Men prefer debt free virgins

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanSobieskiIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xantippe said:
As I said, I have no objection to inexpensive weddings (had a $700ish one myself back in the late 90s)–BUT everything I said about stinginess hurting marriages and families is true.

As it says in Matthew 7, “what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

I’m not concerned about inexpensive weddings, but about the possibility of lack of generosity and unwillingness to let the other person have a say in financial arrangements.
Click to expand...
Irony, much? You who spent $700ish with “no objection” and you want to keep digging at me? First rule of holes, remember?
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
I still want a lower partner count, but the risk inherent even there means I must vet hard on everything else and not spend too much money on the wedding. And then pray I chose well enough.
Click to expand...
What does this mean? That if you find someone who is a virgin, you’ll spend more on a wedding but if she’s not you’ll spend less because you might divorce and don’t want to waste money?

Marriage isn’t a risk-benefit analysis. It’s all or nothing. If you love someone enough to marry her, you decide together how much to spend on a wedding. I’d be willing to bet that a study looking at men who decided how much money to spend on a wedding based on previous sexual partners would conclude that those marriages were more likely to end in divorce too.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Irony, much? You who spent $700ish with “no objection” and you want to keep digging at me? First rule of holes, remember?
Click to expand...
Let me try again!

–Cheap weddings can be great if both parties are happy with them!
–Being stingy and high-handed with one’s family can be a source of great unhappiness, and very damaging to a marriage and a family.

Does that make sense?
 
Clementine14 said:
What does this mean? That if you find someone who is a virgin, you’ll spend more on a wedding but if she’s not you’ll spend less because you might divorce and don’t want to waste money?

Marriage isn’t a risk-benefit analysis. It’s all or nothing. If you love someone enough to marry her, you decide together how much to spend on a wedding. I’d be willing to bet that a study looking at men who decided how much money to spend on a wedding based on previous sexual partners would conclude that those marriages were more likely to end in divorce too.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Zzyzx Road, I don’t think he meant that he planned to calibrate his wedding spending according to his future wife’s sexual history–the meaning got a bit jumbled by throwing that in there in the middle of some other ideas.
 
AdamP88 said:
It’s not actually a “virtue” though. Virtues require grace and work to attain. Virginity is just a physical state. Chastity is the virtue.
Click to expand...
Yes. Chastity is a virtue, and it is possible to violate sexual purity in several ways without losing physical virginity.

It borders on the flippant to dismiss Christian virginity maintained for the sake of obedience to God as “just a physical state.” Having said that, yes, it does not make sense to prefer someone who has not lost his or her virginity merely out of lack of opportunity, having had no desire whatsoever to be the master his or her own sexual appetites, over someone who has lost physical virginity because of an isolated sin in a life otherwise have learned to value self-mastery and a respectful attitude towards human sexuality.

Well, there is the sense that there aren’t competitors in the person’s past (I suppose). I think the author meant to compare those actually saving themselves for marriage to those who had actively chosen to take sexual partners outside of marriage. It isn’t the lack of sexual experience that is attractive so much as the evidence of self-mastery and the absence of prior partners floating around in the person’s past.
 
Last edited:
It borders on the flippant to dismiss Christian virginity maintained for the sake of obedience to God as “just a physical state.”
Click to expand...
Yeah but in these conversations we are not really talking about the “vocation” of virginity.

308ecf3ff2dbcfdfe262ff5a356203280fdc583c.png
Men prefer debt free virgins
the evidence of self-mastery and the absence of prior partners floating around in the person’s past
Click to expand...
That’s the thing though. Virginity isn’t really a good indicator of self-mastery. Or of how suitable a person is for marriage. Yeah, sure there may be an absence of partners but what good is that if the virgin you married has a porn addiction or a drink problem?

As for past partners, there’s a big difference between having one or two sexual partners and “more than you remember”.

One is in some way normal, one is indicitave of deeper issues.
 
AdamP88 said:
Virginity isn’t really a good indicator of self-mastery.
Click to expand...
For one thing, we’re all born that way…

We’re actually all born debt-free, tattoo-free virgins, come to think of it–but that doesn’t demonstrate readiness for marriage.
 
Last edited:
I was so much more “marriage material” after I had my loans and learned to manage my household, to calculate saving plans, to fill out tax papers than before as a debt free woman. Funny.
 
There is a movement among Evangelical Christians which also seem to be popular among very traditional Catholics that a woman moves from under the authority of her father and on to the authority of her husband.

Other such distractions such as higher education and living on one’s own will not enter the picture rendering the woman a virgin and tattoo free.
 
Sarcelle said:
There is a movement among Evangelical Christians which also seem to be popular among very traditional Catholics that a woman moves from under the authority of her father and on to the authority of her husband.
Click to expand...
Based in an incorrect interpretation of theology, I might add.

If your main concern is exerting authority over your wife, then you’re not ready for marriage.
 
In addition to everything else … if she reads Dave Ramsey and is a life NRA member and subscribes to AAII [American Association of Individual Investors] for her self-guided Roth IRA.
 
There are some Evangelical Christians that hold the view that women are to be regarded as perpetual minors.
 
Sarcelle said:
There is a movement among Evangelical Christians which also seem to be popular among very traditional Catholics that a woman moves from under the authority of her father and on to the authority of her husband.

Other such distractions such as higher education and living on one’s own will not enter the picture rendering the woman a virgin and tattoo free.
Click to expand...
This view is a real bummer for women who don’t wind up marrying.
 
Sarcelle said:
There are some Evangelical Christians that hold the view that women are to be regarded as perpetual minors.
Click to expand...
I believe that’s how it works in Saudi Arabia.

So a widowed middle aged mother might need her teenaged son’s permission to do stuff. It’s a ridiculous inversion of the normal parental relationship.
 
I do recall a widow being charged with a crime because she purchased bread without her son accompanying her.
 
I have a feeling some of the women here are getting defensive of their past. Some of the men are getting defensive of their choices, or at least realistic ones…
 
Implied in this set-up is the possibility of arranged marriage.

The daughter under authority of her father will have no choice but to get married to the one her father had picked out for her.

I believe this is still the case in other parts of the world, especially the non-Western world.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top