quote:

---

If you lose your virginity ...you not only have given a significant part of yourself to someone else....

---

and I always think to myself, "Huh?".

I have honestly never understood why people get so hung up on the idea of virginity per se (as opposed to the obvious desire of men to be sure of the parentage of their progeny and other practical considerations). For me it was just part of the continuum of sexual experience: first kiss, first gropes (of various sorts), first period, first shaving of "adult" hairy places, first tampon,first wet-dream, first orgasm, first oral sex, first vaginal penetration sex, first "late period" scare, first attack of killer menstrual cramps, first miscarriage, first pregnancy, first childbirth, first abortion, first hot-flash, first menopausal missing period....

Obviously some of these are out of one's control and some aren't (and my list is skewed toward female stuff), but why oh why is the "first vaginal penetration sex" the only one that is considered "a significant part of yourself"? To the point that people allow themselves to do all sorts of sexual things and consider themselves "virgins" and get on their high horses about it and predict the fate of any eventual marriage based on this one act out of all that vast continuum of sexual experiences.

I honestly don't get it.

Just to clarify things, I do not want a discussion of why premarital sex is wrong, the pitfalls or wonders of promiscuity, trite Biblical speeches about one's body being the Temple of God or what Paul said. I just want to know why you see vaginal penetrative sex and the breaking of the hymen as the defining test of one's sexual status and "a significant part of oneself".

[ 24. February 2004, 22:50: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I share your puzzlement, jlg. When people ask me how old I was the first time I had sex, I ask them to define sex (please, no tired Clinton jokes). The experience of my first French kiss was so mind-blowing as to count as penetrative sex in my book, and it was all a continuum from there.
 

---

Posted by Ags (# 204) on :
 
I'm afraid I don't quite get it either.

The 'significant' part of me that is given and shared (and I know I'm very lucky to have a good relationship in which to do the safe sharing) is me! The hopes, fears, dreams, joys, insecurities etc. The really crap, bad stuff and the good too.
Yes, sex is one of the ways we share (& I don't want to go on a tangent here either), but my sexual 'status' is and always has been just a part of me.
I certainly don't consider that some guy who I've not seen for a very long time has some significant bit of me!

(Oh dear. I'm going to a shipmeet next month. Nobody will sit with me, or drink with me. )
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I think a large part of the attraction of virginity is that virgins don't have anyone to compare their (first) partner to. After that first time, there's always the comparison between the current beau and previous lovers, even if it's only subconscious (unless you genuinely stick to one partner throughout your life).
 

---

Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on :
 
[Pretentious hat: On]

When a woman is a virgin, if a man sleeps with her and can prevent her from sleeping with other men, he can be pretty sure that any child is his. If she isn't a virgin, there is more doubt. (Or at least that's how it used to go)
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
I just want to know why you see vaginal penetrative sex and the breaking of the hymen as the defining test of one's sexual status and "a significant part of oneself".

---

Because I was brought up that way.

That was easy. Next question?
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Autobailer: I already mentioned that (did you read the OP?) and that's not the point.

Kyralessa: I was brought up that way, too. So why didn't I fall for it?
 

---

Posted by Saint Osmund (# 2343) on :
 
Oh dear!

Picking up on what jlg said in her OP, what is sex?

I have a friend who insisted that she was a virgin until the point that she had a penis stuck inside her. She had done all sorts with men before that point. I shan't go into graphic detail, but in my view what she has done was sex, and so she was no virgin. But as far as she was concerned, 'sex' was the insertion of a penis into a vagina. She described the things she had done as "sexual acts", but not sex. I asked her how these acts could possibly be sexual if they weren't sex, and she couldn't answer.

I then went onto ask what she thought of me, as a male who would say that he has had sex, but has never inserted his penis into a vagina (and has no intention of so doing), and of women who have fulfilling relationships with other women, in which sex plays a part, but also who have never had a man play a part in this. Is this not sex, simply because it doesn't fit into the narrow definition that some people attach to 'sex'? Is this somehow inferior? Somehow defective?

I think not!

I think that before we can debate where virginity falls in the Christian view, we have to look seriously at how we define the term 'virgin', an if it is 'a person who has not had sex', then we need to define what 'sex' is! And no, there is no distinction between 'sex' and a 'sexual act'.

The latter term is a made-up one by people who want to have fun but still wish to describe themselves as virgins, which is simply wishing to have the best of both worlds, which is just a laugh.

Any thoughts?

M x
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
(just being fascetious here... ) and what about those who have had a penis in their vagina but not enjoyed it? does that mean theyre still a virgin?
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Kyralessa: I was brought up that way, too. So why didn't I fall for it?

---

The very fact that you word it that way indicates to me that it would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to try to explain it to you.

I will say, though, that I don't agree with the "technical virgin" viewpoint. In my book any fooling with genitals was out of line; likewise anything necessitating removal of clothing. And I am one of those puzzled that oral sex has become the step before vaginal rather than after. Heck, though I wasn't myself this "puritanical" (the quotes are there for a reason), I had friends in college who didn't kiss before they were at least engaged.

I didn't have sex till I was 25 and married. I have not noticed my life to be much diminished as a result of this. But of course the fundamental problem in discussing these things is that you'll never know what it would have been like to follow my course, and I'll never know what it would have been like to follow yours.

[ 19. January 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Perhaps those that wish to think of themselves as morally strict find the idea of a "technical virgin" appealing because it's a handy black-and-white measure in the midst of a complex issue. This certainly would make sense if you try to think of these people as looking for simple explanations throughout their lives - spiritual, moral, or otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
You obviously haven't heard about the Born-Again Virgins. This article focuses on teens, but I've heard of women of all ages signing up. Never any men, though. Hmmm.

My youngest cousin (16) was showing off a ring she'd bought for herself at a family dinner. She announced that it was a Promise Ring--she'd decided she was going to wait until marriage to have sex. My sister and I (both [presently] unmarried and decidedly non-virgin) were the only ones to extend our support. Her mother's jaw dropped, I don't think she'd even considered the fact her little girl might be thinking about that. My mom actually tried to talk her out of it, which is funny since mom taught teen mothers for eight years.

I say anything that keeps her from being underaged and pregnant and a high school and/or college dropout is a good thing. But if she comes crying to me because she can't keep her vow at nineteen, I'm not going to chastise her. 'Cause, well, if she makes it to nineteen, she'll have beaten my record...
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I think that the church tends to install a huge amount of paranoia into people re: sex and sexuality. I know that for the longest time, I thought I would be chucked into the fiery furnace of everlasting nastiness if I so much as acknowledge the possibility that I could find another human sexually attractive.

Unless I was married to them of course, in which case the missionary position once a year might just be acceptable.

I don't think that, on the whole, people who have been indoctribated with such beliefs find it easy to have a causal, relaxed attitude towards either their sexuality or the sexuality of others. I mean, I am NOT saying I still belive this stuff in my head, but it's kind of like a emotional trigger in my head that I have to deal with.

(hey ho! There goes any chance I ever had of meeting someone )
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well certainly the old ideal of two-virgins-marrying-and-being-faithful-to-one-another-forever does curb the spread of certain diseases.

I guess it depends on how important, spiritually, you think sexual relations are. If they're not terribly important, it probably matters less whom (and how many whoms) you do it with; if they're more important, it probably matters more.

Somewhere between the one extreme of total casual sex with anything with 2 legs on the one hand, and the stance that all sexual relations whatever are totally evil and heinous and desecrating on the other, somewhere in that vast middle ground there, is --presumably-- sanity.
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 
I suspect that it has to do with putting two sets of rude bits together. As opposed to one person's rude bit with another person's different bodily bits (hands, mouths) or two non-rude bits. Putting two sets of rude bits together is viewed as dangerous because it could lead to babies. It's also a very tempting thing to do for most people, so those who resist, or have no interest in doing it, sometimes wear it as a badge of honour. And advertise it as such.
Frankly, it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Full points for resistence, if you desperately want to do it, but don't. But I'd give the same full points to any hungry person who resists a plate of fish and chips for the sake of a diet. It shows that they are strong. But in the end, I doubt it makes them a better person than those who eat the food or have sex.

