Why Are Women Expected to be the Gatekeepers of Virginity?

[cinder]

I never bother announcing my decision to put someone on ignore; I just do it and make my life that much more peaceful. Sure has made this thread feel like I've only been reading half of the conversation though.

 

[seoulsearch]

I never bother announcing my decision to put someone on ignore; I just do it and make my life that much more peaceful. Sure has made this thread feel like I've only been reading half of the conversation though.

I hope I didn't come across as knocking anyone for using the Ignore function.

In truth I should probably go ahead and utilize it myself.

The only times I find it comical is when someone acts as if being put on their Ignore list is some huge, earth-shaking deal that should cause the other person to shake in fear and regret.

I think in the time I've been here I've only put 3 people on Ignore, and sometimes there is a very good reason for it. One of the 3 people was a married man who was trying to talk to me (this was many years ago,) so I definitely support the existence of being able to Ignore people.

But I usually don't, just because of the very reason Cinder stated -- I'd rather just skip over posts myself instead of trying to guess what everyone is talking about.

 

[Icedaisey]

Gate?

I looked closely at myself, no gate.

 

[Icedaisey]

I hope I didn't come across as knocking anyone for using the Ignore function.

In truth I should probably go ahead and utilize it myself.

The only times I find it comical is when someone acts as if being put on their Ignore list is some huge, earth-shaking deal that should cause the other person to shake in fear and regret.

I think in the time I've been here I've only put 3 people on Ignore, and sometimes there is a very good reason for it. One of the 3 people was a married man who was trying to talk to me (this was many years ago,) so I definitely support the existence of being able to Ignore people.

But I usually don't, just because of the very reason Cinder stated -- I'd rather just skip over posts myself instead of trying to guess what everyone is talking about.

If there's any question, or confusion in following a discussion due to people being on one's ignore list, at the bottom of the thread page there's a link that reads, show ignored content.
You can click that and all those hidden posts will appear.

I usually scroll past those knuckleheads worthy of ignore. But then I realized I'd still happen on their name, and then have to scroll past the block of their thoughts that were not worth my time.
When they're on ignore all traces of them disappear. Not even their name or profile pic.

It's wonderful. They're not here.

 

[Lynx]

I never bother announcing my decision to put someone on ignore; I just do it and make my life that much more peaceful. Sure has made this thread feel like I've only been reading half of the conversation though.

Trust me, ya ain't missin' a doggone thang.

 

[Sculpt]

Hey Sculpt,

Those are great questions.

As for your example with drinking -- I'm not a complete teetotaler, as I've had alcoholic drinks in the past, but for many years, the only form of alcohol I have is when it's in food products (the last thing I can remember is rum raisin ice cream a few months ago.)

So if I ever got invited to a party or big social gathering (because I was always the resident nerd,) you can immediately guess why -- people wanted me as their designated driver.

I was saying in another post that I am basically allergic to alcohol. Now, does this put a greater responsibility on my shoulders? Should I be held accountable for looking after those who want to drink? I don't think so, but it certainly puts you in that position.

I grew up in Lutheran schools but went to a public college. My suitemates talked me into going out with them one night, and one of them wanted to go home with a guy she just met. I told her, "You came here with us -- as long as I'm driving, you're leaving with us, because if something happens to you, I'm not having that on my conscience."

Well you can imagine how popular that made me. And I never went out with them again. Personally, I'm not keen on people throwing a burden on me that isn't mine to carry, just because they want to be irresponsible for a while.

As far as the differences between male and female sex drives -- although psychology was my major and focus in grad school (though I never actually worked in the field,) social psychology was my major. My knowledge in this field is absolutely worthless now, as all my information would be very outdated.

So I don't know what the official research is. But, my own personal guess, and this is just from my own observations, I think the gaps between the genders (at least frequency, strength of wanting, etc.) may be closing. It's a fact that higher and higher percentages of women are becoming addicted to porn and not just men, and with the liberal culture of the day, everyone, male and female, is being encouraged to express themselves through some sort of sexual experimentation.

