How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[mommamaree]

I think virginity (more to the point, chastity) is very important. If I was a single woman now, I would be very concerned about the possibility of my choice in mate already being infected with HPV or herpes, or any other incurable type of STD. With HPV, it is difficult if not impossible to know if a male has been infected, because males are often asymptomatic, but if he passes it to his female sexual partner, she could wind up developing cancer. With herpes, that would be a total non-start for me (and obviously the same for HIV, etc).
I completely agree that Jesus Christ can heal us spiritually from the wounds of sin, our own and those committed against us. However, the priceless gift of sanctifying grace and new life in Christ does not remove the temporal consequences for many sins, especially sexual sins unfortunately.
My rejection of a man based upon his sexual past would have everything to do with protecting myself from harm, and nothing to do with his value as a person. I also value chastity, so if he had a problem with porn and masturbation, I would break it off. I do not have the strength to be able to deal with the hurt and be focused upon helping him carry his burden.
So, if a man had years of practicing chastity, had a clean bill of health, had a very low number of overall sexual partners (greatly preferable that he practiced monogamy) from a possible period of unchastity or occurring in marriage in the case of a widower, then I would be able to consider such a man for marriage. I would not be asking anything of him that I was not practicing myself. We are under no obligation to share the most intimate aspects of ourselves with just anyone, and it is by no means un-Christlike to say that someone is not an appropriate future spouse for oneself based upon sexual history.
I would be very upfront and matter of fact about it all, too. I would not want to conduct a possible courtship with someone under false pretenses, nor would I want to get too close to someone only to find out that the relationship must end due to any of my dealbreakers. I don’t think the first date is the appropriate time for this, but certainly before the relationship gets serious and exclusive dating begins.
But even if a potential suitor must be “rejected”, it is not that he is beneath me, or of lower value, or is gross, but simply, I know that I cannot and will not make myself so vulnerable in a situation which carries enormous risks. If no suitable man of my age comes my way, then I would know that God wishes for me to remain celibate and focus upon other things. Obviously, I am speaking of if I was widowed, as I am a married woman already.
Anyway, thanks for letting me add my thoughts to this thread. I have been reading everything and I agree with many posters who have opposing perspectives, while also disagreeing with them on some things. Very interesting thread so far.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I hate that rhetoric. With a passion. We all have the same value period and end of discussion. Whether certain individuals are compatible or whether marrying someone with an extensive history is a wise decision is a different matter.

That pretty much sums up my POV. The derogatory terms used to describe others is, quite frankly, bothersome. Well, guess what? None of us are perfect, and different, equal bothersome terms can be used to describe anyone that has committed any sin.

With regard to marriage, most of us have our deal-breakers. I have mine. But because I won’t marry someone that over a particular issue does not make them a lesser person than I, nor does it justify me (or anyone else) using derogatory terms to describe them.

I admire and honor those that have remained virgins until marriage. However, I do not have any respect for virgins that disrespect and degrade others for not following in the same path. And these people will also find out that potential spouses won’t either.

 

[holy_face]

The term value I have been using comes from term of Sexual Market Value (SMV), the positive or negative characteristics a man or woman brings into a relationship or potential relationship.

**It has nothing to do with someones overall value as a person. **

One could have no SMV at all and be a saint and one of the best people to have ever lived. Different issue.

Everyone’s SMV requirements will be different but as a whole men tend to prefer some characteristics and women tend to prefer some characteristics. The more you possess one of the these characteristics the better ability you will have in choosing a mate, the more potential for success.

Men tend to prefer younger girls who are more fertile, beautiful, vibrant, with the fewest previous sexual relationships, virgins are generally very highly valued.

Women tend to prefer alpha males, confident, tall men, attractive, athletic men, men with higher social standing, wealth and such.

The lower your SMV falls or was to begin with, the less power you have in the dating market, you may have a hard time landing the ideal mate, you may have to settle for less than you expected. There are always exceptions but it is true in general. You may have no problem getting dates, but may have a problem getting a commitment or you may have problem getting someone you are really strongly attracted to.

