Written by a conservative Christian-virginity

[Riders]

I don't understand what value this virginity could have to a woman's husband.
It seems to me women are carefully guarding a thing of no real value.

They can stroke their own egos with it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Seeing that cats and dogs rape I take exception to that, we dont rape.

Who is 'we'?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One of the problems here is that there is so much social stigma about even talking about sex that a good, open discussion about birth control and basic safety is almost impossible, let alone having a discussion of the possible variations. Some people are so against sex education in our schools that we shouldn't be surprised that we see teen pregnancies and STDs. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

My eldest daughter starts sex education soon (at school). She's ten. I guess that will be interesting. We're pretty open with her, but tend to let her questions guide the conversations, so she is still a bit vague on some of the specifics.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Once upon a time this whole thing was mainly about preventing unwanted pregnancies of uncertain paternity, quite sensibly, within the context of the time. Most of the religious framework has much more to do with shutting down questions than it has anything to do with God's thoughts on the matter.

You would think an omniscient God wouldn't need a paternity test to see who the daddy is.

Per the OP, it's funny the men never have to save themselves, just the women.

I agree to a point however we still are having teenager unwanted pregnancies, many wont get protection or are too scared too, don't know to .

The people who demand virginity usually live in states with the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rates. Abstinence-only is also highly laughable if one is Christian, given the fact a man born of a virgin girl is worshiped.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Per the OP, it's funny the men never have to save themselves, just the women.

Hey, it's not our fault that y'all are delicate flowers needing to be led by a big strong man...
(joking...very much joking. I agree with you entirely)

The people who demand virginity usually live in states with the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rates. Abstinence-only is also highly laughable if one is Christian, given the fact a man born of a virgin girl is worshiped.

Heh. I think that's probably blasphemous, but since I'm fine with that I laughed my butt off.

 

[InChrist]

I don't think the scriptures ever indicate that the purpose of virginity until marriage is for women only or that women alone are to only save themselves for the benefit of their husbands above themselves or God. There is so much more involved and I believe God's wisdom on the subject is for the long term well-being of every person.

Sex without real love and commitment is no more than using another person as an object for one's personal gratification. Men and women both do this and it is dehumanizing. Whether or not a person is willing to admit it, using another person or being used does bring damaging emotional consequences, besides the risk of physical disease and unwanted pregnancy. As someone previously pointed out birth control methods are not always foolproof and there is no condom for the heart and mind.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't think the scriptures ever indicate that the purpose of virginity until marriage is for women only or that women alone are to only save themselves for the benefit of their husbands above themselves or God.

We're the only ones ever mentioned, though. Look at Tamar and Judah: she's about to get killed for getting knocked up, but no one threatens Judah with death because he had sex with a supposed hooker.

As someone previously pointed out birth control methods are not always foolproof

Neither is virginity in Christianity.

 

[InChrist]

We're the only ones ever mentioned, though. Look at Tamar and Judah: she's about to get killed for getting knocked up, but no one threatens Judah with death because he had sex with a supposed hooker.

The scriptures below are only a couple show that the NT and Paul taught against sex outside of marriage for both men and women. Even in the account of Judah and Tamar, she was vindicated while he was humbled by his wrong behavior.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 1 Cor. 6:18

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 1 Cor. 5:1

 

[Valjean]

The scriptures below are only a couple show that the NT and Paul taught against sex outside of marriage for both men and women. Even in the account of Judah and Tamar, she was vindicated while he was humbled by his wrong behavior.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 1 Cor. 6:18

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 1 Cor. 5:1

But wasn't "sexual morality" different for men and women? Didn't men always have legitimate access to sex in one form or another?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You would think an omniscient God wouldn't need a paternity test to see who the daddy is.

I'm a committed Christian. Don't mistake that to mean I can't acknowledge that a lot of what people claim is "God's law" is actually intended purely and wholly as a convenience for those in power at time of writing.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think the scriptures ever indicate that the purpose of virginity until marriage is for women only or that women alone are to only save themselves for the benefit of their husbands above themselves or God. There is so much more involved and I believe God's wisdom on the subject is for the long term well-being of every person.

Sex without real love and commitment is no more than using another person as an object for one's personal gratification. Men and women both do this and it is dehumanizing. Whether or not a person is willing to admit it, using another person or being used does bring damaging emotional consequences, besides the risk of physical disease and unwanted pregnancy. As someone previously pointed out birth control methods are not always foolproof and there is no condom for the heart and mind.

Let me put it this way. Suppose you only play one game of tennis with someone. Are you 'using' them for the enjoyment of playing tennis? is it dehumanizing to only play one game of tennis with someone? Does doing so lead to 'damaging emotional consequences'?

Sex is like every other activity done with another: it gets better the more you learn how your partner thinks, feels, and moves. Doing it with the same person will form an emotional bond.

