Guest redyellowblue

Do you think that non-virgins are fair/hypocritical to prefer virginity or have non-virginity as a dealbreaker?

47 posts in this topic

Yes, I think it is fair and not hypocritical to preference virginity with one exception.

If the non-virgin is not WTM and indeed sleeping around, then I do think it is hypocritical. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fine to have as a deal breaker if you are a non-virgin. BUT, it would be extremely hypocritical to look down on non virgins, or act all high and mighty.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are allowed to have it as a dealbreaker if they want, even if they aren't virgins. Whether or not it's hypocritical would depnd on their reasoning, I suppose. As a virgin, I would say I'm perhaps more justified in wanting a fellow virgin, but I wouldn't say only virgins are allowed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise is off.

 

This is something I want people to really contemplate:

 

There is no fairness in a relationship when it comes to pursuing what you desire

 

If a non-virgin has virginity as a deal-breaker or prefers it, it's neither fair or unfair, it's simply what they want. The only time this would really bother me is if the non-virgin criticized others, particularly virgins, for having virginity as a deal-breaker.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key word that makes it fair (and not necessarily hypocritical) is "prefer." If you're a born-again, I think preferring somebody who embodies the ideals that you are now adhering to is normal.

 

But when I hear a non-virgin saying that non-virginity is a "dealbreaker" my ears perk up a little.

 

Some of you may remember that most of the creepers we've banned over the years started out by saying something like "I must have a pure virgin. No, I'm not one myself. Why should that matter?"

 

That's not waiting till marriage. That's fetishizing virginity. That's creepy.

 

If they're not a creeper and they're genuinely a non-virgin WTMer who is calling non-virginity a dealbreaker, then it does come off as a little unrealistic and mildly hypocritical to me. It's like "You can forgive your own past, but you won't extend the same forgiveness to the person you love?" Good luck with that.

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IAG, perhaps this is a subjective question with subjective answers.

 

Perhaps. However, I strive to remain consistent and to remove emotions whenever I can; instead, relying on my intellect to draw a conclusion.

 

For example, would it be hypocritical for a guy who isn't particularly "attractive" yearning for a really gorgeous girl or had this as a deal-breaker that he must be with a really gorgeous girl? I don't think so. It's what he wants. Whether it's reasonable or not is an entirely different matter, and open to debate. But hell... if he puts his mind to it and gets what he wants, I'll be the first one to be happy for him as the happiness of others makes me happy.

 

 

 

 

 

If they're not a creeper and they're genuinely a non-virgin WTMer who is calling non-virginity a dealbreaker, then it does come off as a little unrealistic and mildly hypocritical to me. 

 

 

I totally understand this point and I'm also a virgin... And it certainly does come off as hypocritical.

 

But I'm not sure the word 'hypocritical' is the right word to use.

 

According to Webster Dictionary:

 

"of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess: The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do†attitude can appear hypocritical to a child."

 

In alignment with the definition above, a good example of hypocrisy could be smoking cigarettes and berating others for doing the same.

 

But if a non-virgin has virginity as a deal-breaker they are not necessarily lecturing non-virgins on why they should stop having sex until mariage or telling anyone what to do or claiming they have a special level of virtuosity: They may merely have concluded that this is a deal-breaker for them because this is a quality they desire and are unwilling to comprise on. Ultimately they are requiring something from someone else that they can't offer in return. Hypocritical? I don't think so. Unreasonable? Certainly could be interpreted that way, yes.

 

One of the reasons I strive to be so consistent here is because of the reality that having virginity as a deal-breaker is the most scrutinized, judged, and demonized deal-breaker there is. And it's something that really bothers me because it's not based on rationality, but instead emotional thinking. And when people don't take the time and effort to think critically but instead rely on their emotions to reach a conclusion, it's irresponsible.

 

You hear things like:

 

"If he won't be with you because you're not a virgin, run the other way!" When statements like this are made they are belittling  guys with this deal-breaker, judging them to be inferior men. But would anyone say 'run the other way' about men or women with any other deal-breaker? No, they wouldn't. And ultimately is there really any difference between say the deal-breaker of virginity and excluding those of another religion or physical appearance that doesn't "measure up"? Again, no there isn't.

 

I'd like to speak to Mike's questionare on the 'How to Get Over the Feeling of Disgust' thread.

 

I do believe it served the greater good because ensuring other people's feelings aren't hurt is of vital concern and seems to me to be the compassionate and Godly thing to do. And I'm glad he made that post and to be honest it has motivated me to make more effort in ensuring that I take the route of greatest sensitivity and compassion (within reason) when discussing this issue.

