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

[spunjalebi]

I’ve said this before, but hardly IRL do I encounter people who openly proclaim that they are virgins or are practicing chastity or whatever. Most of the time when people share these things it’s for a purpose-- for instance I once attended youth group where the youth pastor talked to us about chastity and mentioned he was a virgin at marriage. Another time I talked to a girl and was friends with her and she told me that she was going to practice celibacy until marriage because she had past regrets. I’ve never really heard of “born again virginity” IRL.

I also think people share these things with others so people around them can know where they stand. For instance, before my husband and I were even officially dating, I made it clear that I was a virgin and my expectations were that it was going to stay that way until marriage.

 

[Havard]

So what I said was in line with Catholic teaching?

Catholics believe in baptismal rebirth, which happens once and that’s it. It doesn’t require some stirring conversion story. And we don’t believe in ‘once saved, always saved.’ Rather, we believe Christians are free to turn away from the Lord at any time. Because face it, Christians can and do sin, sometimes in big ways.

So you’d never hear a Catholic say “oh, I slept around, but that was before I was saved.” Rather than pretend it was another person, we just do our best and pray for His grace to help us overcome the sins we’ve struggled with.

 

[Norseman82]

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**.”

Maybe the older brother would not have been so bitter had he gotten the occasional kid goat…

 

[EasterJoy]

Maybe the older brother would not have been so bitter had he gotten the occasional kid goat…

Maybe he was just as clueless as the brother who left…“He said to his father in reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends” Luke 15:29

The feasts enjoyed “only” with the family apparently didn’t count. A virgin who holds the world in contempt, instead of in compassion, would be in the same boat. This is not what saints are made of, and Our Lord makes that clear in the parable.

Virginity is like that. It is not a status symbol. It is to be set aside for the Father, doing the Father’s will. That is where the joy is in it: “He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.” Luke 15:31

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

If you have to say you are chaste but not a virgin–and who needs to know this, save a confessor, a physician or a possible spouse, I could not say–then I think “recommitted to chastity” would work fine. If you have been the victim of a crime, then “chaste, but not physically a virgin, because I was attacked” would give the picture or “not without experience, but not always with my consent” or some such for a more complicated case. A future spouse ought to know where your most wounded places are, because that needs special care and compassion.

If you are talking to a doctor, then you’d need to give a bit more detail as to how long you have been chaste and the nature of what you experienced before that.

When you have to be honest, you have to be honest. Otherwise, I think that you do not need to feel compelled to give a full history to anyone who brings up the subject. Virgin or not, it is OK to keep your privacy on matters of that nature. When you are letting it be known what you have determined that you will or will not do, you do not have to defend your past successes and failures. If you pronounce that you will not help someone cheat on a test, and they throw it in your face that you’ve done it yourself, does that prove you are a hypocrite? Hardly! Anyone who does not want to respect that is not worth the time.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Catholics believe in baptismal rebirth, which happens once and that’s it. It doesn’t require some stirring conversion story. And we don’t believe in ‘once saved, always saved.’ Rather, we believe Christians are free to turn away from the Lord at any time. Because face it, Christians can and do sin, sometimes in big ways.

So you’d never hear a Catholic say “oh, I slept around, but that was before I was saved.” Rather than pretend it was another person, we just do our best and pray for His grace to help us overcome the sins we’ve struggled with.

Thats for clearing that up for me. In America do you have something called “the silver ring thing”? I heard it’s big over there. They have tried to bring it to Britain over the last couple of years but I don’t think its been a big success - there are small groups dotted around but they don’t advertise openly and there’s certainly no massive “pledgefests” here.

 

[Havard]

Silver Ring Thing is a group that promotes and sells their own brand of ‘purity rings’. Purity rings are somewhat popular in the U.S., moreso in some areas than others.

 

[CountrySinger]

Silver Ring Thing is a group that promotes and sells their own brand of ‘purity rings’. Purity rings are somewhat popular in the U.S., moreso in some areas than others.

Now I’m thinking of the “South Park” episode that makes fun of the Jonas Brothers, and all they sing about is purity rings.

