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

[EasterJoy]

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.

I think we were talking about virtue, not employment. That is service rendered to God, not to you. If you can give me eternal life for service you offer me as a help to me, service that only perfects me as an image of love, even though you don’t need my services from a practical standpoint, and I complain that the other fringe benefits aren’t good enough, I think you ought to keep looking. So what if we are not noticed before other people? The Father, who sees in secret, will not be remiss in repayment. Frankly, I’d rather be passed over in favor of God’s recompense.

Honestly, I don’t think the issue with “born again virginity” is that it is an insult to virgins, or that virgins want other people to make a big deal of them. I suppose I haven’t known any virgins who kept themselves pure for the kudos from mankind. I suppose they’re out there, but anybody who maintains his or her virginity for any other reason than that his or her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit is missing the point. Rather, most follow the Lord, who warned that we “take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.” Matt. 6:1.

Instead, the terminology “secondary virginity”, though I do not doubt it is a sincere expression of good intention, misses the point of what has been lost. It betrays not a lack of appreciation for virgins, but a lack of understanding of the nature of virginity. To my mind, those are two very different things.

This is most clear, unfortunately, in the rape victim. This is a person who bears no culpability for what has happened. Yet in this case it is very clear that innocence, once stolen, cannot be replaced. It is not the value of the person that is taken away. It is unmolested history of this person of value that is broken. No matter who is responsible, that molestation of innocence cannot be undone.

 

[Fidelia]

Instead, the terminology “secondary virginity”, though I do not doubt it is a sincere expression of good intention, misses the point of what has been lost. It betrays not a lack of appreciation for virgins, but a lack of understanding of the nature of virginity. To my mind, those are two very different things.

That’s completely the point. Hence the discussion on the difference between virginity and chastity.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s completely the point. Hence the discussion on the difference between virginity and chastity.

Still, until canonization proceedings are started, I think one’s virginity is between you, God, and your intended spouse or religious order. A person who has a “past” should not have to apologize for defending chastity. If the common error can be eliminated, I mean that of attacking those who are not virgins but who have come value purity, I think the whole “secondary virginity” thing would be a moot point.

Yet we see this error in Scriptures, where the testimony of person who has committed a sin is discounted on account of it. Fallen human nature will come up with these kinds of excuses to continue in its own sins: "*On one occasion, after Moses had grown up, when he visited his kinsmen and witnessed their forced labor, he saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his own kinsmen. Looking about and seeing no one, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

The next day he went out again, and now two Hebrews were fighting! So he asked the culprit, “Why are you striking your fellow Hebrew?” But he replied, “Who has appointed you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses became afraid and thought, “The affair must certainly be known*.” Ex. 2:11-14

 

[Petergee]

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.

If I murder someone in my youth, then I repent and live a virtuous non-violent life for many years, am I entitled to say “I am not a murderer”?

The murdered man does not come back to earthly life, and once I lose my virginity I will never be a virgin again.

 

[Norseman82]

First of all, I’m not the one who introduced the comparison to the older brother.

I think we were talking about virtue, not employment. That is service rendered to God, not to you. If you can give me eternal life for service you offer me as a help to me, service that only perfects me as an image of love, even though you don’t need my services from a practical standpoint, and I complain that the other fringe benefits aren’t good enough, I think you ought to keep looking. So what if we are not noticed before other people? The Father, who sees in secret, will not be remiss in repayment. Frankly, I’d rather be passed over in favor of God’s recompense.

Honestly, I don’t think the issue with “born again virginity” is that it is an insult to virgins, or that virgins want other people to make a big deal of them. I suppose I haven’t known any virgins who kept themselves pure for the kudos from mankind. I suppose they’re out there, but anybody who maintains his or her virginity for any other reason than that his or her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit is missing the point. Rather, most follow the Lord, who warned that we “take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.” Matt. 6:1.

