Being a virgin for money value?

[eric246]

I was recently in a discussion with an atheist who talked about virginity only being valued in the Bible because a virgin daughter would be worth more value as a marriage partner, and how she would practically be sold off. This seems illogical and irrational to me, so I was just wondering where they would even get this idea?

[Ivellious]

Well, in practically all ancient cultures, virginity was considered "valuable" so to speak, or more like a lack of virginity in a girl before marriage was a bad thing. And yes, it was much more lucrative for a father to marry off a virgin daughter. Even today in the Middle East and Africa and parts of Asia this idea still exists, where a daughter's father obtains money or possessions in exchange for his daughter's hand in marriage. Heck, the christian faith still more or less demonizes sex before marriage, so...I don't see what's so hard to understand. Maybe clarify what is confusing?

[zoegirl]

I don't see why people feel so strongly in making sex so valueless as to brag about not demonizing sex before marriage....

Let's see....what are the benefits of sex before marriage.....

Possible pregnancy....yippee!! with No security!!! yay, a baby with no support system...I'm excited about that

Possible, well probably STD's, considering the ridiculous stats out there .... yippee!! looking forward to that one....

Emotional damage with multiple partners...empty sex.... yippee...looking forward to that!!

Potential infertility with the STD's (because of course, so many of them have little symptoms for women...) ...yippee!!! I may have trouble havign children!! looking forward to that!!

Multiple partners that have no reason to stick around....trust issues with partners....sabotaging relationships.....wow, yes, premarital sex is the way to go....

Wow, with all of that to look forward to....yep....15-30 minutes of sex....sure sounds great to me....


Compare that to.....

A partner that you can trust...

Security within marriage....

Freedom from STD's....

Intimacy far greater than the one night stands or the multiple partners....

greater potential for children and the security to have a support for them and share the burden....

yep....demonize is too strong a word, but yeah, I can see why we tell our sons and daughters to wait until marriage.....

[Ivellious]

Well to be fair, did I ever present my opinion on the matter? I mean, I never said that valuing virginity was bad or good...Though since you present such a broad case, let me respond.

Yes, there are risks to recreational sex, but to be fair it's also possible to get STDs, get pregnant before you're ready, be emotionally hurt, etc. when married and having sex. Presuming that being married automatically means that you're relationship/trust is perfect is plain wrong too. Not every pre-marital sex relationship is as damaging and miserable and hurtful as you seem to think, and getting married doesn't create the perfect, wonderful little world you seem to think of either. That's just lala land.

Pre-marital sex, when handled respectfully on both sides can be a wonderful thing. Using contraception, being open and faithful to your partner, etc. can be equally as beneficial and intimate as post-marital sex. Yes, sleeping with someone new every weekend is probably not the best lifestyle health-wise, but most sexual relationships prior to marriage probably aren't like that.

Also, you assume that all marriages are between people who waited until marriage. Seriously, if one or both partners had sex prior to marriage, STDs could be passed between husband and wife. But even if they did have sex before getting married, does that mean their relationship will crumble? No, but your argument seems to say that sex before marriage and good sexual/emotional health are mutually exclusive. Churches and christian schools use that mantra to teach their children about sex, and it doesn't work.

so why demonize sex? I'm just going to end this by saying that I think it's dumb to pigeonhole sex like you do. Sex is what you make of it and it can be wonderful and beneficial regardless of your marital status if respected and treated properly.

[zoegirl]

I would be willing to bet a fairly substantial amount of money that the vast majority of people who waited have been far happier to have waited than those who didn't wait being even remotely happy with the fact that they didn't wait.

Of course marriage doesn't make things perfect (I never said it did), but let's put it this way....sex before or without marriage almost always results in poor consequences.

Contraception is NEVER foolproof and anyone who believes that is also living in lala land . EVERY contraception can fail. And having sex without marriage is a guaranteed struggle, financially (for the large majority), emotionally, and in raising your child to have stable relationships. I can look down my street and count on both hands, on my street alone, the number of children born to unwed mothers. At least two are on welfare, one in living with her parents. At least with marriage, if done right, you have a fairly proper foundation. Of course people can mess up marriage. But the fact that people can mess up marriage does not negate the fact that when marriage works, it's a great thing.

Finding examples of bad marriages hardly makes unwed motherhood a good thing

Being open with your partner ("hey honey, this won't mean a thing!! this is just a booty call, I just want to have sex and sex only!!!" ) hardly makes sex with someone more fulfilling or loving or what it's supposed to be.

