The previous post on Discussing sexual past history with women was about how to talk about past sexual sin. This one is on things to look for when a woman confesses her past to you.
The commenter writes:
I’m also wondering, what should a woman’s attitude be in confessing her sin? What should a man look for when she confesses? Should a man resist the urge to fish for details as well?
There’s several things you want to look for here.
- Genuine contrition. The modern liberal feminist women are proud about their past sexual history. A Christian should be ashamed about theirs, much like Paul was about his prior persecution and murder of Christians. In fact, it made Paul work all the harder than the disciples since he had ‘more to be forgiven for.’
- Beware the woman who looks fondly remembering past sin. Similar to the above, but you can generally tell this from her body language, facial expressions, and so on, especially if she was with someone she found to be a ‘Chad’ or very attractive in the past. You don’t want to be plan B (or plan C, D, E, F, etc.).
- A distinct pattern of good behavior with no ‘continual mistakes.’ I’ve said before on this blog that I’d rather be with a woman who has had sex prior to becoming a Christian and has been celibate since her conversion than with a “Christian” virgin who has done everything but sex while still being a Christian. One shows they understand the gravity of their faith and the other is flirting with sin.
- Additionally, just an overall pattern of fruit of the Spirit and maturity in Christ especially in regard to discussing sensitive. If a woman is getting upset about you asking then that tends to be a bad sign. The past is one of best predictors of future behavior, and it’s important to know what you are going to be dealing with even if things in the past have changed since becoming a Christian. If a woman is consistently dismissive, changing topics, and obfuscating that right there shows a lack of respect for you as a man who wants to talk about important things and shows she probably has something to hide or insecurities.
Should a man resist the urge to fish for details?
This is something every man must discern for themselves. Will they get more upset the more they know, especially if she has some things in her past? Some men will, but some men won’t. Will it do something irreparable to the relationship to know that? Is it that important to know specific details? Sure, knowing if she had sex with some men in the past is important, but you don’t necessarily need to know the details about what positions they did or anything.
What may be important is potential triggers that got her into that situation — drinking, bad persuasion from ‘friends,’ and other things like that. Can give more of a background on how she is influenced in certain situations.
I think it was one of the writers at Sigma Frame who mentioned that his wife enjoys rough sex, including slapping. How in the world does a couple, let alone a Christian couple , come to discover this kind of compatibility? Before or after getting married?
If before, how do you go about communicating this sort of thing to your girlfriend in a Godly way (if that’s possible). If after, what happens if you reveal a sexual desire to a wife and it scares her or disgusts her? Especially if you had confessed to past porn use. She could play that card “you learned that from porn, no way, what’s wrong with you,” etc.
I’m sympathetic to the woman’s perspective here. It’s also entirely possible a wife might want to try something that the husband would hate or that would give him pause as to his wife’s feelings for him. There’s the possibility that the desire for a particular fetish or sex act might come from a place of trauma as well, man or woman.
I don’t know if the biblical principle of not denying sex to one another would apply here. It seems a stretch to say “sorry honey, the Bible says you have to do that for me, our bodies belong to each other.” To be clear, vanilla sex can be passionate and fulfilling. I’m not talking about a wife being totally lifeless in the bedroom, I’m wondering if a less adventurous wife is something that just has to be dealt with (with love and understanding).
The 1 Corinthians 7 conversation doesn’t need to happen early, but it should happen sometime mid-to late relationship and definitely before engagement. The sexual preferences conversation usually should happen around late-relationship prior to engagement or during engagement.
Presumably by engagement you trust her since you want her to become your wife, so I tend to prefer pre-engagement but usually late relationship as if she wanted only vanilla sex and you wanted more then that could be a big issue.
Like the study I’ve referenced before, most women actually prefer rough sex. Hard and fast over slow and intimate. This is clearly also seen in most of women’s porn — 50 Shades where the charming, muscular, dominant, successful leader ravishes the woman. Yes, this even includes virgins. Maybe not wedding night, but usually after. The exceptions are usually sexual trauma (e.g. rape, molestation, etc.) in past history which is important to find out.
In regard to figuring these things out, the obvious is talking. But that doesn’t always reveal everything. While some couples don’t kiss until marriage, most do including Christians. You can generally see some things in regard to this if you pull her in to ‘take’ a kiss usually the response is positive then she will tend to like the ‘ravishing’ nature of a man being dominant in the bedroom.
