Is virginity even relevant past age 30?

11 Nov

As I’ve discussed before, the church sends out different messages about sexual purity depending on what age group you fall into.  If you’re still in high school, Sex Is Bad.  (It’s Good if you’re married, but since you as a high schooler have no hope of being married any time soon and since most of you are going to college for four or more years during which you will not get married, Sex Is Bad.)  If you’re out of college, then abstinence is rarely mentioned, with the sort of implicit understanding that everyone understands that Single People Don’t Do It.  Not that I’ve ever seen anyone hauled in front of the church to be disciplined for fornication, other than mostly regretful single male worship leaders who were saying goodbye because they got caught.  I would bet good money that in churches with lots of people returning to the fold (you know, the loving, nonjudgmental churches), there are regular attendees aplenty who are fornicating with delight, with many even openly cohabitating.  But let’s not be harsh, because we don’t want to give anyone the impression that legalism still mars the church.  God will convict their hearts in His own good time.  Besides, if I point a finger, someone might point a finger back at me, and that would be unpleasant and rather unedifying.

In the manosphere, there is a constant to-do about a woman’s “number” and a woman’s history of riding the “carousel.”  As far as I can tell, there isn’t a specific “number” beyond which a woman becomes a carousel rider, but it seems generally agreed upon that a woman’s “number” must be three or lower to qualify as “good.”  I’m not sure if this means the husband is number three or number four, but it does seem that most men who are shopping for a wife definitely get uncomfortable beyond five.  Even if a woman has always only ever had sex with men with whom she is “in a committed relationship” and has never strayed, six is just too many.  Even if it was a decade ago and she’s been living like a nun since, she’s still likely to be branded damaged goods.

Committed Christian men are even more hyperobsessive about the almighty “number” because (if they’ve been 100% pure themselves) marriage is their one and only shot at finding a sex partner, and no one wants to marry the town bike.  It’s understandable that the idea of treading where a score of other men have tread before is not a particularly appealing one, especially when one has tread nowhere oneself.  Still, with the age of first marriage being so high, and living in a sexually permissive culture where many Christians do not adhere to traditional sexual morality, it becomes increasingly unlikely that a Christian will be able to or even be able to expect to marry a virgin, especially after, say, age 25.  It’s not that it can’t be done, it’s just that in many cases, it won’t be.  By the time someone is 30, hoping for virginity in a future spouse is like hoping to see a unicorn.

So is virginity, in a practical sense, really even that relevant after the “prime marrying years” are past?  I think most Christian men beyond college age would agree with the “three is a magic number” approximation.  So if you’re an attractive 32-year-old Christian woman who’s had sex with two guys and haven’t had sex with anyone in the past five years because you’ve rededicated your life to the Lord, are most single Christian men going to say, “Um, sorry, not a virgin, bye.”?  I doubt it.  A lot of those men won’t even be virgins themselves, and since the woman is still under the magic number, she’s still marriage material.

I’m not condoning fornication.  God’s rules are God’s rules.  As the creator of sex, God knows what He’s doing in setting boundaries.  Paul says, “‘Everything is permissible’ – but not everything is beneficial.”  This is one of those “rubber meets the road” areas, where “faith is being certain of what we do not see.”  As I get older, I’m not sure that I see that there’s much personal benefit in getting married a virgin vs. getting married somewhere under the magic number, but as I also see the societal havoc (and personal devastation) that fornication has wrought, I am reassured that God is, as always, infinite in his wisdom.

Advertisements

111 Responses to “Is virginity even relevant past age 30?”

  1. Cane Caldo November 11, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    “As I get older, I’m not sure that I see that there’s much personal benefit in getting married a virgin vs. getting married somewhere under the magic number, but as I also see the societal havoc (and personal devastation) that fornication has wrought, I am reassured that God is, as always, infinite in his wisdom.”

    Then why are you even asking? “I trust His word, and I can see the fallout of the disobedient all around me, but on the other hand: I don’t feel like it’s a big deal.”

    It’s a stupid way to learn, I’ve found.

  2. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    You’re playing with gasoline.

    Non-virginity greatly increases the LTR discardability of a woman, and vice versa.

    Every man can get a nice virgin overseas. I’d laugh if they did so and forced America’s deflowered maidens into the role of mistresses and second wives only.

    In my view, a woman who is not a virgin should not even dream of feeling entitled to the fidelity and white wedding dresses of traditional marriage.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love sluts for short term lays or low-intensity LTRs.

    But if I’m actually going to live with a woman, she’s my silly putty and I’m the cartoon. I don’t want yesterday’s smudged comics on her impressionable faces.

    Can I override her past influences? Yes. Does the need to do so make her less special to me? Definitely.

    Of course I’m speaking in generalities. There are definitely women out there who would make me change my mind, but even then it would still be a relationship factor.

  3. jack November 12, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    There are some factors that need to be understood in order to pursue an answer to this question.

    1) Most of us understand that a young woman is at the peak of her sexual power in her late teens through late 20s. Like any other kind of power, the more you have, the more potential for good or evil you have. The sexual revolution and the determined efforts for many women to demonstrate their “sexual empowerment” have unleashed the sexual power of young women, and with very few constraints other than each individual girl’s personal values.

    Slut culture has many young women naively competing with each other for more attention without really considering the long-term consequences. Competition can make people short-sighted.

    2) Most young women who make sexual “mistakes” usually make those mistakes with men that are out of their reach for long-term relationships. The oft-cited male “refusal to commit” coincides closely with the period of time where women were freed up to become more sexually adventurous due to lessened social constraints. Women do NOT, generally, make sexual “mistakes” with nice-guy Jimmy, their sweet beta orbiter.

    I think that if women only surrendered themselves sexually to men that seemed willing to marry, then many men, including myself, might view non-virgins with less trepidation.

    However, women’s universally-accepted (and completely natural) tendency toward hypergamy means that they will have sampled preamrital relations at a level that their marriage market guy can never hope to meet.

    The equivalent would be if a guy had participated in a bunch of trysts with high-priced call girls. After having sex with a bunch of bikini models, how could he ever get excited about suzie-next-door?

    Well, the problem is that if suzie-next-door got seduced by a few football/lacrosse/soccer studs in college, she thinks of herself as “in that market”. She was, but only for a little sexy fun time. This is the reason that so many women say that all men are jerks and won’t commit.

    (continued)

  4. jack November 12, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    The problem is not that women make some “mistakes”. The problem is that the KIND of mistakes they make.

    But it is not just the “carousel”. A girl could be a virgin and display all the the mental attributes of a carouseler, but without action.

    Let’s take a look into a case study, starring me, that fountain of ugly bitterness known as jack:

    Some years ago, I was very interested in Connie. We were both about 20-21. I knew Connie from Church, and she showed signs of being a good Christian girl. Problem was, she only had eyes for Dan. Dan was not a Christian, however. Additionally, Dan had a very, very hot blond girlfriend who was giving him lots of very hot sex.

    Connie was short and had an okay figure. There was no way that Dan was going to dump his hot blond putting-out-regularly girl for average little Connie.

    But Connie pursued Dan like there was no tomorrow. She was his beta/omega orbiter. She looked at him with starry eyes and talked to him with a voice full of melody.

    What did nice Christian jack get for his efforts to approach his sister in Christ with honorable intentions?

    DAGGER EYES and STAND-BACK tone of voice. And wrath. I never did ask her out. I tried to be “friends first”, and even took her on a nice outing. She treated me like crap, and was very icy and cruel in her efforts to make ABSOLUTELY SURE that I knew that I was crap.

    Even after I showed every indication that I was not going to pursue, she kept up the fierce countenance, just to ensure that I never got any ideas.

    Then, when Dan was around, she would flip her switch and turn into a giddy schoolgirl.

    Did I mention that Dan was an unsaved guy who fornicated regularly with his girlfriend? Anyway, I would bet a month’s pay that Connie would have yielded sexually to Dan, given the opportunity. So even though she was still a virgin (probably), at her core she had the inner machinery of a carouseler.

