Dating a non-virgin: Yes or no.

[DarkLight]

Or, maybe it’s that they’re trying to have control over the situation.

I think some of that can come from the same thing - if they’re relegated to the “impure” status already they might as well take control and choose to be “that kind of girl”. Not that it’s the only motivation, but it can play in.

 

[Xantippe]

I think that is an odd way to look at it. Our society does not prize virginity. If a rape victim “feels” a certain way because someone would misunderstand that idea if virginity then better to know that before a lot of dates happen

And yes, it is a small potion of the population.

1. Our society is weird about female virginity. On the one hand, it is valuable and fetishized, but at the same time, a great deal of pleasure is taken in destroying it. (See, for example your locker room buddies or Britney Spears’ career.)
2. Yes, girls and women do often care a lot about their virginity even if they aren’t especially religious, because there’s a vague sense that it is somehow very important. (See #1.)
3. But I’m not talking about society at large, but about how Christians treat other Christians. And it isn’t kosher for Christian men to publicly announce that they regard victims of rape as being essentially unmarriageable garbage.

I understand that when men announce that they want a virgin bride, that they don’t understand that that’s what they are saying–but yeah, that’s what they’re saying and that’s what any victim of sexual assault is going to hear. And that goes double for any victim of sexual assault who is a practicing Christian.

So, knock it off, guys!

1. Lastly, the must-have-virgin stuff misses the fact that there are widows and divorced women with annulments who are free to marry.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

1. Our society is weird about female virginity. On the one hand, it is valuable and fetishized, but at the same time, a great deal of pleasure is taken in destroying it. (See, for example your locker room buddies or Britney Spears’ career.)
2. Yes, girls and women do often care a lot about their virginity even if they aren’t especially religious, because there’s a vague sense that it is somehow very important. (See #1.)
3. But I’m not talking about society at large, but about how Christians treat other Christians. And it isn’t kosher for Christian men to publicly announce that they regard victims of rape as being essentially unmarriageable garbage.

I understand that when men announce that they want a virgin bride, that they don’t understand that that’s what they are saying–but yeah, that’s what they’re saying and that’s what any victim of sexual assault is going to hear. And that goes double for any victim of sexual assault who is a practicing Christian.

So, knock it off, guys!

1. Lastly, the must-have-virgin stuff misses the fact that there are widows and divorced women with annulments who are free to marry.

You must know some fringe Christians I’ve never heard of anyone who shuns widows for not being virgins.

But I will say I would have married a non virgin waaaay before a rape victim or an abuse victim. This is not a judgement upon them but rather the cold reality that many of those people have many many issues that can destroy a family and marriage. Not to mention the high rate of abuse victims becoming abusers. Any woman should be made aware WHILE DATING about a man who has been raped or abused. However some of these things are more aptly handled in the later stages of dating. But before a ring is produced.

 

[ThePCWife]

Non-virgin men marrying virgins is male privilege in living color. Because a 27 year old non-virgin guy (or 37 or 47 year old) has a much better shot at a 21 year old virgin woman for a wife than the reverse scenario.

I think that colors a lot of these sorts of discussions. Men think their privilege means that non-virginity isn’t as big a deal to women, but as Hoosier Daddy’s own example shows, that’s not really the case. It’s just that men can marry younger more easily than women can marry younger, and if you have a virgin preference, then obviously there’s more virgins around at younger ages than older ages. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care or aren’t very bothered about marrying a guy with 30 notches on the old bedboard.

Virginity can be a great sign of chastity and it’s better if you can both marry that way, but if you’re called to marriage, well, it’s also supposed to be temporary. So there’s that. “I’m obsessed with this characteristic that will be gone within 24 hours of marriage!” That would be weird in a suitor coming around my virgin teenagers (when I get some).

Being a virgin because you view chastity as part of the grace you’ve been granted by God and hope your future spouse can have that as well is not weird.