And the fire-blowing Mickey Mouse!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Hey everyone, thanks for all the replies. So it seems the whole terminology of “born-again” or secondary virgin is seen by most people around here as rather pretentious and comes across more as a marketing gimmick than a sincere commitment to chastity. I also agree that once you lose your innocence you can’t get it back and obviously there are cases, such as when you already have a child, where calling yourself any kind of virgin is silly.

And yes, I agree that broadcasting whether you are a physical virgin or sexually active or not is rather tacky, even when meant for a “good cause”. Also, it seems sometimes people use this kind of language to justify not taking responsibility for one’s past actions, as if they were commited by another person (as Havard pointed out). I recall listening to a chastity talk on an evangelical radio station once. The speaker, who was male, used the “girls give sex to get love, boys give love to get sex” stereotype as a major part of his argument, and admitted that he himself had been such a boy, and had engaged in serious sexual sin in his youth. He even hinted that he was responsible for getting a girl pregnant. But, though of course he claimed to be repentant, I didn’t get any sense that he actually felt bad about how he had treated this girl. He just seemed to see the whole experience as part of a sinful past life before he “came to Christ”, that was far behind him, and didn’t matter anymore. So he didn’t need to actually make amends for his behavior.

However, the general consensus here does seem to be somewhat in contradiction to what I’ve read in other posts, where many posters seem to give the impression, as Norseman82 states, that “confession restores virginity”. And that potential marriage partners should pay absolutely no attention at all to virginity status, or even that it is acceptable to respond to questions about sexual pasts with “none of your business” or even to directly lie about virginity, with the justification that “confession has washed all my sins away and left me pure as the driven snow”. Well, so does baptism if someone gets baptized past the age of reason, but it doesn’t wash away all the temporal consequences of sin.

So I must confess I am rather puzzled. Isn’t lying to someone either directly or by omission much worse than trying to “spin” the truth by using a label such as “born-again” virgin?

As for purity rings…I think I’ll make another post about that one.

 

[EasterJoy]

However, the general consensus here does seem to be somewhat in contradiction to what I’ve read in other posts, where many posters seem to give the impression, as Norseman82 states, that “confession restores virginity”. And that potential marriage partners should pay absolutely no attention at all to virginity status, or even that it is acceptable to respond to questions about sexual pasts with “none of your business” or even to directly lie about virginity, with the justification that “confession has washed all my sins away and left me pure as the driven snow”. Well, so does baptism if someone gets baptized past the age of reason, but it doesn’t wash away all the temporal consequences of sin.

So I must confess I am rather puzzled. Isn’t lying to someone either directly or by omission much worse than trying to “spin” the truth by using a label such as “born-again” virgin?

As for purity rings…I think I’ll make another post about that one.

You are right. Confession does not restore virginity, any more than it mends broken glass, puts evil words back in your mouth, or brings the murdered dead back to life.

If you intend to marry, this is something about which you cannot lie to your intended. If you are chaste with your intented, you may remain silent about being a virgin before having met him, letting him take it for granted, but otherwise you need to give a history.

OTOH, I would suggest that you say something like, “I am not a virgin, but I have no veneral diseases. I have never been pregnant/have not been responsible for a pregnancy. I have been chaste for the last five years, and I’m not carrying any kind of a torch for anyone in my past.” (Or whatever is true about you, obviously…if you gave up a child for adoption, you have to say so.)

“I will tell you whatever you need to know in order to decide whether or not to marry me, but do you want to know any more than that?”

It is very possible that this kind of bare-bones information is all that some will want to know. It is worth asking about, because you can’t “untell” the truth. Nevertheless, when you hand your body over to another to make one life, the other person needs to have access to whatever he or she needs to know in order to give his or her full consent. Even if you lost your virginity through no fault of your own–perhaps especially if you lost your virginity without your consent–your intended needs to know about this. That is a huge experience. You don’t leave a minefield like that for your beloved to walk over unawares.