Personally, I am amazed that oral sex is not viewed as full sex by some people. Good grief! Putting someone's genitalia in your mouth (the very same one that you use to eat your Tim Tams and drink your Earl Grey tea)is not as intimate as putting it in a part you never see? Talk about denial. I went to school with a girl who gave blow jobs like there was no tomorrow, but prided herself on being a virgin. Yeah, right.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Originally posted by Left at the altar

quote:

---

I went to school with a girl who gave blow jobs like there was no tomorrow, but prided herself on being a virgin. Yeah, right.

---

Why do Shipmates who post this kind of thing never give names and addresses?
 

---

Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
Mousethief mentioned:

quote:

---

total casual sex with anything with 2 legs

---

Oh, Mousethief--you're so conventional...



Timothy
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Did I say exactly 2 legs?
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The experience of my first French kiss was so mind-blowing as to count as penetrative sex in my book, and it was all a continuum from there.

---

I can relate to that. The French kiss lasted a lot longer though.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
It isn't wrong to open presents before Christmas.

I personally see marriage as an arbitrary time you set, after which time you are probably going to act differently in various ways besides just in how you'll fill out your Income Tax Forms.

That's why I feel the way I do about sex. I want to hold something back. I don't want to have sex with a number of partners (serially or simultaneously). I want one, and I feel like waiting for some sign that there's some staying power makes the thing more meaningful. (Delayed gratification) Exactly how that will work and exactly what and how much is fairly negotiable. I don't see how being "seen naked" by someone makes you not a virgin, but any stuff with genitals would seem to me to be sexual enough to make me feel that calling myself a virgin would be kinda silly, even if I could argue technicalities.

Virginity is something I am actively choosing and doing, not something I am abstaining from.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm abstaining from virginity.
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 
Yes, but can you keep it up, Mousethief? You may give in at any time.

 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
well it comes in spurts, altar
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
It isn't wrong to open presents before Christmas.

---

It's just that if you tell the recipient all about the present, let her feel it, squeeze it, give it a shake, etc so that she knows vaguely what she's getting, but not let her open it until the sales are over and it's too late to exchange it, she might feel that it's not worth the wait and go somewhere else for Christmas.
 

---

Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on :
 
jlg, it was my post that you quoted at the beginning of this thread. I must say that either I have rather poorly explained myself, or you have jumped to conclusions and misunderstood me.
Nowhere did I say that sex was the only significant thing you can give to a partner (I said it was A significant thing). There's a lot of ways you can show your commitment to a bf or gf- even spending several months or years in a non-sexual relationship with the same person is a commitment, which will hurt if it ever does end. At the same time, the impression which has been given to me by hearing friends talk about their sexual experiences is consistently that they did not realize how significant it was until it had already happened.
I think it's an odd, insane brand of legalism which causes people to do everything but actual vaginal penetration, and think that's somehow ok, but penetration of the vagina wouldn't be.
I also think a lot of spiritual and psychological mentors would support the concept that sex is more than an act- but more like a very spiritual thing of extreme significance in anyone's life. Can anyone vouch for this?
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I like the idea - which I think I got from Esther Harding (Jungian analyst) in her book 'Women's Mysteries' - of the ancient idea that a Virgin Goddess was virgin not in the sense of never-had-sex (since they usually had a son) but in that they did not belong to a male. Therefore, virginity=autonomy.

So, in that sense, I am an enthusiastic virgin.

[ 20. January 2004, 07:14: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 

quote:

---

and it was all a continuum from there.

---

Well now, after 18 years of marriage, it all does feel like a continuum, but while I was still a virgin I felt very strongly that penetrative sex was the defining moment, the moment that must be delayed until I had a ring on my finger. Just that looking back it is hard to see what the big deal was, and like the OP said, just why that particular stage assumes so much importance.

In days gone by I guess it wasn't so much of an anomaly, since those who were virgins at marriage had most likely not had any sexual type experiences at all (well apart from kissing), but in today's world there are so manmy opportunities for sex, that people who decide they want to stay virgins, have to 'invent' a definition of what counts as virginity for them. and penetrative sex seems to be the classic definition that people use for technical virginity.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
I'm wondering if there is an age-related thing here. Us older ones, brought up in a much more censorious age, were terrified that we would become pregnant if we had penetrative sex. Most girls wouldn't trust boys, female contraception was virtually impossible to lay your hands on, and even boys were rather nervous about going to their local chemists to "buy something". So, we made do with other more or less exciting sexual activities.

I don't know how this relates to the US. But I got married in 1960, and had to produce date and evidence of my firm intention to get married before the Family Planning Clinic would let me have one of the more revolting and awkward forms of contraception. The Pill hadn't been invented!

Maybe all you freedom loving girls are a good bit younger than me?

Nic
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I'm wondering if there is an age-related thing here. Us older ones, brought up in a much more censorious age, were terrified that we would become pregnant if we had penetrative sex. Most girls wouldn't trust boys, female contraception was virtually impossible to lay your hands on, and even boys were rather nervous about going to their local chemists to "buy something". So, we made do with other more or less exciting sexual activities.

I don't know how this relates to the US. But I got married in 1960, and had to produce date and evidence of my firm intention to get married before the Family Planning Clinic would let me have one of the more revolting and awkward forms of contraception. The Pill hadn't been invented!

Maybe all you freedom loving girls are a good bit younger than me?

Nic

---

I got married 1967 and the Family Planning clinics were still demanding signature from the husband before they gave The Pill which was then out (and IMO we were being experimented on) or any other female contraceptive.

And they decided (I hadn't asked or expected any) not to do any vaginal tests on me "because she's only just started"!!! So, yes, there was a different culture around....

I think there is a technical physical "virginity", not having penile-vaginal penetrative sex, not having a broken or stretched hymen (tampax is still forbidden by some cultures), and also a psychological or emotional type of "virginity" which is for some reason not recognised by so many youngsters. Once you've got into a sexual relationship, and begun to do sexual things, your attitude and feelings change. You don't feel the same. That doesn't mean that many people don't feel different, physically and emotionally when they do have penile/vaginal penetrative sex.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
In my view the Biblical line is to not have sex till marriage. That is God's law.

However, it seems often overlooked that God's law is usually immensly practical.

I think there are good physical reasons (pregnancy, STDs etc) and emotional reasons why God says this.

What I personally can't abide is over spiritualisation of virginity.

The Biblical stance "Do not have sex unless you are married" is a classic example of a pre-condition. "Do not do X unless Y".

With sex we have somehow taken the "X" part of the above conditional statement, inverted it into the positive and made it into a sacred cow called "Virginity". To see how stupid this is is made clearer by anaology:

Suppose the Bible contained a law which said "Do not cross the road unless you have your eyes open". This is the same sort of instruction. It is a precondition on an otherwise permissable activity.

This would be an immensly sensible and practical law, but it would be bizzare to say the least if we took the X part of this condition clause (Do not cross the road) and then upheld the state of "not crossing the road" as holy and virtuous in it's own right and would have missed the point completely.

Yet that is exactly what Christianity has traditionally done. We have made Virginity rediculously mystical.

This maybe has something to do with the Mother of Jesus being a Virgin, but this again, is purely practical. It is nothing to do with the "purity" of Mary, but simply the practical point that if she were a married woman in a sexual relationship there would be no way of proving the child was supernatural. (Hence why Joseph has no sexual relations with her till the child is born..so as not to cloud the issue).

This has spilled over into the institutional church, celebacy of priests and nuns etc, as if virginity has some intrinsic holiness.

Finally, in the modern era, the most worrying aspect is the impact on modern evangelical teens for whom Christianity seems to amount to little more than a publically declared celebacy till marriage.

