What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

[Norseman82]

: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!!

Well, it is a big slap in the face and an insult to the virgin when he/she loses out to a non-virgin who did not put forth the effort he did. If a non-virgin were truly devout and unselfish, he/she would understand that and voluntarily defer to the virgin.

 

[David_Thorne]

sluts with STDs

It only takes one time to get an STD.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

I can assure you this is not true. I went to an amazing Catholic college. Very conservative, many many faithful good practicing Catholics there. I can assure without a doubt that if my fiance had been a non-virgin I would still have chosen him over many of the other men there because of irreconcilable differences in worldview as well as major personality conflicts etc. There is no way I would have chosen some of the men there, even though they are very good, faithful, dutiful, responsible, devout men just because we would not work well together as a married couple, even if they were the only virgins I knew. Virginity is important, but it is not some sole deciding factor.

 

[sicutincensum]

It only takes one time to get an STD.

You can get a STD-type disease without even doing it one single time.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, it is a big slap in the face and an insult to the virgin when he/she loses out to a non-virgin who did not put forth the effort he did. If a non-virgin were truly devout and unselfish, he/she would understand that and voluntarily defer to the virgin.

Except that the choosing the non-virgin is not because they are a non-virgin, it is because as a person they will make a better spouse for the one choosing a spouse. I seriously don’t understand why that is so hard to get!

Anyway, I have to go, so I’m sorry but I won’t be able to reply to any of your replies after this.

 

[TimeEntrance]

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.

Relax, thewanderer, I didn’t say you.

I don’t believe it is a “gross over generalization.” One might not agree but two diverging opinions does not necessarily mean one is objectively, and universally correct.

For example, I think as a rule of thumb men usually will pick a very physically attractive woman over a woman with very humble physical features.

Does that mean every single man on earth is like that? No.

And does that mean most men on earth only marry the top tier gorgeous women? No.

Most men end up dating and marrying average Janes.

However, I understand it is PC to offer negative critiques of the male character and PC never to do so about the female character.

And “my circles” of women are rather broad. I’ve been in many parts of the United States. It doesn’t take rocket science for me to figure out why Monica Lewinsky would have a sexual affair with a non-virgin and married Bill Clinton over some male intern running licking feet in the White House.

 

[Norseman82]

Except that the choosing the non-virgin is not because they are a non-virgin, it is because as a person they will make a better spouse for the one choosing a spouse. I seriously don’t understand why that is so hard to get!

Anyway, I have to go, so I’m sorry but I won’t be able to reply to any of your replies after this.

Put yourself in the shoes of the jilted virgin and hopefully you will understand.

 

[TimeEntrance]

It only takes one time to get an STD.

Not to mention it’s statistically estimated that around 50% of American teenagers are walking around with an STD.

 

[David_Thorne]

You can get a STD-type disease without even doing it one single time.

Yes, but chances are so low that it’s hardly worth mentioning. And STD-type is not an STD.

Sex means a good chance of STDs. You don’t have to be promiscuous either. Remember the saying along the lines of “you have sex with all the people your partner has been with”?

 

[sicutincensum]

You don’t have to be promiscuous either. Remember the saying along the lines of “you have sex with all the people your partner has been with”?

Chances are so low that it’s hardly worth mentioning.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Put yourself in the shoes of the jilted virgin and hopefully you will understand.

As a rule of thumb (meaning it is not true of all women but is usually the case for most women) a woman can not empathize and certainly won’t sympathize with the jilted male.

Usually you’ll find women go into 1950’s mode of gender identities and sex roles and then expect jilted males to just “man up.”

But from fugly looking women to women weighing in at 300 lbs men are suppose to “look at the person” and create a non-Darwinian world for women where competition among them is more benign.

Hey! Jennifer Lopez and Halle Berry have had several men in their lives. I think both have been married more than once. Their looks alone - which comes with lioness-like confidence (and confidence is “attractive”) - will put them above most humble looking, virtuous, Catholic women (or atheist women) not use to a lot of male attention, or at least not from rich and or handsome alpha males.

But when you talk about things that impact female self esteem - even one female - then all of a sudden it has broader social repercussions for the social life and social fabric of all females nationally or globally.