We're on a different side of the pendulum, and I think social acceptance of women having drives and desires is decimating what was once thought of as far as women having more repressed drives. Now I'm not saying that some of the differences don't hold true -- I just believe that we are seeing a collision of nature (God-given desires) and a much wider social acceptance of expressing that desire. After all, historically, women who expressed such interests were (and still are, as we see in the church,) heavily condemned.

But the atmosphere today is one of "finding who you are and what you like," and as much as that may head into leftist territory, I can't help but wonder what the research will show regarding a difference in genders between the sex drives after another 20 years of encouraging both men and women to experiment in any way they want.

Horrifyingly, sexual abuse of both genders also seems to be almost commonplace, and again, I don't have the research on this, but all my life, people have been talking to me about the abuse they've gone through -- both men and women -- and I know that for me, I've observed two extremes.

Whether man or woman, the person seems to either shun sex completely, declaring it dirty and sinful -- or goes in the other direction and becomes completely addicted, because someone taught them that this was all they were worth.

Just my 2 cents.

The reason I'm talking about this is because if a couple goes on a date and things start to happen, it's generally always expected that the woman has to be the one to say, "No! Stop! I won't do that!", and not the man.

And if anything DOES happen, it's always seen as being because the woman didn't protest hard enough and did not stop it (therefore labeling her as THE BAD GIRL in the process.)

This is the part that I take issue with.

Just as with my suitemate, it wasn't my responsibility to make the decision for her to keep her safe just because I didn't drink, but yet, I had to make it.

The bottom line was that it was her responsibility to make good decisions for herself -- but she didn't.

So let's say that I didn't say anything, let her do what she wanted, and she went home with Mr. Stranger, and later said that he had raped her.

Who's responsibility would that have been -- hers, or mine?

But yet, someone surely would have come back and pointed a finger at me, because I was the one who wasn't drinking.

I know this isn't a perfect analogy because in the dating scenario, both people really do have the responsibility to say no and stop.

But yet, most church cultures will blame woman if the lines are crossed, and the fact that this just isn't right is what I'm trying to bring attention to in this thread.

It was fun to hear about your stories going out with the gals, your lack of interest in alcohol, and feeling your friends wanted you to be the designated driver. Feels like a good dinner conversation. I appreciate learning more about you.

We both understand there's pervasive attitudes around sex, abuse, etc, and that men and women are treated differently; but I was just interested in your ultimate conclusions.

Regarding the analogy I gave you, I think you kind of changed it around quite a bit; so I'm not 100% on what your ultimate conclusion was. So I believe you ultimately said you wholeheartedly reject any 'extra responsibility' of saying no to sex with a man you might be seeing. Or otherwise, I hear you saying, even if women have a much lower sex drive, they should feel no extra responsibility to saying no to sex. Am I understanding you correctly?

Let me run another analogy by you. And I always hope to receive your own personal Christ-follow answer as opposed to worldly fairness. Let's say two Christ-follower' friends are moving away from rising flood waters. One is a healthy strong twenty-year-old, and the other is a ninety-year-old with much weaker ability to run. For this specific question, let's also agree to assume the ninety-year-old should try to move as quickly as possible to get to higher ground, and that they are trying, but they are simply weaker.

Question 1: If the strong person believes chances are very good they both can make it to a safe area if they help their weaker friend, should the strong person feel as though they have a responsibility help their weaker friend get to the safe area? Question 2: Is this a reasonable analogy to the question of whether, generally speaking (though there may be exceptions), women should feel they have a greater responsibility to say no to sex compared to men they are with?

 

[Lynx]

I dunno about that flood analogy... I've never found it very hard to say no, and I'm a guy.