Yep, not convinced. And sadly, I see soo many teenagers who have bought into the casual sex myth so often, being broken in their mid-twenties. It doesn't work and it's not supposed to. And the fact that they are being sold this idea that casual and empty sex is better than waiting is unfortunate. Far from demonizing sex, Christians understand the full value of it. Its the secular world that cheapens it so much. Sad.

[eric246]

Yep, not convinced. And sadly, I see soo many teenagers who have bought into the casual sex myth so often, being broken in their mid-twenties. It doesn't work and it's not supposed to. And the fact that they are being sold this idea that casual and empty sex is better than waiting is unfortunate. Far from demonizing sex, Christians understand the full value of it. Its the secular world that cheapens it so much. Sad.

Indeed. People don't understand how much money society makes off exploiting their sexual desires.

[eric246]

Well to be fair, did I ever present my opinion on the matter? I mean, I never said that valuing virginity was bad or good...Though since you present such a broad case, let me respond.

Yes, there are risks to recreational sex, but to be fair it's also possible to get STDs, get pregnant before you're ready, be emotionally hurt, etc. when married and having sex. Presuming that being married automatically means that you're relationship/trust is perfect is plain wrong too. Not every pre-marital sex relationship is as damaging and miserable and hurtful as you seem to think, and getting married doesn't create the perfect, wonderful little world you seem to think of either. That's just lala land.

Pre-marital sex, when handled respectfully on both sides can be a wonderful thing. Using contraception, being open and faithful to your partner, etc. can be equally as beneficial and intimate as post-marital sex. Yes, sleeping with someone new every weekend is probably not the best lifestyle health-wise, but most sexual relationships prior to marriage probably aren't like that.

Also, you assume that all marriages are between people who waited until marriage. Seriously, if one or both partners had sex prior to marriage, STDs could be passed between husband and wife. But even if they did have sex before getting married, does that mean their relationship will crumble? No, but your argument seems to say that sex before marriage and good sexual/emotional health are mutually exclusive. Churches and christian schools use that mantra to teach their children about sex, and it doesn't work.

I think the whole point behind waiting is that it shows you value your body and have morals/standards. You aren't just going to sleep with anyone for an hour or so of pleasure.

With marriage, I think a lot of marriages fail because people give up extremely easily, get married too quickly, or aren't committed. The blame shouldn't go on marriage, but on the people that are getting married. Bad marriages may be bad, but there are many strong, healthy marriages that create loving, caring, supportive environments (I grew up in one, and it really does make a huge difference).

I think the Bible talks about sex in a different way than we are taught in school. In never says sex is bad or dirty, but the church and society have made it that way.

[CeT-To]

With the whole exchange of money for a vigrin bride was that commandment or a cultural thing out of respect?

[wrain62]

What the atheist was trying to say was that the parents put emphasis on virginity for the sole purpose of monetary gain and that the inherent value of the true intimacy that is virgin marriage was marginalized in that society. Therefore we cannot think of conservative values as being good because they are born of conceived ideas that traditions have deep meaning; and these conceived ideas are mostly false.

It is an attempt to hold traditional values in contempt.

But if this were true, then how did emphasis on virginity become a universal traditional value among cultures? It is because emphasis on virginity helps keep things organized and manageable in a society. But does this organization match up to the values that we put to intimacy today? Maybe this is what the atheist was pointing at...

I argue that the ability for emphasis on virginity to keep society organized and the fact that it is statistically the better option for keeping a long term intimate relationship are themselves intimately related happenings. I think the origin of cultural values more often than not is derived from one or series of successful outcomes that families generation after generation and that because of the success of the outcome they want to instill to their children, which eventually evolves into concrete cultural norms. The origin of this cultural norm and its ties to good morality are a result of successful marriages and the good that true intimacy gives.

It is true, however, that now in this age that sex before marriage does not have the heavy consequences and does not dismantle society(make it less structured or organized) like it used to, and is even publicly approved of; but this fact does not mean that traditional values should be thrown out or that it is okay to throw them out: first of all virginity still works... 1.the traditional values and the deep meaning of monogamous sexuality still are statistically better for long term marriages 2. STDs and unwanted pregnancies are widespread because of this cultural change 3. empty pleasures or short term intimacies no matter how immediately not damaging it is to the fabric of society are ultimately shallow and do usually cue in more long term effects damages to society. (for example we cannot be as trusting towards our own communities as we used to be able to because we simply don't know each other and don't want to. Shallow tendencies I think are the one of the causes of divorce and other commitment problems we have in society). Therefore just because traditional culture may seem like it is not tied to modern norms and may even be used without meaning, it does not hold that they are automatically meaningless or even have a modicum of meaninglessness. Heck, if emphasis on intimacy and the fabric of society were not related at all, I doubt it would be something God meant for and therefore it would be evil if the relationship ever becomes that way.

