Why do people scoff at "born-again" virgins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToeInTheWater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToeInTheWater

Guest
So I’ve noticed, mostly in the secular media but on CAF as well, a tendency to scoff at people who describe themselves as “born-again virgins” or “secondary virgins”. Meaning someone who has had premarital sex in the past but has repented of it and is now committed to chastity. Often, people use quotes or say “so-called born-again virgin”, in a way that seems to be mocking the term (I am not personally using the quotes for mockery purposes). Now, I can understand the secular attitude, that tends to think being any kind of virgin is silly, and certianly not something to aspire to, and finds it irrational for someone to give up such an enjoyable activity as sex.

But I’ve seen posts on CAF too where someone refers to himself or herself as a born-again virgin or secondary virgin and the response isn’t really that welcoming. Perhaps because this terminology, especially the “born-again” reference, is used more by evangelicals? Or perhaps people who are, I guess, “primary” virgins think their status is compromised if other people claim to be any kind of virgin when they’re not. Now, I can understand if people think this kind of terminology is silly and wouldn’t use it themselves, especially for a person who has been sexually active for years, had a child, etc. Personally I prefer the idea of chastity as a virtue to be practiced by everyone, whether single, religious, or married, but I’m not sure why people who choose to describe themselves this way seem to be scoffed at.
 
In my opinion, referring to yourself as a ‘born again virgin’ implies that deep down you think you are cool for having ‘experience’

Someone who has had premarital sex, confessed and genuinely repented would never talk about themselves that way. They would make statements such as ‘I know I have committed sins in the past’ or they would say things like ‘Only god can judge’. But there is NO reason to give out such information unless they are strugging to mend their ways. And if that was the case they would use language such as ‘I fell again how can I avoid the temptation’

‘Born again virgin’ is such a degrading statement to make about oneself

CM
 
It is not that the repentance is anything to be scoffed at. It is the terminology. Virginity is not something about which you get a mulligan. There is a fundamental change that is being swept under the rug. Let’s see: substitute “secondary mint-condition” or “secondary fidelity” (as a phrase to describe someone who has turned from adultery). How about “born-again innocent”? Once you’ve eaten of the tree of knowledge, the innocence cannot be regained.

Something positive is fitting, but the terms you bring up go over into sounding like a marketting gimmick, or a trick phrase for a resume, a try to inject glamour. That is just kind of weird in a spiritual setting. Isn’t there is enough marketting and spin in the world?

It a person were to say, instead, at the age of 28, “I’ve been chaste for five years”, that is more like a person who says they’re “clean and sober”. It is just what you are, without having spin put onto it. In a way, it makes it more clear that the purity is chosen daily, in spite of lost innocence. It is more honest, I guess.
 
I know that some people have said to me they want a “second virginity” or they’re going to be celibate until marriage because they realized they made mistakes. I’m not sure about the “born-again virginity” thing.

One of the challenges with people who use “born again virgin,” “secondary virginity,” or “celibacy” is that people don’t take them seriously because they’ve “eaten the forbidden fruit.” I had a roommate who did regret losing her virginity before marriage, and after she ended her relationship with the boyfriend she had sex with and entered a new one, the new boyfriend would say things like “oh, so he was good enough to have sex with, but I’m not?”

Sometimes people share information about themselves in such a manner because they just want to let others know that they truly are struggling. It can be difficult to be taken seriously about waiting until marriage especially after having had the experience, and I think labels can be a protective thing for others.
 
Secondary virgin? lol That’s a new one, never heard it.
To me that just sounds silly. Either you are a virgin or you’re not. And once you’re not anymore there’s no going back just like innocence, as EasterJoy rightly said.
The phrase also doesn’t really hit the nail if it is used to describe someone who used to have premarital sex and now lives chastely according to his or her status. Virginity doesn’t automatically make you chaste. Chastity is so much more than not having intercourse!
On a more personal level, as someone who would qualify for the phrase: I would never use it to describe myself. I would feel rather rediculous seeing that I have a nearly adult son. And just think about all the jokes about virgin births and Mary that would provoke!
I also find the phrase way too positiv. I feel so much sorrow and remorse when I think how I’ve thrown away that great gift. And just to imagin how much suffering in purgatory it that has earned me…:nope:
No, secondary virgin is definitely one of the worst euphemisms I’ve ever heard!
 