There is a severe danger of these kids beliving they are spiritually "ok" so long as they are not having sex, or, conversely, that they are spirtually bancrupt if they do. Virginity has become the be all and end all of pre-marital Christian morality.

None of which should be read as undermining the view that Christians should not have sex until marriage, just that inverting that to "Christians should stay virgins till marriage" puts a different slant on it which is unhelpful.

matt
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Answering the OP, because generally penetrative sex is how you get pregnant.

I can't understand the coldness with which some of the posters are addressing this aspect. Yes, patriarchy wanted to control who was there child, or evolution wants to ensure its heirs, but let's talk about the humanity of it. Creating a child is a gift, a responsibilty and an awesome thing. Contraception does not always work. It seems extraordinarily careless and cavalier to not really think about whether the person your bonking is the sort of person you want to share being a parent with. Let alone the psychological rammifications for that child should its parents not have thought this through (presumably most would agree marriage/life partnership being the most preferable option and then degrees of commitment and/or agreement on visiting rights down to total non-contact from one [both?] parents). Having sex without taking these considerations on has to be completely selfish, if you get down to the mechanics of it, seeking at best a (max 7 seconds? - let's start a competition girls ) orgasm, and risking creating a whole life.

I have been no saint in the past, but I certainly knew how stupid I was being. I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just trying to show the stark fact of the matter. I'm pro abortion in the case of rape etc. but a lot of 'inconveniences' are down to irresponsibility, IMO.

(Prepares for torrent of abuse from more open minded people )
 

---

Posted by HairyOrangutan (# 5224) on :
 

quote:

---

I think it's an odd, insane brand of legalism which causes people to do everything but actual vaginal penetration, and think that's somehow ok, but penetration of the vagina wouldn't be.

---

As an odd, insane legalist, I thought I'd attempt to briefly defend my views. For me, the issue with vaginal penetration is the overtly baby-making action of it.

Being an RC who more or less agrees with the reaching on contraception; (vaginal, penetrative) sex is more or less inseparable in my mind from being open to having babies. If one isn't in a relationship where that's an option, then one shouldn't be having (v, p) sex. Which pretty much restricts it to marriage. And outside marriage allows more or less anything else.

But I should point out that it's only the reproductive issue which makes a difference. Were I to think that contracepted sex were permissible, I can't really see any reason why one should not engage in it with all and sundry (emotional baggage notwithstanding.)
 

---

Posted by HairyOrangutan (# 5224) on :
 
Er, yes. s/reaching/teaching/ in previous post, in case that wasn't clear.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Well at least this person values her virginity. So much so that she is trying to sell it for £1000+ on e-bay!!

[ 20. January 2004, 14:38: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
How hilarious!

Is it wrong that I'm now thinking about somehow reclaiming my born-again virginity and doing exactly the same thing????
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
jlg, it was my post that you quoted at the beginning of this thread. I must say that either I have rather poorly explained myself, or you have jumped to conclusions and misunderstood me.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
In my view the Biblical line is to not have sex till marriage. That is God's law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
...I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".

It seems to me that the significant part of oneself that one gives to another person is trust and caring and making oneself vulnerable to that other person. Virginity might be felt as a symbol of that "giving" of oneself, but except that we have been taught to think of it as something particularly precious, I don't think it has any intrinsic resonance greater than many of the other events I listed in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:
On the main topic, one of Heinlein's characters remarked to the effect that virginity was "an easily cured perversity."

---

Oh, Heinlein, that theological wunderkind!
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
"Virgins" have had some kind of power in myth. For example, a unicorn can only be caught by a virgin, and it comes and lays its horn on her lap .

Nowadays, in some places, it's believed that sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDS.

So is the power, the "magic" of virginity something that makes one want to think it is a vital part of one's self? Has the past, fairytales, myths, had such an influence?
 

---

Posted by Sheriff Pony (# 3911) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
So is the power, the "magic" of virginity something that makes one want to think it is a vital part of one's self? Has the past, fairytales, myths, had such an influence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
...nor am I denying the role that sex (and fidelity within marriage) plays in creating a lifelong bond. I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".

---

\

And isn't that bond a large part of what is the "significant part of themselves"? The thing is, once you've been "bonded" to one person in this way, it seems like it would be very hard to ever fully sever that bond, or ever fully recreate a similar bond with another person.
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit. If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends," I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!

Gmix

PS- I am NOT saying that even in a marriage is sex somehow the miracle glue that keeps a couple together forever- (there's a lot more that MUST go into a marriage than just that)- but I do think it can help significantly in creating an intimate bond between husband and wife. Thanks for your thoughts, all. It's nice to have some honesty.

[Edited UBB bold in quote]

[ 20. January 2004, 22:52: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on :
 
Oops. Please omit the word "even" from first line of Post Script in previous post. Argh, sorry...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I had never been within a million miles of penetrative sex prior to our wedding night, but when I read the term "technical virgin" on the Ship some time ago it gave me more than pause for thought.

It stirred my conscience, and I perceived that my sexual intimacy seemed to have been violated in a previous relationship.

There's a lot in the Bible about our consciences and how they differ, and I think that different people will have very different thresholds at which they might have the same impression I had.

Yes, we were virgins on our wedding night. But I think I could have been more of a virgin .
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.

I suspect this is because the sort of people who would preserve their virginity until marriage are also not the sort to go bragging about their sexual prowess or adventures in public. Therefore those who believe that virgins-till-marriage have it so miserable are not likely to encounter any evidence to challenge their assumptions.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
Ya. If I came onto the Ship and said "I had sex with three different women last week" I would probably get much fewer and less nasty comments that I'd get if I said "three women offered to have sex with me last week and I turned them all down and don't regret it for a minute"

If I said the latter, I'd likely get "You're probably lying about the women" and "Hope you feel righteous, ass!" and "What were you doing wrong to make them offer to have sex with you? Were you asking for it? Were you wearing tight pants?" and "You should wear a sign if you aren't going to put out"
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 
Perhaps if you turned them down without publicising it to the world, no one would even feel the need to comment.
 

---

Posted by Sheriff Pony (# 3911) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.

---

Do "a lot of people" really think this? Or does it just "seem" that "a lot of people" really think this?

And if so, are they merely trying to salve their own consciences by assuring themselves that even if they weren't virgins, at least they had better sex?

Quite puzzled.

At any rate, it's an assumption I'd like to challenge.
 

---

Posted by angeljenn (# 5239) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Ya. If I came onto the Ship and said "I had sex with three different women last week" I would probably get much fewer and less nasty comments that I'd get if I said "three women offered to have sex with me last week and I turned them all down and don't regret it for a minute"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
...nor am I denying the role that sex (and fidelity within marriage) plays in creating a lifelong bond. I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".

---

And isn't that bond a large part of what is the "significant part of themselves"?

---

quote:

---

The thing is, once you've been "bonded" to one person in this way, it seems like it would be very hard to ever fully sever that bond, or ever fully recreate a similar bond with another person.

---

quote:

---

A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.

---

quote:

---

If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"

---

quote:

---

I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!

---

quote:

---

PS- I am NOT saying that even in a marriage is sex somehow the miracle glue that keeps a couple together forever- (there's a lot more that MUST go into a marriage than just that)- but I do think it can help significantly in creating an intimate bond between husband and wife. Thanks for your thoughts, all. It's nice to have some honesty.

---

Well, duh.


[Edited rogue UBB bold in quote.]

[ 20. January 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit. If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends," I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin:
Or perhaps the experience was so bad with the chap in question that the thought of repeating it made her feel sick.

---

Hmmm... potential thread topic for TnT:

"Sex That Makes You Go "
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sheriff Pony:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.

---

Do "a lot of people" really think this? Or does it just "seem" that "a lot of people" really think this?

And if so, are they merely trying to salve their own consciences by assuring themselves that even if they weren't virgins, at least they had better sex?

Quite puzzled.