In some sex talks during engagement you can just get a list of different kinks and go through them together. See what the other wants to try, is intrigued by, or definitely doesn’t want to do. Throw it out as a no judgement zone. In most cases, if you think one is particularly sensitive such as some form of slapping (whether that’s on the butt, or other places), you can throw it out as an ‘intrigued by’ and not a ‘want to try’ and gauge her reaction.
I’m not saying my marriage is perfect or anything like that but we’ve generally been open to trying out things the other wants to do. You’d hopefully expect that from both Christian men and women, but it’s true that many can have hangups for whatever reason. Sometimes discussing the hangups and understanding where they come from (such as parents or Church) can help resolve them too, but trauma is harder and may need counseling.
Overall, though, it probably depends a lot on case-by-case scenarios. Not everything always works out perfectly, but if you can find a wife willing to do things where you are happy enough and not deny you much if ever then you are in a better spot than the vast majority of marriages.
This is yet another area where men and women are different.
Women should not be asking men any of this. A man’s sexual past doesn’t really matter to a woman; all that matters is that he has one. Most women do not want virgins. They claim they do, but they’re lying about this just as they lie about most things relating to intersexual relationships.
Any woman who presses a man on his sexual past should be shut down and left alone. The reason she’s pressing him on it is to gain ammunition for later use against him; to advance the fallacy of “equality”, and to shut down any valid complaints he may have about their sex life. She’ll argue “well, you did it too, so you don’t have anything to say about anything I ever did”.
Any woman who claims to be concerned about her man’s sexual past isn’t really concerned about it at all – she’s just looking to “even the score” and prevent him from voicing any objections about sex or about their sex lives. It’s purely a power play. Women who do this, do so for the purpose of gaining and exercising power over their men.
On the other hand, any woman who treats her own past as anything less than a completely open book should be avoided. Any woman who is presenting herself for serious consideration as anything more than a fun date should be more than willing to divulge everything about her past that he wants to know. If he wants to know it, she needs to disclose it. Anything he wants to know about her past is very much his business, if she wants to be anything more than “fun”.
Even more so with any woman being seriously considered for marriage. When it comes to her, “his business” is whatever he decides is his business. If he wants to know it, she needs to divulge it. He’s the one risking everything. He’s the one who will have to pay for it. He’s the one who will have to unpack the baggage, pay for the therapy, and live with her sexual hangups and issues. He gets to ask her whatever he wants, he gets to know whatever he wants, and if she wants to be taken seriously as marriage material, she is duty-bound to disclose it, completely and forthrightly. In fact, she should volunteer this information without being asked.
We need to remember that a woman’s sexual past affects her much, much more than a man’s sexual past does. A woman’s past sets her attraction vectors and causes her to compare later men to the “best” ones she had before. Men don’t do this; and to the extent they do, it doesn’t tend to cause problems in their long term relationships.
Women get less attracted to their long term mates in large part because of comparisons to past sex partners. They withhold sex and deprive their husbands of sex because of this. Men don’t do anything like this to women.
Past sexual histories either result from or cause trauma to women, which leads to all sorts of problems in their later relationships, chief among them being the ability to bond to their spouses. Men don’t have these kinds of problems as a result of past multiple sex partners.
It is simply a fact that women’s sexual pasts cause problems in marriages; and men’s sexual pasts… don’t.
Generally agree. Usually does not help but only hurts.
Disagree agree here. This is very condition dependent. Reciprocal matters.
1. If we’re talking about promiscuous women, then a sexual past typically is beneficial.
2. If we’re talking about lukewarm Christians it can go either way. Some prefer men without experience but some prefer men with experience.
3. From the Christian women with very few to no body counts I’ve talked to most of them prefer low partner count men if not virgins.
PSALM and masculinity traits are always attractive, but virginity and low partner count do not fall into those categories. Yes, some women use them as a heuristic for pre-selection, but it depends on their values.
My wife was visibly happy to know that I was her first in many different areas. She is also a true Christian and a virgin herself.
Most of both of your comments are addressing a man’s past from a promiscuous woman’s perspective, and I agree that you are correct in those scenarios. However, women who are chaste do filter differently than women who are promiscuous.