Well, I didn’t come up with it:shrug: It’s been around far longer than I have…lol.

I think people get wrapped up in labels. Either because they feel the need to identify in a certain way, protect themselves, or whatever. Yes, secondary virginity is a little odd, isn’t it?..but what about a person who was raped? I’ve had lots of friends who were raped and it didn’t seem fair to tell them that they weren’t virgins, when that decision wasn’t made by them. But I guess that’s a different topic.

I think celibacy and chaste are probably better descriptors.
 
spunjalebi said:
Well, I didn’t come up with it:shrug: It’s been around far longer than I have…lol.

I think people get wrapped up in labels. Either because they feel the need to identify in a certain way, protect themselves, or whatever. Yes, secondary virginity is a little odd, isn’t it?..but what about a person who was raped? I’ve had lots of friends who were raped and it didn’t seem fair to tell them that they weren’t virgins, when that decision wasn’t made by them. But I guess that’s a different topic.

I think celibacy and chaste are probably better descriptors.
Click to expand...
You make a valid point there about rape. I see virginity on two levels: biologically and spiritually. I see rape and abuse victims still as virgins even though biologically they are not. Your biological virginity can be taken away from you but your spiritual virginity can not! That you have to give away of your own free will.
I know both, the taking away and the giving. The taking away when I was twelve has brought me suffering in this world but the giving away much later has brought me suffering in the next world. I regret that a lot more!
 
ToeInTheWater said:
So I’ve noticed, mostly in the secular media but on CAF as well, a tendency to scoff at people who describe themselves as “born-again virgins” or “secondary virgins”. Meaning someone who has had premarital sex in the past but has repented of it and is now committed to chastity. Often, people use quotes or say “so-called born-again virgin”, in a way that seems to be mocking the term (I am not personally using the quotes for mockery purposes). Now, I can understand the secular attitude, that tends to think being any kind of virgin is silly, and certianly not something to aspire to, and finds it irrational for someone to give up such an enjoyable activity as sex.

But I’ve seen posts on CAF too where someone refers to himself or herself as a born-again virgin or secondary virgin and the response isn’t really that welcoming. Perhaps because this terminology, especially the “born-again” reference, is used more by evangelicals? Or perhaps people who are, I guess, “primary” virgins think their status is compromised if other people claim to be any kind of virgin when they’re not. Now, I can understand if people think this kind of terminology is silly and wouldn’t use it themselves, especially for a person who has been sexually active for years, had a child, etc. Personally I prefer the idea of chastity as a virtue to be practiced by everyone, whether single, religious, or married, but I’m not sure why people who choose to describe themselves this way seem to be scoffed at.
Click to expand...
When I see the term, “born-again virgin” I don’t scoff at the individual but rather the title. I am actually happy that the person has made a decision to be chaste and I hope that they continue. However, when it comes to virginity, it is IMHO either present or it isn’t. Either a person is a virgin or they are not. There is no such thing as undoing sexual acts. Sin has consequences and in the case of when a person decides to engage in sex but later regrets it, they do not get to erase the fact that they made a bad decision. Suppose they had contracted HIV. Can they then decide that they are “born-again HIV negative?” Can a married man declare, “I’m a born-again single?”

I guess my point is it would sound a whole lot more intelligent and honest to simply say, “I am living a chaste life.”
 
I agree that it’s about terminology. A similar thing goes for “Same-Sex Attraction” (SSA) - it’s something that isn’t found in any Catholic document, and yet people on CAF use it all the time.

I think that part of the aversion to it here is the overused term: “born again.” While this is a Scriptural term it has been hijacked by Evangelical Christianity to imply un-Catholic doctrine such as OSAS. No self-respecting Catholic would call himself “born again” anything because of the connotations this now carries.

