Virginity and marriage.

[Xantippe]

People would rather have a sexually experienced man with no porn addiction because who wants someone with a current porn addiction?

Plus key word repented.

Right.

Plus, a lot of people fall back on porn (or whatever their drug of choice is) whenever life gets hard–so there’s that to be concerned about.

 

[Lea101]

Well, I guess some of us are a little fed up with male virgin porn/masturbation addicts who think that they “deserve” a female virgin, as if that were actually their counterpart.

It’s especially annoying when combined with self-righteousness toward women with pasts involving actual live human people.

Oh, and the “I want a virgin”/“Oh, yeah, I mean that a widow or a victim of rape would be OK” two-step gets old after a while. Think people, think! Not all sex is sin, and not all sexual intercourse is consensual.

There are a lot of victims of sexual abuse or rape walking around, and “I want a virgin” is incredibly hurtful and damaging to people who never had a choice in the matter.

Not to mention the people who call rape victims virgins and act like they are decent people for it, but then scream and protest if I were to say ‘so if rape victims are still virgins, and Mary is a virgin, is there a possibility that Mary was raped’. Then they will admit that rape victoms are not virgins. Lol, excuse me, I’m being cranky

 

[AdamP88]

While I certainly believe in forgiveness of repented sins…I do think we have to caution ourselves not to make light of sexual sin, either.

Some of the posts here seem to betray an attitude that it is impossible for a man to remain chaste, that if he’s not having actual sex, then he MUST be a porn addict. ** And so, might as well choose the sexually experienced non-porn addict, who knows how to make love to a real woman, than an awkward virgin who only knows about sex through unrealistic porn images.**

Something about that just seems wrong. I realize many, likely most, men, fall short of the ideal when it comes to Catholic sexual ethics, including the OP of this topic. However, the attitude that “all men are unchaste in some way** so physical virginity doesn’t matter”** seems really cynical, and also unfair to men who DO care about chastity and strive for it.

It seems that if they want to wind up happily married, CAF men reading his who are virgins but struggle with porn, should just start having sex with any woman who’ll have them, maybe even get with hookers or something, since every sexual sin is equally bad, and at least it will help them eventually get married and have a legitimate outlet for sex, since women would rather have a sexually active man who doesn’t use porn than vice versa.

Or, should I just take this topic as proof that sexually chaste men simply don’t exist after a “certain age”, and that women just need to settle for men who “respect their values” on chastity, not actually share them.

ETA: I’d also suspect that most men who care about this issue, would still prefer a virgin woman who masturbates to romance novels to a sexually experienced woman, but maybe that’s just me.

1 - Nobody is saying that men can’t be chaste. But I do think most women would prefer a man who had sex and repented than a porn addict.

2 - Men don’t actually have physical virginity.

3 - Every sexual sin is not equally bad.Some do more damage to the soul, body and mind than others.

4 - No. I’d rather someone who was sexually mature. I think that’s what most people want. Use of porn demonstrates a sexual immaturity. Fornication might not necessarily involve the same level of immaturity. I think that’s why people would prefer their spouse to not have a porn issue.

 

[Xantippe]

1 - Nobody is saying that men can’t be chaste. But I do think most women would prefer a man who had sex and repented than a porn addict.

2 - Men don’t actually have physical virginity.

3 - Every sexual sin is not equally bad.Some do more damage to the soul, body and mind than others.

4 - No. I’d rather someone who was sexually mature. I think that’s what most people want. Use of porn demonstrates a sexual immaturity. Fornication might not necessarily involve the same level of immaturity. I think that’s why people would prefer their spouse to not have a porn issue.

Also:

1. Porn use and masturbation are inherently 100% selfish, but fornication could be part of a relationship where there was real, actual love–even if misguided love.

Hence, it’s especially ridiculous for a heavy porn user to look down on a person who had a sinful physical relationship.

 

[AdamP88]

Also:

1. Porn use and masturbation are inherently 100% selfish, but fornication could be part of a relationship where there was real, actual love–even if misguided love.

Hence, it’s especially ridiculous for a heavy porn user to look down on a person who had a sinful physical relationship.

Yes. Not to mention that porn is actually proven to be especially harmful to males. It essentially rewires the brain and gradually can render a man incapable of actually being naturally aroused. It can take years to undo the damage done by porn addiction.

 

[LethalMouse]

Not to mention the people who call rape victims virgins and act like they are decent people for it, but then scream and protest if I were to say ‘so if rape victims are still virgins, and Mary is a virgin, is there a possibility that Mary was raped’. Then they will admit that rape victoms are not virgins. Lol, excuse me, I’m being cranky

You are misplacing the moral designation with denying a principal of a faith.

