Virginity and marriage.

[Xantippe]

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.

[snip]

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?

Right.

With the easy availability of porn, it’s as bad as having your husband’s old girlfriends all living in the spare bedroom.

 

[AdamP88]

Right.

With the easy availability of porn, it’s as bad as having your husband’s old girlfriends all living in the spare bedroom.

Eww. That’s a disturbing thought. Lol.

 

[starshiptrooper]

No, I think you got that one exactly right.

And that’s the problem.

Wrong, until very recently, the only way to have a reasonable surety you were the father of your children was to marry a woman who did not have a reputation for sleeping around. Why break your back on farm, in a mine, or at an assembly line over 20 odd years for kids who were not even yours?

This also does not even touch on the fact that marrying a female virgin means that you are less likely to be screwed over in divorce court.

s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

 

[Xantippe]

Wrong, until very recently, the only way to have a reasonable surety you were the father of your children was to marry a woman who did not have a reputation for sleeping around. Why break your back on farm, in a mine, or at an assembly line over 20 odd years for kids who were not even yours?

This also does not even touch on the fact that marrying a female virgin means that you are less likely to be screwed over in divorce court.

s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

Aren’t you basically agreeing with what Lea and I were saying–that some virgin-preference is due to seeing non-virgins as “ruined”?

I only made it about five pages into your link, but I think you should read it, because it’s not really about what you seem to think it is–it’s about early (like **really **early–age 13-14) sexual activity among girls and its correlation with a variety of different forms of dysfunction:

“Girls who begin voluntary sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 will have, on average, more
than 13 voluntary non-marital sex partners during their lives.** By contrast, women who begin sexual activity in their early 20s will have, on average, 2.7 sexual partners during their lives.** Women who begin sexual activity at early ages also have far higher turnover rates among sexual partners. (The sex partner turnover rate may be defined as the number of sex partners per year of sexual activity.) Women who become sexually active at ages 13-14 have a sex partner turnover rate that is four times higher than the rate found among those who initiate sex activity in their early 20s.”

None of this is really that surprising–functional families shelter children that age, and any child who is sexually active from 13-14 is probably from a dysfunctional, troubled family to begin with. Age at first intercourse in the US is something like 17 for girls and 18 for boys, so 13-14 is well outside usual parameters–we’re talking about middle schoolers.

I also have some concerns about the term “consensual” here, because it’s likely that a lot of these liaisons involved statutory rape, even if they were (in theory) “consensual.”

 

[AdamP88]

Wrong, until very recently, the only way to have a reasonable surety you were the father of your children was to marry a woman who did not have a reputation for sleeping around. Why break your back on farm, in a mine, or at an assembly line over 20 odd years for kids who were not even yours?

This also does not even touch on the fact that marrying a female virgin means that you are less likely to be screwed over in divorce court.

s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

Again…there’s a difference between “sleeping around” and “slept with one boyfriend then regretted it.”

Also there is really no point in bringing statistics into this debate.
People don’t really think “hey, I love this lady but my chances of divorce may be higher if I marry her.”
IMO statistics are largely irrelevant in this matter. People will marry regardless and it’s up to them to make it work. People aren’t fated to be the statistic.

 

[Xantippe]

Again…there’s a difference between “sleeping around” and “slept with one boyfriend then regretted it.”

Also there is really no point in bringing statistics into this debate.
People don’t really think “hey, I love this lady but my chances of divorce may be higher if I marry her.”
IMO statistics are largely irrelevant in this matter. People will marry regardless and it’s up to them to make it work. People aren’t fated to be the statistic.

A couple more ideas:

1. People don’t think about this, but a bride’s virginity does possibly indicate some good things about her husband (even if he has a “past”). It may point to his faith, and it is very likely to indicate that he is patient, self-controlled, and/or willing to accept (name removed by moderator)ut from his future wife and to place her needs above his immediate appetites. A guy like that is a very good marriage prospect! No surprise that that couple is likely to be able to stay together.

There are also some selection issues here, in that if a guy is impatient or doesn’t have good self-control or doesn’t respect his girlfriend’s views or (name removed by moderator)ut, either she will not arrive a virgin at the altar or he will just drop her.

1. Another issue is that virginity is not the only stat that correlates with marriage success.

Here are some others:

–age
–similarity in age

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/why-to-marry-someone-your-own-age/382520/

–education level
–income level
–time spent dating
–religious attendance

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

–both being Catholic

ncregister.com/daily-news/catholics-continue-to-have-lowest-divorce-rates/

I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed.

I always find it weird when people obsessive about the virginity one and ignore the others.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

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?

