Overcoming Her Sexual Past

[doggie]

Yes, in recent years I've realized that yeah, virgin boys are almost certainly going to be terrible in bed for a while.

plus they will only last 2.5 seconds if you are lucky.

[sriracha]

I can never understand fundy obsession with virginity. It's the same thing as their obsession with scientific ignorance. They're the slacker kid in class that thinks it's cool to be stupid and that book learning and reading is for losers and geeks. To be a virgin is to be sexually inexperienced and thus sleeping with a virgin or being a virgin is not as sexually satisfying. Period. I do NOT get men who have a hangup about virginity. You would think these idiots would value an experienced woman who knows what to do with a dick. It's SOOO much more fun and satisfying!

That said, the things they believe about women are hateful and idiotic enough but I kinda wonder about the unspoken impact on the self-esteem of men when they believe their penises are like wands with reverse King Midas powers - everything they touch turns to shit. As soon as a penis touches a vagina, the vagina becomes corrupted and valueless.

[AnnoDomini]

I kinda wonder about the unspoken impact on the self-esteem of men when they believe their penises are like wands with reverse King Midas powers - everything they touch turns to shit. As soon as a penis touches a vagina, the vagina becomes corrupted and valueless.

A question that should be asked on the next fundy blog post on 'purity'.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Can we buy guys like this a calendar?

See, nothing of a woman who hasn't yet committed to you, and may not even know you, can be "rightfully yours".

I don't think human beings should ever think in terms of owning aspects of each others, but I can at least understand a feeling of betrayal if someone strays while in a committed relationship.

Would this idiot think that a widow who remarried had done anything wrong?

[dairyfreelife]

Sorry, I missread you and I sound like pontificating douchcanoe!

Nah, no big deal. I just realized I must not have come across clearly enough. :)

[Brainsample]

If this guy had any kind of problem with his wife's sexual past, then he had the option to not marry her (or did he find out after the fact?).

Sexuality is so deeply personal and intricate, I can understand why people have certain issues with certain things (like virginity) which can include religious beliefs. More power to people do do and believe what they want.

But if the woman did not tell her husband in advance of their marriage that she was not a virgin (or really in advance of any long term bond or sexual involvement, especially if they were fundie), then she's taken advantage of that man. If she married him, knowing his religious beliefs and didn't tell him, she's a selfish cow.

And if virginity was that big of a deal for this guy and he knew about her history and married her anyway, he's an idiot who gets what he deserves. He had the recourse to break it off and to go find what he really wanted, a virgin. He can grow up and focus on his love for his wife and her love for him, and let it go. If he doesn't and feels fine about writing about this stuff on the internet (sexually repressed while having no boundaries?), then he's probably got bigger problems.

[Guest Anonymous]

If this guy had any kind of problem with his wife's sexual past, then he had the option to not marry her (or did he find out after the fact?).

Sexuality is so deeply personal and intricate, I can understand why people have certain issues with certain things (like virginity) which can include religious beliefs. More power to people do do and believe what they want.

But if the woman did not tell her husband in advance of their marriage that she was not a virgin (or really in advance of any long term bond or sexual involvement, especially if they were fundie), then she's taken advantage of that man. If she married him, knowing his religious beliefs and didn't tell him, she's a selfish cow.

And if virginity was that big of a deal for this guy and he knew about her history and married her anyway, he's an idiot who gets what he deserves. He had the recourse to break it off and to go find what he really wanted, a virgin. He can grow up and focus on his love for his wife and her love for him, and let it go. If he doesn't and feels fine about writing about this stuff on the internet (sexually repressed while having no boundaries?), then he's probably got bigger problems.

I am not sure I agree with you that a woman is a 'selfish cow' if she doesn't disclose everything about herself before marriage. If she gave him the gift of herpes on their wedding night, then maybe....

