Is it wrong that I only date virgins?

[TheWarriorMonk]

So what you’re saying is, it is impossible for me to find a wife with qualities that I have?

No, I am not saying that.

You just assume that I won’t find anyone?

I did not say that.

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with what you said. I highly doubt that by age 60, I wouldn’t have been able to find someone who has morals and values, who has self control, and who saved their virginity for marriage.

I don’t know you personally, and won’t speculate on what your future will be.

I’m just saying that if you set your standards to high, it is possible to end up like people I know that set their standards very high, and are past child-bearing age and single.

Personally, the deciding factors for me are faith and commitment, because I have to live with that person for the rest of my life and trust them with my children. Virginity in marriage only last one night.

That’s not denigrating it in any way shape or form; I have great respect for such couples. I’m just saying the big picture must be looked at; not a particular characteristic, or a past mistake that has been confessed and forgiven.

 

[EasterJoy]

No. AIDS in the world or not, it isn’t acceptable to discuss your spouse’s sexual history and your thoughts on the matter with your friends.

You’re right; I only meant the topic is not taboo in general

 

[AClaire11]

What I see as wrong is that you seem to be placing virginity on such a pedestal and are leaving no room for genuine, tearful repentance. God forgives the sin of pre-marital sex, but it appears you do not. Holding women to a higher standard than God does seems a bit off.

Also, your approach to the issue would make me, as a survivor of rape, extremely uncomfortable. Many rape victims struggle with whether or not they should count themselves as virgins or not. They also struggle with feelings that they are “used goods.” Even if you are “graciously” making an exception for these girls, you’re contributing to that mindset on some degree. They are also likely to not want to detail their unwanted sexual contact to you, a guy they just started seeing, so it’s not like you’d be able to know the circumstances and know that they deserve an exception according to your rule-book. So you could start seeing a very devout young woman who was raped by her ex-boyfriend, ask her if she’s a virgin, and she could say “No” and, feeling very uncomfortable giving details, decide not to tell you since you have given her the impression that you think she is “impure” now. As a result, you A) make her feel terrible and like used goods and B) lose out on a potentially wonderful relationship.

Honestly, if I was single and a virgin again and a guy told me that non-virginity was a deal-breaker, I’d turn him down. The whole conversation would just creep me out.

 

[Carlj1497]

sigh Once again, I have put my faith in God and my life is in His hands. It seems people aren’t reading all my posts. Like I just said, who knows how I will feel in the future. My stances might change. I might make a mistake, and lose my virginity outside of marriage. Who knows. I do feel somewhat offended by a lot of the responses, like something’s wrong with me because of the way I feel. I honestly wish I felt different. I wish that it didn’t affect me. I really, really wish I did. But I don’t. I wish that I was normal, and could just get over it. But I can’t. At least, not at this point. For the millionth time, sorry if I offended you, didn’t mean to.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let me try to make this clear… again. I can’t handle dating and/or marrying a woman who has had a sexual past. Now, is this okay, yes or no? That’s all I ask.

Yes, it is OK.

PS don’t think that losing your virginity will make it easier to cope with the thoughts that bother you. It will only put you in the position of asking your wife to have saved for you what you did not save for her. You are doing well to control yourself! The other posters are only pointing out that if a virgin is able to get past these difficulties, it is indeed laudable, and perhaps a laudable capacity that you could use for the sake of keeping your family together when someone else might understandably be unable to do it. That is a valuable thing in a husband, even if expecting it is not a right.

 

[EasterJoy]

What I see as wrong is that you seem to be placing virginity on such a pedestal and are leaving no room for genuine, tearful repentance. God forgives the sin of pre-marital sex, but it appears you do not. Holding women to a higher standard than God does seems a bit off.