This is why we say that men should beware of women who have reached their 30s and are still single because there are a lot of pitfalls there, not always, but it is good to be cautious.

 

[holy_face]

Fertility has fallen and they may be desperate to start a family, this may mean she sees you as a provider rather than her ideal man. Beware because you could be treated as such. She also may have a very high count of previous sexual partners which is a good predictor of future infidelity among other things.

Women should probably be very wary of single men in their 40s who have never married, they may have some serious issues as well, such as living a player lifestyle.

Everyone has to explore these things for themselves for relation to their lives or not.

 

[mommamaree]

The term value I have been using comes from term of Sexual Market Value (SMV), the positive or negative characteristics a man or woman brings into a relationship or potential relationship.

**It has nothing to do with someones overall value as a person. **

One could have no SMV at all and be a saint and one of the best people to have ever lived. Different issue.

Everyone’s SMV requirements will be different but as a whole men tend to prefer some characteristics and women tend to prefer some characteristics. The more you possess one of the these characteristics the better ability you will have in choosing a mate, the more potential for success.

Men tend to prefer younger girls who are more fertile, beautiful, vibrant, with the fewest previous sexual relationships, virgins are generally very highly valued.

Women tend to prefer alpha males, confident, tall men, attractive, athletic men, men with higher social standing, wealth and such.

The lower your SMV falls or was to begin with, the less power you have in the dating market, you may have a hard time landing the ideal mate, you may have to settle for less than you expected. There are always exceptions but it is true in general. You may have no problem getting dates, but may have a problem getting a commitment or you may have problem getting someone you are really strongly attracted to.

This is why we say that men should beware of women who have reached their 30s and are still single because there are a lot of pitfalls there, not always, but it is good to be cautious.

Holy face,
You are a Catholic, yet you use worldly terms to describe people with respect to discerning marriage. Why do you do this? For a faithful Catholic, dating (or courtship, whichever term you prefer) is not a meat market. Sexual market value has no place in a discussion between faithful Catholics, or between a faithful Catholic and a non-Catholic. If a woman would not make a suitable spouse for you, because of her age, looks, sexual history, etc, that is okay. But extrapolating that to a discussion of her “objective” (read: actually totally subjective) value is crass, inappropriate, and offensive. I would expect more noble conversation from a mature Catholic man, and I do hope you reconsider how your posts here make you appear.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The term value I have been using comes from term of Sexual Market Value (SMV), the positive or negative characteristics a man or woman brings into a relationship or potential relationship.

**It has nothing to do with someones overall value as a person. **

One could have no SMV at all and be a saint and one of the best people to have ever lived. Different issue.

Everyone’s SMV requirements will be different but as a whole men tend to prefer some characteristics and women tend to prefer some characteristics. The more you possess one of the these characteristics the better ability you will have in choosing a mate, the more potential for success.

Men tend to prefer younger girls who are more fertile, beautiful, vibrant, with the fewest previous sexual relationships, virgins are generally very highly valued.

Women tend to prefer alpha males, confident, tall men, attractive, athletic men, men with higher social standing, wealth and such.

The lower your SMV falls or was to begin with, the less power you have in the dating market, you may have a hard time landing the ideal mate, you may have to settle for less than you expected. There are always exceptions but it is true in general. You may have no problem getting dates, but may have a problem getting a commitment or you may have problem getting someone you are really strongly attracted to.

This is why we say that men should beware of women who have reached their 30s and are still single because there ar a lot of pitfalls there, not always, but it is good to be cautious.

Ask any married person on this site about their spouse’s “sexual market value” and see how well that works out for you. You have people ranked, and you have all of these assumptions about what people want. The problem is, you’re very wrong on a lot of things, and if this is truly your dating philosophy, it is not a surprise that you are single.

The fact is that we aren’t ranked with the most desirable on top and the least on the bottom, because we’re all looking for different things. I never saw myself competing for the “ideal” spouse. I was just looking for a genuine person that I connected with, and I found him. That’s pretty much how everyone else I know in a functioning marriage or otherwise committed relationship approached the issue.