 

That being said, I also think the fact that he made this questionare speaks to another reality: That this deal-breaker is singled-out among the vast other number of deal-breakers.

 

Could you imagine if a questionare was created trying to get the reader to conclude that it's perfectly fine to date/marry someone of a different faith than you?

 

And look at the last line of the questionare:

 

"Don't forget that your happiness is the goal, and be open to it coming from unexpected places."

 

Is the above statement fair? It is. Would Mike have done a questionare on any other deal-breaker, ending it with this statement? I doubt he would feel the need to do so because the other deal-breakers are more accepted and respected. And I certainly doubt he'd do it for religion.

 

Bottom line: This deal-breaker isn't respected like other deal-breakers. It's acceptable to try to talk people out of it. To politely nudge people to start to question themselves about it. Whereas, religion, for example, is a highly respected deal-breaker where it's far less likely that anyone is going to try to get you to question this deal-breaker or nudge you in another direction and the reason for this is inescapable: It's respected as a deal-breaker where virginity isn't.

 

A primary reason I think virginity isn't as respected as a deal-breaker is because people project their sensibilities onto others with this deal-breaker. For example:

 

Many people prefer virgins and particularly many guys do, but many guys accept that it's much more difficult to find a virgin, and they go through the relatively small amount of effort that it takes them to get over that and not make virginity a requirement. So they think everyone can do it.

 

That's a mistake.

 

We have to accept that getting over the virginity issue isn't going to require a universal amount of effort for all men and women. For some of us, for whatever reason, it is an insurmountable hurdle (and pride has nothing to do with it for guys like me). So if you can get over it with a certain degree of effort don't assume that's going to be the same scenario with another guy. That sounds good on paper but isn't how it really works. Human beings are all very unique.

 

For some of us, it's just really, really important on a visceral, emotional and intellectual level. And it's debatable we would ever be able to get over it which means the sensible thing to do is to simply find a virgin (they DO exist). To go after what your heart yearns for.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a personal opinion of mine, I think if you've done so much or went so far, you should be willing to forgive someone else who has done the same thing. Again, just my personal thoughts.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key word that makes it fair (and not necessarily hypocritical) is "prefer." If you're a born-again, I think preferring somebody who embodies the ideals that you are now adhering to is normal.

 

But when I hear a non-virgin saying that non-virginity is a "dealbreaker" my ears perk up a little.

 

Some of you may remember that most of the creepers we've banned over the years started out by saying something like "I must have a pure virgin. No, I'm not one myself. Why should that matter?"

 

That's not waiting till marriage. That's fetishizing virginity. That's creepy.

 

If they're not a creeper and they're genuinely a non-virgin WTMer who is calling non-virginity a dealbreaker, then it does come off as a little unrealistic and mildly hypocritical to me. It's like "You can forgive your own past, but you won't extend the same forgiveness to the person you love?" Good luck with that.

I don't think it's necessarily creepy to be attracted to virginity. Guys (or girls) who just want to go around taking away people's virginity are gross to me, but I get being attracted to virginity. Even though I don't think it compares to both partner's being virgins on their wedding night, I can see being attracted to the thought that your spouse knows only you and that you get to be that only person for them. Also, there is comfort in knowing they cannot compare you to anyone else. That last one might be out of insecurity, but I can understand why some people would like that.  Personally, I find it would be a much more special connection if you were both each other's only partners, but I can still see being attracted to virginity even if you aren't a virgin. Even if I wasn't a virgin, I think I might still want a virgin wife. The reason I perhaps wouldn't would be the guilt of taking away the speciality of us both being virgins from her, though. Even though there are reasons I might still wait if somehow I knew it would be impossible to ever find a virgin wife, I would prefer that scenario to her being a non-virgin and my being a virgin.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is comfort in knowing they cannot compare you to anyone else. That last one might be out of insecurity, but I can understand why some people would like that.  

 

I've always found this argument to be completely ridiculous. I've heard people say, referring to a virgin, that the only reason the virgin wants to marry another virgin is for reasons of insecurity. I don't consider it "insecurity"; I consider it intelligence. Because who in the world would want to have any reference of comparison for something so intimate even if you are better? And if you're not better for your partner, then it's still not insecurity. Who wants to be compared as being not as good as a past partner? How would that benefit the relationship? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

I agree with that, I don't mind whether or not I marry a virgin, but I don't want to have to be compared to 5 different people, I wouldn't call that insecure...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found this argument to be completely ridiculous. I've heard people say, referring to a virgin, that the only reason the virgin wants to marry another virgin is for reasons of insecurity. I don't consider it "insecurity"; I consider it intelligence. Because who in the world would want to have any reference of comparison for something so intimate even if you are better? And if you're not better for your partner, then it's still not insecurity. Who wants to be compared as being not as good as a past partner? How would that benefit the relationship? 