Well, it depends on why that guy hasn’t had sex since that girlfriend. Is it because he’s actually repented of fornication, and has decided to strive for chastity? Then of course I’d prefer him to a porn addict.

But if the only reason that guy hasn’t had sex for a while is lack of opportunity, but he still thinks sex is a requisite part of romantic relationships, or believes the “try before you buy” idea, or is willing to “respect” my values but plans on teaching his own kids to have premarital sex as part of marriage discernment, then I’d choose the None of the Above option.

 

[LethalMouse]

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?

Isn’t that a bit of a naive view though? I mean if out amoung the secualr majority most guys view porn and without a “alone with wifi” compulsion.

Ie: if they have someone to do they have no interest in porn.

I am confused at the assumption of porn “addiction”

While we are assuming the sex having person is a holy roller who doesn’t drop trou for everyone lol.

Don’t both have lines and degrees?

I mean one poster on here for example is an atheist not caring of premarital as a requirement of virtue. Yet I believe her to be faithful to her husband.

Surely she may not be “perfect” under catholic morality but also is not exactly a hoe. So if you were to argue that having sex can be without hoe/manhoe status then wouldn’t degrees apply to the porn as well?

 

[Javan]

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.

That’s not actually what I said. I will try to clarify.

Javan:

I doubt there’s any way to get hard numbers on it, but anecdotally?

Anecdotally = only based on my personal experience.

Javan:

Every male virgin I know over the age of 18.

I am quite sure that I am acquainted with male virgins over the age of 18 who are not addicted to porn; however, I don’t know who they are, because they haven’t told me and I don’t ask.

Javan:

They are constantly lamenting their inability to find a woman, yet they also admit they can’t be bothered to put forth effort into meeting anyone since they have an infinite amount of porn at their fingertips.

In other words, I know that those men are virgins and porn addicts because they have chosen (for whatever reasons) to share this information with me. I have not made assumptions or inferred this information via context clues.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That’s not actually what I said. I will try to clarify.

Anecdotally = only based on my personal experience.

I am quite sure that I am acquainted with male virgins over the age of 18; however, I don’t know who they are, because they haven’t told me and I don’t ask.

In other words, I know that those men are virgins and porn addicts because they have chosen (for whatever reasons) to share this information with me. I have not made assumptions or inferred this information via context clues.

Well, thanks for the clarification.

I think we need to be very careful when discussing issues of chastity, or sin in general, to certainly be charitable toward those who commit sexual sin, but not wind up denigrating the value of chastity itself.

(I’d say the same thing when it comes to, say, the large vs. small family debates, we can support large families without tearing down small families, and vice versa.)

Anyway, while I think there is still some value placed on female virginity, even if in a crass “I wanna be the first one” kind of way, secular society essentially places NO value at all on male virginity. It is a social liability, not an asset.

The idea that “male virgin = loser” who MUST suffer from low testosterone, or a porn addiction, or must be gay, is certainly a secular canard. And even in some Christian circles the idea that men can actually strive for self-control over their sexuality is seen as absurd. The expectation is often merely to avoid fornication until a marriage in the early twenties, and abstaining beyond that is often seen as “unrealistic”.

Also, most Protestant sects don’t find masturbation itself to be a sin, as long as no porn is involved. Many assume that if a married man commits adultery, the wife surely is to blame for not meeting all his sexual needs, because God designed men that way, to be unable to control themselves sexually. And so the women must bear the burden of being the sexual gatekeepers.

I find the Catholic beliefs on sexuality to be refreshing in that they do not assume this kind of sexual double standard. At least, ideally. But it does seem that in practice, many Catholics also seem to hold such double standards concerning sexual sin, that men deserve a pass in a way women don’t.

I disagree with that, of course, but I don’t think that it’s fair to assume everyone who has a preference for virgins (in my experience it’s very rare for someone to actually find it a total deal breaker) is a pathetic socially awkward porn-addicted “virgin-hunter”.

I understand now that you’re not actually doing that yourself, but that is certainly the attitude I get from some who have posted on this topic. Yes, SOME who strongly prefer virgins do so out of an immature attitude toward sex, but I think it’s uncharitable to assume everyone does.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Aren’t you basically agreeing with what Lea and I were saying–that some virgin-preference is due to seeing non-virgins as “ruined”?

I only made it about five pages into your link, but I think you should read it, because it’s not really about what you seem to think it is–it’s about early (like **really **early–age 13-14) sexual activity among girls and its correlation with a variety of different forms of dysfunction:

You apparently missed Chart 15.

Again…there’s a difference between “sleeping around” and “slept with one boyfriend then regretted it.”