Depressed females often isolate or cut themselves. Many do false suicide attempts to get attention. Males on the other hand express depression with rage and violence. Like, shooting up high schools for example.

So, maybe how society treats male virgins does have broader social repercussions. Just saying.

I’m not a Virgin.

 

[David_Thorne]

Put yourself in the shoes of the jilted virgin and hopefully you will understand.

Men and women have a very different understanding of previous sexual experience of partners.

Previous partners: Women => man is desirable. Men => woman is not stable for investment of resources.

thewanderer can’t understand why men would object to a non-virgin, because she isn’t one. Men can’t understand why a woman could easily accept a non-virgin. Just like liberals and conservatives, they are two different minds that cannot understand each other. I think we already knew that too.

 

[David_Thorne]

Chances are so low that it’s hardly worth mentioning.

Really? How do you know? Upwards of 85% of American women will have at least one STD in their lives. Are those low chances?

Anyway, it’s a valid concern for people who have lived their lives in an exemplary fashion to want to avoid STDs. I understand some people want to take their chances as a practice of mercy or forgiveness or compassion. That’s their call.

Remember this: we are our brother’s keeper. We are to look out for them and warn them of dangers. That’s a duty of ours.

 

[sweetpetunia]

While I was obviously joking before with my comment about Pope Pius XXVIII, as of course there isn’t anything morally wrong per se with marrying a non-virgin, it is still also true that (ceteris paribus) marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.

This. If it’s objectively better to be a virgin, then it is objectively better to marry a virgin.

 

[David_Thorne]

So, maybe how society treats male virgins does have broader social repercussions. Just saying.

Yeah, that’s quite true. I think the suffering at the hands of society that some male virgins go through is not understandable to women. Society has different expectations for women (changing, but still different). When you look at it that way you can see why some guys wouldn’t want to marry a non-virgin.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

Wow, all romance reduced to the question of virgin or not. I think that it would be completely irresponsible and foolish to struggle to work out issues with someone because they’ve never had sex instead of marrying the person that you click with, are happy with, and share a vision for the future with.

Who cares how the “jilted virgin” feels? I hate to sound callous but instead of marrying someone who “voluntarily deferred” to him even though he wasn’t her first choice because of his virginity he could be left to find someone who picks him for the right reasons. Reasons that are far more meaningful, powerful, and important than his virginity.

 

[erine]

I know virgins w a scary amount of baggage and issues…who don’t feel the need to self examine much…and non virgins who work through things more…I also know vice versa…I would say go with someone you love unconditionally, ie, their virginity or lack thereof wouldn’t make a difference to your love. You’d go through whatever pain necessary to have the fullest possible union with them.

 

[asd72]

Men and women have a very different understanding of previous sexual experience of partners.

Previous partners: Women => man is desirable. Men => woman is not stable for investment of resources.

thewanderer can’t understand why men would object to a non-virgin, because she isn’t one. Men can’t understand why a woman could easily accept a non-virgin. Just like liberals and conservatives, they are two different minds that cannot understand each other. I think we already knew that too.

Just so you know you do not speak for me as a female. And unless your generalization applies for practicing Catholics who believe in the teachings of the Church, it doesn’t apply to me either. It would depend on a persons current chastity for me.

And a non virgin is not a stable investment of resources? You are talking about a person created in the image and likeness of God, they are not ‘things’. I wouldn’t want anyone that saw women as objects so I would be glad they saw me as not being a good resource to acquire!

 

[Norseman82]

Who cares how the “jilted virgin” feels?

I will just let this comment speak for itself for all to see…

(Hopefully, if you become a Catholic, the graces you receive will soften your heart).

 

[Norseman82]

Just so you know you do not speak for me as a female. And unless your generalization applies for practicing Catholics who believe in the teachings of the Church, it doesn’t apply to me either. It would depend on a persons current chastity for me.

And a non virgin is not a stable investment of resources? You are talking about a person created in the image and likeness of God, they are not ‘things’. I wouldn’t want anyone that saw women as objects so I would be glad they saw me as not being a good resource to acquire!

Proverbs 31:10