How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Im not following you here. Are you saying the sacrament of confession cannot heal the sin of fornication??

Losing one’s virginity even via a sinful action such as fornication is not a sin per se nor is it “damage”.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I agree with most of what you wrote, minus waiting until the relationship has progressed before talking about sexual history.

I specifically qualified my statement. The level of information revealed should be appropriate to where the couple is in their relationship. IMHO, it is perfectly fine to lay out on the first date what is a deal-killer for a relationship. The other person doesn’t even have to reveal any information; that person can simply state that it is obvious that the relationship will not work out and be done with it. It wouldn’t be appropriate on the first date to give a play-by-play of one’s past sexual history, though there may be a time later in the relationship where more information is necessary.

 

[Galbin]

Agreed, I have gone out with some girls in the past who were so ugly that I did not for a minute question whether or not they were telling the truth when they said they were virgins.

1. I don’t view non-virgin women as objects. I just see them as lower quality people who are a far cry from the elite circle of girls who are serious followers and actually keep their virginity. Same way employers view job applicants from a prestigious university vs applicants from state U.

Conventional attractiveness has absolutely zero to do with virginity. Secondly, labeling someone ‘ugly’ is very unchristian, and you say you are a devout Catholic!?

Non-virgins are lower quality people? Wow, just wow… Again, remember Jesus said, “cast not the first stone”.

 

[DeniseNY]

1. Agreed, I have gone out with some girls in the past who were so ugly that I did not for a minute question whether or not they were telling the truth when they said they were virgins.
2. I don’t view non-virgin women as objects. I just see them as lower quality people who are a far cry from the elite circle of girls who are serious followers and actually keep their virginity. Same way employers view job applicants from a prestigious university vs applicants from state U.

Sometimes there are parts of a person that make them “ugly” and “lower quality” that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are virgins. Hopefully you get my drift enterthenewage.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

1. Agreed, I have gone out with some girls in the past who were so ugly that I did not for a minute question whether or not they were telling the truth when they said they were virgins.
2. I don’t view non-virgin women as objects. I just see them as lower quality people who are a far cry from the elite circle of girls who are serious followers and actually keep their virginity. Same way employers view job applicants from a prestigious university vs applicants from state U.

Sometimes, people’s attitudes are so ugly I’m not surprised that people will not sleep with or marry them.

 

[enterthenewage]

I specifically qualified my statement. The level of information revealed should be appropriate to where the couple is in their relationship. IMHO, it is perfectly fine to lay out on the first date what is a deal-killer for a relationship. The other person doesn’t even have to reveal any information; that person can simply state that it is obvious that the relationship will not work out and be done with it. It wouldn’t be appropriate on the first date to give a play-by-play of one’s past sexual history, though there may be a time later in the relationship where more information is necessary.

What’s the point of being ultra-sensitive about sexual information? With all of the dates and relationships I have had, the discussion came up pretty quickly, either because I mentioned it or the girl did. There is no reason to shy away from the issue like a scared puppy. For virgins, this is the time to hold your head up high and with pride. For those who already practiced 1/2 of the positions in kama sutra with multiple partners, that’s the time to think about WTH you were thinking when you did those things and what you are going to do to compensate your future spouse for your lack of virginity (if the person they are dating is willing to accept them for it, I sure wouldn’t).

Conventional attractiveness has absolutely zero to do with virginity. Secondly, labeling someone ‘ugly’ is very unchristian, and you say you are a devout Catholic!?

Non-virgins are lower quality people? Wow, just wow… Again, remember Jesus said, “cast not the first stone”.

The point I was making is that physical attractiveness plays a big role in whether or not people will want to sleep with an individual. If a girl looks like a young guy with two infected mosquito bites on her chest, then there will certainly be FAR fewer people who are willing to be in a relationship with that girl. Same goes for guys, so don’t try to make it seem like it’s a women’s equality issue. Your second sentence is out of touch with this world. Idc what religion a person is, people want to be with a partner they are PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED TO. This is part of human biology, as attractive people are likely to have fewer health problems and will be more likely to produce healthy offspring.

