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

[CountrySinger]

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.

Exactly! And it is very hard to not have sex when you’ve had it before. If a person is a virgin, they don’t know how good it is. But when a formerly sexually active person decides to be chaste, they know how GREAT sex is. They know what they are missing out on.

It’s easy to say “no” when you have no idea how wonderful it is. In some ways, virgins have it easier in religious circles. Maybe that is why I never fit in! All the purity repelled me!

 

[Havard]

Saying “I practice chastity” should be explanatory enough. There’s no need to make up an expression such as “born again virgin”. I only discuss my history (saying ‘born again virgin’ equates to telling people you’ve had sex) if it’s pertinent to a discussion, otherwise, it’s pretty personal to just throw out there.

 

[Norseman82]

The reason it is “scoffed” at is that it cheapens the efforts of those who really are virgins and it is used as another weapon in the arsenal to “scoff at” or “cheat” real virgins who seek fellow real virgins to marry (THAT is where I see more “scoffing” here at CAF!). And the “invention” or “introduction” of the term may be due to a phenomena that is plaguing society in general on a larger scale: people try to escape the consequences of their actions. How many times do we see an implicit attitude in posts here that going to confession restores virginity?

 

[whatevergirl]

I think it’s just a term to make people feel good. Not to knock people who have had premarital sex, and then now are living chastely. But, that’s actually what it is…there is no such thing as a born again virgin. We sin, we repent…we pick up our cross and move forward. But, to label something that really has no true meaning, seems kind of trite. You’re either a virgin or you’re not. If you didn’t wait for marriage to have sex, it doesn’t change that you are still an awesome child of God. But, you’re not a virgin anymore. But, Jesus came to redeem us. If you have done unchaste things…repent…and move forward. As with anything we do wrong in the sight of God. No need to come up with a catchy label that truly, has no meaning.

edit–and to add…If you are not a virgin, and asked about your ‘‘status’’ by someone you’re dating…just say…I was sexually active in my past, but realize that is not how we are to live in the Lord. I’ve now chosen chastity until marriage. Period.

‘‘Born again virgin’’ sounds like an afterschool christian tv show title. lol

 

[BlueShadow123]

HAH. Never even heard of that. But I guess if you’d like to consider yourself a virgin again, you can. Doesn’t make it true though. I have heard multiple times on the news that there is a plastic surgery that women can get to make it ‘look’ like you are a virgin again. Sounds ridiculus to me. I do know that in other countries if you are not a virgin, you will NOT be wanted for marriage. So I guess that surgery might come in handy in that type of situation. Still sad though.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This reminds me of the Bristol Palin nonsense where she got pregnant out of wedlock with a creep. She had the baby, then was back with the guy and telling the world that they were not sleeping together and touting chastity and going around to these unwed mothers conferences “educating” the public about how to avoid pregnancy, be pro-life, etc. It’s easy after you’ve had plenty of sex and got pregnant and then broke up with the guy to not sleep together. It was like she was giving up something huge for Lent…After she’s already done the deed a heap of times with the guy, you’ll pardon me if I’m not impressed at her “will power”

 

[Petergee]

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.

It’s the other way around. Those who call themselves “born again virgins” are the ones who see the tag “virgin” as a sort of medal they can pin to themselves for achieving X years of chastity. Which of course all of us can only achieve with God’s help, not merely on our own resources.

Anyway, as everyone who is baptised is born again, the description “born again virgin” in fact describes everybody who has been baptised and hasn’t participated in any sexual activity.

 

[3DOCTORS]

What if they used the term “secondary virginity” instead? I think that is more apt. Here’s why:

1. It acknowledges that there was a “primary” virginity that can’t be gotten back, while at the same time,
2. It gives positive reinforcement for making a fresh start, and it goes with the idea that God puts our sins away as far as the East is from the West when we sincerely repent.
3. Among young persons especially, it might save some from going down the path of, “Oh, well, I’ve blown it anyway, I might as well keep on” etc.

 

[Fidelia]

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.

I understood the likely meaning of the phrase, but I also agree with others who have said that it is a very poor choice of terminology. The terms “virginity” and “chastity” should not be confused. Virginity can be lost in either a chaste way (i.e. consummating marriage) or an unchaste way (e.g. fornication).
I also agree that virginity is not a “medal” one is awarded with, but I think that it is black and white. One either is or is no longer a virgin. Those who “do everything but” as you mention, may still materially be virgins, but have not behaved chastely. On the other hand, one who has lost virginity in an unchaste way can then still choose to live chastely at some point after, even though the person is no longer a virgin. Likewise, as I mentioned marriage as a chaste loss (or a giving, rather) of virginity, spouses are actually called to be chaste in marriage as well. So either way, there can and should be chastity (whether it be re-established or continued) after a loss of virginity. Virginity is a material fact, chastity is a behavior.

added in edit

 

[Fidelia]

What if they used the term “secondary virginity” instead? I think that is more apt. Here’s why:

1. It acknowledges that there was a “primary” virginity that can’t be gotten back, while at the same time,
2. It gives positive reinforcement for making a fresh start, and it goes with the idea that God puts our sins away as far as the East is from the West when we sincerely repent.
3. Among young persons especially, it might save some from going down the path of, “Oh, well, I’ve blown it anyway, I might as well keep on” etc.