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possible reason some non-virgins might prefer a virgin. And if that is their reason? Well, that's their reason.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preference and requirement are two different things. There is nothing wrong for a non-virgin to prefer or hope for a virgin. I think everyone in our community hopes to end up with one. To me, virginity is simply a huge bonus, nothing more. However, I believe we shouldn't hold someone else to a standard we can't hold ourselves to. Example: If you require your spouse to be physically attractive to you, don't throw a pissy fit if someone rejects you because you weren't attractive to them. Same concept applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preference and requirement are two different things. There is nothing wrong for a non-virgin to prefer or hope for a virgin. I think everyone in our community hopes to end up with one. To me, virginity is simply a huge bonus, nothing more. However, I believe we shouldn't hold someone else to a standard we can't hold ourselves to. Example: If you require your spouse to be physically attractive to you, don't throw a pissy fit if someone rejects you because you weren't attractive to them. Same concept applies here.

I can't help but to nitpick that it is not the same concept. In the second scenario, you're saying it is right that someone could be allowed to reject you on the same basis as you would reject someone. The comparable situation in regards to virginity would be to understand that people may reject you for not being a virgin as you would reject someone for not being a virign. It's not the same concept as saying a non-virgin isn't allowed to have virginity as a dealbreaker because they are not a virgin. The comparable scenario in regards to looks would be to say an ugly person is not allowed to have looks as a dealbreaker because they are ugly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but to nitpick that it is not the same concept. In the second scenario, you're saying it is right that someone could be allowed to reject you on the same basis as you would reject someone. The comparable situation in regards to virginity would be to understand that people may reject you for not being a virgin as you would reject someone for not being a virign. It's not the same concept as saying a non-virgin isn't allowed to have virginity as a dealbreaker because they are not a virgin. The comparable scenario in regards to looks would be to say an ugly person is not allowed to have looks as a dealbreaker because they are ugly.  

 

Of course you can't help it since you seem to nitpick and over analyze everything. If we're going to nitpick anything it's that your comparable scenario with looks is flawed because you're implying there is a objective standard for beauty when there isn't. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You're over complicating a simple concept: Don't demand to take what you are not willing to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can't help it since you seem to nitpick and over analyze everything. If we're going to nitpick anything it's that your comparable scenario with looks is flawed because you're implying there is a objective standard for beauty when there isn't. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You're over complicating a simple concept: Don't demand to take what you are not willing to give.

You brought up looks first, so it made sense to follow with that analogy. Pointing out that beauty is subjective doesn't change the fact that you're comparison didn't quite work. Anyways, the concept you have at the end there is different than the one you had in your earlier post. Still, it doesn't necessarily apply. The non-virgin may not be unwilling to give virginity so much as they are unable to give it. They might now be a waiter and wish they could give their virginity, but they are unable to give it.

 

Look, I'm a virgin who wants a virgin who is saying this. I just can't fault someone for wanting that if they truly know it is what will make them happy. To me, it's not an immoral thing to want. Like I said, certain reasoning might lead me to say it is wrong, but not all. Honestly, I'm saying this even though it frustrates part of me. Here I am waiting and a non-virgin guy could get a virgin girl. But, if that is truly what the guy feels he would need and the girl would truly be happy with that guy, then I just can't see my being mad about it as something that is right to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You brought up looks first, so it made sense to follow with that analogy. Pointing out that beauty is subjective doesn't change the fact that you're comparison didn't quite work. 

 

You just proved my point. You accuse me of not making a fair comparison when you couldn't even make a legitimate one to counter mine.

 

 

Look, I'm a virgin who wants a virgin who is saying this. I just can't fault someone for wanting that if they truly know it is what will make them happy. To me, it's not an immoral thing to want. Like I said, certain reasoning might lead me to say it is wrong, but not all. Honestly, I'm saying this even though it frustrates part of me. Here I am waiting and a non-virgin guy could get a virgin girl. But, if that is truly what the guy feels he would need and the girl would truly be happy with that guy, then I just can't see my being mad about it as something that is right to do.