However, in this case, the story couldn't be clearer:

I had forgiven her years ago when, even before we got engaged, we had discussed her past and she had sought my forgiveness for giving away what she should have held on to. I forgave her then. I knew that neither of us could be free from that sin if forgiveness was not offered and received. But still it would creep into my mind, arising sporadically throughout the years.

One of them is selfish and has taken advantage of the other, but I think it is the one with a penis (for-a-brain).

[doggie]

[

I am not sure I agree with you that a woman is a 'selfish cow' if she doesn't disclose everything about herself before marriage. If she gave him the gift of herpes on their wedding night, then maybe....

he deserves herpes. and a perment yeast infection of the nutsack.

[liltwinstar]

I'm with you in that I don't understand how this didn't come up before they married. I guess I can sort of see the wife feeling super bad about her past (which she shouldn't, in my opinion, but whatever), hiding it for a time, and then "confessing" to her husband in some sort of tearful outburst. But even then, does her commitment to her husband mean nothing? Does the love she has for him, and the person that she is lose all value because a flap of skin was (potentially) missing on their wedding night????

I mean, my husband and I both have "pasts" (I suppose, according to fundie standards, anyway), but it's not an issue because we both know/love each other for the people that we are now - and we wouldn't be those people if it weren't for our experiences and "baggage."

[bubbabearzle]

What the fuck is with fundy's obsession with virginity? There's more to what makes a person pure than whether they've had sex or not, and of course they only care about the girls staying pure. They say they mean it for everyone but I don't see any purity balls for boys. What is wrong with having sex?!

:clap: Yeah, this!

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm with you in that I don't understand how this didn't come up before they married.

It did. He's just a shit.

I had forgiven her years ago when, even before we got engaged, we had discussed her past and she had sought my forgiveness for giving away what she should have held on to. I forgave her then. I knew that neither of us could be free from that sin if forgiveness was not offered and received. But still it would creep into my mind, arising sporadically throughout the years.

[liltwinstar]

It did. He's just a shit.

Quote:

I had forgiven her years ago when, even before we got engaged, we had discussed her past and she had sought my forgiveness for giving away what she should have held on to. I forgave her then. I knew that neither of us could be free from that sin if forgiveness was not offered and received. But still it would creep into my mind, arising sporadically throughout the years.

:shock:

I have no words.

ETA: I agree that he's a shit. He needs to get over it already. And he's saying that he's thought about this for *years*????? He needs a hobby to exercise his mind. Honestly.

[Brainsample]

I am not sure I agree with you that a woman is a 'selfish cow' if she doesn't disclose everything about herself before marriage. If she gave him the gift of herpes on their wedding night, then maybe....

However, in this case, the story couldn't be clearer:

One of them is selfish and has taken advantage of the other, but I think it is the one with a penis (for-a-brain).

I missed that about him having prior knowledge of her history. Then the issues are his and his lack of maturity, ability to forgive, or dishonesty or ignorance concerning the forgiveness he offered her. So it doesn't apply to them.

Assuming that she didn't tell him of her past before their wedding, here was my thinking.

If you see marriage as just an equitable arrangement built around love and affection, then that is one thing. But if she clearly knew that his belief system put a great deal of emphasis on purity and such, and she knew that virginity was a virtue of importance, she should have the utmost respect for that in him. There is also the issue of the two becoming one and the body of the spouse being seen as the property of the other as a function of the two as one. If she was going to marry such a person and she knew that marriage is also something with so many deep religious overtones within that belief system, she's got to at least respect that about him as a function of respect for him as a person. (She doesn't have to share the belief system, but she ought to have respect enough for his person to realize that this is something that is significant for him, even if it isn't significant for her.)

