lol: But he, like me, is a work in progress. I get to watch God grow us both in holiness every single day. 

 

I would have never known that gift had we passed each other over for our sins.

 

That, of course, is just my perspective.

 

I have an honest, polite question, Augusta: if a man you truly connected with chose not to date you because of your weight, or the occasional grumpy mood, or the fact that maybe your house is a bit of a disaster sometimes, would you feel at peace with that?

 

Let's look at a similar situation. A man says, "You're a good woman with a beautiful heart, Augusta, but I'm afraid I just can't be with someone who is prone to moodiness."

 

I know it's not an exact comparison, but I'm trying to understand you better and hope you might take the time to explore this with me.

 

Thanks!

God bless,

Melissa

 

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by MissyP89

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

This contradicts your last post, no?

 

 

No attempt has made at doing that here. Why must you automatically assume bad faith in people's intentions? Why can no one see them as two completely separate things?

 

 

Again.

 

 

So, now for why I came here. Why then do people belittle, attack, spite, etc, people who (as virgins) would like to only marry a virgin? That's what I'm wondering.

 

That said, I think I've gotten my answer: because those people assume bad faith. Now I see the thought processes in action. It's been enlightening so far, though only incidentally.

 

-AK
 

 

 

[Augusta]

Welcome! :)

 

I think virginity is actually a pretty terrible standard.  It doesn't have a standard meaning anymore.  Is someone who chronically masturbates a virgin? What about someone who does everything but that specific deed? What about someone who had their virginity taken from them against their will?   I think you have to look at the reasons why someone wants to marry a virgin.  Is it because you're looking for someone who takes their faith seriously?  That's a good thing to look for in a person. 

If it were taken completely literally (and in total exclusion from other possible intentions), then yes, it isn't a great standard (though not "terrible"). It is clear there is a confusion of terms and definitions. The one that I think many people try to convey (perhaps before being shot down) is metonymic after a fashion. What do I mean by this? People intend it to mean chastity and virginity, not just virginity. It is a straw man to suggest that people are only looking at that state in total seclusion, and not considering anything else, or are meaning something else concommitant with it.

 

 

Or is it because you don't want to have "shared" your spouse with anyone else? That's a bad thing.

I'm curious why you say that's a "bad thing." Is it based on a bad faith assumption? or is it objectively bad, and how so?

 

 

Saying that you only want to marry a virgin leaves no room for growth or forgiveness. It basically says that you want someone who has never made a mistake, and that someone who has made a mistake is irrevocably damaged goods.  And that's not true, by any Christian standard.

This is judgmental. Clearly and empatically judgmental. Again, bad faith assumptions. How do you know that's what they're saying? How do you their intentions? The "damaged goods" suggestion is offensive; why do people keep bringing it up? I don't think anyone is looking for someone who hasn't made a mistake - that's absurd. Most people have a threshold for the amount and type of mistakes someone can make.

 

 

It's much better to look for someone who loves their faith and strives to practice virtue, no matter what their past looks like.

What is wrong in adding one more criterion? There are many exceptions to "no matter what their past looks like;" can you think of some?
 

[zabbazooey]

Oh FCC. I am dying. Out of props, but I prop thee.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

If it were taken completely literally (and in total exclusion from other possible intentions), then yes, it isn't a great standard (though not "terrible"). It is clear there is a confusion of terms and definitions. The one that I think many people try to convey (perhaps before being shot down) is metonymic after a fashion. What do I mean by this? People intend it to mean chastity and virginity, not just virginity. It is a straw man to suggest that people are only looking at that state in total seclusion, and not considering anything else, or are meaning something else concommitant with it.

 

 

I'm curious why you say that's a "bad thing." Is it based on a bad faith assumption? or is it objectively bad, and how so?

 

 

This is judgmental. Clearly and empatically judgmental. Again, bad faith assumptions. How do you know that's what they're saying? How do you their intentions? The "damaged goods" suggestion is offensive; why do people keep bringing it up? I don't think anyone is looking for someone who hasn't made a mistake - that's absurd. Most people have a threshold for the amount and type of mistakes someone can make.

 

 

What is wrong in adding one more criterion? There are many exceptions to "no matter what their past looks like;" can you think of some?