How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[BlueEyedLady]

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. It wasn’t for me, and it doesn’t seem that these principles were applicable for a lot of people on this site.

I am not saying Catholics should weigh SMV above their spirituality but I think they are quite compatible. Oh please. I know what is valued on the ‘Sexual Marketplace’ and it is not compatible with spirituality. It is by nature superficial and materialistic. I have always done better than most women I know when it comes to getting attention from men and dating. But I’m well educated and in great shape. It has nothing to do with my soul, and someone who is less educated than I am and overweight can make just as good of a wife as I can.

• 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.
  Nope. The purpose of marriage is to get your spouse to heaven. As far as “encouraged to have large families” goes, it seems that you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic marriage teachings.
• 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. The sexual marketplace reinforces virginity? I’m sorry, but are you living in Saudi Arabia?
• Regardless or not if we want to admit it, Catholics are attracted to to good looks and vibrant health.
  So is everyone. But it has nothing to do with choosing a spouse, and people who are less attractive or not in perfect health are not “less than”, nor do they make inherently worse spouses. People who value marriage are usually pretty quick to realize that.

 

[The_Bucket]

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.

But that’s what they’re bringing to the relationship! Themselves. Their whole selves! They are not just bringing sexual history, long or short. They’re bringing their entire beings! Again, you don’t have to give everyone a “fair shot” to be your spouse. You can be plenty discerning. But stop characterizing people like all they bring is how much they make, how pretty they are, how well they dress, their societal status, sexual history or anything else that your philosophy brings in. That philosophy completely discounts any actual virtue.

Lord almighty you would think I’m saying that dudes should be fine with marrying a pornstar or that ladies should be totally cool with marrying a never-grown-up frat bro who hooked up with 100 women. Which I’m not.

 

[holy_face]

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.

So you admit they are real and then say we should ignore reality. I did not list any games simply characteristics that people find attractive. People do find these characteristics attractive, it is a fact. Finding someone attractive is usually what drives us to get to know someone more and begin a relationship which involves discovering their personalities and beliefs. Maybe this is not true for you and some others here, but it is for the vast majority of people out there including Catholics.

I never said we should see an attractive person, and ignore everything else and marry them simply because they are attractive, or a virgin or whatever. They are however important factors in human relationships.

It really is not arguable.

 

[The_Bucket]

BlueEyedLady:

Nope. The purpose of marriage is to get your spouse to heaven.

You sure you’re still atheist?

But seriously, yeah.

 

[The_Bucket]

So you admit they are real and then say we should ignore reality.

Yes, just the same way that Christ ignored reality that He is God and could have redeemed mankind with a wave of His hand. But instead, He died for us.

Finding someone attractive is usually what drives us to get to know someone more and begin a relationship which involves discovering their personalities and beliefs.

No one is contesting that. But physical attraction and having things in common is, as you say, just a stepping stone to start a potential relationship. You don’t decide to love someone by busting our your scale and deciding if that person measures up to your perceived value.

 

[mommamaree]

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.

Ah, I did not realize you were already happily married. Sorry about that. Then, what does your wife think of your perspective; specifically, does it bother her that you use terms of value discussing other humans beings, and ranking them according to sexual market value?

I have no problem at all with your stated preference for virginity, and with the practice of chastity. Obviously, those are noble things. What I do find controversial is the language you use, extrapolating your preferences and moral teachings to discuss people as either higher or lower value, and your perspective that finding a spouse has the economics of a market. That is controversial and offensive.

Saying that you think looking for an attractive wife, in her 20s, with no sexual history, and a chaste lifestyle is a good thing is just fine. No problem there at all. But all the assumptions you have made about people (dozens of assumptions have you made here, about people from all walks of life, as if you know what must be true about them simply based upon their age and virginity status) are presented as objective truth, when in fact, they are simply your short-sighted opinion. It is never, ever, ever right to rank human beings and to discuss their value in such a way.

Anyway, I am sure that I will not be able to say anything that would change your mind. I am just an anonymous poster on the Internet. Only the Holy Spirit convicts, and I pray that He will convict you in this matter. There will probably end up being thousands of people reading this thread over time, and Sexual Market Value and red pill (and also PUA) theories are not compatible with the Catholic faith and are not a good witness for Christianity, nor could such talk ever glorify Jesus Christ, our Lord. Please do give some consideration to this. What you say on the internet, as a Catholic, even anonymously, does matter, and you will have to one day give an account for everything you say. As Christians, we should be particularly aware of the fact that our tongue is our deadliest weapon, and global communication has only expanded its deadly power.