As far as this virgin thing goes, I’ve never met a man who wanted that in a partner outside of a sexual fetish or power type thing, and they certainly weren’t willing to wait for marriage to do it. None of my male friends or relatives care one way or another, and all of them are handsome, successful, and make very nice salaries. You know, all the things you think are really important.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Holy face,
You are a Catholic, yet you use worldly terms to describe people with respect to discerning marriage. Why do you do this? For a faithful Catholic, dating (or courtship, whichever term you prefer) is not a meat market. Sexual market value has no place in a discussion between faithful Catholics, or between a faithful Catholic and a non-Catholic. If a woman would not make a suitable spouse for you, because of her age, looks, sexual history, etc, that is okay. But extrapolating that to a discussion of her “objective” (read: actually totally subjective) value is crass, inappropriate, and offensive. I would expect more noble conversation from a mature Catholic man, and I do hope you reconsider how your posts here make you appear.

The way that holy face speaks of women and marriage would make my atheist husband raise an eyebrow and walk away shocked. If holy face started talking like this about a specific woman that my husband cares about (me, his mom, his sister, his nieces, etc) my husband would probably end up throwing the first real punch of his life.

It’s completely appalling, disgusting, dehumanizing, and shows a lack of maturity that’s required for marriage.

 

[holy_face]

Holy face,
You are a Catholic, yet you use worldly terms to describe people with respect to discerning marriage. Why do you do this? For a faithful Catholic, dating (or courtship, whichever term you prefer) is not a meat market. Sexual market value has no place in a discussion between faithful Catholics, or between a faithful Catholic and a non-Catholic. If a woman would not make a suitable spouse for you, because of her age, looks, sexual history, etc, that is okay. But extrapolating that to a discussion of her “objective” (read: actually totally subjective) value is crass, inappropriate, and offensive. I would expect more noble conversation from a mature Catholic man, and I do hope you reconsider how your posts here make you appear.

The subject here is virginity and it applies directly to these concepts of what men and women prefer in relationships. Sexual Market Value is one aspect of human courtship regardless if someone is Catholic or not.

I am not saying Catholics should weigh SMV above their spirituality but I think they are quite compatible.

• We as Catholics believe in and are encouraged to have large families, this is only possible if there is fertility. The purpose of marriage in the bible is to be fruitful and multiply.
• We as Catholics believe in virginity before marriage, the SMV principles only reinforce that. It is very much a Catholic belief to avoid fornication and adultery and that virginity is a treasure.
• Regardless or not if we want to admit it, Catholics are attracted to to good looks and vibrant health.

 

[mommamaree]

The way that holy face speaks of women and marriage would make my atheist husband raise an eyebrow and walk away shocked. If holy face started talking like this about a specific woman that my husband cares about (me, his mom, his sister, his nieces, etc) my husband would probably end up throwing the first real punch of his life.

It’s completely appalling, disgusting, dehumanizing, and shows a lack of maturity that’s required for marriage.

BEL,
Please forgive me for accidentally implying that non-Catholics would speak in such a way. That was not my meaning at all. What I was attempting to say is that it is unbecoming for a believer to speak in such a way. There are a great many people in the world today who use such derogatory terms, but people of goodwill everywhere, even atheists of noble characters, would reject such language as offensive. I am sorry if my comments to holy face sounded like I meant anything other than that.

 

[Estevao]

It’s funny how this thread blew up because a few posters had the audacity to suggest that non-virgins are worse as marriage material and were less valued by society, but it’s been suggested numerous times by numerous posters so far ITT that male virgins are of less value in the sexual marketplace and in general because they’re presumed to be awkward social losers. Both are choices for the most part, so why is it PC to suggest the latter but not the former?

And then there was the female virgin who came into the thread on page 15 and received accolades for what she has had to do to retain her purity (not going clubbing, not having many male friends), and nobody called her some socially awkward loser like people have presumed that most men who save it for marriage must be.

 

[holy_face]

Ask any married person on this site about their spouse’s “sexual market value” and see how well that works out for you. You have people ranked, and you have all of these assumptions about what people want. The problem is, you’re very wrong on a lot of things, and if this is truly your dating philosophy, it is not a surprise that you are single.