At any rate, it's an assumption I'd like to challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Ya. If I came onto the Ship and said "I had sex with three different women last week" I would probably get much fewer and less nasty comments that I'd get if I said "three women offered to have sex with me last week and I turned them all down and don't regret it for a minute"

If I said the latter, I'd likely get "You're probably lying about the women" and "Hope you feel righteous, ass!" and "What were you doing wrong to make them offer to have sex with you? Were you asking for it? Were you wearing tight pants?" and "You should wear a sign if you aren't going to put out"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sheriff Pony:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.

---

Do "a lot of people" really think this? Or does it just "seem" that "a lot of people" really think this?

And if so, are they merely trying to salve their own consciences by assuring themselves that even if they weren't virgins, at least they had better sex?

Quite puzzled.

At any rate, it's an assumption I'd like to challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
There's nothing to give or take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Sex defintely falls under the heading of "Your Mileage May Vary". Isn't this obvious?

---

quote:

---

You have been saying that women all want to have sex with you, and you let them get intimate with you and then push them away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
Well Marvin, I take your point, but since the emphasis here (not from me, but I'm seeing it) is on genital to genital contact, innocence is often long gone before virginity. There's just all this baggage associated with having conventional sex for the first time. I just think we'd be better to call a spade a spade, and get over the "giving of virginity" like it's some sort of prize for the victor.

---

I agree. In fact I've said that as well ( ).

But then, as a twenty-something man, there's still that extra "thrill"* associated with being a girl's "first". Don't ask me why, maybe it is something deep in our subconscious...

* - not the word I'd have preferred to use, but the best one I can think of at this time
 

---

Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But then, as a twenty-something man, there's still that extra "thrill"* associated with being a girl's "first". Don't ask me why, maybe it is something deep in our subconscious...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:

And what about in the instance of rape? I DO NOT mean to trivialize rape- I know that it is one of the very worst crimes one can be a victim of- but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Gmix

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
One example is in the case of adultery. If a wife/girlfriend/whoever walks in on her guy in bed with another woman, for instance, it is obviously not something she would take lightly- it is more likely the type of scenario that would tear her apart emotionally, through indescribable feelings of jealousy, anger, hurt, even hatred. Pardon my obvious question, but why would this woman react so strongly? Why is it that if one's partner has had sex with another somewhere in the past, it doesn't seem to matter, but if he has it during the marriage, it's such a completely different story?

---

quote:

---

Could it be that we really have a desire only to belong (sexually) to one person, ever? I think the verse in Kergymania cited from Leviticus is telling- that perhaps the act of sex in fact IS a marriage, and not wrong in itself, but any later sex act with another person would then become wrong.

---

quote:

---

but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Other crimes do hurt, of course- if someone steals from me, I do feel a much less severe sort of "violation," and anger, etc... if someone lies to me, similarly there are negative feelings of betrayal and broken trust.

---

quote:

---

But any sexual violation- even someone grabbing a backside or what have you- seems somehow different than this. And the utmost of all sexual violations is, of course, rape. What is it that sets sexual things so apart from all the other offences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But we don't really have a desire only to have sex with one person in our lives. If we did, a lot more of us would be trying to live like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
One example is in the case of adultery. If a wife/girlfriend/whoever walks in on her guy in bed with another woman, for instance, it is obviously not something she would take lightly- it is more likely the type of scenario that would tear her apart emotionally, through indescribable feelings of jealousy, anger, hurt, even hatred. Pardon my obvious question, but why would this woman react so strongly? Why is it that if one's partner has had sex with another somewhere in the past, it doesn't seem to matter, but if he has it during the marriage, it's such a completely different story? (I KNOW this seems like an outrageous thing to suggest, but please bear with me) Could it be that we really have a desire only to belong (sexually) to one person, ever?

---

quote:

---

I think the verse in Kergymania cited from Leviticus is telling- that perhaps the act of sex in fact IS a marriage, and not wrong in itself, but any later sex act with another person would then become wrong. (Of course, polygamy was practiced in Bible times and is not consistent with this idea- sorry, am only throwing around ideas)

---

quote:

---

And what about in the instance of rape? I DO NOT mean to trivialize rape- I know that it is one of the very worst crimes one can be a victim of- but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Other crimes do hurt, of course- if someone steals from me, I do feel a much less severe sort of "violation," and anger, etc... if someone lies to me, similarly there are negative feelings of betrayal and broken trust. But any sexual violation- even someone grabbing a backside or what have you- seems somehow different than this. And the utmost of all sexual violations is, of course, rape. What is it that sets sexual things so apart from all the other offences?

---

quote:

---

(hoping no one has misunderstood me or thinks me to be utterly despicable)--Gmix

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I guess I just feel that if sex is a big deal, then so is virginity- and likewise, so is the rest of the "continuum" of physical intimacy, to varying degrees. (And just to squelch any suspicions, I will reiterate that stuff like oral sex obviously counts as sexual intimacy-- I am not one of those folks who believes that everything before marriage is ok, just so long as the penis doesn't enter the vagina- such a concept is utterly absurd.)

---

quote:

---

My more pervasive urge, however, is to wait it out, for someone whom I can wake up next to and enjoy knowing "she ain't leaving me any time soon."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
To be honest, I felt more of a sense of taking a drastic action each of the three or four times in my life I have suddenly cut my hair (from thigh-length to above my chin) than I did when I lost my virginity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

...But have a look at the divorce rate before you try to make any arguments based on the idea that waiting for marriage to have sex will ensure that your sexual partner will never leave you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

The attractive thing is that the woman is proactive in what she does with her virginity, rather than having it taken.

---

Yeah, I like that. The woman is in no way passive- hence the term "consensual".
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
I have been thinking about this topic and i suspect ideas would have been different in the days prior to freely available contraception.

In someways "losing ones virginity" is for women the start of the rite of passage of going from Maiden to Mother, in that prior to having sex she can in noway become a Mother while after having sex she is on the way to becoming a Mother. Something like oral sex does not put her on the way to becoming a Mother, so is not part of the rite of passage and thus not such a big deal.

A metaphor:

So consider a similar transformation from laity to priest, becoming a deacon is like losing ones virginity, as it is a major step on the path from laity to priest in teh same way that losing ones virginity is the start of the path from Maiden to Mother. OK not all deacons become priests and not all non-virgins become mothers.
Taking some other "office" in the church such as reader is similar to non-penerative sex in that it does not lead to becoming a priest or a mother.
Finally in this metaphor, a virgin becoming a mother through IVF rather than sex could be seen a bit like lay presidency
 

---

Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 

quote:

---

that Wikkid Person said:
Most women would rather tell me the gory details of their crappy relationships, and generally treat me like a eunuch. I am perhaps expressing frustration that most women treat me like a eunuch, and then whenever my efforts seem to be getting me somewhere with someone, these (much rarer) women want to have sex with me and bolt when they know they can't have it. Usually, finding out in the first big conversation with me what my views on sex are does the trick. In a few cases (only a few) they felt that they could "cure" me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

The attractive thing is that the woman is proactive in what she does with her virginity, rather than having it taken.

---

Yeah, I like that. The woman is in no way passive- hence the term "consensual".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
...nor am I denying the role that sex (and fidelity within marriage) plays in creating a lifelong bond. I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".

---

And isn't that bond a large part of what is the "significant part of themselves"?

---

Huh? I'm talking about the bond that evolves over years of monogamous married life (which includes sex, but also many, many other things), and while I will admit that that does become part of oneself, it isn't intrinsically linked with offering up one's virginity. It wasn't in my and my husband's case and there seem to be a lot of other married shipmates agreeing with me.

quote:

---

The thing is, once you've been "bonded" to one person in this way, it seems like it would be very hard to ever fully sever that bond, or ever fully recreate a similar bond with another person.