    Dan’s status as a promiscuous unbeliever did NOT DISSUADE her one EFFING BIT in her pursuit.

    This was the FIRST of MANY such instances of this behavior that I have witnessed in my sisters in Christ. I’ve seen it enough times to be jaded by it.

    To partially answer the original question, I would probably prefer a girl who made one or two mistakes with
    long, long, long-term boyfriends before I would take a girl like Connie, who was (probably) a virgin, but burned white-hot in her sinful little heart for the attention of a guy like Dan.

    So, Haley, before you open up a can of shaming language, let me just state categorically that Connie was under NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to date me.

    But she WAS under an obligation to treat me with Christian respect, and she WAS under an obligation to mortify the works of the flesh and not chase guys like Dan.

  5. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 4:47 am #

    Jack:

    No, wrong, she can dislike you cuz you’re a creep, and like Dan cuz he has game. As long as she doesn’t bang him, the Bible doesn’t condemn her.

    You need to stop using Christianity as a bitter crutch for your omega victimhood.

  6. Purple Tortoise November 12, 2010 at 5:01 am #

    I think virginity is definitely relevant for committed Christian men (I was a virgin until I married in my mid-30’s), but it is not the most important quality to look for in a wife. A simple way to view it is that you have a limited number of points to spend in order to “buy” particular qualities in a spouse (people with higher marriage market value have more points). You can get virginity, but you may have to trade something else for it (looks, good character, shared interests, etc.), and if the trade isn’t worthwhile, then life-long singleness is always an option.

  7. Thag Jones November 12, 2010 at 5:34 am #

    I wonder if all this talk of magic numbers isn’t just that, a lot of talk. What do these guys do, ask a girl on a first date when her “number” is in order to determine worth? I’m not saying it’s not a bad prospect who has slept with the multitudes, but doesn’t it usually take a while before you find out the actual number, by which time you might have already grown to like the girl? And then, upon finding out she’s, um, a little used, do you dump her and keep looking for the magic number girl?

    I’m curious as to how this even works in the real world, besides picking up on cues about a woman’s character as Jack has demonstrated. Hey, at least she let him know what she was like, so no need for such bitterness.

    JD, aren’t lusts of the heart condemned in the bible? Lust is a deadly sin, because it can so easily lead to fornication with Mr Alpha. With the girl Jack describes with her burning lust it seems only a matter of time and opportunity before they lead her to riding the carousel, Christian or not. I knew a really cute little blonde haired Christian girl in high school who lusted after the “teen idol” of our school. She went on to become a flabby, gross looking amateur porn, um, model? (Don’t know what to call that really). Sounds like where Connie’s going. The “teen idol” is a grandpa in his 30s and still producing progeny with low class chicks. Not hard to see why lust itself is a sin that needs to be brought under mastery.

  8. nothingbutthetruth November 12, 2010 at 5:41 am #

    Well, this is the problem with American Christianity. It is not authentic Christianity, but Cafeteria Christianity. You follow the rules that you want and you discard the rest, as in a cafeteria.

    According to the doctrine, both man and woman must be virgin when they get married. But, what does God’s rules matter when you have casual sex?

    As a result, nowadays limiting yourself to find a virgin as a spouse is practically impossible. Sign of our decadent times…

  9. nothingbutthetruth November 12, 2010 at 5:53 am #

    “No, wrong, she can dislike you cuz you’re a creep, and like Dan cuz he has game. ”

    In my experience, the difference between a creep and a non-creep lies in the woman’s heart.

    Creep is shaming language for “I don’t want you. Leave me alone”. This is a woman’s feeling but it is projected onto the guy, as if the guy had something incredibly deffective.

    The woman can feel better depicting the guy as a kind of lowlife so she doesn’t feel bad about rejecting him (most times, in an unpolite, rude and disrespectful way). “The guy’s a creep” – is a perfect excuse for that.

    This is why a woman’s creep is another woman’s potential. I have seen that. The man is the same but the woman’s feelings are different.

  10. Thag Jones November 12, 2010 at 5:57 am #

    Of course the other point is that when people expected to marry as virgins, they typically married early, not in their 30s. This is also part of the problem. It’s one thing to expect an 18-year-old to be a virgin (although these days even that’s pushing it, unfortunately), but 35? If it was still expected that people were to marry young and that saving it for marriage was the norm as it once was, this wouldn’t seem like such an outlandish wish. There are good reasons for marrying as a virgin, though from what I’ve read, it appears that the female’s virginity is what makes the difference in marriage.

  11. JG November 12, 2010 at 6:08 am #

    Great points in your post, nothingbutthetruth.

    Jack, I think Connie did you a favor by showing that her brand of ‘christianity’ (lower-cased C) was valid only as long as it suited her. We can’t know for sure but I’m guessing that had Dan pursued Connie she couldn’t have flung herself fast enough at him, no limitations.

    In Connie’s case, ‘game’ triumphed her ‘christianity’ as nothingbutthetruth so aptly described it. Better that you found out what Connie was about early instead of after a failed relationship where she’d abandoned you for some pseudo-christian PUA.

    Thag Jones nailed Connie’s likely future, she’ll give you a chance once she’s lost her looks and innocence to a player who enjoys her in her prime and kicks her to the curb, probably with a ton of baggage that she wants to unload on a weak man because a confident man would never put up with the consequences of Connie’s poor choices.

  12. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 7:11 am #

    Every discussion about virginity lately seems to start with “It’s too hard.”

    There’s also a discussion about girls who came to Christ late and repented, but that’s a separate issue. The girls we seem to be talking to are mostly those who were at least nominally church-going and supposedly virtuous.

    Look, guys are made fun of for being virgins. Girls are valued for it. It’s comparatively easy for a girl to lose her virginity. We know all this.

    Honestly, every discussion of virginity that I come across reads like a rationalization for girls to pretend that they didn’t have anything to do with the decisions that they made. Losing her virginity will lower her prospects for marriage and she needs to face that.

    I have known older women who were abandoned by the guy she lost her virginity to, and it was absolutely devastating. If it’s at all possible, don’t be that woman.

    Now, will there be guys who will look past that? Yeah, of course. But if the guy has options, is sincere about his faith, and is a virgin (not a surprising combination in the 30+ male crowd) then if she’s approaching or past 30, her viriginity is one of her major assets for competing against younger, more promiscuous girls when she’s trying to get a commitment (vs. attention).

  13. Aunt Haley November 12, 2010 at 7:23 am #

    Wayfinder–
    I think that beyond a certain age, women are looked at funny for having virginity intact. Beautiful women lose their virginity earlier than ugly women. Being a virgin at age 30 is just a latent advertisement that a woman is unattractive to men, or has frigidity issues or other psychological problems. No one says to a 35-year-old female virgin, “Congratulations on your moral fiber!”

    Also, if a man must choose between a virgin 5 and an 8 who has had sex with one guy, which one will the man choose? I don’t think virginity is THAT powerful, unless it’s something like a virgin 5 vs. an 8 who’s had sex with 15 guys.

  14. Julie November 12, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    What about those who’ve done everything “but”? How much does their stock go down?

    I will say that when I was single, I had no idea that my “market value” might be lowered by sexual activity. I simply knew I shouldn’t do it because God didn’t want me to, and I might get pregnant. The two boyfriends I had in college ended up marrying other women, both of whom they had slept with prior to marriage.

  15. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    @Haley
    And if the guy is a 5 and can’t realistically get an 8? She’s not going to get the alpha male 8 either way, but she has a chance at finding a faithful guy somewhat older than her.

    @Julie
    Virginity isn’t just valued for itself, but for the character it signifies. I don’t think that women realize the extent to which men need the emotional assurance that she’s not going to cheat on him. The girls who do “everything but” are risking that. Some guys will overlook that, and it will get her attention, but it’s a risky strategy.

  16. Julie November 12, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    Yeah, I get that. Once, I tried to imagine how I would feel if there was a question as to whether my children were mine–I remember feeling like I would do anything to ensure that was never in question! I was surprised how strong my emotions were, especially since I’m a woman so this would never be an issue.

