What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DlandFan06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueEyedLady said:
That’s a pretty sad outlook. I mean, not the child molester part. People who commit sex crimes against children have something engrained in them that can’t be taken away. They can fight and struggle not to do it any more, but that is nothing to risk your kids future on.

By comparison most prostitutes are not prostitutes because they like the work. Most do it to survive. I could never hold it against someone that they were desperate, hungry, and maybe even had a child to take care of so they did what they had to do. Once a prostitute is able to stop doing what they do they are grateful. They don’t have an engrained urge to go back to the streets and face rape, beatings, and sometimes even murder.

I’ve only ever known one prostitute in real life. Her mom died when she was 17 and to avoid being put in the system she ran away. Of course with no home and no money she turned to prostitution. After a few years she couldn’t take it anymore and she got help. It was a long road to get her off the street but eventually she made her way in to college. Although her degree is in business admin she now works for an organization that works with at risk youth, and she travels the country giving speeches on her experiences and what can be done to help others. She got married just over a year ago and is pregnant with her first. Absolutely one of the most loving, most inspirational, most wonderful people I’ve ever known and her husband is lucky to have her. Her experience as a prostitute make her more committed to maintaining a healthy, normal life and ensuring that nothing like that ever happens to her children. I have a hard time understanding why someone like her would be less worthy of marriage.
Click to expand...
I’ve known several women to prostitute and I don’t think I ever met one that was driven out of hunger or being forced into it. Many street prostitutes are hooked on drugs - true - so for many that is a primary reason and cause. If they could get off the drugs they would stop prostituting.

Hey, by my apartment building the black shemales have taken over the night street prostitution business. These are not starving people. In general they are greedy for money. Just about all shemales prostitute too. It the primary way most of them fund their sex change.

Female prostitutes - most especially the higher paid “call girls” - are just like female strippers and the women that enter the porn business. And the United States has the largest porn industry in the world. American women with their extensive welfare system and access to higher education are not exactly threatened with living in abject poverty like they’re in Ethiopia or Guatemala or something. :rolleyes:

That’s like some American claiming American men that rob banks and stores have to do or they will starve. No, they do it because they are motivated to make fast cash in significant sums. Women that prostitute know they can get $1,000 faster doing that in a few hours in a night than taking out a college loan and grinding in study for 4 or more years.
 
The_Bucket said:
I don’t get TimeEntrance’s busting on “conservative Catholics” though. I mean, we should all be conservative Catholics.
Click to expand...
Did I bust on them? :confused:

Fear not, I’m equally critical of liberal Catholics too. I’m sure conservative and liberal Catholics are critical of me. So, hardy, har, har, har.

I just find it interesting that every discussion board I’ve ever gone on (perhaps minus to one about men’s fashion and the other about physics I used to lurker on from time to time) from secular to Catholic, sex is always the most popular topic of discussion.

For liberals you’d think nothing else existed in life. For conservatives for a people that claim not to put so much stock into sex they sure do seem to obsess over it like it was the one and only sin mankind could ever commit. How about all these obese people walking around in the United States, eh? Gluttony producing diabetes is much less a sin I guess.
And the Republican joke I don’t get either. Politicians are politicians. Doesn’t matter if they’re red or blue.
Click to expand...
Naw, I just found it to be perfect timing to insert that little jokey joke. I’ve got no beef with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did bring us the gas guzzling Humvee after all.
 
I don’t have time to address all the points I’d like to, but I’d like to add more data for everyone’s edification. I found it, via The Social Pathologist again (whom BlueEyedLady unfairly paints as somewhat dishonest or untrustworthy), here and here. The charts in that last link are invaluable.
 
I haven’t read every page of this…but so far I haven’t heard anyone say this: Obviously, its not “wrong” to marry a non virgin, but isn’t it alright to prefer marrying a virgin? Personally, the idea of marrying someone who has given herself completely to a bunch of other guys has no appeal for me. I’m waiting because I want the intimacy I share with my future wife to be unique and special for both of us. No matter what anyone says, if you have already had sex before marriage, it’s never going to be the same again. You can never give yourself to your future spouse in the same way because you have already given that to someone else…Not to say you can’t have a successful marriage, but still, its not the same as for those people who have waited. If I’m going to wait, I’m only going to marry someone who has waited as well. I’m not gonna wait to give myself to someone my whole life only to be another addition to her “list”. That’s how I feel about this whole subject.
 
thewanderer said:
Don’t worry, there are definitely people out there who are fine with overlooking a past for the sake of the person they see in the present.
Click to expand...
Yep my girlfriend is one of them. I’m blessed to have her in my life. :love:
 