Yes, non-virgins are lower quality. I am not talking about how god views people. I am talking about how people view other people. I thought I made it very clear that when I was talking about human value (hierarchy viewpoint) that it was about people, not god. If virgins were the same quality as non-virgins, you would not have some girls selling their virginity for outrageous sums of money at an auction.

Sometimes there are parts of a person that make them “ugly” and “lower quality” that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are virgins. Hopefully you get my drift enterthenewage.

Ugly=lack of physical attractiveness
Lower quality (in the context of people)=occupying a lower spot on the human hierarchy

Sometimes, people’s attitudes are so ugly I’m not surprised that people will not sleep with or marry them.

I am not trying to single out any individual and target them. I am simply stating the truth. What part of what I said is not true? Humans do not view everyone as being equal. If absolute equality was the norm, most of the world’s economies would not be capitalist in nature.

I think it’s ridiculous that people are attacked by fellow Catholics for having virginity as a standard in seeking a spouse. It was once the norm. People often reject each other for less important and shallower reasons and no one will bat an eye. If a man says he only wants to marry a blonde, no one throws a fuss, if a women says she only wants to marry someone tall, no one attacks her, but the second someone says they want to marry a virgin all of a sudden they are worse than satan and need to be burned at the stake. No one wants to admit that they are sins that make us less desirable in the eyes of others, but that is the reality of our world.

 

[Galbin]

Sometimes, people’s attitudes are so ugly I’m not surprised that people will not sleep with or marry them.

Amen.

 

[Galbin]

that’s the time to think about WTH you were thinking when you did those things and what you are going to do to compensate your future spouse for your lack of virginity (if the person they are dating is willing to accept them for it, I sure wouldn’t).

Compensate them for what? Even within marriage, my husband does not own my body.

The point I was making is that physical attractiveness plays a big role in whether or not people will want to sleep with an individual. If a girl looks like a young guy with two infected mosquito bites on her chest, then there will certainly be FAR fewer people who are willing to be in a relationship with that girl. Same goes for guys, so don’t try to make it seem like it’s a women’s equality issue. Your second sentence is out of touch with this world. Idc what religion a person is, people want to be with a partner they are PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED TO. This is part of human biology, as attractive people are likely to have fewer health problems and will be more likely to produce healthy offspring.

Of course physical attractiveness plays a role in getting a boyfriend. However, I can tell you for a fact that conventional attractiveness has nothing to do with whether a woman is a virgin or not. Even a so-called “ugly” woman can easily find a man to have sex with her. Getting a permanent relationship would be more difficult though. Trust me, I’ve been around a lot of secular ppl in my three decades on this planet, and that is the God’s honest truth. Women can get sex anytime they want no matter what they look like. They just may not be able to find a boyfriend. It’s sad that men are willing to use women purely for sex, but that’s the way it is. And as for being out of touch, I meant that I think the word ‘ugly’ is offensive and that as a practicing Christian I would not use the term. I believe we are meant to rise above such shallow labels, and instead say that someone is “not [my] type” instead.

Yes, non-virgins are lower quality. I am not talking about how god views people. I am talking about how people view other people. I thought I made it very clear that when I was talking about human value (hierarchy viewpoint) that it was about people, not god. If virgins were the same quality as non-virgins, you would not have some girls selling their virginity for outrageous sums of money at an auction.

Most people do not view virgins as intrinsically better. Women in particular very often want to marry a man who has had a few partners and thus knows how to sexually satisfy a woman.The type of men who buy virgins tend to be the same type of men who abuse children, as they are attracted to the purity and innocence of that situation. This is why there is no market for 40 yr old virgins.