---

Excuse me, but I'm talking about the bond created over decades of married life, not the "bond" created with the person who took your virginity. I have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with some of the guys I slept with (some of whom I loved) before I got married. I also have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with lots of guys that I worked with, have been or am friends with, and never had sex with, both before and after I was married. None of these bonds have needed to be severed, and I have never felt the need to "recreate" them with my husband. My bond with my husband is unique (as were all the others, male and female) and I cherish it not because he holds the unique (by definition) post of having been the first guy to get his penis all the way into my vagina, but because he holds the unique (because I love and trust him that much) position of being the man I vowed to love and live with and forsake all others for. I don't say that lightly, because there was a rough period early in our marriage when I thought we weren't going to make it. Believe me, the thought of severing our marital bond was horrible and devastating. Working our way through the difficult times and continuing to love and accept one another is a far stronger bond than mere sex; sex is the icing on the cake, the cherry on the sundae, and yes, it can be a very transcendental experience. And virginity has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.

---

This girl needs some professional help. Regret over a mistake is one thing, but wanting to vomit is quite something else.

quote:

---

If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"

---

That was in no way a bond! Get real.

quote:

---

I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!

---

I trust you aren't actually implying that because my husband and I (and so many others) weren't virgins when we married and have no regrets about that fact, that somehow we don't have a "well-thought-out marriage committment"?

Waffle real fast, Gmix, or I'll be asking for a personal apology.

quote:

---

PS- I am NOT saying that even in a marriage is sex somehow the miracle glue that keeps a couple together forever- (there's a lot more that MUST go into a marriage than just that)- but I do think it can help significantly in creating an intimate bond between husband and wife. Thanks for your thoughts, all. It's nice to have some honesty.

---

[Edited rogue UBB bold in quote.]

---

Okay, maybe this is my fault, but I've been misunderstood again.
The girl- let's call her Sue- felt like throwing up at the thought of having sex with any other person. She is, in fact, still currently with said boyfriend, and still having sex with him. My point is that obviously having sex with him, despite her initial uncertainty re: her feelings for him, has done something to change their relationship (perhaps "bond" is not the right word- but truly, there is a sort of bond there, isn't it?? Call it what you want, I guess).
And I just don't see how there's any comparison between the bonds you experience with co-workers and platonic friends and other aquaintances, and the bond (oops, still using that word!!) that is formed between a person and his/her sex partner.

By the way, this
"Well, duh. "
was totally unnecessary. I'm here for a debate, not mockery.
Gmix
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you doing the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"

---

That was in no way a bond! Get real.

quote:

---

I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!

---

I trust you aren't actually implying that because my husband and I (and so many others) weren't virgins when we married and have no regrets about that fact, that somehow we don't have a "well-thought-out marriage committment"?

Waffle real fast, Gmix, or I'll be asking for a personal apology.

---

quote:

---

I know that even my dear wifey might get sick and tired of me and take off some day... but I also believe marriage can be what you are determined it should be. For a lot of people, I think they take the divorce option too early- and in my young, green, naivete, I will say for myself that divorce, except in the case of adultery, will not be an option. I KNOW this may be harder than I realize. But I think young, dumb, unfaltering commitment will actually help my (future) marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
Okay, maybe this is my fault, but I've been misunderstood again.
The girl- let's call her Sue- felt like throwing up at the thought of having sex with any other person. She is, in fact, still currently with said boyfriend, and still having sex with him. My point is that obviously having sex with him, despite her initial uncertainty re: her feelings for him, has done something to change their relationship (perhaps "bond" is not the right word- but truly, there is a sort of bond there, isn't it?? Call it what you want, I guess).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
For those who are currently rubbing their hands together in anticipation of jlg and myself going to Hell together, I have PM'd her to sort things out that way instead.

Gmix

PS, jlg you are welcome to disclose the contents of that letter to anyone who's losing sleep over the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
As far as I'm aware, feeling like throwing up at the thought of sex with anyone else is not a normal thing for people in a committed relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I also think the very fact that this attachment will likely not be as strong in successive sexual relationships is a good reason to, if at all possible, make your first lover your only lover by being married to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I also think the very fact that this attachment will likely not be as strong in successive sexual relationships is a good reason to, if at all possible, make your first lover your only lover by being married to them.

---

quote:

---

...assumes that sex is the most important factor in creating bonds between people

---

quote:

---

I know lots of people whose early sexual experiences were just experimentation with high school or college boyfriends or girlfriends, but who later met people with whom they developed deep and lasting romantic / spiritual / sexual / practical relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
when both the relationship is good, and the sex comes with commitment, I think the chances of a good overall outcome for both the relationship itself and the sex itself will be better than in any other scenario.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't stating my last post as fact, more as an attempt to simply use logic.

---

quote:

---

But won't anybody give me any credit that the experiences of early expiramentation may have brought negative "baggage" to the later marriage? My hunch is that they would have been better off saving sex completely for marriage. They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it. And if your first time is with someone who has pledged their love and commitment to you, well, s/he'll be patient if you don't exactly know what you're doing at first, won't s/he? And assuming you're willing to work on things, naturally it also get better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it.

---

You can learn a lot about sex by reading about it, but there's no substitute for hands-on training.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
Exactly! But won't anybody give me any credit that the experiences of early expiramentation may have brought negative "baggage" to the later marriage? My hunch is that they would have been better off saving sex completely for marriage. They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it. And if your first time is with someone who has pledged their love and commitment to you, well, s/he'll be patient if you don't exactly know what you're doing at first, won't s/he? And assuming you're willing to work on things, naturally it also get better.

---

Where do I start.

Nobody, anywhere, ever gets away with "no baggage", even if only slightly. By the time you are 30 or 40 just about everyone has had some kind of negative experiences in along with all the rest. That is part and parcel of being human and being alive. Even if you avoided sex totally you would still have some negative experiences from everyday life. It might screw you up, but it can also make you a more balanced personality.

You can certainly read a lot about sex and watch porn movies until they become meaningless, but it isn't the same as experiencing it. What we want and what we think we want are sometimes two different things. It's all very well having high-minded principles. Most people start out that way. Once you actually discover what your natural inclinations are and what your body responds to, you may well find that some of the principles are, for you, unrealistic ideals.

If your first time is with someone you care about it doesn't stop you losing patience after (for example) you have pointed out to them for the sixth time that if they did one particular thing in a different way it wouldn't cause you some discomfort, or whatever. If it's your first time you might well assume that this is how it is for everybody, but if it's theirs rather than yours you do at least have some idea of whether it is generally like this or whether it could be improved.
 

---

Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on :
 
Yes, but that's no reason to go out and create more baggage for yourself. Some things we can't avoid, some we can.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Nobody, anywhere, ever gets away with "no baggage", even if only slightly. By the time you are 30 or 40 just about everyone has had some kind of negative experiences in along with all the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
It's hard to go much further than that without delving into everybody's sex lives, which is pretty personal. Let me put it this way: when both the relationship is good, and the sex comes with commitment, I think the chances of a good overall outcome for both the relationship itself and the sex itself will be better than in any other scenario. The wide range of human experience doesn't really allow for a hard-and-fast rule. I just think the fewer people you sleep with, the better, unless you want to seriously shift mentalities away from Christian teaching. (And speaking of which, I do wonder how Solomon would have approached the whole issue!)
Gmix

PS- no, I wasn't stating my last post as fact, more as an attempt to simply use logic. I don't got no stats books.

---

It's a good rule not to post on sex threads when your spouse has been away for a week, and you've had three glasses of wine, but to Hell with good rules:

Sex can be good in any number of scenarios.
In loving, long term relationships: Yes. Very good. But can also be very bad. Plenty of people marry dud lovers, and stick with them. They love them despite the fact that sex is the lowlight of the relationship. Others enjoy wham-sha-bang sex all their lives.
In relationships that last a while: Again. Very good sometimes, others not. Relationships usually don't fall apart or stay together on the basis of the quality/quantity of sex, but I'd imagine that it happens a bit. But equally, really really good sexual relationships don't necessarily last the distance in other ways.