Instead, the terminology “secondary virginity”, though I do not doubt it is a sincere expression of good intention, misses the point of what has been lost. It betrays not a lack of appreciation for virgins, but a lack of understanding of the nature of virginity. To my mind, those are two very different things.

This is most clear, unfortunately, in the rape victim. This is a person who bears no culpability for what has happened. Yet in this case it is very clear that innocence, once stolen, cannot be replaced. It is not the value of the person that is taken away. It is unmolested history of this person of value that is broken. No matter who is responsible, that molestation of innocence cannot be undone.

The point is that we still have to navigate this world on our road to eternity, and like it or not, sometimes we do in fact need a “kid goat” to get through the day. And as far as “kudos” are concerned, if you’ve had any type or leadership or motivational theory training, you would have been taught that giving people some “kudos” is essential to morale. Instead of quoting on the “unprofitable” or “worthless” servants quote, maybe you should focus on something else Jesus said: “the laborer is worth his wage” (Luke 10:7).

The older brother get a lot of unwarranted criticism that was NEVER part of the parable. The younger brother did not criticize the older for wanting a “kid goat” like some of the people here on CAF seem to.

 

[Rascalking]

If I murder someone in my youth, then I repent and live a virtuous non-violent life for many years, am I entitled to say “I am not a murderer”?

The murdered man does not come back to earthly life, and once I lose my virginity I will never be a virgin again.

Um, if you can’t see that there is a HUGE difference between having sex before marriage and murder, than I have nothing else to say here.

 

[GEddie]

Um, if you can’t see that there is a HUGE difference between having sex before marriage and murder, than I have nothing else to say here.

Well, both are matters of serious sin.

And while the other guy might have said it poorly, he was not equating them; rather pointing out that both involve something that is irreversible. Life is not regained when it has been lost. Neither is virginity. Both are physical states that cannot be restored.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Once you lose your virginity, you cannot become a virgin again because if you did, that would mean that the word ‘virgin’ can be changing. Although I guess ‘mentally’ you can consider yourself a virgin again if you just ignore what has previously happened.

However, there are surgeries to make it ‘look’ like you are a virgin. And if you haven’t guessed, this surgery is for females only.

 

[Rascalking]

Well, both are matters of serious sin.

.

Yes, they are. But again, there is a difference between killing someone and adultery.

Come on people-let’s use some God given common sense here.

 

[CountrySinger]

Yes, they are. But there again, there is a difference between killing someone and adultery.

Come on people-let’s use some God given common sense here.

But we are Catholic! We don’t need common sense.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Yes, they are. But there again, there is a difference between killing someone and adultery.

Come on people-let’s use some God given common sense here.

Hold up, there is somebody comparing adultery to murder?

Wow, I really haven’t been following this thread, but that is ridiculous!

As much as a sin is a sin, those two aren’t comparable. I’d rather somebody betrayed me than kill me. I would choose time to move on over laying in a coffin.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I use the NASCAR terms for tires, “stickers” and “scuffs”.

Is this another iteration of the “is kissing a sin” style thread? I just don’t see this level of worry as mentally healthy.

 

[CountrySinger]

I use the NASCAR terms for tires, “stickers” and “scuffs”.

Is this another iteration of the “is kissing a sin” style thread? I just don’t see this level of worry as mentally healthy.

Welcome to Catholicism, where guilt hangs over you like a dark dark cloud.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Welcome to Catholicism, where guilt hangs over you like a dark dark cloud.

And then there’s those lines from* Evita* …

*Eva Perón: Did you hear that? They called me a whore! They actually called me a whore!

Prince Fuspoli: But, Signora Perón, it’s an easy mistake. I’m still called an admiral, though I gave up the sea long ago. *

 

[valient_Lucy]

Um, if you can’t see that there is a HUGE difference between having sex before marriage and murder, than I have nothing else to say here.

The point is, nothing we do in this life can be undone, good or bad.

Now, if there was such a thing as a time machine, and people could go back in time to stop themselves from having sex, then yes, they could regain their virginity.

