What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

[sweetpetunia]

This is not to say that virginity shouldn’t be prized and preserved until marriage. But simply because a woman is not a virgin doesn’t make her any less desirable as a spouse.

Either virginity is desirable or it is not

 

[TimeEntrance]

One thing good about the U.S. Constitution is that it allows Jesse James and Halle Berry and Ellen DeGeneres to pursue their own conception of good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_G._James

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/James,_Jesse_G.%282007%29.jpg/220px-James%2C_Jesse_G.%282007%29.jpg + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...d_carpet.jpg/170px-Halle_Berry_red_carpet.jpg + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_DeGeneres_2.jpg/220px-Ellen_DeGeneres_2.jpg

Actually, I need to reflect and rethink my object to female hypocrisy if the female is a virgin and favors non-virgin men. If I really don’t care what others do or date or marry… then I really shouldn’t care about the active hypocrisy in that too.

Yeah… I think that’s right.

Carry on. The United States will to. So will non-virgin homosexuals. So will everyone in between.

 

[RyanBlack]

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).

You’re presuming to lecture someone about needing her heart to be softened?

Something about pots and kettles comes to mind for me.

 

[Dale_M]

Right. Which is why I’m saying marrying who you want to marry is inherently selfish/self-centered.

I don’t think that is true.

Marrying wisely means marrying someone you have chosen for the right reasons: compatibility of personalities, stability of the your spouse-to-be’s character, shared values and goals in life etc.

There is nothing selfish about making a wise choice. Marriage is about sacrificing your self for your spouse and children. It is sensible, not selfish, to choose a spouse with whom you can make the marriage thrive.

Finding a spouse is a reciprocal process. Its not like buying a house, choosing one that has everything you want in it.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t think anyone should feel obligated to marry a virgin just for that reason alone, but virginity isn’t just some label (which it usually is in society and a negative one at that).

Virginity is a representation of a person’s overall morality, personality, and character. I think those three things are very important for any relationship and a virgin who has waited for his wedding night to have sex is certainly a strong person and definitely an un-selfish person to be able to sacrifice and deny themselves for the sake of staying true to God’s word and staying true to the person they would eventually marry – before even having known of their existence! (kind of remind you of something else? oh along the lines of “Blessed are those who do not see, but still believe”?)

Why anyone wouldn’t notice how self-giving that person is and only look to their “label” as something deemed negativie by society, I do not know. No wonder the divorce rate is so high; people don’t look deeper in choosing a spouse, they look at the surface and at the superficial and end up with someone only looking out for number one (I’m not claiming that non-virgins are selfish or bad people if their current attitude towards sex is in line with what it means to be chaste).

And not all virgins really are chaste. Some are virgins due to the lack of the right opportunities.

 

[David_Thorne]

I disagree with all three claims you made in that statement.

Liberal or a conservative person can understand their counterpart if they are willing to make an effort to be charitable and to engage in critical thinking. It is possible to hold two opposing thoughts in one’s mind at the same time.

Perhaps some men object to a spouse who is a non-virgin. Certainly that is an expectation from a more traditional culture. However, I am not sure that most men in the US who are of marriageable age feel that way. Its almost a quaint notion.

This is not to say that virginity shouldn’t be prized and preserved until marriage. But simply because a woman is not a virgin doesn’t make her any less desirable as a spouse. An unchaste attitude would be objectionable, but it is entirely possible that a woman may have had an indiscretion earlier in her life, and then changed her behavior. “Born-again virgin” isn’t a far-fetched idea.

As for women’s expectations of men, I dunno. It may depend upon the woman. I think the common expectation that the man be more worldly and experienced may still carry over to sexual experience for many. It shouldn’t be true, though. Chastity is just as important for a man as for a woman. And its lapse just as forgivable.

There was a study done some time ago that came to the conclusion that the reason for the stalemate in American politics is due to different mental states/makeups. Liberals can’t understand something that conservatives take for granted, and vice versa. Doublethink is internal pressure meeting external pressure. People cannot (sanely) hold two opposing thoughts, equally, at once.