Also, your approach to the issue would make me, as a survivor of rape, extremely uncomfortable. Many rape victims struggle with whether or not they should count themselves as virgins or not. They also struggle with feelings that they are “used goods.” Even if you are “graciously” making an exception for these girls, you’re contributing to that mindset on some degree. They are also likely to not want to detail their unwanted sexual contact to you, a guy they just started seeing, so it’s not like you’d be able to know the circumstances and know that they deserve an exception according to your rule-book. So you could start seeing a very devout young woman who was raped by her ex-boyfriend, ask her if she’s a virgin, and she could say “No” and, feeling very uncomfortable giving details, decide not to tell you since you have given her the impression that you think she is “impure” now. As a result, you A) make her feel terrible and like used goods and B) lose out on a potentially wonderful relationship.

Honestly, if I was single and a virgin again and a guy told me that non-virginity was a deal-breaker, I’d turn him down. The whole conversation would just creep me out.

It is both OK for a virgin to refuse to date non-virgins and
also for a virgin to turn down another virgin who would have rejected her had she not been a virgin for any reason whatsoever. It is very important to admit what your needs are in a spouse. Asking for nothing more than you are willing to give is totally Ok.

 

[Carlj1497]

Thanks EasterJoy. FYI, I won’t be posting to this thread anymore, or even reading it anymore, for that matter. I got my answer, and now I’m done.

 

[DlandFan06]

I am a practicing virgin, and I only date girls who are also saving it. Why? Well, to me anyways, a boyfriend-girlfriend relashionship isn’t just for fun. It’s about finding someone who could be a potential spouse, and then seeing if you two are compatible. Now, I’m not mean to girls who have or have had premarital sex. However, I know that sex isn’t just physical, and there is a list of reasons that I don’t want to date someone who’s had sex before. These reasons include:

• The person will most likely still have feelings for others that they have slept with
• There is a chance of catching some sort of STD
• There will be the fear of not “performing” as well as the person’s previous sexual partners
• I would never date a girl who was previously married, so why would I date a girl who was previously “spiritually” married through intercourse?
• The thought of my wife having sex with other men would make me sad
• The thought of being in my wife, where other men have been, is repulsive

Is this wrong? The way I look at it, they’re just personal preferences. Like how I prefer brunettes to blondes, or how I prefer short girls to tall ones. Like I said, I don’t hate women who are promiscuous, I just don’t think they’re wife material for me.

have you tried going to a newman center or catholic club on campus if you go to college? what about a youth group at your church? you shouldn’t cut out everyone. yes, it’s sad that a girl had sex before, she’s supposed to be following god’s laws, especially if she’s catholic but people can repent. you know?

i don’t mind who i date as long as they’re sorry for what they did and repented. that doubly goes for catholic girls. but since your intent is to date and marry someone who’s catholic, i’m just guessing here, then all this applies to catholic girls.

 

[AClaire11]

It is both OK for a virgin to refuse to date non-virgins and
also for a virgin to turn down another virgin who would have rejected her had she not been a virgin for any reason whatsoever. It is very important to admit what your needs are in a spouse. Asking for nothing more than you are willing to give is totally Ok.

I didn’t mean to imply that it is not okay, just that I find the reasoning a bit suspect. The OP may date or not date whomever he wishes; I was just making the point that he may miss out on a great relationship and could make many of his dates feel very uncomfortable.

I also resent OP’s implication that I did not read his posts; I very seldom reply without reading through the thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

I didn’t mean to imply that it is not okay, just that I find the reasoning a bit suspect. The OP may date or not date whomever he wishes; I was just making the point that he may miss out on a great relationship and could make many of his dates feel very uncomfortable.

I also resent OP’s implication that I did not read his posts; I very seldom reply without reading through the thread.

His reasoning may change, and many people of laudatory virtue do see things differently. All he wanted to know, though, is whether or not he is currently in violation of moral law by having the standard he does. This is well-considered, because of course most of the time we have no business making judgments on the moral pasts of other people. He is not in violation of moral law, though, because he does not expect her concerns about him to be one inch different than his about her and because, let us face it, past actions are the best predictors of future actions, and so those contemplating marriage are stuck making some judgment calls not about moral culpability, but about how their future is likely to go with this person or that.