Using the term “secondary chastity” might be more appropriate, as a way of showing a re-establishment of chaste behavior, without implying anything material.

1. Virginity as a material fact either is or is not, and can’t be gotten back. Chastity as a behavior can be re-adopted after having left it.
2. Yes, I would totally agree, if using “secondary chastity” instead of “secondary virginity.”
3. Yes and no. The fact that once virginity is gone it is gone should not be candy-coated. But yes, they should definitely be assured that neither one, nor five, nor whatever number of mistakes, means that they can’t change their behavior for the better, and can still choose to live more chastely, even if they are no longer virgins. Because yes, thankfully, God does forgive.

 

[ForAll]

It’s the other way around. Those who call themselves “born again virgins” are the ones who see the tag “virgin” as a sort of medal they can pin to themselves for achieving X years of chastity.

I disagree. Most people on this forum who use the phrase born-again virgin, which I believe is what the OP was referencing, are not proud of themselves and their sins. Most people who are truly trying to live chaste lives are incredibly ashamed of their past sins.

The idea that it cheapens “real” virgins to have the term BAV be used is ludicrous. They’re not saying they’re “virgins,” and don’t worry, even if they are, it’s not going to make your title mean less. I feel so frustrated by the desire of some people to have a monopoly on the word “virgin”–these people aren’t saying, I’m a virgin! They’ve made a whole new phrase which borrows that word, that’s all. I could understand being mad if they said, “I’m a virgin too!” but really they had had sex. But that’s not the case…

It reminds me of hanging out with a running club and overhearing the super-elite runners saying, “yeah it’s ridiculous that they let people who run it in 5 hours call themselves marathoners–it cheapens the achievement for the rest of us.” No, it doesn’t in that case and it doesn’t here. This isn’t school, and we’re not graded on a curve–so y’all who have abstained get to be a virgins, and others get to be BAV (which is to say, repentant sinners!), and somebody else gets to be whatever their choices (past and present) make them. What we are does not diminish what someone else is: all your goodness stands in its own right, and so does the person’s next to you. So your virginity (which is great!) isn’t tarnished by someone’s new-found commitment to chastity and subsequent use of the phrase “born again virgin” to describe themselves.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Using the term “secondary chastity” might be more appropriate, as a way of showing a re-establishment of chaste behavior, without implying anything material.

1. Virginity as a material fact either is or is not, and can’t be gotten back. Chastity as a behavior can be re-adopted after having left it.
2. Yes, I would totally agree, if using “secondary chastity” instead of “secondary virginity.”
3. Yes and no. The fact that once virginity is gone it is gone should not be candy-coated. But yes, they should definitely be assured that neither one, nor five, nor whatever number of mistakes, means that they can’t change their behavior for the better, and can still choose to live more chastely, even if they are no longer virgins. Because yes, thankfully, God does forgive.

I see your point on #1 and #2 but I think “secondary chastity” doesn’t have the evangelization panache, if you will, of “secondary virginity.” Perhaps “recommitted to chastity” or something.

But it seems like sometimes even secularized young people’s attention would be momentarily grabbed with the “secondary virginity” phrase - and perhaps that’s precisely because the word virginity is “about sex.” So maybe it’s not ideal, but maybe it’s an opportunity to get them to listen and reflect longer. Dunno.

 

[Sillara]

Virginity is binary. You either are, or you are not. It is dishonest and inaccurate to use terms which suggest otherwise.

Chastity is a more appropriate term. One can, after having fallen from chastity, aspire to regain it. One can begin to live chastely after having failed to do so in the past; God can forgive. This does NOT restore lost virginity. Nothing can. To fail to acknowledge this is to fail to recognize the importance of virginity.

And, please, it IS important. Whether that gift is preserved inviolate for God’s sake or whether that gift is given to one’s spouse, it is IMPORTANT. The gift is a precious one. We must, as Catholics, be truthful and honest. In our anxiety to assure those who have fallen from chastity–and, more particularly, those who have lost their virginity sinfully (as in, through their own wish and not with their spouse)–that there is forgiveness, that there is hope, we must not thereby state or imply that the sin is not grave. This encourages those who have not sinned in such wise to see that particular sin as light or unimportant.