For instance, it’s like going to a club and wondering why all women are acting like whores and have a checkered past. The very setting of the club selects for promiscuous women. If you wanted to select for women that are less promiscuous you’d want to go to other venues such as Church, homemaking events, etc.
If a Christian man is more concerned with what a woman prefers than what God requires, he’s doing it wrong.
A person’s sexual history matters – to GOD!!!! And if you are a Christian – Christ and HIS STANDARDS matter!!!!
“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.” – I Corinthians 6:9-10
Indulging in sexual sin is gender neutral. God’s standards does not give concessions to men or excuses to women. Those who indulge in sexual sin – will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is MORE important than a successful marriage. Marriage is lifelong. The Kingdom of God is ETERNAL.
If you have sexual history – the answer is in Verse 11
“Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
If you trust in above understand that Jesus took the punishment for your sin – repent and live for him – in sexual purity from now on which includes your fiancé – keep any kind of physical intimacy (not just sex) for marriage. Even if you have been doing it with your fiancé – stop!!!! Take headship in this area regardless of how she feels. Your purpose in life is to please God NOT her. And sexual sin displeases God – that needs to be your ONLY motivation to stop
There will also be some by-products with this stance:
It will be easier to spot the red flags in your relationship with her. When you have sex – you are in the process of becoming one flesh with her which will make it easier for her to MASK her red flags. Stopping the sex will ensure YOU spot the red flags and make it easier for you to walk away if you choose to do so.
Knowing she cannot sexually manipulate you will also establish boundaries and can set up conversations where you can bring up I Corinthians 7:3-5. In other words – you will set up MARRIAGE as the gatekeeper of sex. You are married – you have sex. You are not married – you do not.
It will be easier to establish a CHRISTIAN marriage as it is so counter cultural. If she is following your HEADSHIP in this area – she is more likely to follow it in other areas
Now for specifics
Women are the weaker sex and any information you give her can and probably will be used as an excuse to disrespect you in the future. You want to avoid that.
BUT it is important for your future wife to know IF your sexual past will affect your future together.
Thedeti sir is right – Your fiancé does not need to know the EXACT nature of your sexual history – BUT She needs to know some things and it is good for you to address these concerns (which affect the FUTURE rather than rehashing the past)
1. Do you have a criminal record for a sex crime? Accused, convicted or served time for a sex crime like rape?
2. When was the last time you got yourself tested for a sexually transmitted disease? HIV may not show up in blood tests till past 6 months. So, if your last sexual encounter was within the last 6 months – you may need to get retested again
3. Have you ever had a sexually transmitted disease? Been on medication for that? Currently still on medication?
4. Have you ever gotten a girl pregnant? Did she have an abortion? Did you ask for the abortion? Have you given a baby up for adoption? Are you paying child support to any child? How involved are you in raising the child now and what is your relationship with the mother?
5. Past marriages? Reasons for divorce?
6. What kind of birth control did you use in the past? Expectations for the future in marriage?
7. Have you ever been sexually molested? Have you been through counselling or are presently in counselling for it or intending to go for counselling for it?
8. Have you ever been or are currently in treatment for any kind of sexual addiction?
9. Your opinion on cybersex? (Visiting sexual chat rooms and sending explicit sexual emails) What are the boundaries for this for BOTH of you in the marriage (Hint – Christians should not be part of this) What happens if either of us does this in our marriage?
10. How important is sexual monogamy in the marriage? Do not ASSUME. ASK. Specify what is acceptable and not. DEFINE what is and what is not cheating. BOTH need to be on board on this
Coming to your fiancé’s sexual history
The detisir is RIGHT. A woman’s sexual history is RELEVANT to marriage. However, sadly, she will NOT tell you. Unless she is a virgin with zero physical intimacy with a man – she will NOT tell you. She will tell you SOME. She will not tell you ALL. If you are looking for exact numbers you will NOT get it. That simply is how it is. She may tell you about the relationship sex. She will not tell you about the one night stands, the blow jobs, the cybersex, the kisses, the hand jobs etc. SHE WILL NOT. In a perfect world, she will. But in a perfect world – there would be no sexual history to reveal. She may not even REMEMBER it all.
So – your best way forward – is to listen very CAREFULLY as you pose the above questions to her as well. You can ask her opinion about one-night stands, blow jobs, cybersex etc. – and depending on her reactions and responses (women like to talk and eventually stuff will spill so listen well) – you will get a sense of the truth.