I do agree that the question of virginity has to be raised very delicately–wow, does it have to be raised delicately!–particularly if the answer could prove disqualifying, rather than when someone is raising a question about issues that he or she assumes will have to be theirs to face jointly. Still, if the question is disqualifying, he can only wait so long before raising it, or he runs the risk that someone is going to resent the time and affection she has spent on him. There was a time when virginity was presumed (particularly in women, I am afraid), and proof to the contrary was almost always automatically disqualifying, but those are not the days we live in now, both for better and for worse. It does make for some uncomfortable conversations, both for those who are virgins and for those who elect to some degree of pre-marital sexual activity. (Let us not pretend the sexually active don’t have any of these “delicate issue” and “is it OK to judge?” problems, after all. )

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I do agree that the question of virginity has to be raised very delicately–wow, does it have to be raised delicately!–particularly if the answer could prove disqualifying, rather than when someone is raising a question about issues that he or she assumes will have to be theirs to face jointly. Still, if the question is disqualifying, he can only wait so long before raising it, or he runs the risk that someone is going to resent the time and affection she has spent on him. There was a time when virginity was presumed (particularly in women, I am afraid), and proof to the contrary was almost always automatically disqualifying, but those are not the days we live in now, both for better and for worse. It does make for some uncomfortable conversations, both for those who are virgins and for those who elect to some degree of pre-marital sexual activity. (Let us not pretend the sexually active don’t have any of these “delicate issue” and “is it OK to judge?” problems, after all. )

I’m really old-fashioned in a lot of respects, and sexual activity is one of them. I obviously have very liberal attitudes towards sex, but I think it’s extremely tacky to share the choices you make with your genitals with the general public. (That means that yes, I do think those “proud to be a virgin” clubs and abstinence rallies are about as tacky and distasteful as it gets. Pretty much up there with having a “We have hot married sex” rally or a “I love premarital sex” club.)

I say this because you brought up that it used to be presumed that a woman was a virgin until publicly proven otherwise. This is a presumption that I was told to make about everyone, and that I have always expected others to make about me (I am aware that they didn’t because no one assumes that a 20-something is a virgin.) but I expected to be treated as though they did, and that’s how I treat others. Because I’m fairly traditional in dating and I’m a shy, private person, I could see myself getting very offended and upset if a man that I was dating tried to chip away at that presumption for so many reasons. I think I would see him as nosy, and I would definitely think he was ill-mannered.

I don’t know, I guess I’m with MaryJK on this one. If he can find people who are that open and forthcoming with their sexual activity, great. But I think I would have been very put off.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is the only question I have for the OP. It concerns the section of canon law concerning “Separation with the Bond Remaining.”

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

…

**Can. 1154 **After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

**Can. 1155 **The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Here is my question: What is he going to do if his wife is unfaithful and sincerely repents? Will the habit of thought he is now entertaining force him to do what he has a right to do instead of what he might be more laudable for having done? Those who marry as virgins fall less often than those who had less self-mastery prior to marriage, but virgins-at-marriage do fall into adultery from time to time, too. It happens. What is he planning to do if that happens in his marriage?

According to the Church, if he were innocent he would have a right to separate, provided he was willing to suitably provide for the adequate support of his children. A civil court might not award custody to him, though. Since the Church would “earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life,” is he willing to do the work to put aside any feelings of “repulsion” for the sake of his marriage and his children? Would he be willing to “laudably readmit the other spouse to conjugal life,” and renounce his right to separate with the bond remaining? Or is he going to choose to live without a wife until the wife of the valid marriage he left dies? Does he have a plan for that?

The man who can’t see himself getting beyond a failure in chastity by a woman who has repented and been chaste for years might have a lot of trouble with this one. That is also his right, but there is such a thing as being dead right, too. Even if he does marry a virgin, as is also his right, he would do better if he can at least envision doing the “laudable” thing, if it comes to that. He may have to, someday, and if he cannot, it may be his children who suffer for it.

That is worth thinking about, and if that is really the point BlueEyedLady is trying to make, I have to side with her. Sometimes what you have the right to do isn’t the best you can do.

That’s exactly what I was getting at. He has every right to do it, but at 20 years old, rather than looking for a wife, his time might be better spent trying to get himself to a point where he can do the best he can do.