God bless you.

P.S. It also just occurred to me that yesterday’s OT reading at Mass is very relevant for this discussion. We are reminded that not as man sees does God see, and that man judges by outward appearances but God judges the heart. As Christians, we are to pray for God’s eyes on every situation and for every person, even and especially with respect to choice of spouse and counseling another Christian on choice of spouse. The reading reminds us to leave behind us worldly sight, and it also reminds us to avoid any practice of judging the heart of others. I hope this has given you some food for thought, holy face.

 

[holy_face]

But that’s what they’re bringing to the relationship! Themselves. Their whole selves! They are not just bringing sexual history, long or short. They’re bringing their entire beings! Again, you don’t have to give everyone a “fair shot” to be your spouse. You can be plenty discerning. But stop characterizing people like all they bring is how much they make, how pretty they are, how well they dress, their societal status, sexual history or anything else that your philosophy brings in. That philosophy completely discounts any actual virtue.

Lord almighty you would think I’m saying that dudes should be fine with marrying a pornstar or that ladies should be totally cool with marrying a never-grown-up frat bro who hooked up with 100 women. Which I’m not.

But again,** I never said these were the only characteristics people bring to the table**

They are discerning characteristics among other things. People individually will place more or less value in different things but they are still driving factors in human relationships.

 

[The_Bucket]

I have no problem at all with your stated preference for virginity, and with the practice of chastity. Obviously, those are noble things. What I do find controversial is the language you use, extrapolating your preferences and moral teachings to discuss people as either higher or lower value, and your perspective that finding a spouse has the economics of a market. That is controversial and offensive.

This. This right here.

 

[holy_face]

No one is contesting that. But physical attraction and having things in common is, as you say, just a stepping stone to start a potential relationship. You don’t decide to love someone by busting our your scale and deciding if that person measures up to your perceived value.

Well then you need to slow down and read what i have been saying, because I have been saying the same thing, that there are other characteristics such as personality, beliefs, religion, politics, hobbies, likes, dislike etc that come into play within relationships

 

[holy_face]

Ah, I did not realize you were already happily married. Sorry about that. Then, what does your wife think of your perspective; specifically, does it bother her that you use terms of value discussing other humans beings, and ranking them according to sexual market value?

I said repeatedly that I don’t rank people

I have no problem at all with your stated preference for virginity, and with the practice of chastity. Obviously, those are noble things. What I do find controversial is the language you use, extrapolating your preferences and moral teachings to discuss people as either higher or lower value, and your perspective that finding a spouse has the economics of a market. That is controversial and offensive.

People have characteristics that we prefer or we do not prefer, as I have said repeatedly is that this is true for everyone, we all do this whether we are conscious of it or not. We discern who will be better friends for us, who will be a better spouse, who will be a better boss, etc. There is nothing controversial about this. You are hung up on the terminology but this is what the terminology means, discerning what is best for us in life.

Saying that you think looking for an attractive wife, in her 20s, with no sexual history, and a chaste lifestyle is a good thing is just fine. No problem there at all. But all the assumptions you have made about people (dozens of assumptions have you made here, about people from all walks of life, as if you know what must be true about them simply based upon their age and virginity status) are presented as objective truth, when in fact, they are simply your short-sighted opinion. It is never, ever, ever right to rank human beings and to discuss their value in such a way.

Why can’t I discern about someone based on their age and virginity status? If virginity status is important to me then it is important to me. If fertility is important to me because I want the chance to have multiple kids then that is my right to discern for myself.

Anyway, I am sure that I will not be able to say anything that would change your mind. I am just an anonymous poster on the Internet. Only the Holy Spirit convicts, and I pray that He will convict you in this matter. There will probably end up being thousands of people reading this thread over time, and Sexual Market Value and red pill (and also PUA) theories are not compatible with the Catholic faith and are not a good witness for Christianity, nor could such talk ever glorify Jesus Christ, our Lord. Please do give some consideration to this. What you say on the internet, as a Catholic, even anonymously, does matter, and you will have to one day give an account for everything you say. As Christians, we should be particularly aware of the fact that our tongue is our deadliest weapon, and global communication has only expanded its deadly power.

I disagree, there are principles there that are compatible and even identical to the Catholic faith and they have been removed from the faith over time unfortunately. We used to place a value over things like virginity. We used to have more self respect for ourselves as Christians not to led into bad marriages. We also used to place value in the man’s Christian headship of his family which has gradually been replaced by feminism. This is what the “Red Pill” philosophy addresses.