What do you guys think?

[Ivellious]

Wrain: More or less you got my point. I'm not saying that virginity is a bad thing or that we should push sex before marriage. Not at all. My first post was just to clarify the original question (why it was a big deal in biblical times) and how the culture of that era valued virginity in a shallow sense.

My subsequent posts weren't saying that waiting until marriage to have sex is dumb, but rather to point out that zoegirl's strict, super-conservative views on the matter were skewed and while based in truth were too "all or nothing" about the topic. Sex before marriage can be a bad choice in many circumstances, yes. But it is not always awful or damaging and we shouldn't restrict access to things like birth control for our kids just to deter them because that doesn't work. Also, I wanted to point out that marriage is not the perfect remedy to the issues associated with premarital sex, as zoegirl seemed to hint at.

And to your point about all cultures valuing virginity similarly (the anthropological explanation): It should be pointed out that human civilization dawned in Africa/The Middle East, where the Bible takes place. I would argue that the culture in that region (which to this day remains largely the same in terms of valuing virginity on a monetary level for the father) was simply the first human culture around, and that the similarities in that view on virginity to those in other areas could be attributed to the fact that all human societies were derived from that region. Also, it could be noted that the farther away from the Middle East that humans spread, the less virginity seemed to matter. India and southern Asia were similar in their views, so were parts of Europe. But as you get into East Asia and the Americas, there really wasn't a huge cultural pressure, which could be attributed to the fact that these people were many generations removed from the Middle Eastern culture and it may have just died out, so to speak. Just a thought.

And if I could just make a point, Wrain. Please don't refer to me as "the atheist." I have a screen name you can use and it's rather awkward and misleading because I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. Just because I don't subscribe to any particular brand of Christianity doesn't mean I strictly hate the Christian God. But that's a discussion for another day.

[wrain62]

And if I could just make a point, Wrain. Please don't refer to me as "the atheist." I have a screen name you can use and it's rather awkward and misleading because I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. Just because I don't subscribe to any particular brand of Christianity doesn't mean I strictly hate the Christian God. But that's a discussion for another day.

When I said the atheist I was refering to whoever the first post was talking about. I would use your username. I suppose that your point of the Middle East as a cultural hearth makes sense, esspecially since humanity has such a tendency to diversify which is amazing and freitening at the same time.

[Ivellious]

Ah, thanks for clarifying...I jumped to a conclusion, my bad.

[zoegirl]

It's just unfortunate that someone adhering to the idea that sex is an beautiful gift saved for marriage is seen as the "skewed" one.

[Canuckster1127]

Christian morality is based upon the premise that there are moral absolutes. What you appear to appealing to in the presentation of your thoughts, Ivellious is a form of ethical reasoning known as Utilitarianism which effectively measures the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action in question by the circumstances surrounding it or how broad the negative impact is. Now, sexual sin is not the unforgivable sin nor is it something that needs brand a person and follow them all of their lives (although unwanted children can have a way of doing that, wouldn't they?)

So Zoe is not being an extreme conservative prude, as you attempt to label her. She's coming from a position that sees Christian Morality as based upon Absolute Values and she's being consistent in her application of those values. That doesn't preclude Grace nor does it preclude the value of a person beyond their behavior. If you take a system however that denies absolutes such as Utilitarianism and make it your guide, you're going to have some foundational conflicts that are the result, not of someone else "being a prude" but because you have conflicting value systems and are attempting to make them mix when they're based on contrary assumptions.

[zoegirl]

Just to clarify my position, I believe, as most Christians would, that sex was created as a beautiful, intimate act that was designed to be experienced in a committed monogamous relationship defined as marriage. In this context, the greatest of trust and intimacy would also give rise to the greatest of physical excitement and intimacy as well.

Given that we also believe that this was created before the fall, it is quite reasonable to also maintain that marriage was indeed the epitome of experience.

While the fall of man would have contaminated this experience, it does not negate the purpose and design of the experience, that of a committed, monogamous relationship with someone you can trust and have great intimacy.

With the introduction of sin, that trust and intimacy is marred, and you also have people using a beautiful thing to try to fill the void left by sin, which lead to all sorts of abuses. Then you have this weird sense of devaluing, to make it nothing, so that nowadays, people have such a trivial view of sex that you simply "hook-up". It will still strangely leave them feeling hollow.

I do agree with canuck, though, in that grace covers all sins and this is merely that. I just think it carries some mighty heavy consequences. So while grace is there, the damage done with regards to intimacy, trust, disease, and potential societal problems can be quite problematic.