    Again, when I was single, I never even thought of this as being an issue for men. If anything, I thought too much purity on my part might signal a lack of desirability.

    Honestly, I think sometimes a woman who has been VERY pure may have done so because: she is not tha desirable, or she has a very low sex drive. That’s the other side of the coin–whereas a woman who has done “everything but” is signifying a high sex drive combined with the self-restraint to save intercourse for marriage.

  17. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    1. It isn’t hard to find church girls, even 30 something church girls, who are virgins. (They’re all over Eharmony and, yes, you can put it as one of your must haves/can’t stands.)

    2. Church women who aren’t virgins tend to be pretty screwed up. I speak from experience, recent, vivid experience.

    3. According to the work of Slumlord/The Social Pathologist the likelihood of divorce is significantly increased when the woman has even one previous partner before her husband.

    In light of the above, I have made a decision to take a hard line on this issue in my future dating. I won’t lose much.

  18. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    There’s also a discussion about girls who came to Christ late and repented, but that’s a separate issue.

    Those ones are crazy too.

  19. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    So if you’re an attractive 32-year-old Christian woman who’s had sex with two guys and haven’t had sex with anyone in the past five years because you’ve rededicated your life to the Lord, are most single Christian men going to say, “Um, sorry, not a virgin, bye.”? I doubt it.

    Many of these attractive women do get rejected, even if the sexual activity happened before they came to Christ.

  20. Julie November 12, 2010 at 8:19 am #

    “It isn’t hard to find church girls, even 30 something church girls, who are virgins. (They’re all over Eharmony and, yes, you can put it as one of your must haves/can’t stands.)”

    Yes, but most women who have been sexual without having intercourse will call themselves virgins. Generally, they really think of themselves that way too.

  21. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    Yes, but most women who have been sexual without having intercourse will call themselves virgins.

    In my experience, women who have regularly been sexual without intercourse rarely stay that way. Unless they are from some immigrant culture where they won’t ever be able to get married without an intact hymen, they eventually give in and go all the way.

    Most of the women I have met on Eharmony have had barely any relationship, let alone sexual experience.

  22. Julie November 12, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    Really? Well, I guess I don’t know what everyone else does. To me, there was a world of difference between going most of the way and all of the way…because all of the way could lead to pregnancy.

  23. y81 November 12, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    I wouldn’t take the “manosphere” as necessarily a reliable guide to prevailing male thinking, Christian or otherwise. (Just as I wouldn’t take, for example, Instapundit as representative of law professors.) People frequently write blogs because they are at odds with their surroundings and seeking an outlet for idiosyncratic views.

  24. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    @Julie
    Turn it around again: for a guy it doesn’t make much difference emotionally whether or not it’s going to directly lead to pregnancy. Being too sexually available is a sign of low value. The problem, I suspect, is that young girls are confusing being socially open with being sexually availible, so they either lock themselves away and make guys climb walls just to talk to her, or they make themselves easy to approach and offer themselves sexually.

  25. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Of course there is a crucial difference between just fooling around and having intercourse. All I’m saying is that those who indulge in the former usually indulge in the latter. There just aren’t a whole lot of VINOs going around doing everything but, especially past their early 20s.

  26. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    @y81
    Agreed. The “manosphere” is mostly not interested in figuring out what makes men tick or in what men really want beyond immediate carnal appetites. See the stupid argument that you can’t really be an alpha unless you prove it by rejecting marriage and bedding as many women as possible. If you’re a woman looking to find a believing, faithful man, knowing that losing your virginity isn’t a barrier to getting more one night stands doesn’t help.

  27. Julie November 12, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Obviously, it would be ideal to find an attractive Christian virgin who had never done anything beyond kissing. What I’m saying is that I knew few women like that. If a woman has much of a sex drive at all, it is very difficult to stop at kissing. Therefore, men who marry women who are very pure risk that they will end up in a marriage where sex is far less frequent or passionate than they had hoped.

  28. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    Haley, have you seen Roissy’s post, “Why Sluts make bad wives”? It explains in graph form why men prefer virgins.

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/

    Vox also has a post on the topic: The loyalty proxy.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/mailvox-loyalty-proxy.html

    You’ve bought into the PUA trope “something must be wrong with her if she’s still a virgin.” For the casual hookup scene, sure. For the marriage market, emphatically no.

  29. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    “The two boyfriends I had in college ended up marrying other women, both of whom they had slept with prior to marriage.”

    That should be a big hint.

    Hold out for an oath sworn outside the heat of the moment, but not the Westernized wedding.

  30. Rebekah November 12, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    Dante, I’m with Thag – you better re-read that Bibe of yours. “a woman who is not a virgin should not even dream of feeling entitled to the fidelity and white wedding dresses of traditional marriage.” Okay. So since y’all have lusted after a woman [or man] neither should you.

    If there is sincere repentance, assuming that the person [male or female] wasn’t claiming to know Christ and then getting their thang on when it suited them? It might be best to delay judgment. Especially considering the Bible thumper crew to be ridiculously lax when it comes to the “everything but” bit. Partial obedience is disobedience.

    Far more damage is done to people and their expectations of sex and their partners by porn than by actual sex…but again another topic.

    Thursday, as far as intact hymens go [congrats]. For many women, athletics = no hymen to speak of.

  31. jack November 12, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Joseph D:

    Shaming language? Way to diminish your intellectual credibility.

    :)

    Anyway, your statement in irrelevant and incorrect, since it took me about another 15 years to actually become bitter.

    This bit of reality never seems to sink through the mile thick concrete skulls of some people.

    I was completely honorable toward her and very polite.

    Read again, and realize the truth: As a professed Christian, she WAS under obligation to return kindness for kindness.

    If she was NOT a Christian, then it is open to debate whether she was required to return kindness for kindness.

    So question Joey-D:

    Does it ever, ever occur to your towering intellect that I became bitter later? Or are you suffering from lack of perception of variability of personality over time?

  32. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    Jack: I think I am in a good position to understand your bitterness, having a great deal of it myself.

    I’m definitely shaming you. You need it. Time to sack up.

    One way or another, you need to start climbing up to a more tolerable position on the social pyramid you’ve finally realized has been screwing you over all these years.

    You don’t have to violate Biblical commands to follow a modified version of the PUA path.

    And no, she was not obligated to do any such thing. Attractive Christian women have no obligation to give loser Christian guys the time of day. It’s quite possible in the early church that young unmarried sisters and brothers did not mingle in church at all.

    As far as Thag and Rebekah piling on about lusting in the heart, here’s my definition of that sin: having the willingness but lacking the opportunity or courage.

    I didn’t read all of Jack’s Connie saga, just the end, and I’m not interested in judging Connie by Jack’s description, but rather Jack by the evidence of his own words.

  33. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    Jack, prime example: Your previous post starts with a half joking whine, followed by a criticism, followed by a smiley face.

    No idea what your conscious and unconscious intentions were, but it comes off very omega.

    Alpha misogyny is a fine art, and you are far from practicing it.

  34. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    “So since y’all have lusted after a woman [or man] neither should you.”

    No. Virginity (and by extension adultery) matters way more for a woman than a man. Stable provision and wifely status are the key things a man provides to the woman.

    Monogamy and the wedding dress are cultural artifacts, and Biblical perspectives on equality of sin don’t enter into it.

  35. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    @Rebekah
    You’re misreading him. He was using intact hymen as a proxy for culture, not virtue.

    Fact is none of us deserve anything. But that doesn’t negate our obligation to do the best with what we have. We don’t keep sinning to get more grace. Further, a marriage is something that should be entered in wisdom. If I’m choosing the mother of my children, her virginity is certainly going to be a factor.

    Should we be forgiving? Yes. Does that mean that you’ll still have the same chance to get married to a faithful, believing guy? No. It could happen, but…

    @Julie
    Hence the panic in the comments on Haley’s previous post about that.

    I’m also not convinced that it’s any easier for the guy to stop. If I can do it, why can’t she?