Until we invent the time machine, we have to live with the consequences of our choices, positive or negative.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

While I understand someone wanting to separate from their previous bad decision(s) to have premarital sex, to say, “I regret that I lost my virginity in a sinful way,” I think the term itself is just too light-hearted. “Born again” is the term some Protestants use to mean when they received Jesus as their personal Savior. I think connecting it to the desire to repent from having sinful sex is just wrong.

I have such deep and lasting regret from my own sinful past that I would never make light of it nor speak about it with anyone other than my confessor or my husband. And my husband doesn’t understand my perspective really. I know that our relationship is not what it might have been if we had saved ourselves for marriage. There is a missing element of RESPECT, that can never be re-created. This is something I really didn’t get until just a few years ago. I didn’t know at the time that I was disrespecting myself and God, but I do now, and I don’t expect to have my husband ever respect me in the way a husband would when his wife was pure. It was something I never had and never will have, not in the way that a couple who stays pure for each other will have. This is a scar that will never ever heal, no matter what. It is permanent. Some consequences cannot be mitigated or changed. That is very painful for me.

 

[mjs1987]

I think it is a stupid title. You cant change the past. Why not just admit that? It may be forgiven but forgiving does not re-write what happened. It also belittles chastity. It puts virginity on a higher plain than chastity. Im sure most people would rather hear that someone has been chaste then to make an excuse for your past. It is almost like saying what I did was ok because now I was able to rewind and change the past. You cant do this!

I think women like terms like “born again virgins”. It makes them feel innocent and allows them to try to escape the consequences. I rarely see men refer to themselves as “born again virgins” or “secondary virgins”. Men normally live with the consequences. Women try to skirt the blame for anything sexual. When a woman loses her virginity, I always hear how it is the man’s fault. I always hear about how men take advantage of women sexually. Well, the truth is that women say those things to make themselves feel like they didnt do anything wrong and to get back at the guy for leaving her. “Born again virgins” is just another attempt to play the sympathy card.

 

[GEddie]

I think women like terms like “born again virgins”. It makes them feel innocent and allows them to try to escape the consequences. I rarely see men refer to themselves as “born again virgins” or “secondary virgins”. Men normally live with the consequences. Women try to skirt the blame for anything sexual. When a woman loses her virginity, I always hear how it is the man’s fault. I always hear about how men take advantage of women sexually. Well, the truth is that women say those things to make themselves feel like they didnt do anything wrong and to get back at the guy for leaving her. “Born again virgins” is just another attempt to play the sympathy card.

Well, your feelings about women aside, virginity IS a different issue for women than it is for men.

A man’s body does not change physically when he “loses virginity”, whereas a woman’s does. Physically, sex for the man involves a “sowing of oats,” while for the woman it means receptivity into her very being. Which is why, in the past, virginity was prized and protected, whereas now it is given away almost as a rite of passage (due to the whole recreational-sexuality subculture).

While many today do not admit that “virginity” is more about females than males, the fact that women can have surgery to “restore” the appearance of virginity says it all. Men cannot require such an intervention, as there is no physical sign of virginity to be lost.

It must feel awful for young ladies to realize that they gave away something unique and irreparable about their bodies to persons and situations that did not merit it. Thus the desire for “secondary” virginity. But words can never change physical reality.

What is needed is not “secondary virginity” but a restored value for primary virginity, and the sanctity of the human body. Lamentably, that horse has escaped, and the barn burned down, long ago.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I’m trying to think of someone, among all the men I’ve known, who would give this a second thought, much less be critical of the woman. But there aren’t any I can remember.

 

[CountrySinger]

I’m trying to think of someone, among all the men I’ve known, who would give this a second thought, much less be critical of the woman. But there aren’t any I can remember.

I know men who would mock a virgin, but none that would criticize a non-virgin. But I don’t know Catholic men (but plenty of non-Catholics), so my experience is worthless.