In one night stands: It can be terrific or awful.

Stop romanticising and moralising. Sex can feel awfully good or awfully bad, or somewhere in between, regardless of the level of commitment.

You can say that the fewer partners, the better, and I respect your choice. But, you can learn things from people that you take to other relationships. Having said that, I never never never claim to be a good Christian.

As for feeling bonds with those with whom you've had sex - yes and no. It's more to do with the romance and "mystery ingredient" than what happens in bed.
 

---

Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on :
 
Stop moralising? So, what, I can argue as long as I don't bring a moral dimension into the debate???
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 
Good point.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Im genuinely re-thinking what I think in the whole sexual ethics arena.... so another question...

If we move away from the "sex only with one partner ever" approach... what kinda guidelines/ morality/ whatever do we use in realationships/ sex/ one night stands as a Christian... Or is it anythign goes?
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 

quote:

---

Let's say you don't meet and marry your true love until you're 40 years old and you are a virgin when you marry. By that point you've got 20 years of adult experiences relating to the opposite sex (we'll be heterosexist here, since marriage is generally not available to gay people). If you have nothing but friendships with women (or men where applicable) for 20 years, that's the baggage you'll carry into marriage, and it will have an effect. If you have a series of failed romances, even without sex, that's the baggage you'll carry into marriage. And either way, you will carry into marriage the baggage of having suppressed or repressed your sexual drive for over 20 years. Don't let anyone sell you any garbage about meeting your needs for intimacy in other ways; other forms of intimacy are no substitute for sexual intimacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
If we move away from the "sex only with one partner ever" approach... what kinda guidelines/ morality/ whatever do we use in realationships/ sex/ one night stands as a Christian... Or is it anythign goes?

---

quote:

---

One friend of mine, unfortunately widowed very young, was astonished that friends of hers who were outspoken against sex outside of marriage thought it would be fine if B. had sex with any man she wished because it did not matter - she had been married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Does anyone here believe there is a difference between a virgin and a sexually active person (married or otherwise)?

---

quote:

---

Virginity is the crown of chastity and a pledge of true love.

Virginity is called the crown of chastity, because it crowns the chastity of marriage, and it is also a sign of chastity. A bride therefore at her wedding wears a crown on her head. It is also a sign of the holiness of marriage. For after parting with the flower of virginity the bride gives and hands herself over completely to the bridegroom, who then becomes her husband; and the husband in turn does the same to his bride, who then becomes his wife.

Virginity is also called the pledge of true love, because it is a pledge of their compact, a promise that love will unite them to be one person, or one flesh. Even men before their wedding regard the virginity of their bride as the crown of her chastity and as a pledge of true love. They look upon it as the great treat, from which their delight in this love will begin and last. These and previous statements establish that, after her girdle is undone and her virginity taken, a virgin becomes a wife; and if not a wife, she is vulnerable to becoming promiscuous. For the new state into which she is then brought is the state of love for her husband; and if it is not for her husband, it is a state of desire. Emanuel Swedenborg, Conjugial Love #503

---

This, perhaps somewhat old-fashioned, idea is mainly about women, but something similar is said to be true of men as well. There is a slight difference because males and females seem to have different sexual wiring.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Does anyone here believe there is a difference between a virgin and a sexually active person (married or otherwise)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what, exactly, _is_ a male virgin, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Apart from that difference in his or her personal history, is there now a difference in that person?

---

quote:

---

The state of a virgin or untouched woman before marriage and after marriage.

What the state of a virgin is before she has been taught the facts about getting married was made plain to me by wives in the spiritual world, who had departed from the natural world as children and been brought up in heaven. They said that on reaching marriageable condition they began, through watching married couples, to love married life, but only in order to be called wives, to keep company in friendship and trust with one man, and also to be free of obedience at home and have control of their own lives. They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.

[2] The virgin state changed after being married to a new one, about which they had previously known nothing. This state, they said, was one in which everything to do with bodily life from first to last had extended so as to receive their husband's gifts and to unite them to their own life, thus becoming his love and a wife. This state began from the moment of being deflowered, and after this the passion of love blazed up, directed towards their husband alone. This extension made them experience heavenly delights. Since the wife had been brought into this state by her husband, and since he is its source and it is thus his in her, it was obvious that she could love no one but him.

[3] These statements made it clear what is the state of virgins in heaven before and after marriage. It is not difficult to see that on earth the state of virgins and wives on first being married is similar. How can any virgin know that new state until she experiences it? Ask and you will be told. There is a difference in the case of those who before marriage encounter stimulation from learning about it. Emanuel Swedenborg, Conjugial Love #502

---

quote:

---

They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:

quote:

---

They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.

---

I'm not buying that one for a minute.

---

quote:

---

Respecting marriage, they said that they had thought of it solely from the blessedness of mutual friendship and confidence with a male consort, and not at all from the delight of any flame.

---

quote:

---

They also said that they thought of marriage only because of the bliss of the friendship and mutual confidence they shared with a male companion, and not at all because of the delight of any passion.

---

quote:

---

They said that they thought about marriage only for the happiness of shared friendship and trust with a male partner, and absolutely not for the allurement of any passion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:

quote:

---

They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.

---

I'm not buying that one for a minute.

---

I suppose that one has no physical passions when one is body-less.. remember that these virgins reported this when they were already dead voyeurs.

 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
Yeah, I was sort of not dealing with the fact that these women giving their opinions about sex and marriage (in Freddie's tale) don't seem to have vaginas. Or am I mistaking the meaning of what he wrote? They are said to be completely spiritual or something?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I suppose that one has no physical passions when one is body-less.. remember that these virgins reported this when they were already dead voyeurs.

---

Voyeurs?

These were people who had died as children and had grown up in heaven. The scenario, as described in these books, is that they have a body, live in a world, and have a life almost exactly as people in this world do.

But the quote also says that it is similar with virgins in this world, which is the point. The difference is that in this world it is more unusual to be free of unchaste influences than in heaven.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
Well, it sounds like an older version of "Women marry for love, men for sex". Despite appearences, I want a WHOLE lot more than sex out of marriage. Lying on the couch and watching movies, for instance. Cooking for her. Rubbing her feet.
 

---

Posted by angeljenn (# 5239) on :
 
Sorry but those quotes don't make much sense to me. I might be being stupid (always likely) but isnt conversing with the dead a bad thing? And growing up in this world is kinda different to growing up in heaven.
I guess its about anniversaries like someone else said. I tend to remember first times for everything - maybe not dates, but exact circumstances. It is kinda confusing with the whole what about when you are a widow aspect though... hmmm... shall have to think
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by angeljenn:
Sorry but those quotes don't make much sense to me. I might be being stupid (always likely) but isnt conversing with the dead a bad thing? And growing up in this world is kinda different to growing up in heaven.

---

quote:

---

I just wanted to say that this is what we believe in my religion, in response that Wikkid Person's question as to whether anyone believed that virgins are different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
then you could please God all the time that you weren't actively seeking tail or getting it, without the complication of a partner taking your focus off Him.

---

 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Had Swedenbourg seen sex as a 'great treat,' that would be understandable. Someone's virginity as 'the great treat' is a concept that I loathe. (My saying 'voyeurs' came from the thought that those who died at too young an age to know about sex grew up in heaven and learnt by 'watching married couples. Though Freddy's quotes, in total, left me totally puzzled.)

My friend who was widowed (after about 12 years of marriage and five children) sincerely believed that sex belonged only in marriage. It really saddened her that some of her highly religious friends, who had always insisted sex outside of marriage was wrong, were of the 'you can only lose it once' point of view - the more because some of them told her she'd have to have that attitude if she ever wanted hopes of another marriage. (Incidentally, she did not have sex outside of marriage - but did remarry.)