And I get that old man/young woman can work out fine, but it ages the bride, results in lower overall fertility, and smacks of false humility when the old man has lots of notches and went young because it was the only way to get a “virgin bride” he felt entitled to rather than a true embrace of humility in marrying a woman closer to his own age who might gasp also have made some missteps and ended up non-virgin.

But I’ve seen my share of those marriages IRL and that colors my perspective.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

I voted ‘Maybe’ for several reasons. First, I never had any fixation on virginity per se. Virginity, at one time, merely served as one ‘easily’ determined point of similarity between me and ‘Ms Potential’. In other words, I was a virgin, and that requirement narrowed the field for finding somebody compatible.

After my own unfortunate experience, my situation obviously changed and that ‘requirement’ is out the window, although it has made narrowing my search far more difficult.

The point is that I do not think that virginity itself should be some great qualifier. Virginity, or one’s chastity/history should be viewed only in the context of compatibility. It should come as no surprise that two virgins (ignoring other factors for the sake of discussion) are more likely to be similar to each other in temperament than a couple composed of a previously promiscuous person with a virgin.

While the past is the past and it should not be held against an authentically repentant and reformed person, said person’s past behaviour can serve as a significant indicator of character and therefore, compatibility with another interested person.

Yes, I detest the mindset that considers non-virgins, especially young women initially lured into harmful relationships, abuse, etc. as ‘damaged goods’. I find this standard especially abhorrent considering that young men are expected to boast/take pride in their exploits.
That said, sexual behaviour, or lack thereof, should not be simply ignored and ought to play a part in determining compatibility for the reasons that I have already mentioned.

 

[AdamP88]

I voted ‘Maybe’ for several reasons. First, I never had any fixation on virginity per se. Virginity, at one time, merely served as one ‘easily’ determined point of similarity between me and ‘Ms Potential’. In other words, I was a virgin, and that requirement narrowed the field for finding somebody compatible.

After my own unfortunate experience, my situation obviously changed and that ‘requirement’ is out the window, although it has made narrowing my search far more difficult.

The point is that I do not think that virginity itself should be some great qualifier. Virginity, or one’s chastity/history should be viewed only in the context of compatibility. It should come as no surprise that two virgins (ignoring other factors for the sake of discussion) are more likely to be similar to each other in temperament than a couple composed of a previously promiscuous person with a virgin.

While the past is the past and it should not be held against an authentically repentant and reformed person, said person’s past behaviour can serve as a significant indicator of character and therefore, compatibility with another interested person.

Yes, I detest the mindset that considers non-virgins, especially young women initially lured into harmful relationships, abuse, etc. as ‘damaged goods’. I find this standard especially abhorrent considering that young men are expected to boast/take pride in their exploits.
That said, sexual behaviour, or lack thereof, should not be simply ignored and ought to play a part in determining compatibility for the reasons that I have already mentioned.

I would agree with your points in general. I would say that character, like self control and the other virtues, is something that can be built with time. Some experiences cause people to reflect upon past mistakes and refine their character. St. Catherine said “if you are what you are meant to be then you will set the world ablaze”. What all persons are meant to be is a shining reflection of Christ in the world, proud that they are made in the image and likeness of God. I think everyone is capable of this. Some people obviously reject this view. But some people receive an inflow of grace into their heart and repent.

I agree that the mindset that considers non-virgins as “damaged goods” is harmful and unchristian. I think that this goes for men as well as women. Obviously I can see how it is probably more an issue for women as virginity/non-virginity is actually a physical feature. But I do think there are a large amount of men out there who have fallen and struggled in the past and could also see themselves as “damaged” or unlovable.

I personally think that if we are genuinely trying to be Christlike, past sins should not be a bar to dating someone unless that person is still living an unchaste life.

 

[AdamP88]

I really wish the one person who answered the poll “No Way” and the four who answered “No” had bothered to tell us why. So far the posters all seem to have a general agreement about most things. I’m genuinely interested to see the point of view behind the “No’s”

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I think even among the more chaste type of men you often find this attitude. Virginity in modern society is often seen as a feminine virtue, or at least much more important for women than for men. In turn I think many women (even chaste ones) resent that a man is offered forgiveness for sexual sins in a way that the church community often does not offer it to women.

