Definition of Virgin?

[Stella_Matutina]

How come no one has commented on my homosexuality example of a gay person having sex 100 times with a person of the same gender but never having heterosexual intercourse- are they still a virgin?

Or what about what I said about Mary- please see my previous post and comment.

 

[batteddy]

I’ve posted this before, and people got mad, perhaps because they don’t want to believe me. But any sexual pleasure, delibrately felt, makes one not a virgin. Therefore, theologically at least, masturbators are not virgins, but rape victims are. Which seems more just.

Of course, many people cannot handle this truth. There is this “cultural definition” of virginity, totally illogical, that is not consistent at all. Basically, the “cultural definition” is that one is still a virgin until they have experienced sex with another person, and usually it is defined as only intercourse (whichever type is “proper to” the sex or gender you are attracted to). Of course, this makes no sense. It draws an arbitrary “magic” line at intercourse, as if getting oral is somehow different than intercourse, or as if manual stimulation by another is somehow different than self-stimulation and as if both are somehow different than vaginal intercourse (even with a condom), or anal for gays.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. Physically, it implies a bodily integrity, visible evidence of which exists only in women. The Catholic Faith teaches us that God miraculously preserved this bodily integrity, in the Blessed Virgin Mary, even during and after her childbirth (see Paul IV, “Cum quorundam”, 7 August, 1555). There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawful use of marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to abstain forever from sexual pleasure.

And Aquinas says:

Pleasure resulting from resolution of semen may arise in two ways. If this be the result of the mind’s purpose, it destroys virginity,** whether copulation takes place or not.** Augustine, however, mentions copulation, because such like resolution is the ordinary and natural result thereof. On another way this may happen beside the purpose of the mind, either during sleep, or through violence and without the mind’s consent, although the flesh derives pleasure from it, or again through weakness of nature, as in the case of those who are subject to a flow of semen. On such cases virginity is not forfeit, because such like pollution is not the result of impurity which excludes virginity.

And that is the only definition that has an objective, consistent criteria: delibrately-felt sexual pleasure. Any other definition is just sort of arbitrary, and thus even superstitious.

 

[Wammy101]

Ahhhh…
But another post on sexuality.
My favourte, as many of you know.
As I sit here, stuffed to the brim with good Italian food (I garuantee eating is not a viable option for the next few, ummm, decades) I think about the meaning of this topic.
Is it simply to answer a question that is a very personal question.
I mean that in the way that everyone has a different view of what “virginity”, and how and when and why a person can and should lose it.
Some people believe that a wedding night is and appropriate time, some think earlier than that, some think later.
But now to answer your question.
A virgin, to me, is not some one who is, how you would say, chaste, nor pure. i guess for me its more clinical. to me it is some one who has had sex.
to some, it is a physical bodily thing, to do with hymens and such, requiring bleeding and pain on the wedding night, and random other horrible things like that.
if thats the case, and a girls hymen is how they predict her virginity, many girls, especially now a days, arent virgins from about 9 or 10, when they start doing the splits in dancing, or sittting with their legs spread out in jeans, stuff like that.
to others, virginity is based on a more mental thing. like yoursexual experience, mentally, such as thoughts, dreams, masturbation, stuff like that.
like i said.
personal.
xoxo
Wammy

 

[Bobby_Jim]

So, the question is not whether it was sinful, adulterous or unchaste, but rather whether it constitutes “losing virginity”.

Darn, now where did I leave that again???

Sorry, I just think that common idiom is strange. It implies a there’s a carelessness about it. Like, hey I’ve got my virginity… then one day, you’re not looking, and whoops, it’s gone. Where did it go?

On a more serious note - I doubt you will find a conclusive answer in traditional church teaching, because they were probably not envisioning an unmarried heterosexual couple doing this. In Christian societies, popular acceptance and common practice of such things among a wide cross section of society is, I think, unique to the 20th century onward, and it seems difficult to reconcile traditional views of “virginity” with ever changing cultural and sexual norms.

The kids these days speak of “technical virginity”, meaning they’ve done anything except intercourse. To me it’s splitting hairs, but If we’re really so interested in giving a name to the couple’s state, this seems to be the current nomenclature.