The fact is that we aren’t ranked with the most desirable on top and the least on the bottom, because we’re all looking for different things. I never saw myself competing for the “ideal” spouse. I was just looking for a genuine person that I connected with, and I found him. That’s pretty much how everyone else I know in a functioning marriage or otherwise committed relationship approached the issue.

As far as this virgin thing goes, I’ve never met a man who wanted that in a partner outside of a sexual fetish or power type thing, and they certainly weren’t willing to wait for marriage to do it. None of my male friends or relatives care one way or another, and all of them are handsome, successful, and make very nice salaries. You know, all the things you think are really important.

It has nothing to do with ranking people these are general qualities that BIOLOGICALLY propagate the human race. Some things will be more important to some people than others but in general I don’t see how you can deny them.

You don’t believe people are generally more attracted to people who are attractive?

Maybe you judge things different for yourself but for the human race in general men and women will be more attracted to members of the opposite sex who are attractive. There is nothing controversial about this.

Please explain that i am wrong somehow. How does this offend you and make me unCatholic for some reason?

I am also NOT single, been married for 13 years!

 

[holy_face]

BEL,
Please forgive me for accidentally implying that non-Catholics would speak in such a way. That was not my meaning at all. What I was attempting to say is that it is unbecoming for a believer to speak in such a way. There are a great many people in the world today who use such derogatory terms, but people of goodwill everywhere, even atheists of noble characters, would reject such language as offensive. I am sorry if my comments to holy face sounded like I meant anything other than that.

It is derogatory and unCatholic to suggest that humans are generally attracted to attractive humans?

I am not saying it is the only thing that matters or that it is the most important thing to all people, it is simply a truth and is an important factor in human relationships.

 

[mommamaree]

The subject here is virginity and it applies directly to these concepts of what men and women prefer in relationships. Sexual Market Value is one aspect of human courtship regardless if someone is Catholic or not.

I am not saying Catholics should weigh SMV above their spirituality but I think they are quite compatible.

• We as Catholics believe in and are encouraged to have large families, this is only possible if there is fertility. The purpose of marriage in the bible is to be fruitful and multiply.
• We as Catholics believe in virginity before marriage, the SMV principles only reinforce that. It is very much a Catholic belief to avoid fornication and adultery and that virginity is a treasure.
• Regardless or not if we want to admit it, Catholics are attracted to to good looks and vibrant health.

No, sir, you are wrong. Sexual market value economics is not compatible with the Catholic faith. The fact that you think it is, and even assert that everyone necessarily thinks the way you do, whether they admit it or not, demonstrates that you have very little understanding of how people who are actually married were able to find a mate and discern marriage, and begin building a life together with someone.
Furthermore, your understanding of the purpose of Christian marriage is rather limited. We are not meant to get married for the sole purpose of having as many children as possible. The Church has far more refined teachings regarding marriage, and Her documents discussing the nature and purpose of marriage are eloquent and high-minded. Sexual market value economics sounds like gutter-talk compared to the words of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of His Bride, the Catholic Church. Perhaps you might spend a little time reading what She has to say about marriage and chastity, rather than spending any more time reading SMV or red pill sites. Those sources you refer to are not doing you any favors, and will not lead you to a happy marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

It’s funny how this thread blew up because a few posters had the audacity to suggest that non-virgins are worse as marriage material and were less valued by society, but it’s been suggested numerous times by numerous posters so far ITT that male virgins are of less value in the sexual marketplace and in general because they’re presumed to be awkward social losers. Both are choices for the most part, so why is it PC to suggest the latter but not the former?

I was irked by the tone by a few posters, even if I agree with the substance of a large portion. I mean, if you’ll notice, holy face and I are not super far apart on the substance of our positions. Flat out: I happen to think the diction he uses is repugnant, dehumanizing and detrimental to the public image of the Church. But I’ve also made it clear that I think having a personal preference for no or few past sexual partners is fine, especially given the criteria that mommamaree has used. Saying that you couldn’t emotionally deal with impurity struggles is I think a pretty valid point. Saying “past sexual partners makes your value lower” is screwed up.