Other clues – her social media posts (especially gaps – she could have cleaned up some stuff).
Her friends – especially the ones she hangs with on a regular basis. Also check out THEIR social media pages – even if she cleans out her own social media – you will get a good sense of her values looking at her friends and THEIR social media posts. Birds of a feather flock together
Extent of her drinking – It is my observation that drinking and fornication go hand in hand. I do not know if girls drink as an excuse to fornicate, or to forget the fornication or to deal with the guilt of it – but if she is a heavy drinker and talks a lot about blackouts and drunken escapades – huge RED flag.
There are also people you can hire – who can give you more clues as to her past. Not so much numbers but a better sense of the truth. Note – There are things you cannot find out legally so make sure you do not break any laws or hire anyone to do so. Also, if you choose this option – you will have to be careful about revealing this to her. Most women will not take kindly to you doing something like this (violation of her privacy and all that) – but given the legal climate today – it is better to be careful. Again – you will have to make the judgment call if you are capable of keeping it a secret or if you will blab it to her at some point in the future.
“When you have sex – you are in the process of becoming one flesh with her …”
Belief in a lengthy “process” is churchian heresy. When you have sex with her, you ARE joined together into one flesh, on the spot, by God’s design. You don’t need a church wedding, in God’s eyes you are already united into one, and nothing any preacher says can change any bit of that. There is no power vested in preachers to do anything more than run their own mouth, and sign a state marriage license. Marriage is God’s institution and God administers it, not some pastor or priest. Check the Bible. Don’t let any servant of the Great Whore tell you otherwise.
“In other words – you will set up MARRIAGE as the gatekeeper of sex.”
LOL I was the gatekeeper refusing her sex until we were married. Then suddenly I got limited to a single quickie on my wedding night, and within six months I was limited to sex a couple times a month. Nope, she suddenly took over as gatekeeper, trying to use sex as a control lever, the second I put a ring on her finger.
Men, don’t accept anything but a morally upright woman. Why take the extra risk? Why? Why? Why in the name of all that is holy would you stick your dick in another living man’s wife, who is already currently one flesh with him? In case any of you are unaware, marrying a former fornicator was the costliest and dumbest thing I’ve ever done. And my sons are now suffering for my foolishness too! I’m just trying to spare you all the trouble I’ve had. Start off marriage with the best possible foundation you can lay, (pun intended) not with a sketchy former fornicator, who is bonded to other men. Hold out for a woman who wasn’t raised to become a whore. They’ll all claim they’ve found Jesus and repented, once their biological fertility wall is fast approaching. Don’t believe a word of it, nor their crocodile tears. If they’re not making enemies of all their former friends by preaching complete chastity to them, then their actions don’t even reflect the moral turnabout they claim has transpired. Whores lie! Whores lie! Beware of the defiler!
Yes – sex does make you one flesh with the person (apologise for the use of word – process – the word process is doctrinally incorrect. It is not process but action). There are 2 views to this. One is Sex= Marriage. The other – Sex is a ratification of the marriage covenant
Either way I agree – biblically – sex outside of marriage for a Christian is forbidden.
You hold the position of my husband – he was committed to marry only a virgin or be celibate. He had other conditions too. But yes – it was important to him and it is what he teaches our sons. BUT – While he was well within his right to demand it – he ALSO stood by it himself. (Sharkly sir stood by it by it but did NOT demand it). And as thedetisir rightly points out – even virgins detonate marriages if they do not have fear of the Lord in them and HIS commands on marriage,
It is a difficult path to follow in the culture we live in. All the more muddied if the man has a sexual past and has received forgiveness of Christ for this. Such a man may have the right to demand virginity in his wife – but he has NOT stood by it himself
At the end it will come down to – can you trust her? As thedeti sir points out AND your personal experience Sharkly sir – in the flesh and on its impact on marriage and given the present legal climate – a WOMAN with a sexual past is simply a greater liability and much higher risk. And in the absence of fear of the Lord – as thedetisir says – it will come down to how much sexual attraction you are able to generate in her. It is possible – there are people who have done it – but they are few and far between. But it is quite a task for any man to maintain that kind of attraction over a lifetime. Which only the man concerned can answer and much prayer and wisdom will be needed going forward
*Most of both of your comments are addressing a man’s past from a promiscuous woman’s perspective, and I agree that you are correct in those scenarios. However, women who are chaste do filter differently than women who are promiscuous.*
I haven’t found this to be true. It’s pretty well established that chaste women reject sexless men just like promiscuous women do. It’s also well established that sexless men are unattractive to chaste women and promiscuous women in equal measure. That’s been discussed in these parts ad nauseam ad infinitum and is pretty well irrefutable.