There is also a difference between “slept with one boyfriend” and “did not sleep with any previous boyfriends”.

Also there is really no point in bringing statistics into this debate.
People don’t really think “hey, I love this lady but my chances of divorce may be higher if I marry her.”
IMO statistics are largely irrelevant in this matter. People will marry regardless and it’s up to them to make it work. People aren’t fated to be the statistic.

Oh, but there is a point in bringing statistics into this debate. Given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that 70% of all divorces are initiated by the woman, that means you have a 1 in 3 chance that your wife will arbitrarily expose you to the cruel whims of Western family law. You would have better odds playing Russian Roulette even if you used a revolver with only 5 chambers instead of six.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, thanks for the clarification.

I think we need to be very careful when discussing issues of chastity, or sin in general, to certainly be charitable toward those who commit sexual sin, but not wind up denigrating the value of chastity itself.

(I’d say the same thing when it comes to, say, the large vs. small family debates, we can support large families without tearing down small families, and vice versa.)

Anyway, while I think there is still some value placed on female virginity, even if in a crass “I wanna be the first one” kind of way, secular society essentially places NO value at all on male virginity. It is a social liability, not an asset.

The idea that “male virgin = loser” who MUST suffer from low testosterone, or a porn addiction, or must be gay, is certainly a secular canard. And even in some Christian circles the idea that men can actually strive for self-control over their sexuality is seen as absurd. The expectation is often merely to avoid fornication until a marriage in the early twenties, and abstaining beyond that is often seen as “unrealistic”.

Also, most Protestant sects don’t find masturbation itself to be a sin, as long as no porn is involved. Many assume that if a married man commits adultery, the wife surely is to blame for not meeting all his sexual needs, because God designed men that way, to be unable to control themselves sexually. And so the women must bear the burden of being the sexual gatekeepers.

I find the Catholic beliefs on sexuality to be refreshing in that they do not assume this kind of sexual double standard. At least, ideally. But it does seem that in practice, many Catholics also seem to hold such double standards concerning sexual sin, that men deserve a pass in a way women don’t.

I disagree with that, of course, but I don’t think that it’s fair to assume everyone who has a preference for virgins (in my experience it’s very rare for someone to actually find it a total deal breaker) is a pathetic socially awkward porn-addicted “virgin-hunter”.

I understand now that you’re not actually doing that yourself, but that is certainly the attitude I get from some who have posted on this topic. Yes, SOME who strongly prefer virgins do so out of an immature attitude toward sex, but I think it’s uncharitable to assume everyone does.

The combination of male virgin + porn/masturbation addict + wants virginal bride is fairly common as a combination encountered on CAF–in fact I would be prepared to venture that porn addiction seems to track pretty closely with the desire for a virgin bride. I think guys who fit that description do need to be told that no, a virginal bride is not what they “deserve,” because they themselves have a lot of work to do and the baggage they would be bringing into marriage could easily destroy a marriage. A woman’s virginity is not some sort of magical potion that produces a lasting marriage even when the husband has a decade-long history of indulging in gross perversion (even if just vicariously).

I suspect that pornography itself is responsible for a lot of the fetishization of virginity, as well as the rather outlandish ideas some guys harbor as to what kind of numbers a sexually active American woman is likely to run up. Note, for example, how non-virgin is automatically equated with wildly promiscuous.

 

[Xantippe]

You apparently missed Chart 15.There is also a difference between “slept with one boyfriend” and “did not sleep with any previous boyfriends”.Oh, but there is a point in bringing statistics into this debate. Given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that 70% of all divorces are initiated by the woman, that means you have a 1 in 3 chance that your wife will arbitrarily expose you to the cruel whims of Western family law. You would have better odds playing Russian Roulette even if you used a revolver with only 5 chambers instead of six.

And yet, you seem totally uninterested in the other demographic features that produce lasting marriages that I listed upthread…

 

[Rau]

…Given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that 70% of all divorces are initiated by the woman, that means you have a 1 in 3 chance that your wife will arbitrarily expose you to the cruel whims of Western family law.

You seem to view all the men involved in divorce as victims of women acting arbitrarily. That’s not a statistic one sees too often.

 

[AdamP88]

And yet, you seem totally uninterested in the other demographic features that produce lasting marriages that I listed upthread…

I suspect that starshiptrooper may be one of the Dalrock following, MGTOW style guys. His focus on certain statistics and the idea that any non-virgin is automatically promiscuous and will drag the man through the divorce courts is certainly consistent with that type of thought.