I haven’t thought about it before, and I haven’t knowingly applied the term to myself, but I am one of those people who has led a promiscuous lifestyle and repented. To you and others who seek a better term for a noble effort I suggest we coin the phrase “Modern-Day Augustine” - St. Augustine is well-known for his depraved pagan ways and his sincere repentance through the fervent prayer and intercession of his mother, St. Monica. I was taught in high school by the Augustinian order, and those were the very formative years on which I relied when I finally realized the errors of my ways, repented, and returned to the Church. So let’s drop the baggage of an unflattering term, and celebrate our new life in Christ as “Modern-Day Augustines!”
 
While I would hope never to scoff at anybody, these terms just make no sense. It’s equivalent to energetic 40 - and 50 somethings talking about “secondary youth.”

When someone is spoken of as being in a “second childhood,” most of us don’t consider that a positive thing. Secondary virginity sounds the same, IMNAAHO. Youth, innocence, virginity and life itself are not regained when lost, and we should not euphemistically pretend they can be.

One’s sexual status need never become a topic of conversation at all; again IMNAAHO. If the situation must be talked about, why can’t one simply tell the truth, that one has previously sinned sexually, and is now striving to chastity?

God Bless and ICXC NIKA!
 
Hoernchen said:
You make a valid point there about rape. I see virginity on two levels: biologically and spiritually. I see rape and abuse victims still as virgins even though biologically they are not. Your biological virginity can be taken away from you but your spiritual virginity can not! That you have to give away of your own free will.
I know both, the taking away and the giving. The taking away when I was twelve has brought me suffering in this world but the giving away much later has brought me suffering in the next world. I regret that a lot more!
Click to expand...
As we were born into original sin, none of us but Our Lord and Our Lady have ever been spiritual virgins. We all have to be born again through baptism. That is why I would really hesitate to make virginity into something other than a freedom from a physical experience. After all, a bride is no longer a virgin when her marriage is consumated. She has incurred no guilt, but she has had an experience that will change her forever.

A rape victim, unlike a bride, has suffered a grievious violation in the loss of virginity. But neither one is thought of as “guilty” of loss of virginity.

Just as we talk of a forest being raped, the forest that grows back is not virgin timber. It has a different nature than it did. That doesn’t mean the land does not have a life-giving essence. There is a critical difference in the nature of that essence, though. It does not matter that the forest can’t be faulted for it. That isn’t the point. To speak of loss of virginity is to speak of the loss of a primal state. It doesn’t necessarily imply sin. Honestly, I think it would be better if, when it came to whether the person is “guilty” of the loss of his or her virginity, the rest of us would maybe just mind our business about it, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
 
spunjalebi said:
I know that some people have said to me they want a “second virginity”** or they’re going to be celibate until marriage because they realized they made mistake**s. I’m not sure about the “born-again virginity” thing.

./QUOTE
I agree with this. I think repenting and then choosing to save oneself to marriage is a very, beautiful thing and a testament to the power of change.👍
Click to expand...
 
spunjalebi said:
Well, I didn’t come up with it:shrug: It’s been around far longer than I have…lol.

I think people get wrapped up in labels. Either because they feel the need to identify in a certain way, protect themselves, or whatever. Yes, secondary virginity is a little odd, isn’t it?..but what about a person who was raped? I’ve had lots of friends who were raped and it didn’t seem fair to tell them that they weren’t virgins, when that decision wasn’t made by them. But I guess that’s a different topic.

I think celibacy and chaste are probably better descriptors.
Click to expand...
I agree with what others have said about the term being a bit odd. I think people who describe themselves as “born again virgins” want it to be clearly known that they changed and now intend to reserve sexual intimacy for marriage. “Celebate until marriage” or “chaste” better describes that situation.

You’re right that rape is a different subject, but I want to comment on that since you brought it up. Being raped is certainly *not *the same as loosing virginity by one’s own choice and actions. Saying that a woman who was a virgin before she was raped is still a virgin almost makes light of what happened to her. I agree it isn’t fair to tell a woman who was raped that she is not a virgin–but you don’t have to tell her that. What’s really not fair is the fact that she was raped and robbed of her virginity. And to any woman reading this who has been raped, my prayers for you.
 
I don’t like the term either. Even “secondary virginity” is a little flip and also confusing to anyone who hears it.