But if she had knowledge of his position on virginity and purity and how much it meant, it is manipulative behavior and a type of objectification -- a type of paternalism -- to say "He doesn't need to know." That makes him less of a person and demeans him as a person. If he was in a religion or his take on religion didn't put that much significance on virginity and purity and the two becoming one, etc., it would be such a difficult thing. But if he's putting this stuff on the internet now, she had to have some clue that he thought this way. If she pushed that aside, saying "What he doesn't know won't hurt him," then that is selfish and manipulative and my basis for making the statement about her. It's dishonesty and a looking down on him as a creature who is not her equal. To someone who deems virginity as "spiritual" and precious like this guy does, he'd have probably been more forgiving about Herpes itself, because concealing her history from him would have been more of a betrayal, not that it wouldn't have been a picnic.

Again, I don't think that she or anyone else has to share his beliefs. A pluralistic society calls for us to show respect for individuals who are free to hold whatever fool crazy beliefs that they want, all while they enjoy their own freedom to do the same in principle. We also have the freedom to critique beliefs and express our own, and we have the right to decide not to interact with people who don't share what we believe. In other words, she didn't have to accept his beliefs or marry him.

It's apparently not the case in this instance, and I guess that's why I thought it was an issue of the woman concealing something from the man because it is such a hangup for him. But had it been a matter of her concealing her history from him prior to talking marriage, I think it's a show of disrespect to him if she withheld that from him, just because of how he viewed marriage and because of those spiritual overtones with which she should have been aware if she was gong to make that kind of comittment to him.

[Brainsample]

:clap: Yeah, this!

Well, if it's little more than a fertility cult, then it's everything to them.

I think that there is too much literalism. Sex was used as an analogy to explain issues of religious significance, hence we have Jezebel as one example. But people who accept a literal type of interpretation and hermeneutic don't understand analogy and everything is direct. There are also the issues of understanding Jewish prose and poetry that are lost in translation literally, lost in the different culture, etc. Many of these people in these aberrant religious groups that put so much emphasis on purity reject hermeneutics like a grammatical historical approach, never trying to understand the culture, how the culture used and viewed certain things, etc. They read a document that was written in another language that is now dead in a culture that now doesn't exist using colloquial references and meanings that they don't understand (many of them dependent upon understanding of history and even religious references particular to old Judaism), and they only bring a modern day Western understanding to it. It only means whatever meaning occurs to them from a literal and shallow understanding.

Then, there is the whole Old Covenant and New Covenant problem to consider, too. Pretty much everything Jesus said and did violated religious and societal mores and rules and values. When you look at the context and consider the historical grammatical hermeneutic implications, Jesus was the ultimate of dissidents on almost every level. He re-wrote what Judaism meant and "fulfilled" the early version, essentially, by changing the believer's/follower's relationship to the law. So even if you interpret some of the OT literally, how it applied to people at the time of its writing changes in terms of what it required of people. But that is complicated for most people to get in many cases. It's much easier just to follow something as a literal rule than it is to think about what it means in perspective.

That came up in another thread recently concerning sexual sin. Under the OT law, anyone caught in adultery was supposed to be stoned to death. Anyone who demonstrated any evidence that they'd been unfaithful before marriage was supposed to be stoned. But in the NT, when the woman who was found in adultery was brought to Jesus, he told her to go and sin no more, offering her forgiveness instead of death. So he re-wrote the rules and the standard of the penalty, establishing tolerance and mercy. It doesn't even say that this woman repented, so it wasn't necessarily an issue of someone having to repent of a thing to get that mercy which speaks to the issue as an example of tolerance (but not approval because he tells her to stop sinning).

But different Christian groups have a hard time understanding all of these things. When you read the Bible literally and you're allowed to cherry pick proof texts out of the Old Testament, you can well end up with a fertility cult mentality. It's sad, really.

[Brainsample]

It did. He's just a shit.

He picks a religion that tells people that life is not messy, so when life gets messy for him, he unloads the discomfort of it off on his wife. He can't put what the religion tells him into perspective because they've made such a black and white thinker out of him. When faced with a shade of grey, he acts like an immature jerk, making sure his own discomfort falls to the blame of someone else.