The key thing though, as was stated, is that they have repented, moved on and are remaining chaste. What matters I think is that you enter marriage in a state of *grace. *You can call yourself a “virgin” or a “technical virgin” or whatever you want, but that really doesn’t say much about the state of your soul, and your relationship with God.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

I’ve posted this before, and people got mad, perhaps because they don’t want to believe me. But any sexual pleasure, delibrately felt, makes one not a virgin. Therefore, theologically at least, masturbators are not virgins, but rape victims are. Which seems more just.

Of course, many people cannot handle this truth. There is this “cultural definition” of virginity, totally illogical, that is not consistent at all. Basically, the “cultural definition” is that one is still a virgin until they have experienced sex with another person, and usually it is defined as only intercourse (whichever type is “proper to” the sex or gender you are attracted to). Of course, this makes no sense. It draws an arbitrary “magic” line at intercourse, as if getting oral is somehow different than intercourse, or as if manual stimulation by another is somehow different than self-stimulation and as if both are somehow different than vaginal intercourse (even with a condom), or anal for gays.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

And Aquinas says:

And that is the only definition that has an objective, consistent criteria: delibrately-felt sexual pleasure. Any other definition is just sort of arbitrary, and thus even superstitious.

:clapping:

 

[batteddy]

The kids these days speak of “technical virginity”, meaning they’ve done anything except intercourse. To me it’s splitting hairs,

It is. It is an arbitrary line that a stupid culture somehow thinks matters.

Which is why theologians, when speaking of what virginity theologically means (in terms of who gets the aureole of virginity in heaven), simply cut the nonsense and said it was any delibrate delectation in sexual pleasure whether copulation took place or not, whether it was with another person or not.

They admitted there could be unchaste virgins…people could have impure thoughts or use pornography and still be virgins, they could even GIVE oral or manual stimulation and still be as long as they themselves were given no genital pleasure. But that is still bad, such a person shouldnt feel proud of themselves for those things, though in those cases ones virginity would still be intact if one repented and lived chastely.

And that is why I think this point you made is important: dont get too worried about being a Virgin anymore than you should worry about being a Doctor or a Martyr. Those aureoles are accidental rewards. What really matters is being in a state of sanctifying grace, getting to the essential reward of heaven in the beatific vision. Because there can be virgins in mortal sin. What matters is grace most of all.

Of course, the standards for a Consecrated Virgin are honestly a little less strict:

A woman living in the world who has never married or lived in open violation of chastity, and who by age, prudence, and good character is deemed suitable for dedicating herself to a life of chastity in the service of the Church and of her neighbor may petition her bishop to receive the Consecration.

For consecrated virgins, as long as the violation of chastity wasn’t “open”…they’ll let you in without asking too many gritty questions.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

On a more serious note - I doubt you will find a conclusive answer in traditional church teaching, because they were probably not envisioning an unmarried heterosexual couple doing this. In Christian societies, popular acceptance and common practice of such things among a wide cross section of society is, I think, unique to the 20th century onward, and it seems difficult to reconcile traditional views of “virginity” with ever changing cultural and sexual norms.
…
The key thing though, as was stated, is that they have repented, moved on and are remaining chaste. What matters I think is that you enter marriage in a state of *grace. *You can call yourself a “virgin” or a “technical virgin” or whatever you want, but that really doesn’t say much about the state of your soul, and your relationship with God.

So far the only official references we have from Church Teaching concludes that virginity is not exclusively defined to not having had sexual intercourse. And you argue that those interpretations are outdated simply because of “ever changing cultural and sexual norms.” But weird and immoral sex acts have been around for ages- remember the days of Roman orgies?

The theological understanding of virginity and the defenition of it in the eyes of God is much different than the current “nomenclature” you speak of.

But you are right that the state of one’s soul and relationship with God is the most important thing to a newly married couple.

 

[Fidelia]

How come no one has commented on my homosexuality example of a gay person having sex 100 times with a person of the same gender but never having heterosexual intercourse- are they still a virgin?

Or what about what I said about Mary- please see my previous post and comment.