It’s not just men who have this attitude too. There are most definitely women who would be horrified at including a woman known to be unchaste in the past - even if repentant - in their midst. Witness the treatment many single mothers receive.

Men are the only ones that can doubt paternity, “Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.” It makes sense that men would value virginity more than women would and that a woman’s dating “value” would be more damaged by indiscretions than a man’s. It wouldn’t make sense for men and women to have the exact same priorities in finding a mate.

 

[AdamP88]

Men are the only ones that can doubt paternity, “Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.” It makes sense that men would value virginity more than women would and that a woman’s dating “value” would be more damaged by indiscretions than a man’s. It wouldn’t make sense for men and women to have the exact same priorities in finding a mate.

I think that is rubbish to be honest. It makes sense if you’re living in a world where Jesus never came. But I don’t see you can say how any person’s “dating value” is damaged by previous unchastity.

What about the sacrament of penance and the graces granted by Christ through the Eucharist. Are you also willing to say that men’s “dating value” (whatever that means) is also somehow damaged? Either way that’s a horrible way to view any person.

How would you phrase that “I’m sorry I’ll have to think long and hard before dating you, you’re damaged”?

 

[DarkLight]

I can unfortunately say from experience that the value on being “pure” contributed to me staying in an abusive relationship, because I felt like no other Christian guy would want a woman who had been “impure.”

 

[Xantippe]

You must know some fringe Christians I’ve never heard of anyone who shuns widows for not being virgins.

But I will say I would have married a non virgin waaaay before a rape victim or an abuse victim. This is not a judgement upon them but rather the cold reality that many of those people have many many issues that can destroy a family and marriage. Not to mention the high rate of abuse victims becoming abusers. Any woman should be made aware WHILE DATING about a man who has been raped or abused. However some of these things are more aptly handled in the later stages of dating. But before a ring is produced.

When a guy says, “I want to marry a virgin” that logically implies that widows, divorced women with annulments and victims of rape are immediately disqualified.

If he doesn’t mean that, he shouldn’t say that.

It is true that when I’ve seen these guys pressed on the subject online, they tend to fold, but it really should not be necessary to remind a Christian man that there are single women who have never consented to fornication who are not virgins.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I think that is rubbish to be honest. It makes sense if you’re living in a world where Jesus never came. But I don’t see you can say how any person’s “dating value” is damaged by previous unchastity.

What about the sacrament of penance and the graces granted by Christ through the Eucharist. Are you also willing to say that men’s “dating value” (whatever that means) is also somehow damaged? Either way that’s a horrible way to view any person.

How would you phrase that “I’m sorry I’ll have to think long and hard before dating you, you’re damaged”?

Your value on the meat market can be damaged by things that aren’t even really sinful. Just try finding a date as a short or poor man. I’m not referring to value as a person but simply to the number of people who would desire to date you. Being unpure as a woman carries a much heavier cost in that regard than being an unpure man.

 

[Xantippe]

Non-virgin men marrying virgins is male privilege in living color. Because a 27 year old non-virgin guy (or 37 or 47 year old) has a much better shot at a 21 year old virgin woman for a wife than the reverse scenario.

I think that colors a lot of these sorts of discussions. Men think their privilege means that non-virginity isn’t as big a deal to women, but as Hoosier Daddy’s own example shows, that’s not really the case. It’s just that men can marry younger more easily than women can marry younger, and if you have a virgin preference, then obviously there’s more virgins around at younger ages than older ages. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care or aren’t very bothered about marrying a guy with 30 notches on the old bedboard.

Virginity can be a great sign of chastity and it’s better if you can both marry that way, but if you’re called to marriage, well, it’s also supposed to be temporary. So there’s that. “I’m obsessed with this characteristic that will be gone within 24 hours of marriage!” That would be weird in a suitor coming around my virgin teenagers (when I get some).

