How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[Estevao]

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.

Awesome, it’s this post that gets at it. It’s perfectly okay to de-humanize men as socially awkward losers and loners, and I would agree that this is a good thing to do, because it will shame them to get things together and start being more outgoing and come out of their shell, but the minute people start trying to shame women who sleep around (which is something I think should also happen so that we don’t have what we have today), that’s not okay.

That irks me. It’s the same idea that undergirds he whole “sex-positive” propaganda push on colleges and high schools from feminists. And it’s as silly and wrong-headed to me as people suggesting that we should have a “neckbeard positive” movement to give a bunch of video game nerds their self-esteem back.

 

[holy_face]

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.

that’s great but not the common attitude unfortunately, I have never met someone like you in my dating life

 

[Estevao]

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.

 

[Estevao]

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.

It’s worth a lot knowing that people still follow the straight and narrow.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Awesome, it’s this post that gets at it. It’s perfectly okay to de-humanize men as socially awkward losers and loners, and I would agree that this is a good thing to do, because it will shame them to get things together and start being more outgoing and come out of their shell, but the minute people start trying to shame women who sleep around (which is something I think should also happen so that we don’t have what we have today), that’s not okay.

That irks me. It’s the same idea that undergirds he whole “sex-positive” propaganda push on colleges and high schools from feminists. And it’s as silly and wrong-headed to me as people suggesting that we should have a “neckbeard positive” movement to give a bunch of video game nerds their self-esteem back.

No, I do not think that it’s ok to dehumanize men as awkward loners and losers. I have no idea where you got that in any of my posts. The fact that you seem to think that shaming is an acceptable means of motivating someone to better themselves is something that I totally and completely disagree with for so many reasons. The first is that by shaming someone for not being who you think they should be you are inserting yourself into a very personal part of their lives where you do not belong. It’s simply none of your business. My biggest mentor is a very quiet, shy man. He has a successful career, a beautiful family, and a heart of gold. He doesn’t need to be shamed to “come out of his shell”, and it’s no one’s concern but his. Note: I also find it telling that you mention that we should shame women who sleep around.

And, you know, I think that people should be treated with respect. Trying to shame and humiliate someone for not being socially graceful or having too many sex partners just goes against everything I believe about how to show love and kindness to others.

 

[holy_face]

So is refusing to date someone because they had too many sexual partners shaming them?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So is refusing to date someone because they had too many sexual partners shaming them?

No, and I’m not going to have a conversation with you about the conversation that I’m having with Estevo. You can read my posts and address or rebut points as you see fit. I’m addressing his specific points.

 

[Estevao]

No, I do not think that it’s ok to dehumanize men as awkward loners and losers. I have no idea where you got that in any of my posts. The fact that you seem to think that shaming is an acceptable means of motivating someone to better themselves is something that I totally and completely disagree with for so many reasons. The first is that by shaming someone for not being who you think they should be you are inserting yourself into a very personal part of their lives where you do not belong. It’s simply none of your business. My biggest mentor is a very quiet, shy man. He has a successful career, a beautiful family, and a heart of gold. He doesn’t need to be shamed to “come out of his shell”, and it’s no one’s concern but his.

And, you know, I think that people should be treated with respect. Trying to shame and humiliate someone for not being socially graceful or having too many sex partners just goes against everything I believe about how to show love and kindness to others.

At least you’re consistent. Personally I think shaming is great. It’s what people did in biblical times, and what most cultures still do today, the same cultures that have sustainable birth rates, low divorce rates, and large, extended families who support each other. This stands in opposition to what the sex-positive anti-shame folks want to do and are doing to the west and eventually the whole of humanity.

Also about that match.com survey, I still think that’s a rather huge discrepancy, and if I could do it over again, I might have to take it into consideration when I was saying “adios toots” to all these women asking me to stay the night during high school and college. I can’t really say whether or not being a virgin hinders my dating prospects, mostly because, like your husband, I consider it rather prudent to not discuss it. I guess he saw it that way too, and who knows how things would have turned out if he had not.

 

[holy_face]

You sure you’re still atheist?

But seriously, yeah.

yes it is quite interesting for me to receive advice on how to be a good Catholic from an atheist

 

[Estevao]

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.

It’s interesting how you point this out. One of the reasons I shy away from most of the “new evangelization” pablum the church is trying to do amongst late teens and 20 year olds to undo the typical apostasy of cradle catholics at that age group is that it portrays Jesus as some sort of perfect boyfriend.

