Do you buy into the Born again Vigin thing?

[Quiddity]

Well, you are correct in that I see nothing wrong with sex before marriage, but that's irrelevant. That you seem to think repenting of having committed a sin (in this case, sex before marriage) negates the fact of the act, seems rather odd. Would a murderer who repented his act no longer have killed anyone?

As the term "born-again virgin" seems to suggest, one could recover their virginity by committing themselves to celibacy until marriage. Think this is how it really works? I don't. Once a murderer always a murderer, and once a non-virgin always a non-virgin. While I don't think all those who have delude themselves are necessarily "radically sex-a-phobic evangelical right wing wackos," I would bet that a good number of them do fit the description. And, yes, as angellous_evangellous said, it is a "gimmick"; "A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick." Such people apparently deceive themselves into thinking they're once again worthy of the label "virgin," which is fine with me. Heck, they can call themselves King Kong if they want, but it's a fool's world they've constructed. It's a true silliness that's kind of sad in a way, but whatever gets you through life I guess.

I highly doubt most Christians equate repentance with the denial that something seizes to exist. You might not agree with them but you could atleast appreciate an honest effort to have the proper understanding.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously, neither of you see anything wrong with sex before marriage. I'm not surprised that Skwim feels that way, but I am a little bit surprised that angellous does. At any rate, my remarks were directed primarily to people who do. (I don't really think that makes me a radical, sex-a-phobic, evangelical, right-wing wacko, though you may disagree.)

I don't mean to be crass about it.

I think that virginity before marriage can be a virtue, but the secondary virginity bit is degrading to sex.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't mean to be crass about it.

I think that virginity before marriage can be a virtue, but the secondary virginity bit is degrading to sex.

Huh? How's that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Huh? How's that?

Well, sometimes saving one's virginity until marriage is beneficial, although I personally have never heard of it. I can just imagine that it's true for some people.

The degradation of sex is obvious: the sexually experienced Christian is made to view all previous sexual contact as de facto evil, no matter what the circumstance. And then after the magical ceremony, all those acts and then some are suddenly permissible - and in the case of some evangelicals - celebrated.

This double standard is rooted in a single, pervasive fear of sexual contact that the church has had almost since the beginning. The church simply has never known what to do with sex, other than painfully try to regulate it for the masses and enjoy concubines and little boys in private --- I mean public.

It's fear. I bet the church fears sex more than the devil.

 

[Skwim]

I highly doubt most Christians equate repentance with the denial that something seizes to exist. You might not agree with them but you could atleast appreciate an honest effort to have the proper understanding.

An "honest" effort? Not by regarding themselves as "born-again virgins." If other sinners were calling themselves "born-again Xs" I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't the case. People aren't going around calling themselves "born-again nice person," "born-again truth-teller," "born-again non-luster "born-again wife respecter " or "born-again moderate eater." At most, people call themselves born-again sinners, which speaks to the wrong-committed, not to the sinless condition. But this is exactly what "Born-again virgin" does. It doesn't address the sin, un-chasteness, but rather what is not the sin, virginity. Why? Because, as I pointed out, I think "born-again virgin" was concocted to deceive oneself into thinking a person is once again worthy of the label "virgin." To me it appears to be a true dishonesty, not a particularly important one to be sure, but a dishonesty nonetheless. And if it isn't a simple dishonesty, but rather a heartfelt truth---"I am once again a true virgin"---then I have nothing but sympathy for such a person.

 

[Quiddity]

An "honest" effort? Not by regarding themselves as "born-again virgins." If other sinners were calling themselves "born-again Xs" I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't the case. People aren't going around calling themselves "born-again nice person," "born-again truth-teller," "born-again non-luster "born-again wife respecter " or "born-again moderate eater." At most, people call themselves born-again sinners, which speaks to the wrong-committed, not to the sinless condition. But this is exactly what "Born-again virgin" does. It doesn't address the sin, un-chasteness, but rather what is not the sin, virginity. Why? Because, as I pointed out, I think "born-again virgin" was concocted to deceive oneself into thinking a person is once again worthy of the label "virgin." To me it appears to be a true dishonesty, not a particularly important one to be sure, but a dishonesty nonetheless. And if it isn't a simple dishonesty, but rather a heartfelt truth---"I am once again a true virgin"---then I have nothing but sympathy for such a person.