*If you wanted to select for women that are less promiscuous you’d want to go to other venues such as Church, homemaking events, etc.*
It’s also well established that church and “conservative” “family” type events are just about the worst places for men to look for women. Church and “christian” women are just as unreasonable, irrational, and prone to reject sexless men as any other women are. In fact, they’re worse.
I have found it to be true in several different states with young men and women..
The main caveat is that the Christian man also has some PSALM traits going for him, or is in other words attractive. Once a man is more attractive to secular women and Christian women alike, it’s not much of a factor when you’re with a Christian woman dating you already.
If a woman is offended by it, then you can tell that her countenance is worldly and you don’t want to be with her.
While it’s bad it’s not worse. 5% of secular women are virgins compared to 30-40% of Christian women in their mid to early 20s. I’ve only ever seen the nuclear rejections with the Evangelical American Princesses (EAPs) but not every woman has that type of entitlement.
“There are 2 views to this. One is Sex= Marriage. The other – Sex is a ratification of the marriage covenant”
1 Corinthians 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him. 18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body”—but the immoral person sins against his own body.
The Bible plainly teaches that sex, even with a prostitute with no vows and no intention of creating a marriage, creates a fleshly union joining the two into “one flesh” and “one body”, the same exact word phrases as God Himself spoke defining marriage. All the confusion originates from power hungry clergy’s efforts to carve out a fiefdom for themselves regulating people’s sex and marriage, contrary to God’s word. Those hubristic clergy twist God’s word in order to interject themselves into marriages by claiming to offer some purported necessary religious/civil sanctioning of the sexual union which initiates marriages, while at the same time neglecting to ever correctly carry out God’s laws concerning any and all punishment of sexual immorality.
They’re just moralizing grifters who are ashamed of what God’s word really tells us to do, false teachers devouring their flocks asking for honor and their sustenance from those they lie to. They want money, honor, and control over people based upon some supposed spiritual jurisdiction over them, all the while they haven’t the testicular fortitude to ever exercise spiritual discipline on any but the most contrite. They abdicate all responsibility and all discipline in order to rightly be disavowed by Christ as, “ye who practice lawlessness”, while trying to interlope and have their way with Christ’s bride, claiming lordship over her, when it is those seeking to be stewards of Christ’s body who are told to be the “servants of all”, operating “in mutual submission” to their fellow brethren, and “not exercising lordship” over them, like their true husband Christ will.
Earthly marriage is a sexual union of our mortal flesh from start to finish. From the beginning, marriage began by sex and ended by death. Their was marriage from Adam’s first sexual use of the first woman before there ever was any other person to “officiate” for millennia before their was a priesthood, and for millennia more before their was ever a church. The church had zero role in marriage from the beginning, and only belatedly invented one as an act of apostasy by now claiming to join what God Himself joins together by nature through sex. Sex/marriage is a union of the flesh, but the lying deceivers who lord over the churches claim they offer some “spiritual” sanction or union to go along with it. But God tells us that our earthly marriages don’t exist in heaven. So our marriages clearly cannot be a union of eternal things like soul or spirit, nor are they made of love. No, marriage is a sexual union a sexual covenant whereby a man takes a woman to be solely his until the death of one of them.
The church performs lawlessness, but never can it perform marriages. God, Himself, joins the two together into one flesh, whether through harlotry or “holy matrimony”, whether their is a covenant intended or not. God will not be mocked.
I have found it to be true in several different states with young men and women..
The main caveat is that the Christian man also has some PSALM traits going for him, or is in other words attractive.
Then your experience is different from mine. And of course… so it’s not the sexlessness and lack of sexual experience; he still has to be conventionally sexually attractive. Your position isn’t persuasive.
5% of secular women are virgins compared to 30-40% of Christian women in their mid to early 20s. I’ve only ever seen the nuclear rejections with the Evangelical American Princesses (EAPs) but not every woman has that type of entitlement.
