VIRGINITY

 VIRGINITY is a term that can be applied to the condition of either a man or a woman who has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse. Sociological studies reveal widely varying attitudes to it. Male virginity has 996 VIRGINITY rarely been prized among men. Adolescent boys have a tendency to engage in heterosexual intercourse to boost their status within their male group. On the other hand, virginity in women up to the point of marriage has been highly valued in established societies and property-owning classes, where a promiscuous bride could be a threat to the male lineage and the inheritance of wealth. In poorer social groups virginity was considered less important than solid evidence of fecundity. In rural areas of Europe up to the 18th and 19th centuries, courtship included night-visiting in the girl’s sleeping-quarters, and marriage did not take place until a pregnancy was established. References to virginity in the Pentateuch presuppose a patriarchal structure in which the premarital vir ginity of a woman directly reflects on the honour of her father or husband. Passages such as Dt. 22:13-29 legislate for disputes in the light of such values, including producing physical evidence of the bride’s virginity. Bearing in mind how Jesus viewed the divorce provision in Deuteronomy (Mk. 10:3-5), Christian ethics does not assume that such background assumptions are to be taken as norms. When we look to the NT, however, we find little that addresses the subject of virginity directly. In 2 Cor. 11:2 Paul uses the language of purity to describe a virgin presented to her husband. L. W. Coun tryman (1941- ) has raised an important debate over concepts of cleanness or purity in relation to sexuality (see †) in Scripture. Since sexual feelings are so strong and often bewildering in adolescence,* it is very easy for heavy-handed warnings against impurity to become associated with a tendency towards anxiety* and guilt* about any kind of sexual arousal. It is clear, however, in 2 Cor. 11:3 that the purity the apostle is empha sizing is an undivided devotion, a faithful advance commitment to a future life partner. Along with many other Protestant theologians since the 1960s, Countryman wants to go further than merely dissociating virginity from an emotive or ritual association with cleanliness. His emphasis on the relational aspects of sexual intercourse leads to the conclusion that within the context of modern Western culture, losing virginity in a temporary relationship is not necessarily damaging, and may be commendable if it contributes towards maturity in an eventual marriage union. This position does not do justice to the strength of Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor. 6 and 7. Lewis Smedes (1921- ) points out that there we find more than a morality of caution, and concern about the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. It is also more than a morality of personal relation ships where the consequences for each other’s physical and emotional needs are calculated. Paul’s arguments are based on sexual intercourse having universal moral significance as a life uniting act - becoming one flesh (Gn. 2:24). A sexual union outside the context of a life union of marriage is a sin regardless of the conse quences to others. It is an offence against one’s own God-given integrity of body and soul. The body is saying, ‘I love you and want to have a life-union with you’, while the heart is saying, ‘I don’t.’ In this traditional Christian understanding of sexual union, virginity in both men and women is valued as something precious, to be protected so that it can be offered as a gift in the self-giving of a life-union. For those who for various reasons do not choose or find a partner, lifelong virginity can be embraced as a com mitment to integrity and faithfulness in love which will have a wider fulfilment in the future life in the kingdom of God.* For some it is a choice to follow in the footsteps of Jesus or to respond to the apostle Paul’s challenge to live in undivided devotion to the Lord (see 1 Cor. 7:34). It is pastorally important, however, that such theological views do not prevent virgins from owning the pain and frustration being experienced in the present, or from examining some of the psychological motiva tions which may be limiting their freedom of choice. If Jesus has provided a role model for male virginity, the model of Mary his mother is more complex. In the church in the early 4th century, ascetic* ideals in relation to sexuality became increasingly widespread. Mary began to be offered as a role model of continence, being presented by such Church Fathers as Jerome (c. 342-420) as a perpetual virgin. (See his Against Helvidius [ad 383] concerning the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin.) Many women today note the danger of using Mary as a symbol of desexualized moth 997 VIRTUE, VIRTUES erhood. Protestant theology, however, has not accepted a doctrine of her permanent virginity. All churches can unite to affirm the significance of the teenage virgin who responded to an amazing message from God and trusted it, despite the obvious risks of pain and rejection it brought into her life. See also: FORNICATION; SINGLENESS. Bibliography J. Bancroft, Human Sexuality and its Problems (Edinburgh and New York, 21989); L. W. Countryman, Dirt, Greed and Sex (Philadelphia, 1988; London, 1987); J. Dominian, Sexual Integrity (London, 1987); D. J. Go ergen, DPCC, pp. 133-135; L. Smedes, Sex in the Real World (Grand Rapids, 1976; Tring, 1979).