 

[BlueSprite]

Yeah I agree with the folks who say the term (born again virgin) is in itself, something of an oxymoron. One simply can not be a “born again virgin” as the term “virgin” is used to describe a physical condition which either one is, or is not. Any modification thereof, with the use of modifiers like “born again,” “reborn,” “reclaimed” or whatever, nullifies the word “virgin” thus rendering the term “born again virgin” meaningless.

Because the thing is… virginity is not claimed. It’s not something you can “become” or turn yourself into. It’s something you’re born with. In a way, it’s a gift…a gift from God - and once lost, cannot be gotten back. In using the term “born again virgin,” it’s like a person is taking a condition granted only by God, and applying it to oneself as one sees fit. And even though it’s not the same as calling oneself a virgin, by saying one is born again as a virgin, it’s like that person is trying to grant themselves that status…but again…a person can never make himself or herself a virgin because it’s not a choice - it’s not their choice…it was God’s choice.

For me personally however, I think any effort to remain chaste after having had “relations” with another is admirable…but I don’t really see the need to have a label for it.

 

[Petergee]

I see your point on #1 and #2 but I think “secondary chastity” doesn’t have the evangelization panache, if you will, of “secondary virginity.” Perhaps “recommitted to chastity” or something.

But it seems like sometimes even secularized young people’s attention would be momentarily grabbed with the “secondary virginity” phrase - and perhaps that’s precisely because the word virginity is “about sex.” So maybe it’s not ideal, but maybe it’s an opportunity to get them to listen and reflect longer. Dunno.

Only they won’t reflect for very long at all, because as soon as they realise that a “secondary virgin” is not really a virgin, they’ll close their ears and walk away saying what hypocrites Christians are for inventing new definitions of common words just so that they can claim to be better than other people.

Not that I’m saying that of course, but you know that’s what they will say. I rejoice with Heaven about every sinner who repents. In the parable the father welcomed back the prodigal son, but he didn’t say to him what he said to the elder son, “You are with me always and all I have is yours.”

 

[Havard]

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.

Exactly. Loving the Lord isn’t supposed to be a contest of who can follow the rules best.

“Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

Don’t be a bitter brother. Rather,

“Rejoice with me, because I have found the groat which I had lost. So I say to you, there shall be** joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance**.”

 

[LemonAndLime]

Just wanted to add my two cents.

I’ve never had a good opinion of those who claim they are “born again” virgins.

Let me explain. It’s like someone cheating on their wife, admitting it to their wife, getting over it together, and then claiming they’re a “born again” husband. They might have repented and gone onto a better path, but they haven’t changed history. What they did still happened. To me it comes across as if they’re not recognising what they did in the past - “Oh we’ve started off fresh,” - yeah you might well have patched things over, but what you did still happened so it’s better to recognise it then to claim that you’ve just started fresh. You’re still the same person you once were.

Or I suppose it’s like playing video games. You lose, so quit the game and then re-load it so you can begin that level again as if nothing happened. That’s not right really.

Does anyone else understand what I’m trying to say?

 

[Havard]

Just wanted to add my two cents.

I’ve never had a good opinion of those who claim they are “born again” virgins.

Let me explain. It’s like someone cheating on their wife, admitting it to their wife, getting over it together, and then claiming they’re a “born again” husband. They might have repented and gone onto a better path, but they haven’t changed history. What they did still happened. To me it comes across as if they’re not recognising what they did in the past - “Oh we’ve started off fresh,” - yeah you might well have patched things over, but what you did still happened so it’s better to recognise it then to claim that you’ve just started fresh. You’re still the same person you once were.

Or I suppose it’s like playing video games. You lose, so quit the game and then re-load it so you can begin that level again as if nothing happened. That’s not right really.

Does anyone else understand what I’m trying to say?

Yes. That’s why we’re Catholics and not evangelical Christians. We have different views on what was meant by new birth in Scripture.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Yes. That’s why we’re Catholics and not evangelical Christians. We have different views on what was meant by new birth in Scripture.

So what I said was in line with Catholic teaching?

 

[Meximo]

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.

Okay, I am just going to be honest - I might scoff (or at least think with scoff in my heart) Yeah…I know, I know… bad Catholic, but I am being honest, know it’s something that I need to overcome and mention in my next confession.

I think we use labels all to often. Why do we need to announce that we are a virgin or chaste?

It reminds me of a quote that I have seen floating on the internet… “What has been seen cannot be unseen.” One had sex, they can’t take that back. Repent and move forward.

Do we have to announce itI’m a virgin - hee, touched for the very first time… In my bad Madonna voice} everywhere?.. now if you excuse me I am going to post something inappropriate on my Facebook account and Twitter my life story.