I find that 30-40% virgin figure very hard to believe. Do you have a source for that?
Sex does not equal marriage. Never has in the Bible. Even Exodus gives the father veto rights when a man seduces a virgin illicitly. Same with 1 Corinthians 7.
No, that is the point. If a man’s sexually attractive to a woman it doesn’t matter if he’s a virgin.
Tons of women dated Tim Tebow knowing he was an outspoken virgin. One of wanted to take his virginity. If a man is attractive it doesn’t matter.
The problem is most Christian men think virginity is something to be ashamed of and act with less confidence about it. That by itself is unattractive to women and likely to turn them off. Strong conviction on the other hand can be attractive.
I went through the Doom and Gloom and amount of Christian virgins for like 4 iterations. Here’s the huge post on it.
Virginity in Christian circles is likely around 30-40% in early to mid 20s, but it does drop probably to like 10-20% by 30s and is more men than women. Yes, it’s bad, but it’s not the world bad.
The only way to know if a woman is a virgin is if she reports that about herself. The only way to know is self-reporting . And we all know how women lie about this. So I have to cast extreme doubt on that 30-40% figure for women in their early to mid 20s, even among self-professing Christians.
Let’s say some are lying. Even if half are lying then 15-20% is still well above the 5% figure of virgins in secular world. As we’ve outlined before, becoming a top 20% man in a Church is usually easier than becoming a 20% man in secular culture.
You are claiming things are even at best or worse than in the secular world. That’s not true.
When I looked up Exodus 22:16-17 that you referred to, the passage was listed as a biblical grounds for divorce. Where the father is able to separate the two who are already joined together into one flesh, as per 1 Corinthians 6:16. Did the law say she could then marry another while he still lived? Why not??? Why could her father not get rich by letting her sleep with every guy in town collecting a bride price from all of them, and then annulling all her escapades as if they never occurred? Because, until her first husband dies any further sex acts with anybody else would become acts of adultery punishable by death. That’s why.
After a father ends his daughter’s marriage which was initiated contrary to his will, she then stays single in her father’s house for as long as her divorced husband lives. It was a great punishment for disregarding her father’s will. That is the only way things can remain holy. God wasn’t permitting sex in exchange for money in that passage. Again you’re writing as if your God is a god of cuckoldry, who permits some other man to marry that divorced woman while another guy living in town can still taunt him publicly that he had his wife first. LOL That isn’t holy, and cuckoldry and prostitution aren’t ever in accordance with the laws of a holy God. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re saying that her father collects a bride price and then his daughter is right back out on the street again looking for another man. How is that not legalized prostitution, and allowing her to play the harlot repeatedly for her father’s enrichment? And if it was only allowed once, then why would that be, unless God is holy and He wants us to honor the marriage bed.
‘The only way to know if a woman is a virgin is if she reports that about herself. The only way to know is self-reporting. ”
That depends on WHO she is doing the reporting to. If it is a SURVEY or her friends or her father – then yes! I agree. Possibility of lying is strong.
But – women will not usually lie about such a thing – to a prospective HUSBAND. Reason being – the minute she says that – she knows there will be an expectation of bleeding on the first time consummation of the relationship. Its not so simple to lie it away if you do not. Even though in reality not all women bleed the first time – unless the man you marry is a dufus – it will just create distrust in him. To avoid that – where most women will lie is that they have had sex – it was some old boyfriend and it was some low number or only one (translation – should not matter at all which is a LIE) . They will lie about the numbers but it is a hard thing to declare you are a virgin – just did not bleed!!!! Again – in certain Asian cultures virginity is expected so women there might definitely lie – family honour and all that. In Western culture, virginity is so rare that most women simply would not bother to lie about it. It is the NUMBER that they will lie about.
However – there is another caveat – just because a woman is technically a virgin – does not mean she has not shared any kind of physical intimacy with a man. So lying about that is a DEFINITE possibility.
The father can annul the marriage, but since the man perpetrated a crime of seducing the virgin he pays the bride price as a penalty for compensation of taking her virginity illicitly. She can still get married to someone else, but as a non-virgin.
You’re pre-assuming sex = marriage and making up a whole story about how they can’t marry someone else.
If that was the case, then Rahab who was a prostitute would be condemn and would not be able to marry into Israel. Instead, she was considered righteous for her actions to help the spies, and ended up being in the lineage of Jesus.