A gay couple can’t be having sex. Two penises can’t have sex, two vaginas can’t have sex. So sexual things, yes, but have sex, no. (hence, reason they can’t marry).

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

A gay couple can’t be having sex. Two penises can’t have sex, two vaginas can’t have sex. So sexual things, yes, but have sex, no. (hence, reason they can’t marry).

It’s funny… I had never before thought of it in the way you describe, but I think you’re right.

---

To me, a virgin is a person who has never had intercourse involving penetration, using the correct anatomical parts.

It’s high time for the outdated and ignorant “intact hymen” concept to get flushed down the drain. When I was volunteering in Central America, I found that many people there still hold the view that tampons rob one of one’s virginity. I have heard that in some parts of the world girls are murdered for failing to present an intact hymen on their wedding night.

By the way, it is not Church teaching that Mary’s hymen was intact, just that she was a virgin. The idea of her hymen being intact even after labor was part of a private revelation, which Catholics are free to reject or accept as they choose.

Personally, I think it’s pretty fruitless to sit around wondering whether one is really a virgin or not. The Church, of course, requires a formal definition for clarity in dogmatic matters. But beyond that, it’s just a word–and a word which happens to be relatively meaningless in terms of one’s eternal salvation (assuming one has repented and received absolution for any unchaste acts).

Recently somebody shared a great quote with me from Fr. Cajetan’s Humility of Heart:

“…There are many saints, too, who were not virgins: their vocation was otherwise. But in Paradise there is no saint who was not humble.”

In my experience, excessive preoccupation with one’s virginity or lack thereof indicates a need to reevaluate one’s priorities.

 

[Fidelia]

It’s funny… I had never before thought of it in the way you describe, but I think you’re right.

---

To me, a virgin is a person who has never had intercourse involving penetration, using the correct anatomical parts.

By the way, it is not Church teaching that Mary’s hymen was intact, just that she was a virgin. The idea of her hymen being intact even after labor was part of a private revelation, which Catholics are free to reject or accept as they choose.

.

i have never heard of that. But for argument’s sake, if it was, if God repaired her hymen, or just made it stretch and not break, or whatever, wouldn’t that mean that not just sex, but that giving birth as well takes virginity? Let’s take a modern scenario. Let’s say a single woman who has never had a penis enter her vagina (i.e. a virgin) decides to go to a sperm bank and get pregnant that way, using IVF (yea, it’s wrong, but this is not about that). She then carries the baby and gives birth. Isn’t she still a virgin, even though she gave birth, becasue she didn’t ever have sex? I think that is another good reason why the Church is against IVF-- we can can use technology to have virgin births, like Mary. How wrong and disrespectful is that?

And also, i recall learning in health class I think, that if two people are having sexual relations, but not sex, and semen gets near enough to her vagina, theoretically she can get pregnant. Whether there is a claim of this happening X amount of times, I have no idea.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

By the way, it is not Church teaching that Mary’s hymen was intact, just that she was a virgin. The idea of her hymen being intact even after labor was part of a private revelation, which Catholics are free to reject or accept as they choose.

Personally, I think it’s pretty fruitless to sit around wondering whether one is really a virgin or not. The Church, of course, requires a formal definition for clarity in dogmatic matters. But beyond that, it’s just a word–and a word which happens to be relatively meaningless in terms of one’s eternal salvation (assuming one has repented and received absolution for any unchaste acts).

By the way, it is Church teaching that Mary’s hymen was intact after Jesus’s birth. This was not simply part of a private revelation.