Morally it is saying the rape victim is still a “virgin”

To say Mary was raped is to say Jesus was a rape baby and not the son of God and saviour of mankind.

That isn’t a distinction of moral virgnity, that is a denial of Jesus’s divinity. So any “screaming protest” is about denying Jesus and not some random thought about virginity.

 

[LethalMouse]

Also:

1. Porn use and masturbation are inherently 100% selfish, but fornication could be part of a relationship where there was real, actual love–even if misguided love.

Hence, it’s especially ridiculous for a heavy porn user to look down on a person who had a sinful physical relationship.

What if the use of it is simply to avoid having sex? I know quite a few guys who do ony when they don’t have a woman, and some who avoid sex morally and use that as the way to not have sex.

 

[Lea101]

You are misplacing the moral designation with denying a principal of a faith.

Morally it is saying the rape victim is still a “virgin”

To say Mary was raped is to say Jesus was a rape baby and not the son of God and saviour of mankind.

That isn’t a distinction of moral virgnity, that is a denial of Jesus’s divinity. So any “screaming protest” is about denying Jesus and not some random thought about virginity.

Virgin is someone who did not have sex. There is no point trying to have different meanings for it. In some cultures, a virgin is a virgin only if her hymen is intact. Like?? Erase the whole morally/physically/etc. It’s honestly a simple word with a simple meaning IMO. Some rape victims don’t like it but in reality they are upset because virginity is so valued, more than chastity to the point where stuff like this will deeply affect them and people will choose to call them virgins. It may make them feel better. But they did have sex. No consent, which is terrible and the rapist is an arse, but still sex. No need to be so complicated!

Raped as in raped in any point of her life jeez…like after jesus was born, or something. Nobody is denying Jesus’ divinity here!

 

[DarkLight]

Virgin is someone who did not have sex. There is no point trying to have different meanings for it. In some cultures, a virgin is a virgin only if her hymen is intact. Like?? Erase the whole morally/physically/etc. It’s honestly a simple word with a simple meaning IMO. Some rape victims don’t like it but in reality they are upset because virginity is so valued, more than chastity to the point where stuff like this will deeply affect them and people will choose to call them virgins. It may make them feel better. But they did have sex. No consent, which is terrible and the rapist is an arse, but still sex. No need to be so complicated!

Raped as in raped in any point of her life jeez…like after jesus was born, or something. Nobody is denying Jesus’ divinity here!

The church allows rape victims to become consecrated virgins. Women who’ve willingly had sex cannot become consecrated virgins, even if they are chaste - such as widows. So there is at least one level where the church recognizes rape victims as virgins.

 

[AdamP88]

Virgin is someone who did not have sex. There is no point trying to have different meanings for it. In some cultures, a virgin is a virgin only if her hymen is intact. Like?? Erase the whole morally/physically/etc. It’s honestly a simple word with a simple meaning IMO. Some rape victims don’t like it but in reality they are upset because virginity is so valued, more than chastity to the point where stuff like this will deeply affect them and people will choose to call them virgins. It may make them feel better. But they did have sex. No consent, which is terrible and the rapist is an arse, but still sex. No need to be so complicated!

Raped as in raped in any point of her life jeez…like after jesus was born, or something. Nobody is denying Jesus’ divinity here!

Anyone who is only interested in virginity over actual chastity has a problem IMO.

 

[Lea101]

Anyone who is only interested in virginity over actual chastity has a problem IMO.

My thought exactly. I always thought they just like the idea of being the ‘first’ or seeing the woman was "ruined’ because “someone was there first” compared to liking the idea of a woman who is striving for holiness. I could be reading into things tho lol

 

[Lea101]

The church allows rape victims to become consecrated virgins. Women who’ve willingly had sex cannot become consecrated virgins, even if they are chaste - such as widows. So there is at least one level where the church recognizes rape victims as virgins.

I’m no pope but from what my teacher (nun) told me before was that vocation is about women making a promise to not deliberately have sex. So rape victims have to be recognized since they couldn’t control it. So they aren’t virgins in the sense, but recognized as one because they are people who did not deliberately engage in it. Because it should not be standing in the way of their vocation.

If the Church believes that virginity = deliberately not having sex, then nobody would be wildly protesting against the possibility of Mary being raped (after jesus was born for example). Which is my point, I really hope i make sense and I don’t look crazy here

 

[LightBound]

Well, I guess some of us are a little fed up with male virgin porn/masturbation addicts who think that they “deserve” a female virgin, as if that were actually their counterpart.

It’s especially annoying when combined with self-righteousness toward women with pasts involving actual live human people.