Again, sex does not equal marriage. Even the common examples that such proponents use such as “Isaac and Rebekah,” Abraham’s servant already got permission from Rebekah’s father and brother — Bethuel and Laban — for her.
You say I’m making up a whole story, by applying God’s previously-stated laws to the situation. Do you care to show where the Bible says, “She can still get married to someone else, but as a non-virgin.”? Because otherwise I’d say that you made that up and that it certainly doesn’t mesh with nature nor God’s law.
Rahab was already condemned by God’s laws for the Israelites, because she as a Canaanite, and her whole race was supposed to have been put to death, and was also forbidden to marry into Israel. The Bible is full of stuff that happened that was unlawful, and so is Jesus’ genealogy. Judah had drunken incest with his daughter in law, Tamar, presuming her to be a prostitute. Their child is also a link in the genealogy of Christ. As is wicked king Ahaz who was a flagrant idolater, who worshipped Moloch and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen. So, God Himself tells us there were abominable people who did abominable things in His Son’s human genealogy. Quite a few bad kings in that list.
Just because somebody appears in Christ’s genealogy, does not mean that they were in compliance with God’s laws. If God’s laws had always been faithfully executed, regarding every capital crime, mankind might likely have gone extinct long ago. But, Cain wasn’t killed for clearly being a murderer, and many more evils happen every day that will go unpunished in this present earthly life. Did king David not commit adultery? Is Christ not a “Son of David” and also of Bathsheba?
The appearance of Rahab in Christ’s genealogy, in no way legalizes her prostitution, and every living thing in the whole city of Jericho, except for Rahab and her family, was put to death. So none of her former sex clients would have been left alive when she married Salmon. In effect she would have been a widowed woman and a repentant former harlot, spared from the sword by her fear of God, and redeemed and freed from her former harlotries by the sword of Israel and the grace of God.
Don’t ignore 1 Corinthians 6:16, it is God’s absolute truth, while “church weddings” are full of pretense. You remain in the thrall of the church’s heresy regarding what joins two people into one flesh, because you choose to believe the popular spurious church doctrines rather than what God’s word plainly tells us. The unity of flesh in marriage is in no way granted by any church, or earthly judge. Jesus said that God joins husband and wife together into one flesh, not the church. He should know, shouldn’t He?
I’m not the first person to read the Bible and come to the conclusion that the Mother of Harlots and her whoring daughter churches don’t properly portray nor regard God’s institution of marriage, which Christ teaches us, is from the beginning, not from any whoring church, nor answerable to any of her misguided blue-pilled meddlers.
Liberate yourself from the apostate churches and become part of the small remnant who return to the truth of God’s actual words, in this matter of marriage.
Uh huh. Rahab is praised as righteous as is Tamar.
You can take your fringe arguments to your own blog. Don’t post them here anymore.
I didn’t say Rahab was not an example of faith and courage nor that Tamar wasn’t far more righteous than Judah. I happen to know much of what the Bible says.
I was trying to point out that according to God’s commands Rahab’s whole race was to be killed off and the children of Israel weren’t permitted to marry Canaanites like her. Do you not believe that? (Must I show you where the Bible backs up each little point? You can ask me if you don’t know.) In those regards she was condemned by God’s laws for the Israelites. (we each stand condemned in many ways, and yet are able to be freed from all condemnation) An exception to those two commands was obviously made for Rahab to end up married to Salmon. What I’m telling you is true. If you want to call the truth, “fringe”, that disproves nothing. Do you also dispute that King David was an adulterer or that Ahaz was an idol worshipper? Rahab had become one flesh with anybody she had sex with, in keeping with 1 Corinthians 6:16. God explained it plainly in that verse.
I think you’re just finding that you can’t back up some of your church’s sex & marriage doctrines with the Bible alone, except by using appeals to Church of Rome originated interpretation traditions or things like their apocryphally added “Pericope Adulterae”. And so you’d rather ban my views, because you can’t disprove them, and because your contrary argument’s don’t hold up under my scrutiny. That’s not a faithful defense of the truth, that’s an effort to allow your favored heresies to go unchallenged.
Nah, I and others already refuted your arguments on the previous post on virgins and the marriage bed. Similarly, I already pointed out issues with this and posted my article which you didn’t refute any of the points.