But, as you point out, sex also has other risks: pregnancy and STDs. And, sex is more connected to our bond-forming and mating psychology, so it has greater emotional risks.

So, yes, it is good to have a loner-term relationship with a sex partner. If nothing else that leads to better sex. And, yes, it is good if you have an emotional bond already (or are willing to develop one). That makes the sex even better. And the sex will usually strengthen that emotional bond: there is a feedback loop.

But sex can range from a fun romp (like a single game of tennis) to a lifelong commitment (like committing to playing tennis every weekend for the rest of your life). And different people/partners are interested in different levels of emotional bonding/commitment/play.

Sex is only dehumanizing if you *let* it be dehumanizing. if it is used as a way to *connect* with other people as opposed to simply 'getting your rocks off', the whole experience is much better for all concerned. But that doesn't necessarily mean a *long term* commitment, nor marriage. But, like with tennis, all players have to agree to the rules they play under.

And yes, for myself, a one-night-stand isn't very satisfying or interesting. I might as well use my own hands: it's more sanitary.

 

[Willamena]

This was written by Christian put up on facebook by my sister all the Christian women are thrilled plum about it...
View attachment 26816

What "Grandma" describes is precisely virginity for yourself (herself).

 

[viole]

I don't think the scriptures ever indicate that the purpose of virginity until marriage is for women only or that women alone are to only save themselves for the benefit of their husbands above themselves or God. There is so much more involved and I believe God's wisdom on the subject is for the long term well-being of every person.

This has obvious evolutionary reasons. The main sponsors of this particular myth are males. Males do not like to grow up kids that are not theirs, because of genetic reasons. The only reliable way that it’s theirs is that they marry virgins (reliable, not sure. For instance, it did not work with Joseph, lol.)

I believe the main reason of this obsession with female virginity is the fact that female members of our species do not show obvious hints of when they are fertile. So, take them virgin and at home all the time.

If they did, then religion would have been much more relaxed in this area. Since religion, and the sexual restrictions surrounding it, are also the mirror of a biological context.

Sex without real love and commitment is no more than using another person as an object for one's personal gratification.

Love is also an evolutionary adaptation for our species. Our brain selected romantic long lasting love because of the obvious facts that our young gene carriers need ages before getting independent and safe, and therefore long term relationship is favored and naturally selected. “Till death set us apart” is a biolological consequence of our species.

Men and women both do this and it is dehumanizing.

Lol, you are begging the question here. You assuming that humans cannot possibly do that. And if they do, they are not members of homo sapiens anymore. Since we are very close to bonobos, who are very liberal in this respect, consider yourself lucky that we are so conservative, in comparison.

Whether or not a person is willing to admit it, using another person or being used does bring damaging emotional consequences, besides the risk of physical disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Using? Emotional damage? Lol, what? And there are very effective ways to avoid both physicak diseases and pregnancies. They are not 100% safe, but driving to work is not 100% safe either, and I am not sure what is more fun.

As someone previously pointed out birth control methods are not always foolproof and there is no condom for the heart and mind.

When birth control does not work, we can abort. Ultima ratio, but effective.

So, I am it sure what the problem is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

But wasn't "sexual morality" different for men and women? Didn't men always have legitimate access to sex in one form or another?

It seems sexual standards have been different for men than for women, at least according to human standards. Men may have always had access to sex in one form or another, but whether those are legitimate is another matter. Maybe so in men's eyes, but I don't think the God who designed men, women, and sex considers those forms outside of His design legitimate.

 

[InChrist]

Let me put it this way. Suppose you only play one game of tennis with someone. Are you 'using' them for the enjoyment of playing tennis? is it dehumanizing to only play one game of tennis with someone? Does doing so lead to 'damaging emotional consequences'?

Sex is like every other activity done with another: it gets better the more you learn how your partner thinks, feels, and moves. Doing it with the same person will form an emotional bond.

But, as you point out, sex also has other risks: pregnancy and STDs. And, sex is more connected to our bond-forming and mating psychology, so it has greater emotional risks.

So, yes, it is good to have a loner-term relationship with a sex partner. If nothing else that leads to better sex. And, yes, it is good if you have an emotional bond already (or are willing to develop one). That makes the sex even better. And the sex will usually strengthen that emotional bond: there is a feedback loop.

But sex can range from a fun romp (like a single game of tennis) to a lifelong commitment (like committing to playing tennis every weekend for the rest of your life). And different people/partners are interested in different levels of emotional bonding/commitment/play.

Sex is only dehumanizing if you *let* it be dehumanizing. if it is used as a way to *connect* with other people as opposed to simply 'getting your rocks off', the whole experience is much better for all concerned. But that doesn't necessarily mean a *long term* commitment, nor marriage. But, like with tennis, all players have to agree to the rules they play under.

And yes, for myself, a one-night-stand isn't very satisfying or interesting. I might as well use my own hands: it's more sanitary.