On another note, extending my intial post - the Order which I entered is based in Assisi, and is only about 120 years old. The foundress did not wish to have women who had been married join the congregation, entirely because Italian family relationships are very intricate and what she had seen in other communities (in Italy, especially, a number of institutes had a substantial number of widows) made her think it best to have only candidates who had never married. (Had a woman's husband died the day of the wedding, she still would have family 'ties' to her mother-in-law, and need to be there if the latter later needed help; those who had children often could not take their minds of them or their own kids.) It was a purely practical decision... yet some of the starry eyed candidates thought it must mean she wanted only a 'community of virgins.' Not that sex in marriage is wrong - nor that vows of chastity are not possible for those who have previous sexual experience (in marriage or not) - but the virgo intacta crowd thought that meant superiority!

I'll never understand why breaking a hymen is such an ego trip for some guys (I would think it would be a tiresome business at best), nor why some women are excited at the prospect (unless they like everything to include the maximum pain.)

Come to think of it, why on earth did the Creator design us women with that blasted membrane, anyway?
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
I have no interest whatsoever in the hymen. I knew what was meant, however in the song "Cold-Blooded Old Time" from the "High Fidelity" soundtrack, when the lines went:

"How can I stand and laugh with the man
Who redefined your body?"

and the Barenaked Ladies song "The Wrong Man":

"And if I ever lie beside your body
Don't tell me where it's been
It's cruel unusual punishment
To kiss fingerprinted skin"
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
It seems to me that sex is (often) incredibly powerful, but very, very different for each of us. Therfore a lot of harm has been caused by making simplistic rules and applying them indiscriminately.

I have known cases where couples, as Good Little Chritians TM, did not have sex until after they were married - and this has then caused big problems later on. Not having sex had given one partner the message that the other was not physically attracted to them. I don't want to imply that this applies to all couples, nor do I want to attack the Church's traditional teaching. But (as has been said on these boards many times) I want to note that this is an area where many people have got hurt in many ways down through the centuries.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
And yet I feel sure that it would be different second time around. And it is related to what we discussed earlier about the continnum of sexual expression - once you are having regular sex, you become so familiar with the experience, and quite comfortable with the idea that a passionate kiss might well just lead to full sex - or might not, but the 'freedom' to entertain the idea is there. I don't know if I'm explaining this very well, but having been accustomed to no 'artificial barriers' of what is permissible (eg on which parts of your body you are happy to be touched), I think it would be far harder in a future relationship to go back to the way you were before marriage, with the 'barriers up'

---

Not having been married, I can't speak about how it would be to embark upon another relationship after a marriage had ended, but I can say that IME it is certainly different getting into the second sexual relationship than it is getting into the first, mainly because you know a lot more about what to expect the second time around.

But I haven't found it all that hard to have "barriers up" despite my previous sexual experiences, because I am very conscious of having chosen barriers that are appropriate for me. I don't have barriers up because of some rule about not having sex outside marriage; I put those barriers up myself, and I can take them down when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Good point Ruth but I don't think your 'barriers' are quite the same as the ones I had, before marriage, when the reason I had them was because I believed sex outside marriage was wrong. Yours seem to be more pragmatic based on what is 'appropriate' for you at a particular time in a particular relationship.

Also, I've now been married 18 years, (and still having regular sex! ); thats an awful long time to get accustomed to the idea, for it to seem so 'natural' for me, that I've almost forgotten what it was like to have the barriers!

Does that make sense, to explain how we can be seeing this a bit differently?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Had Swedenbourg seen sex as a 'great treat,' that would be understandable. Someone's virginity as 'the great treat' is a concept that I loathe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Good point Ruth but I don't think your 'barriers' are quite the same as the ones I had, before marriage, when the reason I had them was because I believed sex outside marriage was wrong. Yours seem to be more pragmatic based on what is 'appropriate' for you at a particular time in a particular relationship.

Also, I've now been married 18 years, (and still having regular sex! ); thats an awful long time to get accustomed to the idea, for it to seem so 'natural' for me, that I've almost forgotten what it was like to have the barriers!

Does that make sense, to explain how we can be seeing this a bit differently?

---

Well, honestly, no. My barriers aren't the same ones you had before marriage, nor are they the same ones I had when I still thought sex outside marriage was wrong. But my barriers aren't pragmatic; they derive from a position that is for me just as much a moral position as the no-sex-outside-marriage position is for others. It's just not the same moral position. I used the word "appropriate" before, but I just as easily could have used the word "right." While I have always found rules about when people can and cannot have sex to be extremely unhelpful and unrealistic, I do think there are moral guidelines that obtain. Scot summed them up pretty well above.

You imagine you would find it hard to re-erect (sorry!) the barriers you had before you were married because you're so used to having sex. But I don't think barriers people really want to have are that hard to maintain. So if, God forbid, you found yourself single again, you might find that in fact it's not that hard to keep your hands where you think they belong because you really truly believe sex belongs to marriage and only to marriage.

And, to continue to be honest, if what you say about the ease of starting a second sexual relationship is true, if the barriers really would be hard to put up again, then it really doesn't sound like there's much grounds for the no extra-marital sex rule.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Am I the only one who is completely befuddled by Ruth's response?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And here I thought I was being so clear! What doesn't make sense to you?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I don't understand how you get from "the barriers would be hard to put back up again" to "there's not much ground for the no-sex-outside-of-marriage rule". That seems like a gigantic non-sequitur to me. What's your reasoning?
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
i didn't follow that either, but I thought maybe I was just being dense.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Zeke, we'll have to be dense together.

Dense? I'd love to!
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
In a dense, who leads?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Whoever's wearing the tux.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Ah. Okay. There were probably several leaps there.

If someone could keep the barriers up while a virgin and presumably still relatively young and possibly horny as all get out, trusting that everything they've been taught is right and that waiting for marriage really will be worth it, how could it be harder when they're older and presumably have more self-control and when they've had the experience of sex within marriage and found out that it is in fact worth waiting? To me the answer to that question is that virgins waiting for marriage have an easier time maintaining those barriers because they're hesitant and inexperienced and unsure about having sex; once all that's gone away, the barriers are harder to maintain because their real foundation is gone.

If the prohibition of extra-marital sex were grounded in something other than "I haven't done it before and I would be so much more comfortable being sure that it was okay when I do" then it would be easier to abide by it when you have benefitted from all it's supposed to do for you.

I would add that I think for some people the prohibition of extra-marital sex really is grounded in morality, rather than in wanting to feel comfortable and okay. I imagine such people would find the idea of indulging in casual or recreational sex after having been widowed to be an almost unthinkable disrespect to their dead spouses, no matter how much they missed the intimacy of sex.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
A friend of mine argued this after his own marriage. He said "Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Thanks, Ruth. That makes a lot more sense now.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Whew!

In the meantime, there you are with Zeke, densing. And both of you married to other people. Even I don't approve, and there ain't much I don't approve!
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Densing hell! We're still arguing over who gets to wear the tuxedo!
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I agree, Ruth.

I won't dense, don't ask me.
I won't dense, don't ask me.
I won't dense, Mousethief, with you.
My heart won't let my brain do things that it should do.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
A friend of mine argued this after his own marriage. He said "Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."

---

quote:

---

"Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
If someone says I'm alone because of my views on virginity, or that I am freakish, or that I have intimacy and trust issues and am trying to blame it on women I've failed to get on with, or that it is "my fault" that I'm alone, this has cut me to the quick.

---

Have you said what your views are? Have I missed it?

Anyway, you don't sound freakish to me. Maybe my views are unusual also. But virtually every single person I know believes that virginity until marriage is an exceedingly important thing.

World-wide I am sure that this is the view of most people on this planet - although certainly far fewer actually live up to it. I wonder if there are statistics about this.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe my views are unusual also. But virtually every single person I know believes that virginity until marriage is an exceedingly important thing.

World-wide I am sure that this is the view of most people on this planet - although certainly far fewer actually live up to it. I wonder if there are statistics about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
So I rather doubt virginity before marriage is something "most people" prize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
So I rather doubt virginity before marriage is something "most people" prize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
The thread IS about what is special (or not special) about virginity. It's relation to marriage is not implicitly part of every part of the discussion.