Do I think that a woman who has lost her virginity, but has been chaste for a good stretch of time since, is better off not marrying a man who would hold that against her? Yes. Do I think it praiseworthy for a man to be willing to marry a woman who is not a virgin but who has achieved self-mastery since then? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that she has the right to not tell him? Absolutely not. Does it go both ways? Absolutely. If I were a virgin contemplating marriage, and found he had a double standard in this area, would I take that as a red flag? Absolutely and positively. Not a deal-breaker, necessarily, but definitely not a point in his favor.

Still, marriage requires self-mastery. You could not ethically hide a lack of self-mastery any more than you could ethically hide a sea of debt or a bad work history. In order to give your intended the opportunity to give true consent, you have to come clean.

 

[Norseman82]

Maybe he was just as clueless as the brother who left…“He said to his father in reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends” Luke 15:29

The feasts enjoyed “only” with the family apparently didn’t count. A virgin who holds the world in contempt, instead of in compassion, would be in the same boat. This is not what saints are made of, and Our Lord makes that clear in the parable.

Virginity is like that. It is not a status symbol. It is to be set aside for the Father, doing the Father’s will. That is where the joy is in it: “He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.” Luke 15:31

But the older son wasn’t even invited to the younger brother’s feast! What a humiliating kick!

The point being made is this: when people do a hard job, it is natural for them to feel slighted when they are not rewarded but the people who do not do hard work get rewarded. I don’t know how old you are or if you are a student or parent or in the working world or what not, but that fact is evident all around. And after awhile, it does take its toll on those who are slighted. And please note that in the story the father never scolded the older brother for feeling the way he did - he never said “what, don’t the family meals count?” or “stop whining, your joy should be in doing my will”. Neither should we read that message in to the story when it is not there.

 

[EasterJoy]

But the older son wasn’t even invited to the younger brother’s feast! What a humiliating kick!

The point being made is this: when people do a hard job, it is natural for them to feel slighted when they are not rewarded but the people who do not do hard work get rewarded. I don’t know how old you are or if you are a student or parent or in the working world or what not, but that fact is evident all around. And after awhile, it does take its toll on those who are slighted. And please note that in the story the father never scolded the older brother for feeling the way he did - he never said “what, don’t the family meals count?” or “stop whining, your joy should be in doing my will”. Neither should we read that message in to the story when it is not there.

The older brother was not slighted, even though fallen nature feels that way. Did the father need him to work his estates? How could he? He had many servants. So why would the father require the older son to work? For the same reason that wealthy men who love their sons require them to work even now: Because it is the only way for them to find their dignity as men. It is how the father intended his sons to become like him. Likewise, our life in virtue ultimately serves only one cause: To make us into saints. As for anything else we accomplish, God could have made it happen merely by willing it so. Only our love, our willing compliance to live in His life, is something He cannot do, because of the gift of free will. Yet even that work is entirely for our welfare, is it not? That it helps others is only the splendid economy of grace. We do for others, and all we do is to gain by it. We cannot outdo God in generosity. This is as true of the work of what the catechism calls “the long and exacting” work of self-mastery as it is of any other work of virtue.

If the younger brother had to revisit the “feasts” where he went through his father’s wealth, it would be a bitter meal. The older brother was fortunate to be left out of those, and I trust you are not saying otherwise. Surely a wise virgin would say the same, and a thousand times. What feasting did the older brother miss out on, then? He refused to join the feasting for the returned brother. He was not shut out of that one except, as you pointed out, by his bitterness. All the rest was fodder for pigs. May we never envy those who stray into sin.

I never said the father scolded him. In reply to the older son’s bitter complaint, though, his father did point out: “'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.” He countered the older son’s objection with the reminder that they, father and son, had been together. That is our repayment, if only we realize what a gift it is.

Jesus gave no reason for us to believe we have cause to feel bitter if we are not recognized! "“Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’? Would he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.’” Luke 17:7-10

Remember, too, what the vineyard owner said: “When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, **‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” **Matt. 20: 8-16

If we ever meet a brother or sister repenting of a sin we have never committed, may we respond as the angels do, with unrestrained rejoicing!!