Oh, and the “I want a virgin”/“Oh, yeah, I mean that a widow or a victim of rape would be OK” two-step gets old after a while. Think people, think! Not all sex is sin, and not all sexual intercourse is consensual.

There are a lot of victims of sexual abuse or rape walking around, and “I want a virgin” is incredibly hurtful and damaging to people who never had a choice in the matter.

Exactly. Fed up is an understatement. “Oh well, I’ve never physically penetrated a vagina with my penis, so I’m technically a virgin and deserve one as my bride, even though my hand has acted as a vagina for a decade and I’ve seen more vaginas than a delivery room nurse, but hey, I’m still a virgin and must have a wife that is as pure as the driven snow, even though I have this addiction to porn and masturbating”. Until someone can quit watching porn and getting themselves off, they don’t need to be dating, courting, or even thinking about marriage and what kind of bride they should get!!!

 

[AdamP88]

What if the use of it is simply to avoid having sex? I know quite a few guys who do ony when they don’t have a woman, and some who avoid sex morally and use that as the way to not have sex.

Doesn’t matter why it’s used. It’s still wrong, addictive, and screws up your perception of the opposite sex.

 

[LightBound]

What if the use of it is simply to avoid having sex? I know quite a few guys who do ony when they don’t have a woman, and some who avoid sex morally and use that as the way to not have sex.

They are still having sex…either with their own hand or in their mind. Both are sinful. Remember what our Lord said about lust…that includes watching porn and spanking one off!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

1 - Nobody is saying that men can’t be chaste. But I do think most women would prefer a man who had sex and repented than a porn addict.

I think so too, but your comment about most virgins of a certain age merely lacking opportunity, as well as commenters such as Javan that actually claim ALL male virgins are porn addicts, struck me as very uncharitable toward virgins.

We already have the “virgins are losers who aren’t man enough to get with a woman” stereotype in the secular world, why do we have to add to the stigma on a place such as CAF?

2 - Men don’t actually have physical virginity.

Well, men don’t actually have a hymen BUT even in women the lack of a hymen often has NOTHING to do with if she’s ever had intercourse or not, some are even born without one altogether. I meant “virginity” as in “person who has never had intercourse” and obviously this can apply to men as well as women.

3 - Every sexual sin is not equally bad.Some do more damage to the soul, body and mind than others.

4 - No. I’d rather someone who was sexually mature. I think that’s what most people want. Use of porn demonstrates a sexual immaturity. Fornication might not necessarily involve the same level of immaturity. I think that’s why people would prefer their spouse to not have a porn issue.

Of course most people would prefer their spouse not to have a porn issue, but I’m not sure I agree that porn use is always worse than fornication. Since the latter involves another person. The “love wins” crowd already is proclaiming that “love” mitigates sexual sin or even cancels sin completely, again, why play into this on CAF?

As for the whole rape victim issue – unfortunately I recall some posters stating they would never marry a rape or abuse victim because there is a high chance such a person’s attitude toward sex is messed up and they’d rather not take the chance that their marital sex life will be affected by it. And claim that this is charitable because better not marry at all than have a miserable marriage.

ETA: I should also point out that having sex in the context of a relationship does NOT always indicate a mature attitude toward sex. I’ve seen my share of comments even from married men on CAF that indicate they see their wives as little more than tools to sate a physical need. And if men have that kind of attitude toward sex then it seems they are also at risk of “backsliding” in marriage by committing physical adultery when the wife is not sexually available.

In any case, it seems we are bending over backwards to be “charitable” to people who are sexually active, and I actually do think that is a good thing. But the general vibe here is towards not giving virgins, at least the male ones, the same amount of charity, but insinuating they are “sexually immature” losers who must be addicted to porn. I realize that is par for the course on secular forums but I am disturbed by that kind of attitude on CAF.

 

[AdamP88]

I think so too, but your comment about most virgins of a certain age merely lacking opportunity, as well as commenters such as Javan that actually claim ALL male virgins are porn addicts, struck me as very uncharitable toward virgins.

We already have the “virgins are losers who aren’t man enough to get with a woman” stereotype in the secular world, why do we have to add to the stigma on a place such as CAF?

I’m not talking about ALL virgins. But it is a thing. Like it or not.

Well, men don’t actually have a hymen BUT even in women the lack of a hymen often has NOTHING to do with if she’s ever had intercourse or not, some are even born without one altogether. I meant “virginity” as in “person who has never had intercourse” and obviously this can apply to men as well as women.

Then virginity is not a physical thing at all but completely psychological. Or is it an ontological state?