Covenants, including marriage, always have some level of agreement or consent, typically with the father and/or the bride, and consummation/sex. Hymen blood is proof of virginity but not always needed. Plus, the other things I mentioned in the post that are in Genesis. Doesn’t always have to be shedding of the blood. Deut has divorce laws where a woman could get “married” again, but according to you that’s wrong since she’s not a virgin and married to the first man permanently. Jesus similarly echos that the woman at the well at been “married 5 times” yet wasn’t a virgin on the last 4 or even possibly the first either.
If you want to be obtuse about such things feel free, but it’s no different than feminists taking passages out of context.
I don’t have the time or energy to argue nonsense every single post I make, especially when these are tangents to the posts. I’ve already warned you about this, so you’re now in moderation.
There was a discussion on Exodus 22:16-17. Since the discussion went furballs in the air and Sharkly sir was put in moderation – I am only now posting this comment – with prior permission from Deepstrength sir – writer of this blog
Why could her father not get rich by letting her sleep with every guy in town collecting a bride price from all of them, and then annulling all her escapades as if they never occurred?
The above assertion assumes the bride price was given in exchange for sleeping with the girl. Eh no! The bride price was given in EXCHANGE for a BRIDE.
So this is my understanding of the above passage. Rape in the Bible carries death penalty. But the death penalty also required 2 witnesses.
Therefore, (and this is just my opinion) – if a man was caught with a virgin – the PRESUMPTION was that it was a case of premarital sex rather than rape. In this case, it was best that the man paid the bride price and married the girl.
This does not mean the Bible endorses premarital sex. If there is a no parking sign with a penalty for parking in a zone – it does not mean I can park there so long as I am willing to pay the fine. It means – DO NOT Park there. It was a condemnation of the practice of premarital sex by giving an incentive NOT to do it
This was a deterrent to the Alphas of that time. If you bed the girl, you must be willing to marry her. And this would be a humiliation to you as you married a girl with low character. Plus you would pay a BRIDE price – which was always a very SUBSTANTIAL amount – for a woman who was not worth it
But – what if it was a case of rape – just with no witnesses. In this case, Bible leaves it to the FATHER of the girl to judge based on his knowledge of his daughter. If it was a case of premarital sex, it was unlikely the girl would refuse to get married. Also in the culture of the time his daughter and the father would be disgraced. Best to get her married to the guy concerned as it was unlikely anyone else would marry a woman of low character. There was only one possible reason (in my opinion) for the father to refuse to give the girl in marriage. It was a case of genuine rape – the girl was traumatised by the rape and refused to marry the guy. BUT in absence of 2 witnesses the rape could not be proven.
So the man escaped the death penalty but paid the bride price- which was set by the father of the girl. But, father refuses consent for marriage, knowing he is now responsible to take care of his daughter for the rest of her life unless someone came forward to marry her, which is very unlikely given culture of the time
The BRIDE PRICE was a very SUBSTANTIAL amount. David balked at paying bride price for daughter of a king. It was only when Saul fixed it as foreskins of 100 Philistines that he agreed. Later when he was in hiding – her father (without authority gave her to a second husband who appears to have deeply loved her). But David demands her back BECAUSE he paid bride price for her (II Samuel 3:16) and her second husband has to go back home. Caleb demanded that a city be conquered for his daughter’s bride price. Pharaoh gave a city to Solomon but Solomon made a house for his first wife – Pharaoh’s daughter EQUAL to his own. In the case of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter – her brothers used bride price as an excuse to weaken and kill the rapist
To hire a prostitute for the night was cheap which is why Judah did not balk at paying for a prostitute for the night (it was the price of a young goat). Paying a bride price – was not cheap at all – as it was always a very LARGE sum. So no father could collect bride price and use his daughter for prostitution because no man would pay such a large amount for NO BRIDE.
Interestingly, some Muslims do this. They are allowed 5 wives. So in prostitution houses – the men “marry” the girl – then “divorce” her with triple talaq (divorce) after the night is done. So prostitution houses usually have a mullah or officiant of such “marriages”.
But there is no mention of this being done in Jewish culture and no record of a BRIDE price being paid WITHOUT taking a bride. In other words, man pays for the girl, he is saddled with the girl – for life!!!! Father does not get to do this multiple times