And then there was the female virgin who came into the thread on page 15 and received accolades for what she has had to do to retain her purity (not going clubbing, not having many male friends), and nobody called her some socially awkward loser like people have presumed that most men who save it for marriage must be.

I was saying that society perceives that with male virgins. It’s certainly no hard and fast rule and it’s also something that needs to be fixed. Assuming that a guy has no had sex simply because he’s a weirdo or something is seriously messed up.

 

[holy_face]

No, sir, you are wrong. Sexual market value economics is not compatible with the Catholic faith. The fact that you think it is, and even assert that everyone necessarily thinks the way you do, whether they admit it or not, demonstrates that you have very little understanding of how people who are actually married were able to find a mate and discern marriage, and begin building a life together with someone.
Furthermore, your understanding of the purpose of Christian marriage is rather limited. We are not meant to get married for the sole purpose of having as many children as possible. The Church has far more refined teachings regarding marriage, and Her documents discussing the nature and purpose of marriage are eloquent and high-minded. Sexual market value economics sounds like gutter-talk compared to the words of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of His Bride, the Catholic Church. Perhaps you might spend a little time reading what She has to say about marriage and chastity, rather than spending any more time reading SMV or red pill sites. Those sources you refer to are not doing you any favors, and will not lead you to a happy marriage.

I am in a happy marriage already, Sorry but these are factors, never said they were the only factors. There is nothing controversial at all about what I said.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It’s funny how this thread blew up because a few posters had the audacity to suggest that non-virgins are worse as marriage material and were less valued by society, but it’s been suggested numerous times by numerous posters so far ITT that male virgins are of less value in the sexual marketplace and in general because they’re presumed to be awkward social losers. Both are choices for the most part, so why is it PC to suggest the latter but not the former?

And then there was the female virgin who came into the thread on page 15 and received accolades for what she has had to do to retain her purity (not going clubbing, not having many male friends), and nobody called her some socially awkward loser like people have presumed that most men who save it for marriage must be.

You said that male virgins had less “value” in the “marketplace”. (I will be so grateful when we can revert back to talking about people as human beings.) That wasn’t a widely agreed upon and repeated notion, to my recollection.

It has in fact not been my experience that male virgins are turned away by women for being virgins. Full disclosure: When I was single I swore that I would not date a virgin. Not because they’re awkward or unattractive, but because since I was not waiting for marriage I knew that dating a virgin would be taking someone’s virginity, and probably fairly early into the relationship I didn’t really want to be remembered as someone’s first because honestly, that sounds like a ton of pressure. It had nothing to do with the man being a virgin and everything to do with my own insecurities. My husband was a virgin when we met, and I didn’t know until after we started sleeping together. Once I found out it was no big deal and if I were still single, I would do it again.

My experiences with dating never left me with the impression that male virgins were looked down on, or that female virgins were looked at as more desirable (at least not as a spouse, but a large number of men would have given anything for a one night stand with a virgin).

I don’t care if you’re valuing someone more because they’re a virgin, you’re still valuing them for what they can offer you sexually, not for who they are as a person. It is still objectification and it is still wrong.

 

[The_Bucket]

It has nothing to do with ranking people these are general qualities that BIOLOGICALLY propagate the human race. Some things will be more important to some people than others but in general I don’t see how you can deny them.

You don’t believe people are generally more attracted to people who are attractive?

Maybe you judge things different for yourself but for the human race in general men and women will be more attracted to members of the opposite sex who are attractive. There is nothing controversial about this.

Please explain that i am wrong somehow. How does this offend you and make me unCatholic for some reason?

I am also NOT single, been married for 13 years!

You know what else is innate for some people? Attraction to members of the same sex.

We as Catholics are called to go beyond the superficial, beyond the instinctual and in many cases, reject the instinctual. Our instincts have helped the human race as a whole survive, but they do not, generally, do anything for our souls.

Christ well pointed out to Peter that He would reject the perceived instinct of God Incarnate and call down legions of angels to prevent His arrest and eventual crucifixion. Over and over again He called on us to reject our instincts! Our instincts of emotional self-preservation in the Prodigal Son: Who else would run out to greet a son that squandered your wealth on hookers and booze?! No one. Our instincts for societal preservation: What shepherd would seriously abandon the 99 sheep to seek out the one?! No one. And, of course, our instincts for personal preservation of life when He gave up His.