Some may wonder why the dogma considers this to be important. As discussed earlier on this thread, there is physical virginity as well as moral virginity. When a woman is raped, her physical virginity is taken away but her moral virginity is not. Mary’s physical virginity was preserved as her body was a sign for her interior virginity as she was the perfect disciple of Christ, who was also a virgin. This CUF article quote explains this better:

The teaching on Mary’s virginity in partu and the “miraculous birth” that did not violate her physical integrity has been clearly taught throughout the life of the Church. While the teaching of Mary’s virginity in partu “protects” the miraculous nature of birth, in turn the miraculous birth points to a physical integrity that goes beyond the mere absence of sexual relations, and which further is a sign of Mary’s interior virginity. Mary’s virginity in partu is fundamentally (albeit not exclusively) a biological statement, which is “embarrassing” only to those theologians who would systematically exclude the possibility of miracles.

from:
Mary’s Perpectual Virginity- CUF.org

The meaning of the word is important, as there is a special crown in Heaven for those who take a vow of virginity (and keep it.) But I think Batteddy described it best as he said earlier:

And that is why I think this point you made is important: dont get too worried about being a Virgin anymore than you should worry about being a Doctor or a Martyr. Those aureoles are accidental rewards. What really matters is being in a state of sanctifying grace, getting to the essential reward of heaven in the beatific vision. Because there can be virgins in mortal sin. What matters is grace most of all.

 

[bluezone7]

Chastity and virginity are not the same … so please do not confuse the two terms but they can be related depending on context. A virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse (the end), oral sex has nothing to do with the term but one can be a virgin and still be very unchaste.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I hate to clog up this forum with another post about sex, but…

Somebody I know is concerned that she is not a virgin and she’s tried to find a Catholic “definition” of virgin, but cannot. I thought this would be a good place to turn.

The main question is whether participating in oral sex makes someone no longer a virgin. (Specifically, I’m talking about cunnilingus.)

This is as far as it ever went and she and her fella have since pulled it together and have a chaste relationship, which I try to remind them is the most important thing. Still, concerns remain.

Any help you can offer–specifically, of course, if you can refer to Church documents, etc.–would be appreciated.

Best,
Me

Does virginity require the hymen to be intact ? I don’t know - I’ve heard this affirmed & denied​

I think that virginity is possible provided the act of copulation is not consummated; so an incomplete act of penetration would not result in loss of virginity.

Which, if correct, means that there can be unchaste bodily acts without loss of virginity - which seems a bit odd. AFAICS, cunnilingus is means one is not acting chastely, but does not stop one being a virgin.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Stella,

The article you provided states that it is “traditionally understood” that the Blessed Virgin retained physical signs of virginity. I don’t believe that a “traditional understanding” is the same as an “official Church teaching”.

The article goes on to claim that it is Church teaching that Mary did not suffer in childbirth. I guess the author loses me there. Catholic Answers apologists have explained on several occasions (here on CAF and I believe on the radio as well) that the Church does not take an official position on whether or not Mary suffered in childbirth.

If the apologists are mistaken, it would be a good idea to inform them by showing them the appropriate documents. Given that I’m partial to the CA apologists, I am honestly more inclined to suspect that the author of the CUF article was in error. If anybody can provide a definitive souce (not 3rd party interpretation) of this teaching, I will of course change my mind.

 

[Sandi]

Ok then - does that mean all males who have masturbated cannot be considered a virgin either

Yep. If the girls can’t fool around and still be considered virgins, neither can the guys.

 

[Fidelia]

Ok then - does that mean all males who have masturbated cannot be considered a virgin either

Yep. If the girls can’t fool around and still be considered virgins, neither can the guys.

But fooling around doesn’t make one not a virgin. Only sexual intercourse does.

 

[Fidelia]

Chastity and virginity are not the same … so please do not confuse the two terms but they can be related depending on context. A virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse (the end), oral sex has nothing to do with the term but one can be a virgin and still be very unchaste.

that is right.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

The source from where I learned that Mary’s physical virginity was preserved during childbirth was from a friend who I was helping study for a test for her Mariology class at Franciscan University of Steubenville. They studied the Marian dogmas in depth and that was something that they learned in the class. We didn’t talk about whether Mary suffered or not during childbirth, just simply the fact that her physical virginity was preserved.

I’m having a hard time finding the exact dogmatic statement. The Catechism and Vatican II documents and stuff touch on it but there isn’t a full decleration of what was decided at the Council that I can find online.

On a separate note however: I have never said that virginity and chastity are synonymous. Virginity is simply a term describing the consistent practice of chastity throughout one’s entire life. If this practice was not consistent, they are no longer a virgin, however they may still be chaste in the future. As is the case with the original post.