 

[Lea101]

You apparently missed Chart 15.There is also a difference between “slept with one boyfriend” and “did not sleep with any previous boyfriends”.Oh, but there is a point in bringing statistics into this debate. Given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that 70% of all divorces are initiated by the woman, that means you have a 1 in 3 chance that your wife will arbitrarily expose you to the cruel whims of Western family law. You would have better odds playing Russian Roulette even if you used a revolver with only 5 chambers instead of six.

Let’s not act as if women are evil creatures that love divorces and are responsible for it. Women may be the ones that asked for a divorce, but men may be the ones that drive them to it (infidelity, porn, abuse, lack of romance, etc). The statistic does not show what led to the initiation of a divorce

 

[AdamP88]

Well, it depends on why that guy hasn’t had sex since that girlfriend. Is it because he’s actually repented of fornication, and has decided to strive for chastity? Then of course I’d prefer him to a porn addict.

But if the only reason that guy hasn’t had sex for a while is lack of opportunity, but he still thinks sex is a requisite part of romantic relationships, or believes the “try before you buy” idea, or is willing to “respect” my values but plans on teaching his own kids to have premarital sex as part of marriage discernment, then I’d choose the None of the Above option.

I would agree with that.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The combination of male virgin + porn/masturbation addict + wants virginal bride is fairly common as a combination encountered on CAF–in fact I would be prepared to venture that porn addiction seems to track pretty closely with the desire for a virgin bride.

Well, certainly the OP of this particular topic is an example of that.

However, though it seems most women wouldn’t dare express a preference for a virgin husband even on CAF as they have been socialized to expect men to have some amount of sexual baggage, I have seen, on occasional, female posters on CAF who were virgins until marriage, express their distress at having a husband who is not a virgin. I do not get the feeling they are porn/masturbation addicts.

I’ve also noted that much of the time, posters don’t just reply with the idea that repented and confessed sexual sin should be forgiven, that I certainly agree with.

Often the advice is “but obviously you mean more to him than all those other women because he married YOU, not them” and there is an assumption that the non-virgin husband MUST have had a large number of sexual partners while “sowing his wild oats” and that we can assume all this sex “meant nothing” to the man, but that’s perfectly A-OK.

There also seems to be an assumption that it doesn’t matter if the husband has repented of his past or not, because apparently marriage and “true love” will magically cure this man of the tendency to have “meaningless” sex. So, absolutely no need for the bride to wonder what will happen if she becomes unavailable for sex due to pregnancy, childbirth, illness, a long business trip, or even just being uncomfortable with certain sexual practices. Okay, sure.

I think guys who fit that description do need to be told that no, a virginal bride is not what they “deserve,” because they themselves have a lot of work to do and the baggage they would be bringing into marriage could easily destroy a marriage. A woman’s virginity is not some sort of magical potion that produces a lasting marriage even when the husband has a decade-long history of indulging in gross perversion (even if just vicariously).

Of course not, BUT it can also be said that a MAN’s virginity is also not a magical potion that will produce a lasting marriage, either.

I suspect that pornography itself is responsible for a lot of the fetishization of virginity, as well as the rather outlandish ideas some guys harbor as to what kind of numbers a sexually active American woman is likely to run up. Note, for example, how non-virgin is automatically equated with wildly promiscuous.

I’d say that women do this to men, too, as I said, on the rare occasion a woman posts “having trouble accepting fiancé/husband’s sexual past” topic, people assume the man must have been wildly promiscuous prior to “settling down” . The difference is that this behavior is widely seen as “normal” and forgiveable for men, but as a terrible unnatural sin for a woman.

ETA: All this being said, I do personally think that what matters most is the intended’s CURRENT attitude toward sex. I also don’t think that merely “respecting the values” of a more sexually conservative partner, is enough. Selfish attitudes toward sex can be present whether or not someone has a history of acting out on it before marriage.

 

[Lea101]

I suspect that starshiptrooper may be one of the Dalrock following, MGTOW style guys. His focus on certain statistics and the idea that any non-virgin is automatically promiscuous and will drag the man through the divorce courts is certainly consistent with that type of thought.

He has a quite terrible view on things lol
He said in the other thread that it’s not rape if the woman was heavily drunk to the point where she couldn’t talk properly (and the guy is not) and the guy have to take off her clothes because she was still ‘conscious’
And then talked about how courts are against men etc etc.

I don’t know if it’s right to take him seriously

 

[Xantippe]

You seem to view all the men involved in divorce as victims of women acting arbitrarily. That’s not a statistic one sees too often.

Right. The 70% figure assumes that all divorces are filed by the “bad guy” in the marriage, and there are never any innocent parties that file because of bad behavior on the part of their spouse: abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery, gross and persistent financial mismanagement, refusal to work, refusal to seek treatment for mental illness, etc.