Now of course, it fits right in with the culture that way, because women in their 20s are looking for that ideal mix of alpha beta boyfriend, and a good way to keep the girls coming to church is to make Jesus into that. Of course that’s going to repulse males, and my favorite Christian apologist William Lane Craig answered a Q&A about the feminization of Christianity recently
Dr Craig:

Third is my claim that the church is becoming increasingly feminized. What I mean by this is that church services and programs are increasingly based on emotional and relational factors that appeal more to women than to men. The problem of the church’s lack of appeal to men has been recognized by men’s movements like Promise Keepers and books like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart. Nowhere is this feminization more evident than in contemporary worship music. Someone aptly remarked that if you were to replace references to God in many praise songs with “Baby,” they would sound just like romantic songs between a man and a woman! This is not true of classic hymns like “A Mighty Fortress” or “And Can It be?” Talking with young men, I find that many of them are just turned off by these touchy-feely worship services and would rather not go.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/the-feminization-of-christianity#ixzz2xZoz93wK

 

[The_Bucket]

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’ve never and will never vote for a Democrat. Unless he/she is pro-life and the Republican isn’t. But nice try. And solid talking down to half the country!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

yes it is quite interesting for me to receive advice on how to be a good Catholic from an atheist

The thing about Catholic theology is that it is objective. If your theology is wrong, it’s wrong. If someone else is speaking an objective truth, it is still the truth regardless of the person’s faith.

You are wrong in your understanding of the Catholic purpose of marriage. I don’t believe that the Catholic church has the correct, or even a completely moral understanding of marriage, but I do know what it is.

 

[enterthenewage]

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.

There is nothing dehumanizing about ranking people. We are not a species of equality, like bacteria in a petri dish. We are a hierarchical species and having a sense of who is higher and who is lower is engrained into out nature. If I was dating a catholic girl and she took me to her house to meet her parents, they would be shocked if I came to their house and was high on drugs. It would be perfectly normal for them to think I’m some sort of junkie (which I’m not) and think less of me. This goes for any religion you can think of. To assume otherwise is just downright silly. There is a lot of stuff that people can do to increase their value as human beings (get a more advanced education, get a better job, work out more to become fit, stop having sex with every person who says yes, etc)

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.

Very well said. If anyone has doubts as to why guys are encouraged to be players, then this is exactly the reason why.

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.

Again, what’s so screwed up about something the majority of people on earth from all the major religions do? We are hierarchical, as I’ve been hammering home numerous times on this thread. People keep talking about how offensive it is to categorize people (when in reality it’s an everyday occurrence) but make no mention how offensive it is to a virgin in a relationship with a non-virgin that the SO gave him/herself away like that.

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.

I agree with this 100%, extremely well said.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

People keep talking about how offensive it is to categorize people (when in reality it’s an everyday occurrence) but make no mention how offensive it is to a virgin in a relationship with a non-virgin that the SO gave him/herself away like that.

But it isn’t. If you are in a relationship with someone who has a history, you have to accept it. You can’t harp on how offensive it is or unrealistically expect your partner to change the past.

If you can’t accept the past, then only date virgins. But don’t use the kind of offensive language and antagonistic tone that you have been using about other people just because they don’t meet your marriage criteria.

I would never date or marry someone who wanted to settle down in a rural area or small town, who was a practicing Hindu, or worked a job that had them away from home for a significant amount of time out of the year. But I don’t speak of these people in hostile terms, or try to position myself as above them.

 

[Xantippe]

BEL said:

“But it isn’t. If you are in a relationship with someone who has a history, you have to accept it. You can’t harp on how offensive it is or unrealistically expect your partner to change the past.”

Exactly.

 

[holy_face]

The thing about Catholic theology is that it is objective. If your theology is wrong, it’s wrong. If someone else is speaking an objective truth, it is still the truth regardless of the person’s faith.

You are wrong in your understanding of the Catholic purpose of marriage. I don’t believe that the Catholic church has the correct, or even a completely moral understanding of marriage, but I do know what it is.

Procreation is a very major part of Catholic marriage, and delaying marriage until your 30s when you are becoming infertile to have your fun and build your career in your 20s is just another form of birth control, regardless if that is your intention on not. Getting married when you are fertile and before you have built a huge array of sexual partners is very much the Catholic marriage. I would welcome any Catholic theologian to come here and try to dispute that. People waiting until their 30s to get married, on the scale it is now, is very much a new phenomenon and is clearly not what God intended, or he would have created women to be fertile for much longer. You can see God’s intention in his design.
People used to get married much earlier.

 

[holy_face]

But it isn’t. If you are in a relationship with someone who has a history, you have to accept it. You can’t harp on how offensive it is or unrealistically expect your partner to change the past.

If you can’t accept the past, then only date virgins. But don’t use the kind of offensive language and antagonistic tone that you have been using about other people just because they don’t meet your marriage criteria.

I would never date or marry someone who wanted to settle down in a rural area or small town, who was a practicing Hindu, or worked a job that had them away from home for a significant amount of time out of the year. But I don’t speak of these people in hostile terms, or try to position myself as above them.

But you don’t have to accept their past in the first past, if it is an extensive past then I wouldn’t. If it were a few people and I was willing to accept it then it would not be an issue and I would not hold it against her. I really depends on many factors, it’s not simple.