I think it’s ridiculous that people are attacked by fellow Catholics for having virginity as a standard in seeking a spouse. It was once the norm. People often reject each other for less important and shallower reasons and no one will bat an eye. If a man says he only wants to marry a blonde, no one throws a fuss, if a women says she only wants to marry someone tall, no one attacks her, but the second someone says they want to marry a virgin all of a sudden they are worse than satan and need to be burned at the stake. No one wants to admit that they are sins that make us less desirable in the eyes of others, but that is the reality of our world.

Nothing wrong with wanting to marry a virgin. However, acting like all virgins are better ppl than non virgins is the bit we disagree with.

 

[enterthenewage]

Compensate them for what? Even within marriage, my husband does not own my body.

Of course physical attractiveness plays a role in getting a boyfriend. However, I can tell you for a fact that conventional attractiveness has nothing to do with whether a woman is a virgin or not. Even a so-called “ugly” woman can easily find a man to have sex with her. Getting a permanent relationship would be more difficult though. Trust me, I’ve been around a lot of secular ppl in my three decades on this planet, and that is the God’s honest truth. Women can get sex anytime they want no matter what they look like. They just may not be able to find a boyfriend. It’s sad that men are willing to use women purely for sex, but that’s the way it is. And as for being out of touch, I meant that I think the word ‘ugly’ is offensive and that as a practicing Christian I would not use the term. I believe we are meant to rise above such shallow labels, and instead say that someone is “not [my] type” instead.

Most people do not view virgins as intrinsically better. Women in particular very often want to marry a man who has had a few partners and thus knows how to sexually satisfy a woman.The type of men who buy virgins tend to be the same type of men who abuse children, as they are attracted to the purity and innocence of that situation. This is why there is no market for 40 yr old virgins.

Nothing wrong with wanting to marry a virgin. However, acting like all virgins are better ppl than non virgins is the bit we disagree with.

Compensate them for the lack of a gift that the lord intended to be for the person’s spouse.

I am aware that women can get flings, regardless of how bad they look. But I did say in the context of a relationship. I completely disagree with your toned down way of saying things, since I feel that is just censoring and diluting the truth. There is nothing shallow about those adjectives. They accurately describe the situation in as few words as possible. It’s one thing if only some people don’t think you are there type. But it’s another issue entirely if the majority of people tell you that you are not their type and you have trouble getting a relationship for years.

Most people don’t put too much weight on virginity because most people don’t care about Catholic morals regarding sexuality, plain and simple. That’s the main issue. In more conservative segments of society, like the catholic church, you will find a higher concentration of people who care about the issue. There is no market for 40 year olds virgins because those people are already past their years of peak fertility, when the body is most attractive.

I never said that every single catholic virgin is better than every single non-catholic virgin. Obviously virginity is not the only department where people can go wrong and fall in rank. However, if you have two identical twins with similar personalities, morals, education, income, etc but one is a virgin and the other is not, the virgin is the higher quality human being. The non-virgin twin could always repent, but she will never be able to regain her prior position. She will always be a close 2nd to the virgin twin.

 

[Estevao]

I think it’s ridiculous that people are attacked by fellow Catholics for having virginity as a standard in seeking a spouse. It was once the norm. People often reject each other for less important and shallower reasons and no one will bat an eye. If a man says he only wants to marry a blonde, no one throws a fuss, if a women says she only wants to marry someone tall, no one attacks her, but the second someone says they want to marry a virgin all of a sudden they are worse than satan and need to be burned at the stake. No one wants to admit that they are sins that make us less desirable in the eyes of others, but that is the reality of our world.

Very good point here. It’s funny because those things (hair color, height) are things which no-one has control over, but one does have control over virginity. Yet nevertheless, you can’t assert than virgins have a leg up on the competition as you are saying without being shouted down, however women saying that taller men are intrinsically better as partners like in the way that you’re saying virgins are better as partners, that’s a-ok.

 

[GEddie]

Very good point here. It’s funny because those things (hair color, height) are things which no-one has control over, but one does have control over virginity. Yet nevertheless, you can’t assert than virgins have a leg up on the competition as you are saying without being shouted down, however women saying that taller men are intrinsically better as partners like in the way that you’re saying virgins are better as partners, that’s a-ok.