Of course most people would prefer their spouse not to have a porn issue, but I’m not sure I agree that porn use is always worse than fornication. Since the latter involves another person. The “love wins” crowd already is proclaiming that “love” mitigates sexual sin or even cancels sin completely, again, why play into this on CAF?

Fornication is still a mortal sin. Nobody disputes that. But the chances of a porn addict having a mature sexual attitude vs somebody in a sinful physical relationship are much lesser. I don’t think that is disputable. There are many studies that show the effect of porn addiction.

As for the whole rape victim issue – unfortunately I recall some posters stating they would never marry a rape or abuse victim because there is a high chance such a person’s attitude toward sex is messed up and they’d rather not take the chance that their marital sex life will be affected by it. And claim that this is charitable because better not marry at all than have a miserable marriage.

Well, that’s just horrible. And possibly demonstrates that they aren’t ready for marriage. Do they think there are no rapes of married women? That a woman might never have other issues that affect their ability to have sex?

I should also point out that having sex in the context of a relationship does NOT always indicate a mature attitude toward sex. I’ve seen my share of comments even from married men on CAF that indicate they see their wives as little more than tools to sate a physical need. And if men have that kind of attitude toward sex then it seems they are also at risk of “backsliding” in marriage by committing physical adultery when the wife is not sexually available.

True, but my point it that it’s far more likely. And fornication can at least be in some way ordered to the good of the other, in the person’s mind, if not in reality. Porn is always the abuse and objectification of women and men.

In any case, it seems we are bending over backwards to be “charitable” to people who are sexually active, and I actually do think that is a good thing. But the general vibe here is towards not giving virgins, at least the male ones, the same amount of charity, but insinuating they are “sexually immature” losers who must be addicted to porn. I realize that is par for the course on secular forums but I am disturbed by that kind of attitude on CAF.

I’m not insinuating that. I’m sorry if it seems that way. Perhaps my earlier comment was not phrased very well.
What I am saying is that women would probably prefer to hear that their fiancee/boyfriend had sex in the past than that he struggles with porn addiction.
I know that’s true of my wife.

What would you prefer: A guy who had sex with some girlfriend who is long since off the scene…or a guy who viewed porn heavily for years and is tempted to view porn every time he’s alone with his laptop and a WiFi connection?

 

[Xantippe]

What if the use of it is simply to avoid having sex? I know quite a few guys who do ony when they don’t have a woman, and some who avoid sex morally and use that as the way to not have sex.

I think that if they’re Catholic they’d better get some spiritual direction real quick.

 

[Xantippe]

My thought exactly. I always thought they just like the idea of being the ‘first’ or seeing the woman was "ruined’ because “someone was there first” compared to liking the idea of a woman who is striving for holiness. I could be reading into things tho lol

No, I think you got that one exactly right.

And that’s the problem.

 

[Xantippe]

I think so too, but your comment about most virgins of a certain age merely lacking opportunity, as well as commenters such as Javan that actually claim ALL male virgins are porn addicts, struck me as very uncharitable toward virgins.

We already have the “virgins are losers who aren’t man enough to get with a woman” stereotype in the secular world, why do we have to add to the stigma on a place such as CAF?

Well, men don’t actually have a hymen BUT even in women the lack of a hymen often has NOTHING to do with if she’s ever had intercourse or not, some are even born without one altogether. I meant “virginity” as in “person who has never had intercourse” and obviously this can apply to men as well as women.

Of course most people would prefer their spouse not to have a porn issue, but I’m not sure I agree that porn use is always worse than fornication. Since the latter involves another person. The “love wins” crowd already is proclaiming that “love” mitigates sexual sin or even cancels sin completely, again, why play into this on CAF?

As for the whole rape victim issue – unfortunately I recall some posters stating they would never marry a rape or abuse victim because there is a high chance such a person’s attitude toward sex is messed up and they’d rather not take the chance that their marital sex life will be affected by it. And claim that this is charitable because better not marry at all than have a miserable marriage.

ETA: I should also point out that having sex in the context of a relationship does NOT always indicate a mature attitude toward sex. I’ve seen my share of comments even from married men on CAF that indicate they see their wives as little more than tools to sate a physical need. And if men have that kind of attitude toward sex then it seems they are also at risk of “backsliding” in marriage by committing physical adultery when the wife is not sexually available.

In any case, it seems we are bending over backwards to be “charitable” to people who are sexually active, and I actually do think that is a good thing. But the general vibe here is towards not giving virgins, at least the male ones, the same amount of charity, but insinuating they are “sexually immature” losers who must be addicted to porn. I realize that is par for the course on secular forums but I am disturbed by that kind of attitude on CAF.

How about this:

Porn use is not always worse than fornication.

BUT:

Fornication is not always worse than porn use.