 

You're not listening to me. I said it's not wrong to want or hope for something, especially if they find someone gracious enough to give him or her what they hoped for. But to require something that they themselves cannot give is wrong and hypocritical, period. Virgin or not, I will love her all the same and I will gladly give her my virginity even if she can't give me hers. But only because I am willing to give it to her. But if she made it a deal breaker if she isn't one, it tells me that rules apply to everyone else but not to her. I will not marry a selfish woman. Love is not just about taking, it's about giving as well. Marriage and relationships can't work with two takers or one taker and one giver. It requires two givers.

 

We're not going to change each other's minds here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just proved my point. You accuse me of not making a fair comparison when you couldn't even make a legitimate one to counter mine.

 

 

I did not prove your point at all. Nevertheless, I'll state it slightly differently to show that your comparison did not make sense.

 

Scenario 1: By being willing to reject someone because you subjecitvely think they are not attractive, you should also accept that someone might reject you because they subjectively do not find you attractive.

 

This is consistent with the next scenario.

 

Scenario 2: A non-virgin who rejects other non-virgins must accept that some will reject him for being a non-virgin.

 

These two work together because both involve accepting that others are allowed to reject you for the same reason you would reject a person. Scenario 1, though, would not work with the scenario of a non-virgin not being allowed to require their partner to be a virgin (Scenario 3). Scenarios 1 and 2 involve accepting that people can reject you for the reasons you reject others, while scenario 3 involves saying that if you are not something (a virgin) you cannot require it of your partner. Even though it's not an apples to apples comparison, you could compare this to a thief having to be willing to marry another thief instead of insisting on marrying a non-thief (Scenario 4). Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 work together because both involve not being allowed to have a requirement if you also don't fit the criteria of your requirement. This is different than 1 and 2, as they involved accepting that others can reject you for the same reasons you reject people. They don't mean you have to get rid of your requirement, as 3 and 4 do. They just mean accepting that others out there may have the same requirement as you. You were trying to say something like Scenario 1 compares to Scenario 3 when they don't work together.

 

As to your point about agreeing to disagree, that's fine. I wasn't really trying to contest your opinion on the matter. It was just your comparison that I was pointing out didn't quite work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this focus on virginity as a deal-breaker to be un-productive. Virginity, at its base is a physical state of being that is not guaranteed to be permanent. Saying that someone's state of virginity is a deal-breaker is the same as saying that some aspect of their physical appearance to be a deal-breaker. It's much more healthy to focus on a person's emotional health/compatibility than on whether or not they've had sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this focus on virginity as a deal-breaker to be un-productive. Virginity, at its base is a physical state of being that is not guaranteed to be permanent. Saying that someone's state of virginity is a deal-breaker is the same as saying that some aspect of their physical appearance to be a deal-breaker. It's much more healthy to focus on a person's emotional health/compatibility than on whether or not they've had sex.

 

I don't follow. Not guaranteed to be permanent? You're talking as if no longer being a virgin is something that happens to someone and not a choice they make. Some people only want to be with someone that has chosen not to have sex. I don't believe health or productivity have anything to do with it. Virginity is a whole lot more than just a physical state of being. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this focus on virginity as a deal-breaker to be un-productive. Virginity, at its base is a physical state of being that is not guaranteed to be permanent. Saying that someone's state of virginity is a deal-breaker is the same as saying that some aspect of their physical appearance to be a deal-breaker. It's much more healthy to focus on a person's emotional health/compatibility than on whether or not they've had sex.

Why is it counterproductive? If someone doesn't want to marry someone who has had sex before, there's nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with deal breakers of appearance either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it counterproductive? If someone doesn't want to marry someone who has had sex before, there's nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with deal breakers of appearance either.

I personally find appearance-based deal-breakers to be very shallow. You may not, but some day you'll grow up and realize that there's a lot more to people than their physical attributes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally find appearance-based deal-breakers to be very shallow. You may not, but some day you'll grow up and realize that there's a lot more to people than their physical attributes.

 

I believe it's extremely rare for people not to have appearance as a deal-breaker. This is not to suggest that people demand physical perfection. It is to suggest, however, that just about every human being requires a certain level of physical attraction for them to pursue a mate. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's extremely rare for people not to have appearance as a deal-breaker. This is not to suggest that people demand physical perfection. It is to suggest, however, that just about every human being requires a certain level of physical attraction for them to pursue a mate. 

Typically, however, things like emotional health/stability and compatibility trump looks when a person is looking for a partner. For example, at the moment I have several guys trying to date me, but the guy I am most interested in is definitely not the best looking of the bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now