KostyaJMJ said:
Anther point is, all this not having sex isn’t as easy as virgins make it out to look. Nope, waiting until marriage takes hard work and dedication. However, waiting does come with many benefits. Why would you sacrifice all the benefits of waiting to be with someone who has been irresponsible and squandered their gift of chastity? It is like playing the ant to the foolish grasshopper. Might not be something you’re really willing to do.
Click to expand...
Well the more socially awkward you are, the less hard work and dedication it takes to “wait”. 😉
 
Whereas the Church has not stated that it is wrong for a virgin to marry a non-virgin, there are two logical points that should be thought through when a virgin rejects a fellow virgin for a non-virgin:
  1. What happens to the “jilted virgin”?
  2. What signal does it send out to the world? Someone might say “See? It doesn’t pay to obey the rules”, and if that is a tipping point that leads one to lose his/her virginity, then this can easily be elevated to the level of scandal.
 
Norseman82 said:
Whereas the Church has not stated that it is wrong for a virgin to marry a non-virgin, there are two logical points that should be thought through when a virgin rejects a fellow virgin for a non-virgin:
  1. What happens to the “jilted virgin”?
  2. What signal does it send out to the world? Someone might say “See? It doesn’t pay to obey the rules”, and if that is a tipping point that leads one to lose his/her virginity, then this can easily be elevated to the level of scandal.
Click to expand...
I really hope you aren’t suggesting that a virgin is obligated to marry another virgin so that that other virgin doesn’t feel rejected. Or let’s say a woman has a choice between two good men, one a virgin, one not. Should she really feel obligated to marry the virgin even though she may have a better connection with the non virgin and see a better future with him? There are so many more important things to consider when looking at a life with someone than virginity. No one should feel obligated to marry anyone on those grounds (or any for that matter).

I think that if something like that causes someone else to have sex than they had issues with their faith and peer pressure to start with.
 
tearsdontfall said:
I haven’t read every page of this…but so far I haven’t heard anyone say this: Obviously, its not “wrong” to marry a non virgin, but isn’t it alright to prefer marrying a virgin? Personally, the idea of marrying someone who has given herself completely to a bunch of other guys has no appeal for me. I’m waiting because I want the intimacy I share with my future wife to be unique and special for both of us. No matter what anyone says, if you have already had sex before marriage, it’s never going to be the same again. You can never give yourself to your future spouse in the same way because you have already given that to someone else…Not to say you can’t have a successful marriage, but still, its not the same as for those people who have waited. If I’m going to wait, I’m only going to marry someone who has waited as well. I’m not gonna wait to give myself to someone my whole life only to be another addition to her “list”. That’s how I feel about this whole subject.
Click to expand...
But this is not the topic of this thread, entitled, “what’s wrong with marrying a non-virgin?” The answer is nothing.
 
This thread is very disturbing to me. A non-virgin is someone who has had sex at least once in their life. For some reason people have jumped to drug-addicted prostitutes, child molesters, sluts with STDs, and sex addicts.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I really hope you aren’t suggesting that a virgin is obligated to marry another virgin so that that other virgin doesn’t feel rejected. Or let’s say a woman has a choice between two good men, one a virgin, one not. Should she really feel obligated to marry the virgin even though she may have a better connection with the non virgin and see a better future with him?

I think that if something like that causes someone else to have sex than they had issues with their faith and peer pressure to start with.
Click to expand...
A better connection and better future by what standards? The secular world’s or God’s?

And regarding the person who has “issue with his faith” in the last part of your post, please keep in mind that St. Paul cautioned us not to unnecessarily offend the consciences of those who may be new to the faith or may be at a point of weakness.

We need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here and see what effect out actions have on others.
 
Norseman82 said:
A better connection and better future by what standards? The secular world’s or God’s?

And regarding the person who has “issue with his faith” in the last part of your post, please keep in mind that St. Paul cautioned us not to unnecessarily offend the consciences of those who may be new to the faith or may be at a point of weakness.

We need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here and see what effect out actions have on others.
Click to expand...
You really think that two virgins would automatically have a better connection than a virgin and a non virgin? Even if the virgin and non virgin had the same vision for their future family? Were more similar when it came to values? (And yes, even two very devout Catholics can have differences in values). Understood each other better? Communicated better?

Or even worse and more extreme, what if that virgin is an abuser? Or turns out to be a neglectful parent? Or has a serious mental illness or substance abuse problem?