 

[Xantippe]

Here are a few more thoughts:

1. I don’t think that there really is the sort of animus against male virgins that Estevao believes there is. For one thing, there’s no V on the forehead. It’s the sort of thing one doesn’t find out about a person for a long, long time, particularly if one is conducting a chaste and appropriate courtship. I understand that if one isn’t doing that, it probably comes out way faster.

Never did a woman say, “He’s an MD, he’s bright, he’s charming, he’s hard working, he’s paid off all of his medical school loans, he’s a good listener, he has a great sense of humor, he wants a bunch of kids, he’s got a great family and he’s crazy about me–but he’s a virgin, so I need to keep looking. I can do SO much better.”

My husband hadn’t even dated anybody else before he met me. That was not a problem–he’s a very sweet person, he’s got two doctorates, he’s SMART and he’s an excellent provider. Chicks dig that sort of thing.

If you personally are having trouble, maybe you are sharing too much personal information too soon, and/or you have a scary personality in person.

1. Holy face, I feel like your circle gives way more exact personal information than mine does. In real life, the only person who knows for sure how many people have enjoyed my favors is my husband. And I have that information for my husband. I don’t have exact numbers for anybody else in real life, although one can get a general idea if there have to be multiple DNA tests to establish paternity or if the person has children with multiple people. That does establish a baseline.
2. I also feel that the worldly calculus that has been described so many times in this thread isn’t quite right–I think there’s a lot of over-theorizing, way in excess of facts on the ground. In real life, the average age at first marriage is 27 for American woman, 29 for American men. (And in my personal life, my husband is about 2.5 years older than me, almost exactly matching the national pattern.) Obviously, there is a preference for couples with slightly younger women/slightly older men, but it’s not very pronounced. 43-year-old guys are not marrying 23-year-old women all that often, or our numbers would be quite different.

In real life, ordinary secular men aren’t interested in maximizing fertility. In fact, a lot of them don’t want kids at all, or just want kids if their wife wants kids. Ordinary men want at most 2.00 kids. Even lots of enthusiastically Catholic men would be fine with just two, particularly once they discover how busy even just two keeps you. Note that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a male Catholic poster on CAF talking about how sad it is to have just two kids, although I can kind of imagine some of the more ambitiously maternal female posters posting something like that.

Also, I think that in real life, there’s a very complicated interplay of worldly motives. Even in the good old days, there were such things as dowries–men weren’t marrying entirely because of slim waists and pretty faces. It helped a lot if a bride came with land and capital. These days, a woman’s education and earning power function very similarly to old-fashioned dowries. In real life, a 30-year-old female medical student is more marriageable than an 18-year-old 7-11 cashier. Youth and beauty aren’t everything, even for women. (I was just looking this up, and in one survey, some 44% of female physicians were married to male physicians.)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10068390.

 

[mommamaree]

Procreation is a very major part of Catholic marriage, and delaying marriage until your 30s when you are becoming infertile to have your fun and build your career in your 20s is just another form of birth control, regardless if that is your intention on not. Getting married when you are fertile and before you have built a huge array of sexual partners is very much the Catholic marriage. I would welcome any Catholic theologian to come here and try to dispute that.

It is true that the purpose of marriage is twofold: for the procreation and education of children, and for getting the spouses to heaven. That does not mean that a person who does not marry until their 30s is practicing birth control. That is a ridiculous statement. Building a career is hard work. Finding a spouse is sometimes heartbreaking and grueling, too. The proper approach is chaste relationships while dating, discerning marriage, getting married and then entering a sexual relationship. If one is 25 or 45 or 65, it does not matter. You have set up a false dichotomy here: either chaste marriage early in life OR promiscuity if one fails to find a spouse early.

And to your statement about fertility tapering off in your 30s…that is a gradual tapering, not a sudden drop off. I have had as many babies in my first half of my 30s as I did in the second half of my 20s, and I have a 40-something friends who is pregnant. And a woman is not encouraged to marry early so as to have as many kids as possible before she reaches menopause, at least not by the Church. Rather, she is encouraged to approach marriage with a proper understanding, and to welcome any children God should bless her and her husband with. Her age at the time of her wedding is not something that makes any difference in the holiness of her marriage.

 

[holy_face]

When I am talking about older men and younger women I saying that the higher value males, the alpha males, are the ones that will typically realize their value in the dating market. Because they have always been used to having options. Just because someone is a doctor does not mean they are an alpha male, it is about much more than being successful financially. I have a friend who is a very successful doctor and he is very much a beta male.

However, a lot more men have the potential to realize their value as they get a bit older and should realize that the power begins to tip in their favor, instead of settling to the 35 year old woman with baby rabies who had 30 sexual partners, they should explore their options a bit more. I have seen so many people throw away their lives on women they should not have even entertained the thought of marriage with, one of my friends is dead because of it, his ex wife killed him, shot dead, over child custody.