Most men of a marriageable age don’t marry. If they aren’t traditionally-minded (i.e. conservative/religious) then marrying a virgin doesn’t really register in their minds. Their attitudes are towards premarital sex and they expect that to be the case for everyone (Freudian projection).

Objectively no, a person is not less desirable because they are or are not a certain thing. Subjectively, they could very well be. A Catholic doesn’t want to marry an anti-Catholic; the anti-Catholic is less desirable subjectively, but not objectively since two anti-Catholics may want to marry.

I think a woman’s acceptance of a man’s past is in keeping with societal tendencies as well. There is no culture (barring some matriarchal ancient cultures) that does not have the expectation that men will live wild lives and women won’t. Christian anabaptists have that expectation for men; they are to live wild, dangerous lives then get baptized and settle down.

Chastity is important for both sexes and its importance is often demonstrated by the requirement of virginity by both men and women. In both cases societal mores are being fought against, often in a losing battle.

 

[David_Thorne]

I don’t think that is true.

Marrying wisely means marrying someone you have chosen for the right reasons: compatibility of personalities, stability of the your spouse-to-be’s character, shared values and goals in life etc.

There is nothing selfish about making a wise choice. Marriage is about sacrificing your self for your spouse and children. It is sensible, not selfish, to choose a spouse with whom you can make the marriage thrive.

Finding a spouse is a reciprocal process. Its not like buying a house, choosing one that has everything you want in it.

I mean as a temporary state. A sensible choice is one that is in one’s own interest and advantage (for life). The wording is likely to jolt some people, but definitionally a sensible choice is sensible relative to oneself. Marriage is about sacrificing your self for your spouse and children, but that’s after you’ve chosen the person to do that towards.

 

[Dale_M]

There was a study done some time ago that came to the conclusion that the reason for the stalemate in American politics is due to different mental states/makeups. Liberals can’t understand something that conservatives take for granted, and vice versa.

I am not sure what study you are referring to, but would say that simply because most liberals or conservatives are unwilling to make an effort to understand the other doesn’t mean it is impossible. But I admit that it can be uncomfortable challenging one’s own beliefs.

People cannot (sanely) hold two opposing thoughts, equally, at once.

Doing so is essential to critical thinking. Often, critical thinking is a learned technique. If high schools do not teach it, I would hope colleges or universities do.

Most men of a marriageable age don’t marry.

I am not sure what you mean by that. What statistic are you thinking of?

 

[David_Thorne]

I am not sure what study you are referring to, but would say that simply because most liberals or conservatives are unwilling to make an effort to understand the other doesn’t mean it is impossible. But I admit that it can be uncomfortable challenging one’s own beliefs.

Doing so is essential to critical thinking. Often, critical thinking is a learned technique. If high schools do not teach it, I would hope colleges or universities do.

I am not sure what you mean by that. What statistic are you thinking of?

I’m not sure what study it is either. It was in the newspaper. That’s all I remember. The premise was that certain people become conservatives and certain people become liberals based on the way their minds work. It’s like left- and right-biased brains. A scientist can become a writer, but he won’t normally be as good as someone more naturally predisposed to it. The ideas in the study are obviously not mainstream, but the argument seemed compelling. Make of it what you will.

You can assume the validity of another position and work from there, yes. But you can’t hold each as true. And by hold as true, I mean for a period of time. I cannot hold the two statements “I’m always right” and “I’m always wrong” as true at the same time. It would be absurd. Critical thinking is about analyzing the two and modifying one’s view. The point being, the views must change. Holding two opposing thoughts is not a position to be held.

As of last year, less than 50% of men marry. So most don’t, then.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m not sure what study it is either. It was in the newspaper. That’s all I remember. The premise was that certain people become conservatives and certain people become liberals based on the way their minds work. It’s like left- and right-biased brains. A scientist can become a writer, but he won’t normally be as good as someone more naturally predisposed to it. The ideas in the study are obviously not mainstream, but the argument seemed compelling. Make of it what you will.