Height is a social advantage in every way, not just the area of sexuality.

It comes from the unconscious drive we have as children to follow our fathers, who when we are children, are far taller than we. This translates into an instinct to follow the tall alpha-male as grownups, or for a lady to seek a tall man as companion. IMNAAHO.

This is far more pronounced on the male side, as women who are 5’2" have nothing like the difficulty “finding someone” versus men of the same bodylength.

Because the preference is unconscious, we do not think through or question it.

Virginity likewise has a ground-level advantage in “mating”: in down-to-nature times, female virginity at marriage presented no prospect of potentially raising someone else’s kid. Because female virginity was “checkable”, while in males it was not, it became much more important from the female side. The difference being that as the world became more “sexually sophisticated”, such concerns were supposed to become unimportant.

ICXC NIKA

 

[DeniseNY]

Amen.

I second that Amen

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What’s the point of being ultra-sensitive about sexual information? With all of the dates and relationships I have had, the discussion came up pretty quickly, either because I mentioned it or the girl did. There is no reason to shy away from the issue like a scared puppy. For virgins, this is the time to hold your head up high and with pride. For those who already practiced 1/2 of the positions in kama sutra with multiple partners, that’s the time to think about WTH you were thinking when you did those things and what you are going to do to compensate your future spouse for your lack of virginity (if the person they are dating is willing to accept them for it, I sure wouldn’t).

Do you have any dating experience?

Here’s a real life example. I dated someone for a short period of time. I confided in her as to my opinion about one of my coworkers, who she knew because he was a friend of her brother. Basically he was a nutcase. After and ugly breakup caused by her, that information became public, and created a real headache at work and for me personally.

Now, when you reveal such detailed to people that you really don’t know, the exact same thing can happen to you. The reality of the situation is that you don’t know a person on the first few dates. Do you really want do reveal detailed person, potentially embarrassing information to a person that you really don’t know, and can become know by the public the very next day?

If one has dealbreakers, it is certainly appropriate to rely that information to one’s date right up front. That person being asked can then simply tell them right up front if they want to continue, without revealing any personal information. Revealing a detailed laundry list of indiscretions to a stranger is not necessary.

Yes, non-virgins are lower quality. I am not talking about how god views people. I am talking about how people view other people. I thought I made it very clear that when I was talking about human value (hierarchy viewpoint) that it was about people, not god. If virgins were the same quality as non-virgins, you would not have some girls selling their virginity for outrageous sums of money at an auction.

The lowest quality of person is that person is those that degrade others.

I am not trying to single out any individual and target them. I am simply stating the truth. What part of what I said is not true?

Most of it. It is your own personal minority opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. Do not conflate that with the Truth.

I think it’s ridiculous that people are attacked by fellow Catholics for having virginity as a standard in seeking a spouse.

People having different opinions and noting them is not an “attack.”

No one wants to admit that they are sins that make us less desirable in the eyes of others, but that is the reality of our world.

In your case you have the sin of Pride.

 

[Lorelei12]

What’s the point of being ultra-sensitive about sexual information? With all of the dates and relationships I have had, the discussion came up pretty quickly, either because I mentioned it or the girl did. There is no reason to shy away from the issue like a scared puppy. For virgins, this is the time to hold your head up high and with pride. For those who already practiced 1/2 of the positions in kama sutra with multiple partners, that’s the time to think about WTH you were thinking when you did those things and what you are going to do to compensate your future spouse for your lack of virginity (if the person they are dating is willing to accept them for it, I sure wouldn’t)

You are misunderstanding sin and forgiveness. The reason to keep intimacy within marriage is because it is right, and pleases God. That it is a gift to your spouse is secondary.

When a person has extramarital sex and goes to confession, he or she is forgiven. There is nothing to “compensate” your future spouse for. A person may decide they don’t want to marry someone who isn’t a virgin, and that is perfectly fine. I don’t even think anyone is saying otherwise here. While staying a virgin can be difficult (I should know, I was for almost 30 years), walking around with your nose in the air and acting proud and arrogant about your “status” is not what God intends. You cannot separate “how God sees people” with “how humans see people”. We are supposed to see and love others the way God does.