    Keeping in mind that Dante doesn’t really believe in formal marriage for anyone, his position on that is entirely consistent. I disagree with him, but that means that I’m even less likely to be interested in a non-virgin.

    There’s two viewpoints we’ve been arguing around: the man’s perspective, where he can choose between women of various levels of beauty and virginity, and the woman’s perspective, where the only factor under her control is her virginity.

    If she’s already lost it, then she obviously can’t go back, but that’s a different question. If she’s a virgin and she’s wondering why she bothered (as in the title of the post) here are some of the reasons from a sexual marketplace perspective.

  36. novaseeker November 12, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    The only sane answer is: it depends.

    It depends, in part, on how strict a Christian the guy is. A guy who is more lax will not care as much (even before 30) than a guy who is more strict.

    It depends, in part, on risk tolerance. As Thursday points out, there are demonstrated risks in marrying someone with even only a small number of partners. Some guys are more risk averse than others are, and will be more, or less, willing to take the risk.

    It depends, in part, on the context of the prior sexuality — both the “number”, per se, but also the context. A woman who is not a virgin at 35 but who has had two serious relationships whom she has slept with is different from a woman who has had 2 one night stands at 35. Whether subsequent “repentance” changes things depends on some of the “depends” points above (risk tolerance and strictness).

    I don’t think it depends much on technicalities — as in, we didn’t “have sex” but did everything else that did not involve penile/vaginal penetration. That’s still “sex”, in terms of several of the “depends” points above, it seems to me, even if it isn’t technically “penetrative sex”. Couples who are bringing each other to regular orgasms with their hands and tongues and so on are still having sex, even if they are not having “intercourse” (at least to me, in terms of the risk factors noted above).

  37. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    It’s always an interesting experience to read someone else’s exegesis of your text and not understand it.

    “Dante doesn’t really believe in formal marriage for anyone”

    I didn’t say that. On weddings-and-cake traditional marriage, I’m a formalist. The ceremonial form, or lack thereof, should fit the relationship’s nature. The family type wedding in the Godfather trilogy for the Godfather’s daughter made sense for them. The spontaneous hippie wedding in Natural Born Killers made sense for them. It may behoove other men to avoid any type of wedding ceremony to maintain leverage over an unstable female.

  38. Rebekah November 12, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    ah. misread. thanks.

    “Virginity (and by extension adultery) matters way more for a woman than a man. Stable provision and wifely status are the key things a man provides to the woman.

    Monogamy and the wedding dress are cultural artifacts, and Biblical perspectives on equality of sin don’t enter into it.”

    Wow. If monogamy is reduced to a cultural issue we’re in trouble. Since when do Biblical perspectives not enter into culture?

    We measure cultural ideas based on scripture, not the other way around.

  39. ASDF November 12, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    It sounds like you’re trying to justify doing it with numbers one and two while you wait for Mr. Right. ;)

    Are you over 30, Haley?

  40. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    @Joseph Dante
    Fair enough. And I’d actually agree that the form should reflect the relationship: just that I’m only willing to consider a certain class of relationships for myself.

    @Rebekah
    I actually agree with him on the white dresses insofar as they signify virginal purity. If I did marry a girl who wasn’t a virgin, I’d have issues with the message she was sending with a white dress.

    It’s perfectly Biblically acceptable to avoid marriage with a girl who has sinned in this regard; she’s likely to be a bad match for a virgin guy. Are there exceptions? Yes. But there are a lot of girls who were faithful who would probably be just as good.

  41. Julie November 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    Well, for the record, I did “everything but” with a couple different boyfriends in early college–wised up with later boyfriends as I realized sexual activity clouded my discernment.

    I am now happily married and would NEVER ever cheat–if I was ever tempted, I would run the other way quickly! That would put me on the road to divorce, and I would never ever ever want that, for me, my husband, and especially my kids.

  42. guy November 12, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    this one seems pretty cut and dried…

    for the man, yes he prefers a virgin.

    Is it the only trait that matters? no.

    How important is it? Depends on the man and the woman.

    not much else to say about it…

  43. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    “Wow. If monogamy is reduced to a cultural issue we’re in trouble. Since when do Biblical perspectives not enter into culture?”

    Oh, “we’re” in trouble alright. Gentlemen, I refer you to the parable of Sir Galahad and the Castle of Virgins, MPATHG.

    You may have a little peril.

  44. Wayfinder November 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    There’s an understandable vaugeness in where we’re drawing the line in the discussion. Part of it is undoubtedly based on being embedded in different social networks.
    I don’t really expect to find a girl whose never been kissed. But somewhere around the time that clothes come off I’m going to question if you really intended to stay a virgin.
    @Julie
    Again, If it’s in the past that’s just something you have to deal with, like any other baggage. I’m glad it worked out for you, but it’s still a risk for any girl today.

  45. jack November 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Joey-

    The frustrating thing is that you apparently can’t resolve the concept of a person who becomes bitter through experiencing events.

    Yes, it is also possible for someone’s bitterness to cause one to experience negative events.

    You, apparently, see correlation and cause in only one direction. This is very interesting, because I seldom have to make this explanation to other men. Usually, it is women who assume that a person who is bitter was always so.

    This also probably explains your complaint about my lack of alpha game. Gee, Mr. Dante, was I supposed to be trying to seduce you? It certainly explains the fact that you are shit-testing me by calling me an omega.

    But to further lube the discourse here, and to appease your complaint, I promise to spend a week reading up over at Roissy, so that I may better form my future comments in a manner that gives you more intellectual tingle.

  46. grerp November 12, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    Two things really mattered to me, and neither was religious in nature: the possibility of pregnancy and increased vulnerability.

    Pregnancy is pretty self-explanatory, but as a Catholic I did not feel that abortion was in any way an option for me, and the other two choices – adoption or single motherhood – were harder things than I wanted to face.

    I know other people are different, but I am a private person and I don’t let many people into my trusted circle. Sex makes you vulnerable, physically and emotionally. I did not want to take the chance that the person I slept with would talk about me – would mock my body or my sexual expression – with other people or would make that information into some kind of a weapon. I also felt that any feelings I had for someone would probably deepen if we had sex, and if the relationship ended I would be more distraught.

    I was 27 when I married and I felt like the only 27-year-old virgin on the planet, but I was glad I waited. It’s a relief knowing that no one can tell dirty stories about me and there are no naked pics to surface.

  47. Cane Caldo November 12, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    “Being a virgin at age 30 is just a latent advertisement that a woman is unattractive to men, or has frigidity issues or other psychological problems. No one says to a 35-year-old female virgin, “Congratulations on your moral fiber!””

    This is just plain baloney. Actually, we do say that. Just married off a friend to his lovely bride. She was a virgin (at 28), and it was the first marriage I was glad to be involved in because of that very point. Also, she’s a solid 6.

    “Also, if a man must choose between a virgin 5 and an 8 who has had sex with one guy, which one will the man choose? I don’t think virginity is THAT powerful, unless it’s something like a virgin 5 vs. an 8 who’s had sex with 15 guys.

    Very few men have that choice. Those that do would be smart to take the 5; unless they’re jonesing to play The Divorce Game.

  48. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    On the contrary, I expect that every bitter person becomes so by experiencing events. Certainly that was how I became so.

    Your behavior indicates more than a lack of girl-targeted game. You need a heaping dose of masculinity, period. The gay baiting games are just more evidence of this.

    I do not recommend Roissy. Poison and cat games are not what you need.

    Instead, read the Dog Whisperer’s first book, and watch Season 1 of his show. That will SHOW you everything you need to know.

    It’s about being a man.

    Hop over to my blog and I’ll email you the book and the torrent link.

  49. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    “no one can tell dirty stories about me and there are no naked pics to surface.”

    Really, you should chide your husband to be more adventurous.

  50. Josh November 14, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    Virginity is extremely relevant. There is not a man on earth who thinks “I wish my wife had more sexual partners before she met me.” None is better than one, one is better than two, two is better than three, and so on.

    Dalrock and others have posted on the rates of divorce and affairs for women based on sexual partners before marriage. The statistics show that the likelihood of cheating and divorce increases with each sexual partner.