I’m glad you brought up infidelity, although it is well beyond my pay grade. Forgiving a straying spouse is just not something that I think I could do, and more to the point, I’m not sure it’s something that I would even want to do. But I’m not the one in a Catholic marriage. That’s definitely something he should consider.

 

[marymary1975]

What I see as wrong is that you seem to be placing virginity on such a pedestal and are leaving no room for genuine, tearful repentance. God forgives the sin of pre-marital sex, but it appears you do not. Holding women to a higher standard than God does seems a bit off.

Also, your approach to the issue would make me, as a survivor of rape, extremely uncomfortable. Many rape victims struggle with whether or not they should count themselves as virgins or not. They also struggle with feelings that they are “used goods.” Even if you are “graciously” making an exception for these girls, you’re contributing to that mindset on some degree. They are also likely to not want to detail their unwanted sexual contact to you, a guy they just started seeing, so it’s not like you’d be able to know the circumstances and know that they deserve an exception according to your rule-book. So you could start seeing a very devout young woman who was raped by her ex-boyfriend, ask her if she’s a virgin, and she could say “No” and, feeling very uncomfortable giving details, decide not to tell you since you have given her the impression that you think she is “impure” now. As a result, you A) make her feel terrible and like used goods and B) lose out on a potentially wonderful relationship.

Honestly, if I was single and a virgin again and a guy told me that non-virginity was a deal-breaker, I’d turn him down. The whole conversation would just creep me out.

I am not sure if someone else answered this so sorry if I am repeating but the OP already specifically stated that women who have been victims of rape he sees them as fully chaste. The catholic church teaching is very clear in this area. If you have been raped and you have never voluntarily had sex outside of marriage you are considered a virgin. The OP said he follows this rule.

Remember the physical aspect of virginity is not what it counts for the church. Chastity is what it counts. You don’t have to be a physical virgin to be chaste or to be considered a virgin so don’t let anyone tell you you are not a virgin because you were raped that is plain wrong.

 

[marymary1975]

His reasoning may change, and many people of laudatory virtue do see things differently. All he wanted to know, though, is whether or not he is currently in violation of moral law by having the standard he does. This is well-considered, because of course most of the time we have no business making judgments on the moral pasts of other people. He is not in violation of moral law, though, because he does not expect her concerns about him to be one inch different than his about her and because, let us face it, past actions are the best predictors of future actions, and so those contemplating marriage are stuck making some judgment calls not about moral culpability, but about how their future is likely to go with this person or that.

I do agree that the question of virginity has to be raised very delicately–wow, does it have to be raised delicately!–particularly if the answer could prove disqualifying, rather than when someone is raising a question about issues that he or she assumes will have to be theirs to face jointly. Still, if the question is disqualifying, he can only wait so long before raising it, or he runs the risk that someone is going to resent the time and affection she has spent on him. There was a time when virginity was presumed (particularly in women, I am afraid), and proof to the contrary was almost always automatically disqualifying, but those are not the days we live in now, both for better and for worse. It does make for some uncomfortable conversations, both for those who are virgins and for those who elect to some degree of pre-marital sexual activity. (Let us not pretend the sexually active don’t have any of these “delicate issue” and “is it OK to judge?” problems, after all. )

 

[shelby_sun]

I don’t think it is wrong if the poster only dates virgins, but I am with those who have said that will really reduce the number of very nice, caring people.

As I have said in another post, that I would never marry someone I had never slept with but I would never sleep with anyone I didn’t want in my life forever. I know this goes against the church, but I have known too many people who have divorced or had affairs because they were not sexually compatible and I didn’t want to put my future children through a divorce for that reason.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think it is wrong if the poster only dates virgins, but I am with those who have said that will really reduce the number of very nice, caring people.

As I have said in another post, that I would never marry someone I had never slept with but I would never sleep with anyone I didn’t want in my life forever. I know this goes against the church, but I have known too many people who have divorced or had affairs because they were not sexually compatible and I didn’t want to put my future children through a divorce for that reason.