 

[on_the_hill]

If a girl looks like a young guy with two infected mosquito bites on her chest, then there will certainly be FAR fewer people who are willing to be in a relationship with that girl.

Whoa. Way out of bounds, my friend. No need for that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Losing one’s virginity even via a sinful action such as fornication is not a sin per se nor is it “damage”.

I’m referring to loss of virginity in this context interchangeably with “first incident of fornication” (outside of marriage). Fornication is a sin. Sin includes damage. That’s the sense I’m speaking here.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I’m referring to loss of virginity in this context interchangeably with “first incident of fornication” (outside of marriage). Fornication is a sin. Sin includes damage. That’s the sense I’m speaking here.

Then it seems you are not talking about virginity.

Jerome says that “Other things God can do, but He cannot restore the virgin after her downfall.” and Aquinas says

As regards the matter of virginity there is that which can be miraculously restored by God, namely the integrity of the organ, which we hold to be accidental to virginity: while there is something else which cannot be restored even by miracle, to wit, that one who has experienced venereal lust should cease to have had that experience. For God cannot make that which is done not to have been done, as stated in I, 25, 4.

 

[manualman]

I never said that every single catholic virgin is better than every single non-catholic virgin. Obviously virginity is not the only department where people can go wrong and fall in rank. However, if you have two identical twins with similar personalities, morals, education, income, etc but one is a virgin and the other is not, the virgin is the higher quality human being. The non-virgin twin could always repent, but she will never be able to regain her prior position. She will always be a close 2nd to the virgin twin.

Ouch, take a sensitivity class, will ya?

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that catholic moral teaching is based on the fact that sins are things that HARM us. Someone who has committed fornication has damaged their soul and that of their partner. And that damage does stack up with more and more partners. Grace and forgiveness are real and are at the heart of the gospel, but forgiveness does not eliminate all the temporal consequences of sin. The reason fornication is immoral in the first place is because it reduces the capacity for physical union between man and wife to strengthen that relationship in the way it was intended.

If a permanent, happy and healthy marriage is like every day shooting bullseyes with a bow and arrow, then what fornication does is place you further from the target - forever. Repentance and forgiveness restores your relationship with God, but you still have the challenge of having to work that much harder to hit the bullseye. It’s harder, but you can still do it. You just need the help of Grace to overcome your self-imposed hardship.

I think its inappropriate to bring the issue up on a first or second date, but once the real mutual interest is established, I do think it is a REALLY good idea to openly discuss your sexual moral values, make clear that your conviction is to wait until marriage and to own up to the facts if you had failed to achieve that earlier in life (since repented of, of course). If it’s going to be a deal breaker, find out sooner, not later.

 

[enterthenewage]

The difference being that as the world became more “sexually sophisticated”, such concerns were supposed to become unimportant.

Well that type of “sophistication” is opposed by the church. Bottom line is that you can control virginity, but not other stuff. Virginity is fair game for rejection and it still serves a functional purpose.

Do you have any dating experience?

Here’s a real life example. I dated someone for a short period of time. I confided in her as to my opinion about one of my coworkers, who she knew because he was a friend of her brother. Basically he was a nutcase. After and ugly breakup caused by her, that information became public, and created a real headache at work and for me personally.

Now, when you reveal such detailed to people that you really don’t know, the exact same thing can happen to you. The reality of the situation is that you don’t know a person on the first few dates. Do you really want do reveal detailed person, potentially embarrassing information to a person that you really don’t know, and can become know by the public the very next day?

If one has dealbreakers, it is certainly appropriate to rely that information to one’s date right up front. That person being asked can then simply tell them right up front if they want to continue, without revealing any personal information. Revealing a detailed laundry list of indiscretions to a stranger is not necessary.