    As Christians, we are called not to judge others, as judgment is reserved for God. Prostitutes served in Jesus’ ministry. As Jesus himself said, he came not to heal the healthy, but the sick. But though sins can be forgiven, it is still better to have not sinned at all. Hosea married a prostitute, to symbolize God’s faithfulness to Israel, and Israel’s unfaithfulness to God.

  51. Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life November 14, 2010 at 10:25 am #

    I think you are asking a very brave question Haley.

    The harsh truth is that most men would perceive a 30 year virgin as suffering from low sexual desire rather than having virtue.

    After a certain point she just starts looking like a bad bet.

  52. ASDF November 14, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    I have a relative who married a 30 year old woman who was a virgin. She’s an evangelical, so she was seen as virtuous, but there was definitely a “Thank God she’s finally getting hitched” vibe at the wedding. They now have a bunch of kids and a fairly happy marriage, as far as I can tell.

  53. Aunt Haley November 14, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Julie–
    The two boyfriends I had in college ended up marrying other women, both of whom they had slept with prior to marriage.

    Were these Christian boyfriends?

    Yes, but most women who have been sexual without having intercourse will call themselves virgins. Generally, they really think of themselves that way too.

    Ah, “technical” virgins! I still consider such women virgins, but men should understand that virginity is not a synonym for sexual inexperience.

    y81–
    I wouldn’t take the “manosphere” as necessarily a reliable guide to prevailing male thinking, Christian or otherwise.

    Subtracting the extreme bitterness, I actually find that manosphere thinking is pretty accurate for men in general. Of course, on my blog, I have a pretty loud chorus of “I’m not like that!”s. (And men think that women are the only ones with this issue?…)

    novaseeker–
    Couples who are bringing each other to regular orgasms with their hands and tongues and so on are still having sex, even if they are not having “intercourse” (at least to me, in terms of the risk factors noted above).

    I think sustained behavior of this type would raise red flags for me more than actual sex.

    Wayfinder–
    If I did marry a girl who wasn’t a virgin, I’d have issues with the message she was sending with a white dress.

    You would also be okay advertising to everyone that you’re not marrying a virgin? I think the “value” of a white dress is so degraded these days that it’s better to assume the couple are NOT virgins than to look at the dress color for any indication thereof.

    Josh–
    Virginity is extremely relevant.

    Imagine yourself at age 40. You are dating a 35-year-old woman but are not having sex with her because you are both committed Christians. Are you really going to fret over your future with her if she tells you that instead of being the virgin you thought she was, when she was 18, she had sex with her (also 18-year-old) boyfriend at the time because he pressured her into it? And you know that since then, she has rededicated her life to Christ and has only had two other boyfriends, neither of whom she had sex with? I feel like there just comes a point where virginity is not that relevant in practical terms.

    ASDF–
    She’s an evangelical, so she was seen as virtuous, but there was definitely a “Thank God she’s finally getting hitched” vibe at the wedding.

    I would say that for any woman over the age of…say, 27, that there is a definite vibe of RELIEF on the part of all the older family members. The unspoken second half of “Thank God she’s finally getting hitched!” is “because we were pretty sure it was never going to happen!”

  54. y81 November 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    If you subtract the extreme bitterness, I’m not sure you’d have much manosphere left!

    Neither the sociological literature (try, e.g., Wilcox’s “Soft Patriarchs, New Men”) or the theological literature (try, e.g., Tim Keller’s “False Gods”) supports the claim that an extreme focus on female virginity at marriage, a high tolerance for male premarital sexual activity, a hierarchal rather than a complementarian ideology of gender differences, and a rejection of the ideal of companionate marriage are common among evangelical men. But these ideas (along with nutso paleoconservatism, like abolishing the Federal Reserve) characterize the manosphere.

  55. Wayfinder November 14, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    @Haley
    I wouldn’t have any integrity of I wasn’t willing to do so. I’d have much bigger issues about lying to people. Granted that the “white dress=virgin” thing was never as big as people think it was, I still think that it’s a very bad witness to deliberately flout that.

    Look, if I get married, the ceremony is going to be as much of a witness to the community as it is anything else. If I let her walk down the aisle in a white dress, that’s telling everybody that I think she’s a virgin. If she isn’t then I’m sending a very bad message about the value of marriage and purity.

    This isn’t a standard that I hold anyone else to. But I think that if we’re going to start demanding accountability, we might as well start with ourselves.

    I agree that the church as a community offers zero support for virgins past a certain point, but just because people are more willing to make compromises at older ages doesn’t mean that it’s completely valueless. At 40 it’s more likely to be accepted, but that doesn’t mean it will be. In the scenario you describe, I’d make my decision based on how she presented herself beforehand. If she had presented herself as a virgin and then it turned out that she wasn’t, I’d have huge issues with that.

    @y81
    As someone whose only interested in one thing on the list, I suspect that I don’t count as part of the “manosphere”. Actually, I’ll state for the record that there are circumstances in which I’d be willing to marry a non-virgin.

  56. Thag Jones November 14, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    WRT wedding dresses, wasn’t the white tradition started by Queen Victoria? From what I read some time ago the tradition before that was a blue dress.

  57. Wayfinder November 14, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    @Thag
    That’s one of the things I was thinking about, the symbolism white wedding dress is a bit like the ridiculous unity candle or the ridiculous pop image of the 1950’s that some people seem to have…we think that it means more than it did.

    I don’t want to leave the impression that I care a lot about the dress either way. If she wears a white dress but otherwise explains that it doesn’t mean what people think I’d be fine. But I can’t think of a way to do that that wouldn’t be more embarrassing for her. And I think that an off-white or cream dress would be a powerful witness to both sin and redemption…

  58. Thag Jones November 14, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    I actually really like the off-white ones (just as well I suppose) and your take on it is nice as well.

  59. Richard Cook November 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    nothingbuthtetruth

    I noticed your comment about North American Christianity. Just having retired from the US Navy after 29 years and having been a concregant at churches in areas like Ethiopia, England, South Korea and Afghanistan I do find, after traveling around the world four times, that Cafeteria Christianity is pretty much the rule and not the exception. You see things with a little more detail when you are on the ground, so to speak, and know the church’s congregation over time.

  60. Julie November 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Haley asked (about my previous boyfriends who ended yp marrying women they’d had premarital sex with: “Were these Christian boyfriends?”

    Yes they were. These two were definitely Christians. I’ve only dated one nonChristian in my life and he was posing as a Christian.

    Of the Christian boyfriends I’ve had, most were not virgins when I met and dated them. A couple were, but then went on to lose their virginity to other women before they got married. My two best friends also married Christian men with a sexual past.

  61. jack November 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    “Imagine yourself at age 40. You are dating a 35-year-old woman but are not having sex with her because you are both committed Christians. Are you really going to fret over your future with her if she tells you that instead of being the virgin you thought she was, when she was 18, she had sex with her (also 18-year-old) boyfriend at the time because he pressured her into it? And you know that since then, she has rededicated her life to Christ and has only had two other boyfriends, neither of whom she had sex with? I feel like there just comes a point where virginity is not that relevant in practical terms.”

    This is, IMO, close enough to virginity to be workable.

  62. Cane Caldo November 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    “That’s one of the things I was thinking about, the symbolism white wedding dress is a bit like the ridiculous unity candle or the ridiculous pop image of the 1950′s that some people seem to have…we think that it means more than it did.”

    I would argue that it (and symbols in general) matter in the context of the era. If 50 years ago a white dress was a symbol of virginity to most people, then no matter how it started it was an important.

    That being said: I agree with Haley, and never assume she’s a virgin.

    Was the blue dress a symbol of the Virgin Mary?

  63. Samson November 14, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    “Being a virgin at age 30 is just a latent advertisement that a woman is unattractive to men, or has frigidity issues or other psychological problems. No one says to a 35-year-old female virgin, “Congratulations on your moral fiber!””

    This is just plain baloney. Actually, we do say that.

    Right on, Cane; Haley, I’m surprised to see you say something like that, and I’m glad you were called on it. We absolutely do congratulate her on her moral fibre, and it is absolutely attractive. Similarly, Athol says:

    The harsh truth is that most men would perceive a 30 year virgin as suffering from low sexual desire rather than having virtue.

    I just can’t agree with that at all. My wife was a virgin at around 30 when we married, and she does not, and never did, suffer from low sexual desire. As The Man Who Was… has noted elsewhere, keeping her sexuality bottled just means that a woman unleashes it with all the more fervour when she becomes able. “There are some lucky, lucky men sitting in the pews.”

  64. Samson November 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    I wouldn’t take the “manosphere” as necessarily a reliable guide to prevailing male thinking, Christian or otherwise.

    Yeah, that is what Boundless is for. ;)

    (Just as I wouldn’t take, for example, Instapundit as representative of law professors.) People frequently write blogs because they are at odds with their surroundings and seeking an outlet for idiosyncratic views.

    Yes, quite true.

  65. Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life November 14, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Similarly, Athol says:

    The harsh truth is that most men would perceive a 30 year virgin as suffering from low sexual desire rather than having virtue.

    I just can’t agree with that at all. My wife was a virgin at around 30 when we married, and she does not, and never did, suffer from low sexual desire. As The Man Who Was… has noted elsewhere, keeping her sexuality bottled just means that a woman unleashes it with all the more fervour when she becomes able. “There are some lucky, lucky men sitting in the pews.”

    What if she just says she’s horny as all get out before she marries and it turns out she isn’t at all?

    In general don’t the really horny Christian women make an effort to attract and hunt down a man before 30?

  66. Samson November 14, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    What if she just says she’s horny as all get out before she marries and it turns out she isn’t at all?

    I agree that this might seem like a danger, but I think in reality it’s overblown. As The Man Who Was… used to say, there are “tells” that a woman wants it. It’s not that hard to discern.

    In general don’t the really horny Christian women make an effort to attract and hunt down a man before 30?

    Well, maybe in general, I suppose. Yet, I don’t want to get too personal, but I think, for example, of my unmarried sister-in-law who is unmarried mostly because she’s so darned shy. I don’t think she’s frigid.

  67. socratesadmirer November 14, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    I’m not a practicing Christian but I do generally agree with the messages of Christian morality. I’d just like to elaborate on the question of how a woman’s sexual choices serve as an indication to character.

    I think most important is how one views the physical act of sex before they ever engage in it. I think growing up most of us viewed it as something that only people who are in love with each other do. When sexual urges start to intensify there is a temptation to modify that idea. The issue is a fudging of the concept of love. Men do it by letting their infatuation with a girl’s physical beauty become the entire issue and discounting everything else – attitude, character, intelligence, femininity, etc. Women do it by letting a man’s status overwhelm everything else and then using it to raise themselves up on the social ladder. So if you ask a teenage girl if she loves the captain of the football team, she’ll say she does, even though she knows nothing about his individuality. And if you ask a teenage boy if he’s in love with the prettiest girl in school he’ll say the same. I don’t mean that people consciously distort the concept, it changes unconsciously. This is why people have had so many relationships that ‘just didn’t work out’ these days, they choose based on impulses without considering the person as a whole. The problem is one of immaturity.

    The reason a virgin is the best catch is because those girls have a more uncompromising idea of love. They are holding out for the grand prize – and the opportunity cost is pretty high. If you get a girl like that you know she values love, you get a sense that this is a girl you could be happy with (of course there will always be difficulties but the possibility is there). Usually these girls are more willing to see their own faults as well, and are more forgiving of yours – their primary drive is to create an atmosphere of love, material things are there but secondary. This is why non-virginity can sometimes be forgiven. Relationships don’t always work out but a strong and sincere effort towards love should be there.

    That’s why ‘technical virgins’ are a tricky subject. The best girls are the ones that are very feminine and adventurous and have a strong impulse towards the adventure of sex but at the same time want something meaningful.

  68. Rebekah November 14, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Well said Socrates. One useful definition of maturity is the ability to delay gratification. A virgin or born-again virgin of any length of time is, as you say, holding out at high cost for that uncompromising idea of love out of commitment to God and future husband. That’s faithfulness – the forgiving and loving and chastity come out of faith in God. Doubtless the characteristic that generates the quality ought always be sought above the technicalities. A woman (or man) willing to delay gratification knows she has something worth waiting for, and a God worth waiting upon.

  69. Chris November 15, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    From my perspective, as a single Dad who is trying to walk with G-d (and failing as much as I succeed) I am looking for someone who will benefit my children — I am looking for loyalty, love and wisdom.

    (i’m 50: I would consider 30 too young. At the ages I am looking for, wisdom counts).

    Sanity counts. A heart for God counts. Being fit, looking after yourself counts — spiritually, physically, emotionally.

    And that kind of woman is very, very hard to find in a Church. (Most of them are married).

    But I will not bring into the lives of my children the driven, selfish kind of person I used to be and was attracted to.

  70. Brendan November 15, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    The best girls are the ones that are very feminine and adventurous and have a strong impulse towards the adventure of sex but at the same time want something meaningful.

    Yes, but we need to be careful not to set the bar *too* high.

    I do think in this current culture the number of unmarried virgin women at 30, Christian or not, is very small. That doesn’t mean it’s “irrelevant”, but it does mean that if you make it absolute deal-breaker, you need to accept that you’ve greatly narrowed your pool, even if you are only fishing in a pool of Christian women. A more nuanced approach would take into account the context and volume of sexual history alike in assessing the risks and so on, because essentially it’s a proxy for assessing risk. An “all or nothing” approach, while admirable, is also one which will result in a much longer search, generally, and a much lower likelihood of finding someone who has that quality *and* the others needed for a good spouse. That’s fine if it’s important enough to someone to justify running those other risks (length of search, increased possibility of being empty-handed). It’s a question each guy has to answer for himself, as I said above, based on his own appetite for risk and strictness level.

  71. Wayfinder November 15, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    @Brendan
    True, though it’s hard to say how small the pool actually is. I think we do a disservice to those who are virgins by minimizing their existence. I also think that those who are no longer virgins and regret it tend to get defensive on the subject.
    I’ve said before that there are two questions here: “should I only marry a virgin?” and “should I save my virginity until marriage?” These have different answers.
    It is not a sin to marry a non-virgin. (Contrary to some loud people wanting to marry a virgin is also not a sin.) It is a sin to spend your virginity on someone other than your spouse.
    I’m rather tired of the complaints that it’s too hard or that you don’t see the point anymore but I appreciate the discussion because I feel like it gets swept under the rug way too often.
    Now I do think that women will have a harder time finding a virgin spouse for a couple of reasons, but I’m not in favor of making it seem harder than it is. The original subject of the post was “how important is it to stay a virgin?” Not “how do I find one?” I think that the discussion has made it clear that there are a lot of people who still value it. I want to do everything I can to help those virgins find each other.

  72. nothingbutthetruth November 15, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Brendan, are you novaseeker? You have the same icon (“The truth will set you free”)

  73. Brendan November 16, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    That would be me, yes. It logs me in as either Brendan or Novaseeker depending on what Gmail I am logged into at the time, and I’m generally not great about correcting that for consistency, unfortunately.

  74. cognitivedissoNancy November 16, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Wow,,,you,,,should ,,,,really, really, reread some of these posts.

    I’m all for purity, and sticking by your values, but you all seem to protest,,too much. WOuld you rather have:

    A supposed virgin: who turned out to be frigid, sex hating, boring,once a week, but you could have some deluded pride in thinking you were the worlds greatest (only) lover?

    Or a decent person, who, when they were younger, perhaps slept with someone , regretted it, was living a decent life, was kind, sweet,loving, otherwise good Christian who did something stupid years ago who would make an excellent partner otherwise. Gee, could these two POSSIBLY go together???

    Judge not, folks,,,, do the names Jimmy Swaggert/Jim Bakker/Ted Haggard/ et al mean anything to you? They loudly, viciously and publically condemned those who weren’t “pure”…hmm how did that work for them?

    Sin. Stone. etc,,,

    Please, get a life, Perhaps it will make you less obsessedwith sex and virginity.

  75. Wayfinder November 16, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    @cognitivedissoNancy
    You do seem to have missed quotes such as, Yes, but we need to be careful not to set the bar *too* high. and Honestly, I think sometimes a woman who has been VERY pure may have done so because: she is not tha desirable, or she has a very low sex drive and It is not a sin to marry a non-virgin and especially This is, IMO, close enough to virginity to be workable in your haste to construct your straw-man.

    I’d also have to say that your argument is the exact kind of loud, defensive reaction that makes me very tired. It is not a sin to want to marry a virgin.

  76. nothingbutthetruth November 16, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    Ok, Brendan. Thank you for answering. I usually enjoy your posts as novaseeker (and I have argued with you in the past). I think you are a bright guy and I learn from your arguments.

    I followed your blog until you stopped writing. This is why I asked. When I see your moniker, I tend to pay more attention.

  77. jack November 16, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    “Or a decent person, who, when they were younger, perhaps slept with someone , regretted it, was living a decent life, was kind, sweet,loving, otherwise good Christian who did something stupid years ago who would make an excellent partner otherwise. Gee, could these two POSSIBLY go together???”

    One, yes. Two, maybe.

    But over ten? Well…

  78. Thag Jones November 16, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    One, yes. Two, maybe.

    But over ten? Well…

    What happened to numbers 3-9? So under 10 is workable? lol

  79. Julius November 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    This strikes me as a “how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?”

    It’s more than one or two but less than a thousand.

    What happened to numbers 3-999?

    That’s the problem with strict cutoffs. But is that what’s being proposed here?

  80. Chris November 16, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Julius.

    It is not the number. The number is a proxy measure. What we are looking for is what Athol called “One and Done”. When I married my ex I sincerely wanted it to last until one of us was staring at the other’s coffin.

    It did not.

    What we are looking for is integrity, honour, fidelity. But these things seem to be lost in the noise. As far as I can tell, the “positive alpha” thing is about making yourself noriceable, attractive (there is a thing called a gym. Go there), masculine and elegant. These are all proxy measures for being a success — at providing and at romance.

    Jane Austen’s heroines were looking for character. At times their advisors (Mrs Bennett, for instance) were foolish, but there is no question that this involved an element of protection, but also a certain standard of behaviour. A gentleman did not toy with a Lady’s feelings.

    Nowadays — has she been walking with God?
    — while she has been single, has she been chaste?
    — can she say what she did wrong, and has changed that?
    — is she honest in other aspects of her life?

    EW and Athol have good advice on choosing a wife, and interviewing for a wife. It is quite a different task than interviewing for a Jolie.

  81. Wayfinder November 16, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    @Chris
    To be fair to Julius, I read his comment as saying that the number was a proxy rather than a strict cutoff. But I think you’re on the money. Proxy is exactly the term I’ve been looking for in these debates.

  82. jack November 17, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    Don’t marry a non-virgin, too risky:

    http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked/2010/11/16/divorce/index.html

  83. Julius November 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    In retrospect my comment was rather obtuse. What I meant to do was counter the argument that just because nobody can point out a specific cutoff number, that such things should not be considered at all. Of course, looking back, it’s likely I misinterpreted Thag Jones’ comment to begin with…

  84. Brendan November 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    Don’t marry a non-virgin, too risky:

    http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked/2010/11/16/divorce/index.html

    But remember, NAWALT, and “I don’t know any women like that” and so on.

    Yet the stories keep bobbing up to the surface, don’t they. Such a trap for men, gosh.

  85. nothingbutthetruth November 18, 2010 at 5:48 am #

    “Or a decent person, who, when they were younger, perhaps slept with someone , regretted it, was living a decent life, was kind, sweet,loving, otherwise good Christian who did something stupid years ago who would make an excellent partner otherwise”

    I am wary of Christian women who have had their fun, oops, I mean they made mistakes and regretted it (and they want to use Christianity as an alibi to argue that their past actions should not be considered).

    Dalrock explains an example of this kind of women. Scroll to the line that says: “We were a Christian couple who divorced….”

    As a believer, the line that made me cringe was:

    “Finally God made it clear to me that He was permitting me to divorce.”

    God = the ultimate rationalization hamster. Coming soon to a church near you.

  86. jack November 18, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    The women are on their own – they have made their bed, now they must lie in it. Alone. Alllllll alone.

  87. jack November 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    This is good:

    http://lovelysexybeauty.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/sex-is-bond/

    Haha – how many women can offer that kind of love to a man? Not many – they blew it all on guys in college.

  88. Rebekah November 18, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Virgin “defense shield”? She’s full of crap. Nice show, but she’s lying or at best exaggerating greatly. The question is, why would she feel the need to do that if she were actually a virgin before marriage?

    The rest of the lovey-dovey stuff? …normal for marriage from what I have heard from other women.

    This woman sounds young, needy, and may eventually drive her husband bananas with her idolatry of him and the ensuing expectations of that idolatry. He – as a human, not a God – is bound to disappoint. Worship of your husband is wrong – worship WITH your husband, now we’re talking. (That includes sex.)

  89. jack November 18, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    I’m gonna disagree – I admire her devotion.

    Just because I never got such a woman does not mean that I am so bitter that I cannot admire a woman who has done right.

    I wish there had been more like her. Alas, I have been the shoulder to cry on for many a Christian girl who had a problem with impulsive divergence of the knees.

    Being alone, while not painless, is probably more painless than being with a woman who still pines for her past lovers.

  90. Joseph Dantes November 19, 2010 at 4:23 am #

    “Alas, I have been the shoulder to cry on for many a Christian girl who had a problem with impulsive divergence of the knees.”

    Hilarious, and the whole comment was well put.

    IIRC, Haley’s problem with you was that you claimed there weren’t appropriately aged virgin church girls out there, which is a slap in the face to that clique, of which she is presumably a member. The last thing they want is to continue to be ignored and overlooked.

  91. Steve November 27, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    I think the word loser should become gender neutral. Regardless of whatever Jack is or isn’t, the Connies of the world are losers.

  92. OhioStater December 4, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Hi Aunt Haley. This is my first time commenting at your blog. Consider me a “Halo Virgin”, my “technical” number is 1.

    I reference this Roissy post, explicitly titled “Sluts Not Less Discriminating”:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/sluts-are-not-less-discriminating/

    With respect to alpha carousel riders, or women with high number, a Roissy reader observes “they are now keyed in on tenor, timber, warp and weft of the day-to-day life habits of such men [alpha males] and in so doing acquire a more finely honed radar for lesser men [beta, omega males] who don’t ‘make the cut'”.

    “Making the cut”, if I interpret at s*&%-testing, means a guy ignorant of her number exposes himself to a lifetime of testing, insubordination and eventually infidelity from his spouse.

    Aunt Haley, in your experience, can a woman with a medium to high number (5 or more partners) fully commit to a man with lower status than her most alpha partner?

  93. Aunt Haley December 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    OhioStater–
    Aunt Haley, in your experience, can a woman with a medium to high number (5 or more partners) fully commit to a man with lower status than her most alpha partner?

    In MY experience?! What are you trying to say, sir?!?

    I think that a woman with a “medium” number of lovers, say, 5-10-ish, can fully commit to a man not as alpha as her most alpha partner. At some point, most women want to be married, and many women do feel remorse for their ~wilder days when they find a good man who is not a pathetic, simpering pushover. Additionally, not every woman is as profoundly dysfunctional as the types frequently described in the manosphere. Still, if the husband is #10, he will probably have to work harder to maintain frame and mate guard. If the husband is significantly less alpha than the woman’s highest notch, there’s probably going to be trouble in paradise because the man will simply be ill-equipped to do what it takes to maintain his wife’s attraction to him. Keep in mind, however, that all husbands – even those of the most chaste virgins pre-marriage – have to work to keep their wives attracted over time. A ring is no guarantee.

  94. jack December 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    So women should slut it up with men who are 3s and 4s, so that the guy the end up with ultimately is super-alpha by comparison.

    That reminds me of a joke:

    Guy 1: “Why do you keep hitting yourself on the head with a hammer?”

    Guy 2: “Because it feels so good when I stop.”

  95. James December 9, 2010 at 3:52 am #

    Chastity before marriage is an ideal, but it is not one of the Ten Commandments. After a certain age, virginity becomes not only a burden, but something that distorts our interactions with the opposite sex. If your church is telling you otherwise, then they have allowed their legalism to override their humanity and empathy. I’m not suggesting becoming a slut, and if chastity works for you then that’s just fine; but if it is twisting your mind the same way it did mine, lose it.

    I’ve never heard men discuss whether a woman has had 4 or “only” 3 relationships. The appropriate response to any such enquiry is “and the beam in your eye, brother?”

  96. Wayfinder December 9, 2010 at 7:52 am #

    @James
    I think you’re reading a different set of Ten Commandments, then. To use archaic terminology, fornication is as much of a sin as adultery.

    I agree that virginity past a certain point may be difficult and possibly damaging, but that is hardly an excuse to abandon it. If sin was easy to avoid, we wouldn’t need a savior.

    Previous cultures understood this and planned for it. The problem today is that we’re surrounded by trials with no collective support for navigating them.

    It’s not like I’m holding women to any less of a standard than I hold myself.

  97. Racer X December 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    I like a girl with a high number. The higher the number, the kinkier and more uninhibited she will be. Then she we will be like me, and we will have great sex. She might even be open to threesomes and things like that. I also love hearing about a girl’s sexual history, especially when we are fucking. It is a huge turn on. I like a girl with a high sex drive.

    There are few things worse than being with a frigid, uptight girl, who is hypercritical of everything you do. The virgin types tend to be like that.

  98. Katie March 5, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    I am 26 and still a virgin. I am college educated and have a real job out in the real world. I am a professional. I am often told I am pretty or beautiful and I am petite and weigh under 115. I am waiting until marriage. I don’t care what people say because I am old fashioned and I don’t do what everyone else does. I have got class and I have never been with anybody. I just know finding a guy my age is going to be hard that is pure. It might be virtually impossible.

  99. Jennifer March 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    “though from what I’ve read, it appears that the female’s virginity is what makes the difference in marriage”

    Yeah, a typical societal and unGodly way of thinking.

  100. ornamentalwomanhood March 10, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Hang in there Katie it is totally possible and it will be worthwhile.

  101. ornamentalwomanhood March 10, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Julie – chastity does not always indicate a lack of sex drive. Women who reserve their bodies, including the ‘Everything but’ for their husband can be doing so because they have a very high value for sex, not a low value. We give out cheaply what we value little.

  102. Phoenix March 11, 2012 at 1:46 am #

    Just a point for you all to consider. In the time that the Bible was written, it was uncommon for people to live past 40. Women would be getting married at 13-16 years old. By the time they were 20, they were considered past marriageable age. They “waited” as virgins primarily because before marriage, they weren’t able to have children because they were too young. Also because most girls were betrothed before they had their first period and therefore any child born out of wedlock would be a dishonor to the family and breaking the contract with the husband’s family. Once girls had their first period, they were married to their betrothed as set forth in the arranged marriages that were considered normal at the time. If you think about all that, the reason to wait was because sex was to procreate and before marriage you were too young to do that. Those who didn’t get married by their twenties typically became nuns, worked in the family business, or helped their mothers to tend the home and were “old maids”. If you look at the history behind it, and its original purpose, it seems kind of silly to be following it in modern days. We now start our periods earlier (usually before becoming a teen), wait longer to get married (usually late twenties), and women start having higher risks in pregnancy around age 35. We as humans weren’t meant to wait, that is a social invention (inspired by god or not is debatable since its against nature and God is nature). I just wanted to point out the historical context of the Bible, because society is no where near where it was then, we live longer, live differently, and break all sorts of “rules” from the Bible everyday. I respect people who try to live a moral lifestyle, but I think they need to see the context of the moral laws they are following, why they existed when they did, and think for themselves about if the morals still apply.

  103. Jennifer March 12, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    Yeees, we were meant to wait, as the incredibly immature and bent-out-of-shape emotionally infant young people show us. It’s one simple thing: safety.

  104. Hermes March 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Just a point for you all to consider. In the time that the Bible was written, it was uncommon for people to live past 40. Women would be getting married at 13-16 years old. By the time they were 20, they were considered past marriageable age.

    Do you have a reliable citation for any of this, or is it just speculation? ISTM that in every discussion about this topic, the supposed average life expectancy, and age of marriage, of people in pre-modern times is defined further downward, without any real evidence. Also, everyone forgets that even if you have found a reliable source for average life expectancy, this figure is drawn down by infant mortality, and therefore is not a reliable indicator of the typical lifespan of someone who survived childhood.

  105. Kevin June 15, 2014 at 2:49 am #

    “Also, if a man must choose between a virgin 5 and an 8 who has had sex with one guy, which one will the man choose? I don’t think virginity is THAT powerful,”

    I beg to differ. I will always choose the virgin 5 over the non-virgin 10 regardless of age. I don’t give much credence to looks anyway (except no fat women for me).

  106. Chris Dagostino June 16, 2014 at 7:15 am #

    “I will always choose the virgin 5 over the non-virgin 10 regardless of age.”

    I’d take the other option – and ask her to take an STD test before we get hitched.

    Back when I was still interested in getting married, I was actually hoping that the lady would have some “experience”, so that our honeymoon would be less awkward. (I’m still a V at 35.) From what I understand, a woman’s first time is more often than not a painful and messy one; the thought of a woman bleeding and wincing in pain during sex never sounded much fun.

  107. Martin L. June 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm #

    I don’t really understand the “no fat women” thing, at least without explaining it. If we’re talking 300-pound whales that’s one thing, but if we’re talking healthy, energetic, vibrant girls that just happen to be somewhat chunky, that’s a whole different animal. Personally, I think being an extreme stickler for weight to the exclusion of all else represents having Lori Gottlieb syndrome, which is a good way to stay alone for the rest of your life.

  108. Martin L. June 16, 2014 at 10:25 pm #

    PS, Racer X is a moron and probably just a troll.

  109. clarencelumpyrutherford November 10, 2014 at 9:08 am #

    @Chris Dagostino,
    First time sex is often painful or uncomfortable for the woman, but it’s not unsurmountable.
    Once the virgin gets past the pain after the two take it slow that first time, it does get better.
    I wouldn’t worry too much about that and would never rule-out marrying a virgin for that narrowest of reasons.
    Besides, the man, particularly if he hasn’t been so chaste, would like be impressed by the Christian virgin’s devotion and the two could come closer to Jesus through the marital bond.

    @Kevin,
    “….I will always choose the virgin 5 over the non-virgin 10 regardless of age.”

    I too never focused on a woman’s looks and like you, would take a virgin over a non-virgin.
    However, like the blog’s OP, let’s not make the mistake of making virginity some kind of litmus test or “requirement.”

    Let’s hypothesize here:
    There’s a 30 y.o. agnostic girl who’s waiting for her first sexual experience to be with her husband.
    Will that admirable characteristic of her’s (alone) help her into heaven?

    While virginity is good and those who hold-out for religious or other reasons should be admired and respected (and encouraged), that doesn’t necessarily make them any “better” than others.

    I too was a “nice guy” like Jack, who posted earlier here.
    Too bad those “good Christian women” who made many sinful choices couldn’t see the value of dating guys like me (& Jack).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Linkage is Good for You: Tease Edition - November 14, 2010

    […] Aunt Haley – “Is Virginity Even Relevant Past Age 30?” […]

  2. Time’s a wastin | Dalrock - November 26, 2010

    […] Meanwhile her ability to attract the best men is slowly declining, and her ability to keep her virginity in tact or at least her partner count low is also at risk.  Put off marriage for too long and chastity starts to seem less realistic and therefore less relevant. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s