It is not something to be proud of, to have thrown away God’s gift to His choice of a spouse. It is something that one shouldn’t discuss in that way. If someone has repented about previous sexual sin, that is a private matter. I would never speak about such things and use “born-again virgin.” It even demeans the meaning of “born again” to the Protestants.

Bad all the way around.
 
Elizium23 said:
I agree that it’s about terminology. A similar thing goes for “Same-Sex Attraction” (SSA) - it’s something that isn’t found in any Catholic document, and yet people on CAF use it all the time.
Click to expand...
Sure it’s in plenty of Catholic documents. Maybe not in official Vatican documents which are written in Latin, but in English “homosexuality” is confusingly used interchangeably for both those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder, and those who engage in sexual acts with others of the same sex. Very often this confusion between the two meanings is quite deliberately created by pro-sodomy activists, e.g. by false slogans such as “homosexuals don’t have equal rights”. Using the term “same-sex attraction” serves to distinguish the attraction (which in itself is not sinful for the person who suffers from it) and the gravely sinful actions which some such people engage in. It is thus a far more respectful as well as more accurate term in English…

And yes I certainly scoff at the absurd and oxymoronic term “born-again virgin”. Until I saw this thread I had only ever heard it used as a joke; I had no idea that some people quite seriously apply it to themselves. Apart from being totally contradictory, it is unsulting to virgins.

I have the greatest respect for virginity and for chastity.

And yes the Church says that moral virginity does not necessarily require physical virginity eg in the case of a nun who is raped, she has not broken her vow of virginity.
 
“Born again virgin” could also mean (depending on the person), that the person in question has overcome their previous mistakes and circumstances of sin, and thus feel “born again” or that they transcended and seek to live the lifestyle of being a chaste virgin. I am aware that sounds rather lofty and metaphysical, but I have spoken to quite a few people who have explained this to me and why they described them selves the way they did. And they were genuine about it.

However, they didn’t air it around for all to see. I didn’t get into these conversations until I spent a lot of time with them, and the topics we discussed was mutually agreed upon so we were both comfortable. I sincerely doubt IRL people are open that much when it comes to talking about virginity and sexuality.
 
spunjalebi said:
However, they didn’t air it around for all to see. .
Click to expand...
THAT’s the key. We’ve become way too open in this society. Some of it is good (people talking about having cancer, support groups, etc) some of it isn’t (do we really need to see people posting you-know-what types of pictures on Facebook? Or using “Twitter” to announce a miscarriage?)
 
I imagine under the guise of anonymity it can be cathartic to express “born again virginity,” especially when IRL it’s difficult for someone to share even with people they are close with, either due to judgment from past choices, getting scoffed at or not taken seriously, etc.

And trust me…IRL people who have struggled have very great fears of being judged. I’ve worked with people and been friends with those who have these fears, and when they shared what happened in the past I could still see the look of shame on their faces. I guess I’m a little more empathetic because these people were also giving me warnings.
 
I think most people use it on this forum to describe their situation without going into detail: they’ve been sexually active (in some form) before, but are committed to chastity now. I don’t hear it used non-virally very much in Catholic circles, so I don’t think the “where has the modesty/privacy” concern really holds much water.

I will admit that it frustrates me to read people say things such as, “it’s insulting to virgins to use that term.” Virginity is not a medal that certain people are awarded and get to parade around, reminding others they are not worthy of it. Virginity in Christian circles is too much of a black/white issue: if you’ve had sex, you aren’t, if you haven’t, you are. But what about those who do everything but, those who are not pure in their mind or heart? This black/white type thinking makes virginity the ultimate achievement for a modern Christian-- a status symbol.

Of course virginity is a good, holy thing; the Liturgy of the Hours has a “common of virgins,” afterall. But we have many many saints who weren’t virgins. I doubt there is a convert or “re-vert” who has had sex, and wishes they hadn’t. The feeling of loss is incredible, and the struggle to get back to purity is difficult. With this pervasive of a struggle, “virgin” isn’t a label we should be so eager to slap on or leave off of anyone.

I think those who scoff at it have an overblown sense of the importance of virginity, as a status symbol, and do not respect others’ struggle for chastity. Lack of humility and charity would be the main reason for scoffing at a person who uses a common shorthand on an internet forum to describe themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top