 

[spunjalebi]

I can see the point many people are making about how the use of the label seems derogatory or at least, a sense of not taking things seriously.

I do have respect for people who practice chastity after making sexual mistakes, don’t get me wrong. However, I will also admit that I do get annoyed when I hear people say “oh yeah I had sex and yeah it’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage, but I don’t regret who I did it with.” Shouldn’t the fact of the matter be that it doesn’t matter who it was with, but more so that it occurred, and that should be the focus of the regret? Or at least, one regrets causing another person to be part of their sin?

That’s the impression I get from the Evangelical speaker that Toeinthewater mentioned. I don’t understand the “sorta/kinda/iffy” regrets.

 

[Rascalking]

. I don’t understand the “sorta/kinda/iffy” regrets.

I think that is part of the “religious maturation” that occurs in most people. What starts out as a “I-don’t-regret-than-morphs into a kind-of -regret ends up as a I-DO-regret”

 

[Adam1986]

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.

Quick answer; because it is impossible to actually become a virgin again. IMO it shows an immaturity on the person for not wanting to except that they made the choice to have sex.

 

[Rascalking]

Quick answer; because it is impossible to actually become a virgin again. IMO it shows an immaturity on the person for not wanting to except that they made the choice to have sex.

On the contrary, I think it’s a sign of maturity for admitting you made a mistake in the past and wanting to change.

 

[Adam1986]

On the contrary, I think it’s a sign of maturity for admitting you made a mistake in the past and wanting to change.

I agree it is a sign of maturity for admitting you made a mistake in the past and wanting to change. But it’s not a sign of maturity to want to go back in time and change something that can never be changed.

 

[Rascalking]

I agree it is a sign of maturity for admitting you made a mistake in the past and wanting to change. But it’s not a sign of maturity to want to go back in time and change something that can never be changed.

Yes, but so what? If it makes them have a stronger commitment to chastity does it really matter what they want to be called?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Norseman82]

The older brother was not slighted, even though fallen nature feels that way. Did the father need him to work his estates? How could he? He had many servants. So why would the father require the older son to work? For the same reason that wealthy men who love their sons require them to work even now: Because it is the only way for them to find their dignity as men. It is how the father intended his sons to become like him. Likewise, our life in virtue ultimately serves only one cause: To make us into saints. As for anything else we accomplish, God could have made it happen merely by willing it so. Only our love, our willing compliance to live in His life, is something He cannot do, because of the gift of free will. Yet even that work is entirely for our welfare, is it not? That it helps others is only the splendid economy of grace. We do for others, and all we do is to gain by it. We cannot outdo God in generosity. This is as true of the work of what the catechism calls “the long and exacting” work of self-mastery as it is of any other work of virtue.

If the younger brother had to revisit the “feasts” where he went through his father’s wealth, it would be a bitter meal. The older brother was fortunate to be left out of those, and I trust you are not saying otherwise. Surely a wise virgin would say the same, and a thousand times. What feasting did the older brother miss out on, then? He refused to join the feasting for the returned brother. He was not shut out of that one except, as you pointed out, by his bitterness. All the rest was fodder for pigs. May we never envy those who stray into sin.

I never said the father scolded him. In reply to the older son’s bitter complaint, though, his father did point out: “'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.” He countered the older son’s objection with the reminder that they, father and son, had been together. That is our repayment, if only we realize what a gift it is.

Jesus gave no reason for us to believe we have cause to feel bitter if we are not recognized! "“Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’? Would he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.’” Luke 17:7-10

Remember, too, what the vineyard owner said: “When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, **‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” **Matt. 20: 8-16

If we ever meet a brother or sister repenting of a sin we have never committed, may we respond as the angels do, with unrestrained rejoicing!!

All I can say is this: if I ever start my own business and need an employee to take for granted, I’ll be sure to hire you first. Maybe after working for me for a year or two under those conditions you will understand the point I am trying to make and you will have more empathy for those who have been slighted and unappreciated.

 

[kenofken]

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.

Because it’s scoff-worthy:thumbsup: