The Christian virginity cult

Bro. Howard,

I agree that what you posted is considered ‘normal’ for a guy, but I was speaking more from the girl’s POV. If she perceives that she is being objectified, she is going to avoid intimacy. Both girls and guys, IMO, are being taught (as described in the OP) that a woman’s worth is inextricably linked to her sexuality. Girls are also taught that this is their burden to bear, and that it is a source of shame. Boys hear this as well, and let’s face it- perception is reality.

Are guys called “damaged goods” because they’ve engaged in sexual conduct? Has anyone here heard it said that no girl will want a boy that isn’t a virgin? Are boys given tokens for promising to be sexually pure? Do they go on ‘dates’ with their moms so that she can talk to them about saving themselves for marriage? Are they ever referred to as ‘technical virgins’ because they’ve done everything else?

There are other areas where guys are under pressure to meet some kind of ideal, but this thread is about how we convey messages of a woman’s worth by constantly harping on whether or not she is sexually pure.

The mentality that “A girl has sex once (whether she was a willing participant or not) outside of marriage and she is a slut-A guy has multiple *flings* and he is just a normal guy” is sadly a mentality that is present even in our churches.

I would also like to point out the very sad and unnecessary burden a lot of the “virginity” talks place on girls (and guys) who were forced into sexual activity. (for that matter the “be a sex goddess for your husband or you aren’t a godly wife” talks also) The very sad statistics on the number of children abused do not leave the church untouched. The mentality that if you have lost your virginity you are broken, dirty, unlovable and any number of other terms is so very damaging.

[Susan R]

Bro. Howard,

I agree that what you posted is considered ‘normal’ for a guy, but I was speaking more from the girl’s POV. If she perceives that she is being objectified, she is going to avoid intimacy. Both girls and guys, IMO, are being taught (as described in the OP) that a woman’s worth is inextricably linked to her sexuality. Girls are also taught that this is their burden to bear, and that it is a source of shame. Boys hear this as well, and let’s face it- perception is reality.

Are guys called “damaged goods” because they’ve engaged in sexual conduct? Has anyone here heard it said that no girl will want a boy that isn’t a virgin? Are boys given tokens for promising to be sexually pure? Do they go on ‘dates’ with their moms so that she can talk to them about saving themselves for marriage? Are they ever referred to as ‘technical virgins’ because they’ve done everything else?

There are other areas where guys are under pressure to meet some kind of ideal, but this thread is about how we convey messages of a woman’s worth by constantly harping on whether or not she is sexually pure.

+1

Sadly, another side of this discussion is missed entirely. Some people seem to think that since they are Christians, there should not be any consequence to anything they have done in the past. To say otherwise is to be legalistic or judgmental. Truth is, there are consequences to everything we do. Sex sin is unique in that it is against the body. A girl who willingly engages in sex will face consequences that the pure girl doesn’t, whether Christian or not.

God is serious about sex sin. The OT had all kinds of consequences for it. The NT also calls it out and forbids it.

This isn’t to say it is unpardonable. It does reflect bad judgment in a major way though.

Separate topic, but if a girl used credit cards to get $80k in debt and then acted like it shouldn’t matter because she is a Christian and guys need to overlook that, she would be a fool. Same for the person who chooses to have sex outside of marriage. It matters. Don’t be foolish. Don’t hide behind popular Christian idiocy.

[JD Miller] Why are the husbands the only ones who initiate it?

I’m not saying that men/husbands should be the only ones who initiate coitus, but that it is generally true that guys initiate sexual relations because they are biologically driven to do so. I agree with you that men need to be considerate and understanding of their wives in this area, and realize that their wife is generally not wired to desire sex as frequently as they are.

[Susan R] Are guys called “damaged goods” because they’ve engaged in sexual conduct? Has anyone here heard it said that no girl will want a boy that isn’t a virgin? Are boys given tokens for promising to be sexually pure?

Is it wrong for a guy to desire to marry a woman who has saved herself for marriage? If not, then there is nothing wrong with passing over certain women whom he knows or finds out have had prior sexual relationships. Call it “damaged goods” or not, there are consequences for sin as James K points out. For some guys, marrying a woman who has remained sexually pure is important, especially if he has remained sexually pure as well. But, as I’ve stated earlier, the biblical imperative of purity among believers is much greater than whether they are technically virgins.

[Crystal] I would also like to point out the very sad and unnecessary burden a lot of the “virginity” talks place on girls (and guys) who were forced into sexual activity.

Agreed. However, most people would (I hope) acknowledge a profound difference exists between consensual sex and rape / sexual abuse when it comes to purity.

I do not believe that the main article was implying that there were not or should not be consequences for the terrible sin of fornication. Consider this quote from the article:

Thankfully, healing is possible for couples who do not abstain. The gospel of Jesus Christ can overcome any sin! Still, pastors who counsel couples tell me the process of restoring trust is long and painful.

And the final line:

Just do not make allowance for the lustful flesh.

The point that we all need to take away from this article as implied by the OP is that we should never assume that a marriage is doomed to failure simply because the sin of fornication took place. The sin is terrible- whether a guy or a girl does it (James K, you may not have intended to, but it sounded like you were only concerned if the girl did it, not if the guy did it)- but that does not mean that those who have committed it should give up on the idea of a godly marriage.

Perhaps I am naive (we waited- my father-in-law was really upset that we even held hands) so I do not personally understand the struggles of others who did not wait, but I do know what the scripture teaches about forgiveness. Forgiveness does not erase consequences, but we need to be careful about an attitude that suggests that this sin is so serious that forgiveness should be withheld. I believe that withholding forgiveness in this area will do far more damage to a marriage than the sin of fornication did and I believe that the sin of fornication does have serious consequences. Thus the consequences of not recognizing grace (forgiving others and accepting God’s forgiveness) are really serious.

Further, a Biblical understanding of grace grasps that a sin was committed that needs grace. Biblical grace is not the idea that we can just do whatever we want because it really isn’t sin.

I almost get the impression from some that they are saying that they have forgiven, but that the consequences are so serious that they need to keep dredging up this sin and making sure that the person who committed it feels guilty for the rest of their lives. (I do not mean to imply that anyone here is thinking along these lines, I am simply stating that this is how some people feel when this discussion comes up- yet another one of the consequences I guess)

I’m not saying this is true of THoward (I don’t know how he actually feels personally), but I can’t let this pass by.

If not, then there is nothing wrong with passing over certain women whom he knows or finds out have had prior sexual relationships. Call it “damaged goods” or not, there are consequences for sin as James K points out. For some guys, marrying a woman who has remained sexually pure is important, especially if he has remained sexually pure as well. But, as I’ve stated earlier, the biblical imperative of purity among believers is much greater than whether they are technically virgins.

If “love” for a girlfriend or fiancée is predicated on whether or not she’s been with a man, then that person doesn’t really love her. Not according to Biblical love. Love is others-focused, not selfishly seeking it’s own benefit (I Cor. 13:4-8, Philippians 2:1-11). Furthermore, that kind of article proves the point of the article that is linked to the OP.

Furthermore, why would it be acceptable to break up with a woman on the basis of her sexual state when almost all men are whoremongers dozens of times over, according to Matthew 5:27-30? Yes, lust is different from the act of sex, but how is one kind of impurity really any different to God? Jesus essentially said that they’re the same thing in v.28.

JD Miller wrote

I almost get the impression from some that they are saying that they have forgiven, but that the consequences are so serious that they need to keep dredging up this sin and making sure that the person who committed it feels guilty for the rest of their lives. (I do not mean to imply that anyone here is thinking along these lines, I am simply stating that this is how some people feel when this discussion comes up- yet another one of the consequences I guess)

I was a little bothered that I did not make this last paragraph a bit more clear. We should be bothered by the sin of fornication, but we should also be bothered by the sins of unforgiveness and judgmentalism. If someone says they have granted forgiveness but keeps dredging something up to make the other person feel guilty, that is not forgiveness. I would council Christian couples where there is fornication in the past that it should be confessed (admit that it was sinful) and forgiveness should be granted and it should not be dredged up again. 1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If a sinless God will do that, why won’t the rest of us do that? “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” (Galatians 6:1)

Jay, a couple of things here:

Some might not get to that point with a girlfriend of loving them. I found out from my now wife pretty early on. I will be asking any potential boyfriend to my daughter very early on.

Again, those who engage in sex outside marriage demonstrate at the very least extremely poor judgment. Given the plethora of STDs and teenage/single moms, I can’t call it anything but foolish. It isn’t love to have sex prior to marriage, so it betrays a failure of understanding love also.

I wouldn’t marry a girl with a gambling problem or drug abuse for the same reason. It has nothing to do with being selfish. Don’t forget that in Eph 5, it is said that no man hates his own flesh, which is why he must care for his wife. The idea that love has nothing to do with your own well being is not a complete picture of love. In that same passage, we are told that Christ gave his life SO THAT he could present the church to HIMSELF in splendor.

I have no problem with a person marrying someone who was promiscuous before marriage. I would just advise that same person about thinking through the decision to marry, so they know what they are getting into.

The strange thing is that those who were promiscuous are now the judgmental ones. They get to stand back and judge others who might look down upon those things. How bizarre is that?

Those things done in the darkness were shameful. If you don’t think there is shame in it, then I would question whether any actual repentance took place in regard to that. What is to keep that same mindset from justifying adultery? The Christian neither glories in nor lives in that shame.

What the critics of the “Virginity Cults” are saying is pretty similar to what Hollywood personalities, sex-researchers, et. al. were saying 50 years ago (including: “for the preachers, this is the biggest sin there is”). In the 1940s and 1950s groups like YFC laid major stress on keeping yourself pure. Teen-agers often gave this point as a part of their public testimonies (all information written down). Now it is the voices of Evangelicals who are calling this talk twisted. According to Josh McDowell (don’t have another source) the vast majority of men and women in America in 1900 waited until marriage to have sex. By the 1970s that had reversed. Now in Evangelical churches the majority of young people have slept with the opposite sex before marriage. And you say we are overstressing virginity???

When people have sex with one-another, they don’t just engage in a sexual act. They give away part of their personality. That is how God created it. You don’t get it back. God meant we should share ourselves this way with our spouses. I have said this a few times from the pulpit. Each time someone says, “What you said is so true!” Sometimes they have said, “I wish I had heard this as a teen-ager.” If virginity were so unimportant, the Bible would never have laid such stress on it for the church (2 Corinthians 11:2). I doubt seriously if the majority of the people in my church kept themselves pure before marriage. Most of them were saved after they were 20. But I find it interesting that they want to teach their children to follow the Scriptures and remain pure.

This is an emotional subject, but if Christians want to head down the right path on this one, they need to look specifically at what God’s Word says about chastity before and after marriage (there is plenty there), what love is all about, how to express it before and after marriage.

Jay, are you saying that because most men (let’s say 95% - happens in a couple of seconds) have committed mental adultery, they have no right to say, “I’m not going to begin a serious relationship with a girl that I know has been sleeping around?”

I just find this to be a very bizarre thread. I am quite disappointed at the lack of thoughtfulness here. Great appeal to 2 Cor 11:2.

Jesus did not equate the thoughts/actions in Matthew 5. He did point to what made a person guilty of sin before God. The one with contempt has sinned like the murderer. The lustful has sinned like the adulterer.

Do they have that right? Yes, I suppose they do, and the woman should have likewise right. That being said, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Furthermore, it would strike me as a complete misunderstanding of “love” to do so.

Let me be clearer here - I’m talking about men that find out that their women have slept with someone and then break off the relationship as a direct result of that. It’s probably fairly rare, but it’s very telling about the person who is the person who hasn’t sinned (to borrow from John). If you truly love someone, then their virginal state shouldn’t matter to you.

Furthermore, James, that kind of IS my point - the lustful man is just as guilty as a woman who has slept with someone in God’s eyes. Are the consequences the same? No. But it’s the same offense before God, which is really the Person we should be worried about offending.

Let’s say Aaron is engaged to Erica. Aaron finds out that Erica was, for a time, addicted to marijuana. Erica has repented of her sin (and crime), and has made restitution to state and any other parties. Erica has put that behind her, and she feels the need to level with Aaron after he takes her past an old dealer unknowingly to the way to a party, so she talks to him about it. A few weeks later, Aaron says he just can’t get past that in his mind and breaks off the engagement (let’s say because he’s studying to be a Pastor).

Did he do the right thing? Why or why not? Is this situation fundamentally any different to Aaron, Erica, or God from what I said in the previous post? Is it different just because we replaced ‘sex’ with ‘drugs’?

That kind of stuff happens, guys, and this is where the theology has to lay rubber down on the road.

* I should note that I’m not thinking of anyone in particular here and chose names at random.