Some people feel that virginity is inherently good or special, others feel that it's nothing important, and still others feel that it's different for different people and it depends what you invest in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oxymoron:
Do you really believe that sex changes anything about you in Gods eyes?
Do you really believe that not having sex makes him love you more?
Do you really believe marriage is that important in his eyes? That simply putting that wedding ring on changes anything about the nature of love on earth or in heaven?

---

1. No. God loves you the same no matter what.
2. No.
3. Yes. Love in marriage is the precious jewel of human life. It is the foundation of all love in heaven and on earth.
4. Sort of. Just putting on the ring doesn't do it. It's the follow-through.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I notice that no one criticizing my post has bothered to dig up any statistics on when people get married. It is of course easier for me to find information about the US and UK since English is the only language I read with ease.

According to medindia.net the average age of marriage in 1991 in India for men was 24 and for women was 19. I looked but didn't see on this site any stats on average age of first intercourse.

According to UK government statistics in 2000 the average age at marriage for men was 34.8 and for women was 32.1. In Romania in 1998 the average age for marriage was 28.4 for men, 24.9 for women. In the US in 1996, the average age at marriage for men was 27, for women 25.

But perhaps you will find this UNESCO site more compelling, as it has information on both average age at marriage and average age at first intercourse in a number of non-western countries. It shows, for example, that in Vietnam the average age at first intercourse for both men and women is 19, while the average age for marriage for women is 24.5 and for men 27.1. In China men's first sexual experience happens on average at age 20, but they get married at 25-28 in urban areas and at 22-25 in rural areas. The site also has information for Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

So go ahead, tell me again about how much people care about virginity.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
What is it about Virginity? Here are 10,000 reasons for losing it.

Sigh.

P
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what, exactly, _is_ a male virgin, anyway? [then lots of what ifs and what abouts]

---

Not to pick on you, nicolemrw; your post was just a good jumping-off point whence to point out that fuzziness at the edges doesn't invalidate an entire concept.

What, after all, is a thief? Is a pickpocket just as much a thief as a mugger who sticks a gun in your face? Is the thief still a thief if he fully intends to pay you back later? If I pick up a $10 bill on the ground which obviously isn't mine, am I a thief? If I pull a silly prank with a stuffed animal like chukovsky did, am I a thief? (And if I get someone to steal something for me, can I call myself a "technical nonthief"? )

Obviously we could go on all day with these exceptions and borderline cases, but do we conclude from this that there's no such thing as a thief?

Yet some people seem to have concluded in this thread that there's no such thing as a virgin.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
So go ahead, tell me again about how much people care about virginity.

---

Thank you for showing that people do matter world-wide. Of course it makes sense that we would focus on our own cultures.

Those figures do show that there must be many people who lose their virginity before they are married in these cultures.

This does not necessarily mean that virginity is not prized in those cultures. I think that we would all acknowledge that even when virginity is given a high value, it is still difficult to live up to that ideal.

Given that there is a gap between principles and practice just about everywhere, the lack of perfect application does not necessarily mean that the beliefs are absent.

My original comment to TWP was that the view that virginity before marriage is important isn't strange, and that world-wide I am sure that this is the view of most people on this planet. The fact that not everyone lives up to this view does not mean that it is not there.

Statistically, the comparison of average age at marriage with average age of first sexual experience is good. I would also hope for statistics like percentage of people whose first sexual experience was with their spouse. I'm sure this varies from culture to culture.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
According to UK government statistics in 2000 the average age at marriage for men was 34.8 and for women was 32.1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
This is incredibly "old" for first marriage, seven years older than the US averages -- it can't be right unless they're talking about all marriages, not just first ones.

---

quote:

---

3. Yes. Love in marriage is the precious jewel of human life. It is the foundation of all love in heaven and on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:

quote:

---

3. Yes. Love in marriage is the precious jewel of human life. It is the foundation of all love in heaven and on earth.

---

Freddy, I know that you are probably quoting from your Swedenbogian interpretation of the Bible here, but this makes me uneasy. It does have various implications for singles that I'm not sure i want to go along with.

---

Yes, sorry about that. As the concept is understood by Swedenborgians it does include singles, and does not include the pressure to marry. Everyone, whether married or single, benefits from there being harmonious relationships between the sexes in general in society.

In a sense it means that it would be nice if everyone had a happy childhood and family life, and good friendships all around. It also hold the idea that everyone in heaven is married. I know that not many go along with that belief.
 

---

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Planned Parent of NY says the average age of first intercourse in the US is 16.

So I rather doubt virginity before marriage is something "most people" prize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:

Confusion over a sexual identity or orientation- if you don’t know who you are or what you want in a relationship (or even, God forbid, weather you prefer men or women), you aren’t ready to have sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:

Confusion over a sexual identity or orientation- if you don’t know who you are or what you want in a relationship (or even, God forbid, weather you prefer men or women), you aren’t ready to have sex.

---

So that's the human species wiped out in one generation then!

---

Really? Nobody decides these things until they're sterile with old age?
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
As a recently single-again..... after only having sex-within-marriage.....Im feeling the urge to explore my sexuality and what I might like, in contrast to trys view
 

---

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
... those unfamiliar with such traditions can forget, and which can make it appear, incorrectly, that virginity per se was the reason for their being honoured or consulted at that time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Did Christianity, so to speak, "catch" the virginity thing from the Roman Vestal Virgins?

---

I doubt it. Virginity has been honored in most cultures since ancient times.

Virginity is mentioned favorably over a hundred times in the Bible in various contexts, although often the word translated "virgin" is simply an ambiguous word for a young woman. Still, there is plenty of material to draw on, in addition to such things as the vestal virgins.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Henry,
The Christian emphasis was on eschatological expectation and witness to this - that differs quite a bit from the 'virginity' offered to the old gods. As well, there was great emphasis on the virtue of chastity (applicable to all states of life - I am not referring to continence). Adultery, together with murder and apostasy, was considered a 'sin unto death' during the early Christian centuries.

Christians and pagan philosophers (in fact, I believe even Buddhists would hold this view) often had an idea that, ultimately, total continence was valuable to the wise - in a sense of there being no distractions from the pursuit of wisdom. Many non-Christian traditions had a concept that the true scholar would eventually be ascetic and continent, even if after the period of life during which he was a householder.

However, in a sense, I would say that, in popular imagination rather than theological works, there was a hint that memories of the old gods took centuries to fade. During the Middle Ages, for example, when devotion to saints had far more to do with their value as intercessors than anything else, a memory, dating long before the Christian time, of virgins as having 'power' remained. Many of the 'lives of the saints' promoted during that time are largely fantastic - but that did not matter, since the hearers were hardly looking to imitate the saints. The virgin saints were very popular, the virgin martyrs doubly so, because (for reasons I cannot really explain - the concept dates back to antiquity) they were seen to be the most powerful intercessors.

The idea of the 'holy hymen' often became absurd during those ages, as well. Many a Franciscan wasted his breath on long sermons defending the idea that, when Jesus was born, he 'passed through his mother's body the way he passed through the closed doors of the room after his resurrection.' God forbid that there be any allowance for a natural birth, which would place his mother's virginity in question.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
The idea of the 'holy hymen' often became absurd during those ages, as well. Many a Franciscan wasted his breath on long sermons defending the idea that, when Jesus was born, he 'passed through his mother's body the way he passed through the closed doors of the room after his resurrection.' God forbid that there be any allowance for a natural birth, which would place his mother's virginity in question.

---

Um, us Orthodox believe in that too, that the Virgin Mary gave birth "without loss of virginity." I wouldn't say that it's the best subject for a sermon because, among other things, it's not part of the Church's public proclamation. But while pontificating on how it happened may be a bit much, all of us Orthodox believe that it happened.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
So virginity must be held in some esteem, then, in the orthodox church.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0