You can assume the validity of another position and work from there, yes. But you can’t hold each as true. And by hold as true, I mean for a period of time. I cannot hold the two statements “I’m always right” and “I’m always wrong” as true at the same time. It would be absurd. Critical thinking is about analyzing the two and modifying one’s view. The point being, the views must change. Holding two opposing thoughts is not a position to be held.

As of last year, less than 50% of men marry. So most don’t, then.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-30-cdcmarriage_odds_N.htm

This paints a brighter picture.

 

[DlandFan06]

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.

1. I’m not saying that I would reject a virgin for a non-virgin, although there are number of things I look for to see if we are compatible. All I’m asking is that if it’s wrong to marry a non-virgin. If a virgin gets along with me and we are compatible then we’ll probably marry.
2. I don’t think it sends out a message at all. If someone is that close then I would suggest that they pray and talk to someone who understands them. I would also point them towards Catholic groups and Catholic Clubs and Young Adult groups to help them to meet people who are virgins themselves.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I mean as a temporary state. A sensible choice is one that is in one’s own interest and advantage (for life). The wording is likely to jolt some people, but definitionally a sensible choice is sensible relative to oneself. Marriage is about sacrificing your self for your spouse and children, but that’s after you’ve chosen the person to do that towards.

Good post. Although, gay marriage is not about sacrificing for children per se.

I agree. People marry for selfish reasons. I think being selfish is a pretty normal human trait. Most humans are concerned with themselves first and foremost. Some might be more altruistic and give up having children to take care of other peoples children. But I think that’s not as typical a trait among humans.

Nothing wrong with selfishness, competition, or even at times violence. It’s how the world was ordered through evolution. It’s just life.

Some people like to play semantics - as in “collateral damages” rather than saying we’ve just blown a bunch of children and women to smithereens - others of us prefer to call a spade a spade. I see no reason to pretend people are more selfless than what they are. :coffeeread:

Though… life might not be so gloom - even if you’re a eunuch - if we listen to the advice in this song: youtube.com/watch?v=aJn3QJYYBr0

That way… a person has no reason to get angry and jealous over two happy lesbians making out whilst the observing person is still heterosexual and virgin. That goes for non-virgins angry over the unfairness in life. Having a spouse is not all it’s cracked up to be. Ask Al Bundy. Or maybe not. Point is the grass always appears to be greener on the other side. Marriage comes with it’s own sets of problems.

 

[TimeEntrance]

In one of my classes, David, some years back, I had a young Catholic woman that to me looked almost like a semi-twin sister of Anne Hathaway, if that makes any sense.

The only reason I know she was Catholic was because it indirectly came up in a discussion out in the hall.

She was a pretty cool woman. Strong type and very determined to get what she wants type too. She made it be known several times in her own way that she wanted me. However, being distrustful and wise as I am, I never tried to encourage her.

Here’s my suggestion: Don’t worry about women. And in your daily personal life offline… don’t pay all that much attention to any of them. You might find that works slightly better for you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway



I don’t think coming across lonely or desperate usually works in the favor of most guys virgin or otherwise. Even if they are fundamentally good guys.

 

[Dale_M]

You can assume the validity of another position and work from there, yes. But you can’t hold each as true. And by hold as true, I mean for a period of time. I cannot hold the two statements “I’m always right” and “I’m always wrong” as true at the same time. It would be absurd. Critical thinking is about analyzing the two and modifying one’s view. The point being, the views must change. Holding two opposing thoughts is not a position to be held.

Okay, I can agree with that. Although perhaps it is possible to favor one point of view, yet not entirely dismiss its alternatives?

As of last year, less than 50% of men marry. So most don’t, then.