No. No one should ever feel obligated to not turn someone down because they’re a virgin too, and it would look bad to turn down a virgin. (Furthermore, it’s creepy and tacky to have your virginal status be that kind of public knowledge that it would matter.)
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I really hope you aren’t suggesting that a virgin is obligated to marry another virgin so that that other virgin doesn’t feel rejected. Or let’s say a woman has a choice between two good men, one a virgin, one not. Should she really feel obligated to marry the virgin even though she may have a better connection with the non virgin and see a better future with him? There are so many more important things to consider when looking at a life with someone than virginity. No one should feel obligated to marry anyone on those grounds (or any for that matter).

I think that if something like that causes someone else to have sex than they had issues with their faith and peer pressure to start with.
Click to expand...
Why do women always bring up questions like these?

Now, I know from experience more than a few women would get offended if I or another man posed the question.

What if a guy had a choice between two good women. One is not very attractive looking and the other is knockout gorgeous. Should he really feel obligated to marry the much less attractive looking woman even though he has a better connection with the knockout gorgeous woman?

lf the two guys are both good guys, and if virginity really is that important, shouldn’t that theoretically tip the scales in favor of the male virgin?

Yeah it should.

However, as been discussed in other threads, females as a rule of thumb prefer promiscuous men over virgin males or even non-virgin males that are temporarily not sexually active. Unless we are talking about men in or returning from prison. Lots of women are attracted to men coming out of prison.

As related to the topic of this thread - sidebar or not - as a rule of thumb virtue does not pay off in contemporary society. Well… it might in terms of not contracting an STD or especially an incurable STD.
 
I think people are making the mistake of using a theoretical assumption (“caeteris paribus”, “all rest being equal”) to advise someone, which is, I believe, a great mistake. I think that’s what BlueEyedLady is trying to explain.

The “all rest being equal” is a PURELY THEORETICAL concept which may help us understand reality, but is not supposed to discriminate people or to give general advices. So, people stop saying “if all else being equal, it would be better to have a virgin”, because really, nobody is equal to anybody, and, as a consequence, no couple is equal to any other couple.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Yo
No. No one should ever feel obligated to not turn someone down because they’re a virgin too, and it would look bad to turn down a virgin. (Furthermore, it’s creepy and tacky to have your virginal status be that kind of public knowledge that it would matter.)
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Seriously. I am actually a litttle shocked that someone would actually suggest that you have a moral responsibility to marry a virgin over a non-virgin.

As for the 2 reasons given, the 1st (what about the rejected’s feelings) applies to both a non-virgin is a person deserving just as much respect and dignity as a virgin, to say that one should choose the virgin over the non-virgin because of the feelings of the virgin is to imply that the feelings of virgins are more important than the feelings of non-virgins! I can’t believe anybody would ever think that was ok!!

And the 2nd is not really true either. We are always asked to avoid scandal but we are not asked to go to unreasonable lengths to do so. Marrying someone who is not your 1st choice just to avoid scandal is most definitely way beyond the bounds of reasonable lengths to go to avoid scandal. Again, its ridiculous that someone would claim that this is a moral duty!!
 
hannajomar said:
This thread is very disturbing to me. A non-virgin is someone who has had sex at least once in their life. For some reason people have jumped to drug-addicted prostitutes, child molesters, sluts with STDs, and sex addicts.
Click to expand...
Well… they are non-virgins.

“Non-virgin” is about as descriptive as “American.” And there’s a whole lot of different kinds of Americans.
 
TimeEntrance said:
However, as been discussed in other threads, females as a rule of thumb prefer promiscuous men over virgin males or even non-virgin males that are temporarily not sexually active. Unless we are talking about men in or returning from prison. Lots of women are attracted to men coming out of prison.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned before, this is an offensive and gross overgeneralization of women. You are projecting your personal experience of the women in the circles you have known onto all women and it is extremely unfair of you to do so. Please stop making this overgeneralized claim.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
You really think that two virgins would automatically have a better connection than a virgin and a non virgin? Even if the virgin and non virgin had the same vision for their future family? Were more similar when it came to values? (And yes, even two very devout Catholics can have differences in values). Understood each other better? Communicated better?

Or even worse and more extreme, what if that virgin is an abuser? Or turns out to be a neglectful parent? Or has a serious mental illness or substance abuse problem?

No. No one should ever feel obligated to not turn someone down because they’re a virgin too, and it would look bad to turn down a virgin. (Furthermore, it’s creepy and tacky to have your virginal status be that kind of public knowledge that it would matter.)
Click to expand...
If we presuppose that we’re talking about practing Catholics here, then the instances you point out in the first paragraph are more likely than not to be differences that can be worked out.
 
Hannajomar, here was both a non-virgin (at some point) and an American. He was a notorious womanizer. Being a “Man of Respect” and power you might hazard a guess that makes sense. I’ve read that he sent a limousine to drive his mother to Mass every Sunday when she was alive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Balistrieri

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top