 

[Estevao]

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.

You say that it has not been in your experiences the case that male virgins are looked down upon in the dating game, then you go and tell us how you avoided virgins when dating.

 

[holy_face]

We should just wander around in a dazed ideal feeling state of blind love and accept whoever comes at us for a relationship, discerning nothing and completely accepting them for who they are without question and then marry them (who cares if they are a prostitute) because God will guide us along the right path regardless of the choices we make.

What you all are suggesting is exactly what is destroying our society, a lack a proper discernment of people before marriage. Too much hippy love Christianity and not enough rational thought, Christ told us that while we should be gentle as sheep we should be wise a serpents.

 

[Estevao]

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.

I think the diction he uses is merely politically incorrect, would only irk the type of reality-denying people who would vote democrat, and is just the flip side of how you and other posters have talked about male virgins.

I would agree this is how society “perceives” male virgins, if by “perceive” we mean what women actually find attractive and want to have children with (or more specifically, want to conceive children with), just like how men find women with very few or no previous partners more attractive and would like to have children with them. Evidence of this was posted a few pages ago and concerned studies that have noted how women find a certain type of man more attractive during their ovulation. Also there is the 2012 Match.com survey of singles, where 51% of women said they would not date a virgin.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You say that it has not been in your experiences the case that male virgins are looked down upon in the dating game, then you go and tell us how you avoided virgins when dating.

No, I do not think that male virgins are avoided because they are viewed as weird or awkward. I think that it would be very easy for an awkward man to make the assumption that it is because of his virginity, but I have never heard a woman disparage male virgins.

No, I did not say that I “avoided” virgins. To be honest, it wasn’t something that came up because I always ran off of the assumption that at my age, there weren’t any virgins left. In my mind, my no-virgin policy would come into play if he announced that he was a virgin.

Enter my husband. We hit it off very well right away, and on our second date were were joking about how much we had in common (which was a crazy amount for people who had just met. Very eerie actually). We joked that there must be a catch, so he started asking if I was racist, and I started joking with him about being a sexist or a homophobe. I made the joke that he must be a virgin, because that was the only thing left. I guess my joke caught him off guard because he said that he wasn’t a virgin, but was curious why I would mention it. I explained it, we laughed, we moved on. I did end up unknowingly taking his virginity, and a few months later he confessed his lie to me. At that point, I couldn’t have cared less. In fact, if he had told me he was a virgin on our second date, I would have been surprised, but I would have liked him enough to pursue it. I just would have needed to slow down because that is a lot of pressure for someone who deals with insecurity.

 

[mommamaree]

I said repeatedly that I don’t rank people

People have characteristics that we prefer or we do not prefer, as I have said repeatedly is that this is true for everyone, we all do this whether we are conscious of it or not. We discern who will be better friends for us, who will be a better spouse, who will be a better boss, etc. There is nothing controversial about this. You are hung up on the terminology but this is what the terminology means, discerning what is best for us in life.

Why can’t I discern about someone based on their age and virginity status? If virginity status is important to me then it is important to me. If fertility is important to me because I want the chance to have multiple kids then that is my right to discern for myself.

I disagree, there are principles there that are compatible and even identical to the Catholic faith and they have been removed from the faith over time unfortunately. We used to place a value over things like virginity. We used to have more self respect for ourselves as Christians not to led into bad marriages. We also used to place value in the man’s Christian headship of his family which has gradually been replaced by feminism. This is what the “Red Pill” philosophy addresses.

Valuing virginity is acceptable, as virginity is a value, or at least, a state of being to be valued. But there is a difference between saying that one values virginity and saying one’s value is higher because they are a virgin.
Regarding headship of the husband, I agree that this is good, and is a concept that has been rejected by the world and even within Christian circles. However, the difference between Christian headship and Red Pill theories is tremendous. Christian headship of the husband takes Jesus Christ as the model par excellence, and all husband are exhorted to strive to be Christ-like. Jesus’ own leadership is that of a servant leader, one who leads by placing Himself last, and laying down His life for His Bride (the Church), and always working to lift Her up and make Her holy and spotless. Red Pill philosophies focus on headship as dominance, something that has been addressed by recent Popes and roundly dismissed as wrong and the result of the Fall and a pattern of of behavior that should be rejected by all Christian men. Simply put, we are empowered by grace to reject the games of the world and live according to God’s will for humanity…or not. We all have free will to make our own choices about which beliefs we will hold and follow. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Red Pill and Catholicism are compatible. They are not.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think the diction he uses is merely politically incorrect, would only irk the type of reality-denying people who would vote democrat, and is just the flip side of how you and other posters have talked about male virgins.