Because sex does have a deep connection to our emotional and psychological state it cannot be compared to a game of tennis or anything else. I don't think it's a matter of simply not "letting" sex be dehumanizing or looking at it as "connecting" with other people when in reality the connection is only physical. To disregard human emotion, intimacy, care, love, and commitment which is meant to be intertwined with sexual connection and instead to use another person for short term physical gratification alone is, in my view, and I believe in God's view as the Designer, dehumanizing and damaging, by default, no matter how much or in what ways people may attempt to sugar coat it.

 

[Polymath257]

Because sex does have a deep connection to our emotional and psychological state it cannot be compared to a game of tennis or anything else. I don't think it's a matter of simply not "letting" sex be dehumanizing or looking at it as "connecting" with other people when in reality the connection is only physical. To disregard human emotion, intimacy, care, love, and commitment which is meant to be intertwined with sexual connection and instead to use another person for short term physical gratification alone is, in my view, and I believe in God's view as the Designer, dehumanizing and damaging, by default, no matter how much or in what ways people may attempt to sugar coat it.

Nobody said it was for sexual gratification *alone*. For that, it is quite enough to masturbate. Why involve another person at all if that is the only goal?

But, short term physical gratification is NOT the same as 'short term relationship'. In fact, short term relationships can be incredibly meaningful for all parties and can be good things. And having a longer term relationship doesn't mean marriage is desired or required. Emotions, intimacy, and caring can be found with or without long term commitment and/or love.

I strongly disagree that sex is dehumanizing. When people actually communicate about wants/needs/fears/desires, etc, it is a good thing whether or not they want to continue for years or let the government know about it (i.e, marriage). The key is communication. And that can be lacking even when there is a piece of paper saying people are married.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

This was written by Christian put up on facebook by my sister all the Christian women are thrilled plum about it. So this says you should save yourself not for you or God but do it for your husbands, apparently for conservative Christian women, Jesus and Hod is not God, the man of your life is lord God master savior. Here it is. Not only that but sense this is for all young ladies, truly being single is not ok for women to be in the conservative Christian church and we owe our body's to a man and we are here to pleasure and serve men.. Oh wow this is the exact attitude I had as a sex addict, conservative Christian women must sex addicts like me! The man and his male genatallia is God lord master savior praise be to his male body parts!

View attachment 26816

If this statement you posted here is what you got from reading this post put on Facebook, I feel very sorry for you. If I offend you I apologize. Im not trying to be disrespectful, but you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. There is absolutely no way you could come up with this interpretation

This was written by Christian put up on facebook by my sister all the Christian women are thrilled plum about it. So this says you should save yourself not for you or God but do it for your husbands, apparently for conservative Christian women, Jesus and Hod is not God, the man of your life is lord God master savior. Here it is. Not only that but sense this is for all young ladies, truly being single is not ok for women to be in the conservative Christian church and we owe our body's to a man and we are here to pleasure and serve men.. Oh wow this is the exact attitude I had as a sex addict, conservative Christian women must sex addicts like me! The man and his male genatallia is God lord master savior praise be to his male body parts!

View attachment 26816

If this statement is based on what you got from reading this post on Facebook then I really feel sorry for you. I apologize if I offend you, and I don't mean any disrespect. But you really need to step up your reading comprehension. You're seeing things that aren't even there. Smh

 

[1213]

...and we owe our body's to a man and we are here to pleasure and serve men...

But it does say ”…a man who wants to raise children with you and provide for you…”. That seem like the man has to serve the woman in exchange for her virginity. In that I think it is the man who must serve, not the woman, who only gives her virginity.

 

[Riders]

But it does say ”…a man who wants to raise children with you and provide for you…”. That seem like the man has to serve the woman in exchange for her virginity. In that I think it is the man who must serve, not the woman, who only gives her virginity.

No providing for and raising children with does not require one to marry a virgin. The Christian men who still hold to marrying the unicorn virgin in my mind is living in a fantasy many times not all, there's some women who keep their virginity but a lot less today then in old times.

UHHHHHHHHH so what happened to the mans virginity, you did not say one word about it just as my sister did not. To me it suggests that hey not only is it ok for men to have sex before marriage but also to cheat on his wife, well hey hes a man its natural for men to sin but the woman has to be perfect.

 

[Riders]

If this statement you posted here is what you got from reading this post put on Facebook, I feel very sorry for you. If I offend you I apologize. Im not trying to be disrespectful, but you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. There is absolutely no way you could come up with this interpretation

If this statement is based on what you got from reading this post on Facebook then I really feel sorry for you. I apologize if I offend you, and I don't mean any disrespect. But you really need to step up your reading comprehension. You're seeing things that aren't even there. Smh

And where was the rest of the post that says the man is to be virgin for his wife? No where because hey its ok for men to stray and cheat and lose his virginity before marriage hey hes a man!