 

[cinder]

Regarding the analogy I gave you, I think you kind of changed it around quite a bit; so I'm not 100% on what your ultimate conclusion was. So I believe you ultimately said you wholeheartedly reject any 'extra responsibility' of saying no to sex with a man you might be seeing. Or otherwise, I hear you saying, even if women have a much lower sex drive, they should feel no extra responsibility to saying no to sex. Am I understanding you correctly?

I think the point is that men are responsible for their sexual behavior and the standards God has called them to are the same as for women. Men who are wanting to obey God shouldn't be suggesting or offering sex to the woman that she has to say no to them. Now I will support that, if a woman think a man has a much stronger sex drive than she does, she shouldn't be doing anything to rile him up and stoke that appetite and make being a good Godly man that much more difficult on him. But each person is responsible for their own decisions and actions.

 

[Sculpt]

isnt the midwest usa where they have all the kiddie beauty pageants? They are a bit freaky.
I dont know about toddlers wearing makeup. Why?

I never heard it was a midwest thing. I think they are creepy. Why are there any human beauty contests? Are they ethical to have?

 

[Gojira]

I'm so glad that this line of thinking is not found in Scripture. Christians will do well to heed Paul's writing to Timothy:

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity (1 Timothy 5:1-2).

Mindfulzen has sometimes come out with some bizarre posts. This is not the first. He/she also blocked me after 1. I told him/her I'd be praying for a difficult situation they described, 2. then in a later post (as memory serves) sarcastically mocked the people who were responsible. I did this in support, but he/she took it as an insult.

A few people here say some truly bizarre things. We're going to get that in a public forum.

 

[seoulsearch]

It was fun to hear about your stories going out with the gals, your lack of interest in alcohol, and feeling your friends wanted you to be the designated driver. Feels like a good dinner conversation. I appreciate learning more about you.

We both understand there's pervasive attitudes around sex, abuse, etc, and that men and women are treated differently; but I was just interested in your ultimate conclusions.

Regarding the analogy I gave you, I think you kind of changed it around quite a bit; so I'm not 100% on what your ultimate conclusion was. So I believe you ultimately said you wholeheartedly reject any 'extra responsibility' of saying no to sex with a man you might be seeing. Or otherwise, I hear you saying, even if women have a much lower sex drive, they should feel no extra responsibility to saying no to sex. Am I understanding you correctly?

Let me run another analogy by you. And I always hope to receive your own personal Christ-follow answer as opposed to worldly fairness. Let's say two Christ-follower' friends are moving away from rising flood waters. One is a healthy strong twenty-year-old, and the other is a ninety-year-old with much weaker ability to run. For this specific question, let's also agree to assume the ninety-year-old should try to move as quickly as possible to get to higher ground, and that they are trying, but they are simply weaker.

Question 1: If the strong person believes chances are very good they both can make it to a safe area if they help their weaker friend, should the strong person feel as though they have a responsibility help their weaker friend get to the safe area? Question 2: Is this a reasonable analogy to the question of whether, generally speaking (though there may be exceptions), women should feel they have a greater responsibility to say no to sex compared to men they are with?

Hi Sculpt!

Thank you for your in-depth and insightful inquiries.

Maybe I'm not clarifying my position when I answered your post.

One thing I was trying to say when answering your post is, what if many women, especially these days in a sex-saturated culture, have just as high, or higher sex drives than the men? Because I honestly believe that this what we are moving towards.

I am certainly not trying to evade your example, but maybe it will help if I try to list my own stances (I'm only speaking for myself, and I certainly could be wrong.)

1. Women have always socially and culturally been seen as the ones who are to stop or prevent sexual activity, especially in the God-given community.

Is this fair? Is this Godly? Is this how God sees it?

Does God see women as being the 90-year-old with weak sex drives (per your example)? And does God see men as being the 20-year-olds with drives that are strong as an ox? Does He then see women, because they are assumed to have a weaker drive, then have to act as the 20-year-old (again, via your example) by rescuing the men with as little strength as a 90-year-old man when it comes to resisting sexual temptation?