Yes I do have dating experience. But I still don’t see the point of keeping sexual information a secret. I’ve been in touch with girls who asked me that stuff from day 1. If a random person asked me if I was a virgin, I would answer honestly, as long as it’s not a 5 year old kid lol. They person doesn’t have to say “We had normal sex in the missionary position and then switched to doggy style for 5th base” but something along the lines of “I slept with 6 people over the course of my relationships” is a reasonable statement. Accurately evaluating a person’s worth is not degrading them. People with extramarital sexual histories already did that to themselves. It is perfectly logical to evaluate a person and decide how they stand compared to others, since we do it all the time subconciously. And it’s better to have something to be proud of than to have something to be ashamed of

You are misunderstanding sin and forgiveness. The reason to keep intimacy within marriage is because it is right, and pleases God. That it is a gift to your spouse is secondary.

When a person has extramarital sex and goes to confession, he or she is forgiven. There is nothing to “compensate” your future spouse for. A person may decide they don’t want to marry someone who isn’t a virgin, and that is perfectly fine. I don’t even think anyone is saying otherwise here. While staying a virgin can be difficult (I should know, I was for almost 30 years), walking around with your nose in the air and acting proud and arrogant about your “status” is not what God intends. You cannot separate “how God sees people” with “how humans see people”. We are supposed to see and love others the way God does.

The nonvirgin has to compensate the virgin spouse for not being able to give them the gift of virginity. That, along with all of the baggage the non-virgin is bringing along and the fact that the bonding process through sex won’t be as effective as it would be between two virgins. Two virgins who get married and sleep with each other for the first time will be emotionally glued together. That’s not to say that non-virgins aren’t bonded, but it won’t be the same level.

Whoa. Way out of bounds, my friend. No need for that.

It’s better to be bluntly honest than to sugarcoat the truth. In my own personal life, I prefer straight talk and blunt honesty because I don’t have the patience to listen to sugar coated statements, spend 1/2 a day thinking about them, and then guessing whether or not I understand the true issue being dealt with. The full, uncensored truth is the most effective means of communication, since it doesn’t leave information out (like the exact degree to which you are disgusted by a person’s physical appearance).

Ouch, take a sensitivity class, will ya?

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that catholic moral teaching is based on the fact that sins are things that HARM us. Someone who has committed fornication has damaged their soul and that of their partner. And that damage does stack up with more and more partners. Grace and forgiveness are real and are at the heart of the gospel, but forgiveness does not eliminate all the temporal consequences of sin. The reason fornication is immoral in the first place is because it reduces the capacity for physical union between man and wife to strengthen that relationship in the way it was intended.

If a permanent, happy and healthy marriage is like every day shooting bullseyes with a bow and arrow, then what fornication does is place you further from the target - forever. Repentance and forgiveness restores your relationship with God, but you still have the challenge of having to work that much harder to hit the bullseye. It’s harder, but you can still do it. You just need the help of Grace to overcome your self-imposed hardship.

The sentence I bolded is an important point that is very much true, and it’s the reason why I feel that extramarital non-virgins are lower quality than virgins (all else being equal of course). For a person to put so much effort into keeping their virginity, man or woman, it’s a kick in the face to have to deal with those problems that they sought to avoid. Kinda like buying a new car with the expectation that it won’t have mechanical problems for a while, unlike a used car.

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s better to be bluntly honest than to sugarcoat the truth. In my own personal life, I prefer straight talk and blunt honesty because I don’t have the patience to listen to sugar coated statements, spend 1/2 a day thinking about them, and then guessing whether or not I understand the true issue being dealt with. The full, uncensored truth is the most effective means of communication, since it doesn’t leave information out (like the exact degree to which you are disgusted by a person’s physical appearance).

You come across as a classic misanthrope. Lashing out, petulantly defending offensive statements, spitefully making yourself unattractive to everyone by your own admission.

Why are you so angry? Brother, I spent too much time angry, hating, hurting. Don’t fall into that trap.