He didn’t ask if only being willing to marry a virgin would reduce his chances of marrying. Obviously, anything that eliminates candidates will lower the chance of a marriage occurring, just as being willing to marry anyone who is willing to marry you will lower your chances of actually staying married after you do it. When it comes to strategy, obviously the trick is in using the correct filters, and no more than necessary. No, he asked if there was anything wrong with it. It has become clear that he meant morally wrong, not strategically wrong.

Still, just as there are a lot of people who swore they’d found their soul mate on their wedding day but later split on the basis of “irreconcilable differences,” just so there are a lot of people who split over the “sexual incompatibility” reason who were satisfied just fine at the beginning. As far as I know the statistics, there is no strategic advantage in sex before marriage. There is some quibbling that sex that is exclusively with the person you ultimately marry may not lower success rates, but in general the virgins do better than the non-virgins in avoiding divorce.

 

[Havard]

Not to mention that the divorce rate among Catholics that practice NFP is close to zero.

Here’s Havard’s primer on sexual compatability:

Marry someone who is particularly thoughtful about you (your wants and needs) and who is on-board with always working on improving your communication (essential to a good relationship anyway).

That’s it. No need for a “test drive”.

 

[whm]

I don’t think it is wrong if the poster only dates virgins, but I am with those who have said that will really reduce the number of very nice, caring people.

The more I think about it, it may have been better if he used the term marry instead of date. After dating for a several months they would already know much about each others character and likely be able to discuss this topic in a non-awkward way. He is really dealing with hypotheticals right now.

As I have said in another post, that I would never marry someone I had never slept with but I would never sleep with anyone I didn’t want in my life forever. I know this goes against the church, but I have known too many people who have divorced or had affairs because they were not sexually compatible and I didn’t want to put my future children through a divorce for that reason.

First of all you are not just going against the Church. You are going against God and his commandments which pre-date the Church. I really really really caution against deliberately choosing to commit a serious sin. Presumption of God’s mercy is very serious and not easy to recover from. I would also not recommend that you encourage others to ignore God’s commands and commit serious sin, which by posting your opinion you kind of are doing.

Second I don’t think that committing serious sin with a future spouse is going to insulate you from one of you having an affair or later valuing their sexual desires (or lack there of) above your marriage.

 

[shelby_sun]

He didn’t ask if only being willing to marry a virgin would reduce his chances of marrying. Obviously, anything that eliminates candidates will lower the chance of a marriage occurring, just as being willing to marry anyone who is willing to marry you will lower your chances of actually staying married after you do it. When it comes to strategy, obviously the trick is in using the correct filters, and no more than necessary. No, he asked if there was anything wrong with it. It has become clear that he meant morally wrong, not strategically wrong.

Still, just as there are a lot of people who swore they’d found their soul mate on their wedding day but later split on the basis of “irreconcilable differences,” just so there are a lot of people who split over the “sexual incompatibility” reason who were satisfied just fine at the beginning. As far as I know the statistics, there is no strategic advantage in sex before marriage. There is some quibbling that sex that is exclusively with the person you ultimately marry may not lower success rates, but in general the virgins do better than the non-virgins in avoiding divorce.

Where are you stats on all that? Non-virgins might in fact not divorce but that does not mean they have happy marriages or their husbands don’t cheat.

 

[shelby_sun]

The more I think about it, it may have been better if he used the term marry instead of date. After dating for a several months they would already know much about each others character and likely be able to discuss this topic in a non-awkward way. He is really dealing with hypotheticals right now.

First of all you are not just going against the Church. You are going against God and his commandments which pre-date the Church. I really really really caution against deliberately choosing to commit a serious sin. Presumption of God’s mercy is very serious and not easy to recover from. I would also not recommend that you encourage others to ignore God’s commands and commit serious sin, which by posting your opinion you kind of are doing.

Second I don’t think that committing serious sin with a future spouse is going to insulate you from one of you having an affair or later valuing their sexual desires (or lack there of) above your marriage.

I was not in anyway of encouraging anyone to do what I did!!! That is why I stated it was against the Church. It was not my opinion (read again, correctly this time) it was my experience and my decision and not at all taken lightly.

Please do not accuse others falsely just because you don’t like what they say; very, very unkind!