The latest data I have seen is from 2009, but it shows that at age 30, 60% of men in the US have been married at least once. For men aged 35, 75% of men have been married at least once. At age 50, 89% of men have been married at least once.
census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf
(see table 3 on page 8)

I am not sure where you live, but at least in the US things are not so bleak for guys.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

That’s great that your circles of women are very broad. Do you realize though that there could be whole sections of other women who think differently because they run in different circles than you? The US is a pretty big place with many, many different subcultures within it. I am not claiming that your rule is an overgeneralization because of just one person, I’m claiming it’s an overgeneralization because pretty much every woman I know contradicts your general conclusion. Sure, hey might like a guy that is popular with the ladies more, but having had sex would not be a draw for them, it would be something they would need to overlook. Because of this, I think it is wrong to claim that women in general desire non-virgins, but rather women within cretain cultural circles do so. Again, please do not make subh overgeneralizations, I is offensive not only to me but to practically every woman I know, as well as to many I have now met on CAF. You just live in a completely different world than me but that does not mean that my world is any less real.

 

[thewanderer]

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

My poin is that if whoever is jilted is going to be jilted because the other person is more desireable, not because of the other persons virginal status. His means that whichever person is jolted out to feel just as torn up inside. Which means that no matter who is picked the othe one is going to be torn up and emotionally upset. So why do you only care about the virgin? Do you think it’s permisable to mess with non-virgin’s emotions?

The point that I am making is that whether or not the person is a virgin makes no difference tothe emotional pain they will, so it is in fact you who are being callous in discarding the feelings of the nonvirgin as unimportant while claiming that one should marry the virgin so as not to hurt their feelings. Non-virgins are people too and it is not ok to treat their emotions and feelings so callously.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

This is again a ridiculous overgeneralization, and one which most certainly does no apply to me as I have already made clear so it’s quite unfair of you to claim that since I fall into this generalization I just can’t understand what’s being said.

I can entirely understand why someone (male or female) would want to marry a virgin. I most certainly would prefer to marry a virgin. But that does not mean that virginity should ever be the sole guiding factor in one’s decision. I would prefer the person I marry to be a virgin, but if I had met and fell in love with a good loving man who later admitted to not being a virgin I would not then immediately discard him just because he wasn’t a virgin and go for his virgin friend instead. To do so would would be callous and unkind. It would certaibly effect my ulimate choice but, it would not mean that he gets tossed out the window as though virginity were the only thing that mattered.

 

[Lucky7]

This is again a ridiculous overgeneralization, and one which most certainly does no apply to me as I have already made clear so it’s quite unfair of you to claim that since I fall into this generalization I just can’t understand what’s being said.

I can entirely understand why someone (male or female) would want to marry a virgin. I most certainly would prefer to marry a virgin. But that does not mean that virginity should ever be the sole guiding factor in one’s decision. I would prefer the person I marry to be a virgin, but if I had met and fell in love with a good loving man who later admitted to not being a virgin I would not then immediately discard him just because he wasn’t a virgin and go for his virgin friend instead. To do so would would be callous and unkind. It would certaibly effect my ulimate choice but, it would not mean that he gets tossed out the window as though virginity were the only thing that mattered.

That is way too common sensical.

 

[Norseman82]

My poin is that if whoever is jilted is going to be jilted because the other person is more desireable, not because of the other persons virginal status. His means that whichever person is jolted out to feel just as torn up inside. Which means that no matter who is picked the othe one is going to be torn up and emotionally upset. So why do you only care about the virgin? Do you think it’s permisable to mess with non-virgin’s emotions?

The point that I am making is that whether or not the person is a virgin makes no difference tothe emotional pain they will, so it is in fact you who are being callous in discarding the feelings of the nonvirgin as unimportant while claiming that one should marry the virgin so as not to hurt their feelings. Non-virgins are people too and it is not ok to treat their emotions and feelings so callously.

The virgins put in the effort to obey the rules, the fornicators didn’t. Therefore, it is a bigger slap in the face to the virgins. Remember what the good thief said on the cross (Luke 21:41): “We deserve it, after all. We are only paying the price for what we’ve done, but this man has done nothing wrong”.

 

[joshvanrad]

The virgins put in the effort to obey the rules, the fornicators didn’t. Therefore, it is a bigger slap in the face to the virgins. Remember what the good thief said on the cross (Luke 21:41): “We deserve it, after all. We are only paying the price for what we’ve done, but this man has done nothing wrong”.

That is pretty harsh when it comes to those who were uneducated, not raised in the faith, etc and ended up converting to the Catholic Church.