Being a virgin because you view chastity as part of the grace you’ve been granted by God and hope your future spouse can have that as well is not weird.

And I get that old man/young woman can work out fine, but it ages the bride, results in lower overall fertility, and smacks of false humility when the old man has lots of notches and went young because it was the only way to get a “virgin bride” he felt entitled to rather than a true embrace of humility in marrying a woman closer to his own age who might gasp also have made some missteps and ended up non-virgin.

But I’ve seen my share of those marriages IRL and that colors my perspective.

To be fair, CAF seems to have a number of pairings between women with a “past” and men who were virgins when they met. (Which, as a corollary to what you wrote about age, seems to be more common when the age gap is smaller.)

That does suggest that one of the problems with a strong virgin preference is that it may filter out a lot of people with whom one might have been very happy and compatible. While I am squicked out by men with “pasts” that insist on virgins, it’s just laughable when long-time bachelor posters post that 1) they insist on a virgin and 2) WAAAAAH! I can’t find anyone.

When they’re older men, I reassure them that there should be some nice widows coming online soon. They never seem very happy about that…

 

[Xantippe]

But I will say I would have married a non virgin waaaay before a rape victim or an abuse victim. This is not a judgement upon them but rather the cold reality that many of those people have many many issues that can destroy a family and marriage. Not to mention the high rate of abuse victims becoming abusers.

Lawdamercy.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

When a guy says, “I want to marry a virgin” that logically implies that widows, divorced women with annulments and victims of rape are immediately disqualified.

If he doesn’t mean that, he shouldn’t say that.

It is true that when I’ve seen these guys pressed on the subject online, they tend to fold, but it really should not be necessary to remind a Christian man that there are single women who have never consented to fornication who are not virgins.

Is there anything necessarily wrong with that? I can say that I had a stronger preference for an unmarried woman than I did for a virgin. I don’t understand the big hubbub over rejecting women over virginity considering how many trivial reasons go into picking who you’ll date. I’ve not gone out with women because they ate nothing but chicken nuggets or had manly hands and hairy knuckles. I know for a fact that I’ve been rejected for reasons just as trivial. There is a lot that goes into the chemistry between two people and I don’t think that fairness should play any part in it.

ETA: if something were to ever happen to my wife I would now have a stronger preference for a widow around my age. I wouldn’t want a June/December relationship or a woman who had never been married.

 

[chero23]

Yes. What’s the point of virginity if you’re a porn addict. I agree that virginity is important, precious and sacred. But far more important is chastity and purity of heart and mind.

Maybe they aren’t a porn person. Maybe they were in a serious relationship and had sex with their partner. That doesn’t mean their a porn addict.

 

[chero23]

If the girl who I date is not a virgin and tells me I had sex with the guy who I taught I was going to get married with/ Then I wouldn’t have an issue. But if she says, when I was 21 I would go to the club every weekend and slept arounf, then yeah, she’s out.

 

[Xantippe]

But I will say I would have married a non virgin waaaay before a rape victim or an abuse victim. This is not a judgement upon them but rather the cold reality that many of those people have many many issues that can destroy a family and marriage.

Have a look at what DarkLight wrote.

Taking the view that victims of rape or abuse are inherently damaged people makes it harder for victims of rape or abuse to make a good recovery.

 

[Xantippe]

Your value on the meat market can be damaged by things that aren’t even really sinful. Just try finding a date as a short or poor man. I’m not referring to value as a person but simply to the number of people who would desire to date you. Being unpure as a woman carries a much heavier cost in that regard than being an unpure man.

But those are mostly immediately visible qualities.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Have a look at what DarkLight wrote.

Taking the view that victims of rape or abuse are inherently damaged people makes it harder for victims of rape or abuse to make a good recovery.

Hopefully part of the post-traumatic growth for a victim is not needing to be validated by how other people feel about you. I would hope that anyone who lost their virginity would be able to go through the same growth process.