Feel-good or dishonest perhaps, I just wouldn't say it was a denial that something ever existed. Most of them would gladly tell you of their past.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, sometimes saving one's virginity until marriage is beneficial, although I personally have never heard of it. I can just imagine that it's true for some people.

The degradation of sex is obvious: the sexually experienced Christian is made to view all previous sexual contact as de facto evil, no matter what the circumstance. And then after the magical ceremony, all those acts and then some are suddenly permissible - and in the case of some evangelicals - celebrated.

This double standard is rooted in a single, pervasive fear of sexual contact that the church has had almost since the beginning. The church simply has never known what to do with sex, other than painfully try to regulate it for the masses and enjoy concubines and little boys in private --- I mean public.

It's fear. I bet the church fears sex more than the devil.

Sorry AA, I missed the "secondary" bit. Mea culpa...

 

[Katzpur]

That you seem to think repenting of having committed a sin (in this case, sex before marriage) negates the fact of the act, seems rather odd.

I don't think it negates the fact of the act at all, but I do think that repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (these two things combined) negate the consequences that would otherwise be in effect.

As the term "born-again virgin" seems to suggest, one could recover their virginity by committing themselves to celibacy until marriage.

Well, don't worry... I'm not that stupid.

 

[Skwim]

Feel-good or dishonest perhaps, I just wouldn't say it was a denial that something ever existed. Most of them would gladly tell you of their past.

Perhaps, but as the Wikipedia article I quoted points out,

"In rare cases, born-again virgin females undergo a hymenorrhaphy to restore their hymen Another option is the Artificial hymen."
​

Well, don't worry... I'm not that stupid.

Not a matter of stupidity at all. Simply consider what I reminded Victor above. To undergo a hymenorrhaphy or getting an artificial hymen suggest to me an attempt to restore one's virginity; to be a virgin once again. Of course, such a person may recognize that in a very real sense, once having had sexual intercourse they are no longer a true virgin, but I would bet that such a mind-set isn't thinking this way at all. Rather, that they see the operation as negating the act in its entirety; being no different than never having sex in the first place..

 

[Katzpur]

Not a matter of stupidity at all. Simply consider what I reminded Victor above. To undergo a hymenorrhaphy or getting an artificial hymen suggest to me an attempt to restore one's virginity; to be a virgin once again. Of course, such a person may recognize that in a very real sense, once having had sexual intercourse they are no longer a true virgin, but I would bet that such a mind-set isn't thinking this way at all. Rather, that they see the operation as negating the act in its entirety; being no different than never having sex in the first place..

Well, suchan individual strikes me as being pretty darned oblivious to the point of abstinence of sexual relations outside of marriage, but then people never cease to amaze me.

 

[Barcode]

*Explicit Alert*



Once the hymen has been broken along with the penetration of a penis, I highly doubt anyone could re-write that experience to be "born again." Just the mental experience alone would trump the idea that someone could conceive of a concept of being "born again." Why not just say "I'm abstinant?"

 

[logician]

Having sex before marriage is kind of like test driving a car you want to buy, you don't want any surprises after making a long-term commitment.

 

[Quagmire]

Since at the atomic level our bodies are completely replaced every 7 years or so, if someone abstained from sex for 7 years they could literally claim to be "untouched".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since at the atomic level our bodies are completely replaced every 7 years or so, if someone abstained from sex for 7 years they could literally claim to be "untouched".

They could claim a lot of other things, too.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Since at the atomic level our bodies are completely replaced every 7 years or so, if someone abstained from sex for 7 years they could literally claim to be "untouched".

Except for Brain Cells.
Or are pseudo virgins brainless :yes:

 

[Quagmire]

Except for Brain Cells.
Or are pseudo virgins brainless :yes:

Who with any brains would voluntarily go without sex for 7 years anyway?

Thing is that even though brain cells and some other cells in our bodies can last a lot longer than 7 years, the atoms that make up those cells is still replaced every 7 years.

 

[Meister Felix]

Absolutely not. Rape should not count, but otherwise in my opinion there is no return to virginity.