I see this as being very similar to the college story I gave.

Just because I didn't drink, did that make me responsible for the girl who did, and wanted to go home with a stranger?

No. But common sense, Christian values, and possibly legal repercussions (such as if she were raped and then told everyone I did nothing to stop her from leaving with him) still put the burden on my shoulders -- even though it clearly wasn't right.

2. I see the situation between men and women a lot like this. It's not right, but society and the church have doled out an uneven responsibility and placed it on the women's shoulders.

Why do I believe this? Because in the times I've read through the Bible (though I'm certainly no Bible scholar,) whenever God makes someone incredibly strong in one area, He doesn't decrease, but rather INCREASES the responsibility right along with it. Many people want to be gifted in many areas, but I would guess the thing that holds most people back is that they couldn't handle the responsibility that comes along with it. (I believe this for myself as well.)

Even when Paul pleaded with God to take away the thorn in His flesh, God told him that His power is made perfect through weakness -- but He didn't allow Paul any excuses or lesser responsibilities because of it.

I might be alone and even wrong in this, but I believe that when it comes to sexuality, God puts just as must responsibility on the man as the woman, if not more, because after all, a man will become the head of the household.

I don't know of any cases in which God said, "Oh, I know your burden seems terribly overbearing -- therefore I'm going to hold you less accountable for that." If anyone knows of a case where God says this, please point it out because I missed it and need to restudy that principle.

Now at the same time, this is also why God sent Jesus to save us -- because He can't lower His standards just because we are weak, so He gave us Jesus to meet the standards for us, though of course we must always be diligent to do our best at following His commands, as well as have compassion on others who vary in strength from us.

3. The other argument I disagree with, and I know this is controversial, is that it is a fact that men have exponentially higher sex drives than women. I think women's sex drives may have been nearly as strong as man's but have been held under lock and key under social repression throughout history. But that is changing.

Your premise starts out with the automatic assumption that most people make -- that a woman's sex drive is lagging miles behind a man's -- and I'm saying, no one knows that except God. I understand that there have been "scientific studies" but from the beginning of time, women's sexuality has always been held back and controlled.

What would women's sex drives have been like if they had been permissible as a man's from the very beginning? No one can answer that except God.

And as some of those social stigmas are being broken away, I would bet that some -- if not a good number -- of women's sex drives could match a man's (hinted at by more and more women becoming addicted to porn, and how many were addicted to romance novels before that?), and the allegedly disparity is either changing, or might not even have been there to begin with if social expectations had been equal to begin with.

The reality is (as I see it,) only God Himself knows each individual's sex drive, for both the men and women, and only He can hold true judgment over who was responsible and if one is more guilty than the other if something happens.

If Sister Sally and Brother Bill have some time alone together and "go too far," what is God going to tell them? "Sister Sally, you are the woman, you should have stopped him -- how could you be such a bad girl and fail so miserably? Now now Brother Bill, I know how tough it is for you have to this incredibly raging sex drive, and I know Sister Sally didn't do her job to keep you out of temptation, so I'm going to give you a free pass (or at least, a lesser judgment.)"

Personally, I don't think this is what God would tell them.

It's just my guess, but I don't believe God ever intended for society to see women as being more responsible for sexual misconduct.

And if I'm wrong, I'm looking forward to the day when He tells me how things were really supposed to be.

 

[seoulsearch]

Addendum to the above post:

Another reason I believe the way I do (as stated above) is because of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Both Adam and Eve tried to blame someone or something else (Adam blamed Eve for giving him the fruit; Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her,) but none of their excuses worked.

God held them each accountable for their own individual failures, and He didn't excuse Adam when Adam tried to say that it was the woman who tempted him by giving him the fruit.

From my own point of view, I think that this is how God treats sexual sins as well.

I personally believe that God won't hold anyone less accountable just because they have a higher sex drive (whether a man or woman,) and I don't believe that we as a church should be doing so either.

