Yeah. The fact is, if someone is going to completely rule out a person once you realise they’re not a virgin then I think that makes them pretty shallow. I’m not saying for a second that you shouldn’t have a general preference or that it’s better to have slept around. Absolutely not.
But if you date someone and discover on the third date that they’re not a virgin and then proceed to dump them for that reason alone, then it’s shallow.
I actually agree with this, and voted “Yes”. However, note that the way you worded your question, whether one would
consider dating a non-virgin, not “do you find virginity status completely irrelevant when dating”, makes it difficult for anyone to answer “No”, unless you are speaking of someone with an extreme “I’d rather die single than marry a non-virgin” mentality. I know there are some people like that on CAF, but I really think such people are in the extreme minority.
Also, while you clarified later that by “non-virgin” you meant someone who had actually been
unchaste before marriage, I do think most CAFers would consider a widower or divorcee with annulment, etc. I also can only recall one poster on CAF who stated he wouldn’t even consider a victim of rape or sexual abuse – and even that person claimed it was because he knew he couldn’t deal with the baggage of the trauma, PTSD, etc…not because he’d consider such a person to actually be guilty of unchastity or “not good enough”.
However, I also suspect that there are many people who WOULD consider a non-virgin, but also DON’T think virginity status is completely irrelevant, either. Though even they might be reluctant to post about it, for fear of being attacked.
But, I also think some of the attitudes expressed on the other topic you speak of, that even having a “general preference” was shallow, selfish, immature, etc,was also extreme. Or that sexual history is “none of your business”. (Though to be fair, that particular poster also seemed to think a financial or credit history was also “none of your business” and totally irrelevant, which I actually disagree with even more strongly than whether a sexual history is relevant).
Yet, I’d hazard a guess that if someone had been 100+ partners before marriage, depending on the context, that actually might indicate a disordered sexuality that can’t just be cured with a trip to the confessional. Indeed, as
columbkille noted, there is actual research out there that suggests that it does matter.
I certainly think it’s more important what someone’s current attitude is about sex. What some of the “history doesn’t matter” crowd seem to naively ignore is that many people are NOT honest while dating. Not just in the sense of lying about the past, either. Some lie about their current beliefs, or at least minimize differences, naively believing “true love” will overcome it all.
There are cases where a sexually active person might agree to a non-sexual dating relationship, NOT because they’ve repented or changed their minds, but merely because they “respect” the values of a prospective spouse. Much like some go through the motions of a faith conversation to appease someone into marriage. Only to show their true colors after marriage. And note that Catholics do NOT hold to the “anything goes in the marriage bed” attitude that many Protestants do, and don’t see marriage as a cure for sexual sin.
I suppose one can argue that even such liars can be found out, if one dates long enough and discerns hard enough. But I just find it flies in the face of common sense that past actions aren’t at all a predictor of future ones. Unless of course you are speaking of someone who had a major conversion/repentance experience. That certainly does happen. But sometimes, it only seems to happen, or the person backslides – think of Father Corapi, for example.
:thumbsup:
