CatherineM Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 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 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Oh FCC. I am dying. Out of props, but I prop thee.
FutureCarmeliteClaire Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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?
Augusta Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 It's a stupid, sexist criteria that is found in the Old Testament (with the added bonus that you could kill the silly sally once she was discovered) but then Jesus was like 'lol jk' on all the disproportionate killing his father advocated so now people are like 'dude, wth' when people forget that even though the bible is extremely sexist and misogynistic christians aren';t supposed to be and that's what it means when we make a stand against gay marriage. Your entire post is jumping to conclusions. Did you read my original post? If so, why did you write the above? Where are your assumptions based? -AK
FutureCarmeliteClaire Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 okay it's not funny anymore Don't worry, I'll run out of drama llamas sooner or later.
Augusta Posted January 29, 2013 Author Posted January 29, 2013 In the early church there was a deep sense of purity...there was disagreement whether one could even be forgiven more than once after baptism, and there was also the controversy over whether people who lapsed from the faith or apostasized for fear of persecution could return to the church. The more "lenient" perspective on non-virgins today, no doubt, has something to do with larger theological shifts in perspective and emphasis in modern times. My thoughts direct me towards the concept of the "Appeal to Common Practice." -AK
Nihil Obstat Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) To be fair to Augusta, I think the assumption here is that he is arguing like Norseman, and I am not sure that is entirely fair. I am finding him slightly disagreeable, but I think he is here essentially with good intentions. ETA: I also think he is overreacting somewhat to critiques. :) Edited January 29, 2013 by Nihil Obstat
Lil Red Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 cleaning & bleaching my toilet brush and plunger (which is actually what I'm doing today) is more fun than engaging in this debate (again), so I'm stepping out. :) bye!
Winchester Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Important marriage filters: 1. Do I want to bang this person? 2. Can I stand this person? 3. If I have problems standing this person, does the urge to bang them outweigh that?
missionseeker Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 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. In choosing whom I go out with, I generally ignore all the criteria you've mentioned, tbh (except personality. And even then, I've gotten that one wrong before, so...)I don't think it's ok to say "I won't date/marry you based on whether or not you are X,Y,or Z." I wouldn't date someone I wasn't attracted to, no. However, I wouldn't say no to someone just because they're not my idea of the ideal good looking opposite sex. To choose to only marry a virgin is to ignore EVERY OTHER FACET of that person; it is to focus solely on one aspect and that aspect reduces them to an object. To reduce a person to an object - especially a sexual object - is anti Christian.
Debra Little Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 I tell in, from the bottom of my heart, that I wish more than anything I had not given myself to my husband before I married him. I have regained my purity but I can never get back the gift of my virginity. It is possible for a doctor to sew you back up so you can say you are a virgin but that does not change the facts. The facts are I squandered a gift of grace from my Heavenly Father and I cannot regain it. I am no longer ashamed because Jesus forgave me and I have been to confession about it long ago. But I cannot get that gift back and I regret it more than anything! Virgins are special people in God's book. If someone is a virgin I hope they do not do what I had. You will never get it back. You cannot become a virgin a second time or more. it doesn't work that way, no matter what a doctor can do. I regret that day with all my heart!
4588686 Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Why do you want to desperately to be the one the break a hymen?
Recommended Posts