I’m not saying that we need to start being totally cool with marrying prostitutes or playboys. I’m saying that we are called to reject the sexual marketplace. I don’t deny that it’s a real thing. It is. And it’s messed up.

 

[holy_face]

I was irked by the tone by a few posters, even if I agree with the substance of a large portion. I mean, if you’ll notice, holy face and I are not super far apart on the substance of our positions. Flat out: I happen to think the diction he uses is repugnant, dehumanizing and detrimental to the public image of the Church. But I’ve also made it clear that I think having a personal preference for no or few past sexual partners is fine, especially given the criteria that mommamaree has used. Saying that you couldn’t emotionally deal with impurity struggles is I think a pretty valid point. Saying “past sexual partners makes your value lower” is screwed up.

I was saying that society perceives that with male virgins. It’s certainly no hard and fast rule and it’s also something that needs to be fixed. Assuming that a guy has no had sex simply because he’s a weirdo or something is seriously messed up.

Why is it screwed up? It is true. Remember I clarified multiple times I was not referring to someone’s overall value as a person. I am speaking a their value they bring to a potential relationship. This may not be true for you or several others here but it is true for me and many many other men. High previous partner count is a negative attribute to bring to the table for a lot of people. This is not “dehumanizing,” I am not judging them as an overall person or how they stand before God or society. It is simply recognizing a factor (among many) that must be considered when contemplating a relationship with people.

 

[holy_face]

You said that male virgins had less “value” in the “marketplace”. (I will be so grateful when we can revert back to talking about people as human beings.) That wasn’t a widely agreed upon and repeated notion, to my recollection.

It has in fact not been my experience that male virgins are turned away by women for being virgins. Full disclosure: When I was single I swore that I would not date a virgin. Not because they’re awkward or unattractive, but because since I was not waiting for marriage I knew that dating a virgin would be taking someone’s virginity, and probably fairly early into the relationship I didn’t really want to be remembered as someone’s first because honestly, that sounds like a ton of pressure. It had nothing to do with the man being a virgin and everything to do with my own insecurities. My husband was a virgin when we met, and I didn’t know until after we started sleeping together. Once I found out it was no big deal and if I were still single, I would do it again.

My experiences with dating never left me with the impression that male virgins were looked down on, or that female virgins were looked at as more desirable (at least not as a spouse, but a large number of men would have given anything for a one night stand with a virgin).

I don’t care if you’re valuing someone more because they’re a virgin, you’re still valuing them for what they can offer you sexually, not for who they are as a person. It is still objectification and it is still wrong.

those are your experiences but as a male who has had a lot of male friends it has not been my experience

I NEVER said I simply value somebody for being a virgin or attractive or whatever, it is just a factor in a lot of things just as their faith and belief system would be on a compatibility level.

An attractive virgin who I could not tolerate being around for 10 minutes would not be a good candidate either

 

[The_Bucket]

If you want to cache it in terms of building up your value and enhancing your wife’s and whatnot, that’s your prerogative. But it really carries a negative tone to basically everybody else.

I want to boost my own value for sure, but really because I want to be a better man. Why? Because Christ wants me to be a better man. He’s the ultimate Alpha. A guy with all the power that ever existed… and He willingly threw it away for His Bride… humanity. That’s the kind of person we’re all called to be!

Think of that for a second, alright? God chose us, humanity, in all our filth and stupidity and sinfulness and evil to be His forever. We’re His creatures and yet we are also who He chose to live and die for. That’s seriously out of control.

Prudence is a good thing. Prudence might dictate that it might not be the wisest decision to marry someone who has a long history of unchastity. Or that someone has serious mental issues. Or even that the person isn’t your type in terms of looks, political affiliation, favorite sports team, whatever. That’s totally fine.

When you start assigning “value” and start to talk about the sexual marketplace, that’s where I say you need to stop and recognize that while these things might be real… we as a Catholics are called to not play those games and instead live on a different plane altogether.