 

[Treeboy]

I think we have the opposite problem of what the original post states. We are supporting aka promoting single mothers in my church way too much. I have said this to leadership and they have since stopped. But my church was talking about them so highly that they were promoting divorce it was over the top.

A friend of mine in ministry told me a younger guy was having sex with some of the girls they banned him from volunteering and i dont think hes been back. Also a church is not responsible for how some of the members think so if a few people are promoting something there is nothing they can do. Until they try to get the church organization to support it. Nobody supports single fathers like single mothers and have never seen this in my life.

I can tell you all the premarital sex has a more negative affect on women. If your doing this you are ruining your chances of happiness. A husband is never going to b as exciting as having sex with random men thru college. There is a certain point where they develope a 1000yard stare and the women who do hurt themselves not men.

Most women pair bond with one of their first few boy friends. Society tells them they can jump from man to man consequence free and its not true. Every girl u date in her 30s will talk about some guy they used to date and if u stay with them long enough u find they are still in love. I have an ex who left me at 19 and she is still in love with me i find her at places i go and have for a long time. She intentionally puts herself in places she knows i will b. To me shes just a girl who left me and was as mean as possible when she did. No such longing.

How society views people means nothing. How life affects those people means a lot. I dont shame women but i do let them know the consequences of their actions are going to affect them not me.

 

[cinder]

Every girl u date in her 30s will talk about some guy they used to date and if u stay with them long enough u find they are still in love.

Not every girl, maybe most girls but there's a few of us around who have no such stories to tell.

 

[MatthewWestfieldUK]

isnt the midwest usa where they have all the kiddie beauty pageants? They are a bit freaky.
I dont know about toddlers wearing makeup. Why?

Scary and uncomfortable

 

[Treeboy]

Not every girl, maybe most girls but there's a few of us around who have no such stories to tell.

Most the vast majority. Also zero none will admit this if asked, i just hear it in their story telling. No hey i want to warn u im in love with my ex conversations. They say hes such a jerk you would just have to meet him. He did this that this that Yep because words just cant express how much he turned u on!

 

[Lynx]

Most the vast majority. Also zero none will admit this if asked, i just hear it in their story telling. No hey i want to warn u im in love with my ex conversations. They say hes such a jerk you would just have to meet him. He did this that this that Yep because words just cant express how much he turned u on!

If you go into a situation expecting to find something, you will probably find it even if it is not there.

In other words, if you have that kind of opinion about women you will find "evidence" you can use to support your theory even if the woman you're talking to is nothing at all like that. This will confirm (in your mind) your theory, and you will be even more firmly convinced that all women are skunks.

 

[cinder]

Most the vast majority. Also zero none will admit this if asked, i just hear it in their story telling. No hey i want to warn u im in love with my ex conversations. They say hes such a jerk you would just have to meet him. He did this that this that Yep because words just cant express how much he turned u on!

So let me get this straight, if a woman talks about how horrible one of her exes was, you assume she's still in love with him? Then again you assume that an ex showing up at places you go is her secretly stalking you because she's still in love with you.
While I will grant that anyone who can't stop talking about their exes is not good dating material, I wouldn't say that it is evidence that they're in love with any of those exes. Maybe your assumer needs some recalibration.

 

[Lynx]

So let me get this straight, if a woman talks about how horrible one of her exes was, you assume she's still in love with him? Then again you assume that an ex showing up at places you go is her secretly stalking you because she's still in love with you.
While I will grant that anyone who can't stop talking about their exes is not good dating material, I wouldn't say that it is evidence that they're in love with any of those exes. Maybe your assumer needs some recalibration.

You're assuming his assumer needs recalibration? I assumed the same thing... but my own assumer ain't been recalibrated in a dog's age, so I have no way of knowing whether it's accurate.

 

[melita916]

I’m in love with my ex?

Nah. I praise the Lord we broke up.