I would agree this is how society “perceives” male virgins, if by “perceive” we mean what women actually find attractive and want to have children with (or more specifically, want to conceive children with), just like how men find women with very few or no previous partners more attractive and would like to have children with them. Evidence of this was posted a few pages ago and concerned studies that have noted how women find a certain type of man more attractive during their ovulation. Also there is the 2012 Match.com survey of singles, where 51% of women said they would not date a virgin.

My mother-in-law has never voted democrat, and she would be horrified to read the language used to discuss dating, marriage, and the value of men and women in this thread. If someone started speaking like this in front of my dear MIL, I would pull her away from that person.

You need to stop backhandedly insulting the people on this thread who have tried to be very polite, but who are disturbed to hear someone talk about other people as objects.

 

[raspberrybear]

Sounds like you are more mature than many of your peers!



Oh, I’m sure they are out there.

Sounds like sexual harassment. Do NOT tolerate this. This is NOT okay.

I hope so! Unfortunately I’ve yet to really meet anyone I feel hugely comfortable around

Doubly unfortunately is that I thought I was going to drop that job I mentioned, but I’m not longer doing that!

Triple-y (is that even a word?) unfortunately is that I already seem to be receiving comments from a certain person at my new job! I must give off vibes or something that makes people want to tease me! Literally he said hello and then jumped right in there!

 

[holy_face]

Valuing virginity is acceptable, as virginity is a value, or at least, a state of being to be valued. But there is a difference between saying that one values virginity and saying one’s value is higher because they are a virgin.
Regarding headship of the husband, I agree that this is good, and is a concept that has been rejected by the world and even within Christian circles. However, the difference between Christian headship and Red Pill theories is tremendous. Christian headship of the husband takes Jesus Christ as the model par excellence, and all husband are exhorted to strive to be Christ-like. Jesus’ own leadership is that of a servant leader, one who leads by placing Himself last, and laying down His life for His Bride (the Church), and always working to lift Her up and make Her holy and spotless. Red Pill philosophies focus on headship as dominance, something that has been addressed by recent Popes and roundly dismissed as wrong and the result of the Fall and a pattern of of behavior that should be rejected by all Christian men. Simply put, we are empowered by grace to reject the games of the world and live according to God’s will for humanity…or not. We all have free will to make our own choices about which beliefs we will hold and follow. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Red Pill and Catholicism are compatible. They are not.

The ideal alpha male in many red pill circles would be someone like Christ, from a position of great strength yet gentle and kind, but tough when necessary. But red pill is just discussion of men’s issues and observed truths from human nature, it can be applied to anything in life. Many are very devout Christians, many are not, the way it is applied is based on one’s belief system.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Also there is the 2012 Match.com survey of singles, where 51% of women said they would not date a virgin.

I just looked up that very unscientific survey. It did not say that 51% of women would not date a virgin. It said that 51% of women did not want to marry a virgin. It also said that 33% of men do not want to marry a virgin, which isn’t really that large of discrepancy.

The question did not explore willingness to marry a virgin, exceptions, or how steadfast someone was in that. I didn’t want to marry someone who grew up in a major city, but I did and now I’m grateful that I did.

 

[mommamaree]

I think the diction he uses is merely politically incorrect, would only irk the type of reality-denying people who would vote democrat, and is just the flip side of how you and other posters have talked about male virgins.

I would agree this is how society “perceives” male virgins, if by “perceive” we mean what women actually find attractive and want to have children with (or more specifically, want to conceive children with), just like how men find women with very few or no previous partners more attractive and would like to have children with them. Evidence of this was posted a few pages ago and concerned studies that have noted how women find a certain type of man more attractive during their ovulation. Also there is the 2012 Match.com survey of singles, where 51% of women said they would not date a virgin.

For what it is worth (acknowledging that I speak only for myself), I did choose a virgin for my spouse and if I had it to do all over again, that would continue to be a self-imposed guideline for potential spouses. Even if I were widowed tomorrow (God forbid!), my gut instinct for self-protection would lead me to only consider a chaste widower or a virgin. I make no assumptions about social awkwardness related to virginity status.