Dennis Prager Discussed Virginity

During his Male/Female Hour on his Wednesday, March 29, 2023 program, inspired by a previous caller, Dennis Prager asked callers about whether virginity was important in looking for a spouse and why. Dennis, who is in the middle of writing commentaries on the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), says while he thinks ideally intercourse should be saved for marriage, he "doesn't have the understanding that it is important in choosing a wife." Uh, well, I'll have to look up how he explains the Torah passages that have been cited as saying otherwise.

The first or one of the earliest callers was a woman whose son is 40 or almost 40, says he's intentionally kept this virginity, and he wants to marry a woman who has, too. Dennis asked if the son really does want to get married, and the caller related how her son had talked about wanting to be a husband and father, but some of the women he was interested in weren't interested in him, and vice-versa.

When Dennis found out that the caller was divorced from her son's father and is remarried, to a man who was also previously married, Dennis said "So it doesn't matter!" and encouraged her to point out to her son that she wasn't a virgin when she married a second time and neither was her husband.

What does Dennis mean that "it doesn't matter."? Any two people who are currently unmarried and aren't too closely related and are old enough to legally consent can get married. It doesn't make it a good idea! For all we know, the caller's marriage is terrible, or it will soon be. (Of course, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Dennis... divorce is no big deal to him other than it means people won't be married for a period of time.) People who beat each other can get married. Does that mean someone shouldn't seek to avoid a spouse-beater? There are always people who marry despite problems and red flags. It doesn't mean they should!

It's not unreasonable for someone who is looking to marry for the first time to want someone who has had the same lifestyle as them.

Dennis is so emotionally fixated on the idea that everyone should be married that he thinks people should abandon their standards.

He went on to encourage the caller to ask her son if God wants him to stay unmarried rather than to marry a woman who isn't a virgin. Dennis referred to "It's not good for man to be alone," which is from the Torah (and I argue is collective... none of us are alone now), but what about what the rest of the Torah says about choosing a wife???

Now, let's be clear here. I never had virginity as a requirement for a wife. If I got trapped in some silly "alternate life" movie that had me unmarried and I HAD to marry, I'd AVOID virgins. My advice to any man who is foolish enough to marry is to marry a woman who can at least pretend to want sex with grown men. Virgin women over a certain age are really skilled at NOT having sex. And I warn women that men who are willing to "wait" might be gay, asexual, low drive, pedophiles, or dealing with some psychological problem.

But if a man or woman insists her spouse be a virgin, I don't try to talk them out of that, or any other standard they might have. Because I think it's fine for people to never marry.

One caller came close to articulating a logical reason clearly, but I don't think Dennis got enough good responses on the program.

It is important to note that the caller who inspired the hour was looking for women in their early 20s. He wasn't looking for a 45 year-old virgin. And based on what people have said, they want to marry a virgin because...

• That is what their religion teaches and they want someone who demonstrates adherence to the religion
• They see virginity as a special gift and if they're going to marry someone, they think they should be the ones to receive (and, as the case might be, reciprocally give) that gift
• If both of them are virgins, they will be at the same level of (lack of) experience
  
• They see it as a sign of self-control that will make it more likely their spouse will remain faithful and endure times in which there won't be sex
• They believe it reduces potential problems with jealousies
• They don't want their spouse remembering past experiences
• They don't want their spouse making comparisons to past lovers
• They don't want to be with someone who has "a reputation" or is the subject of gossip
• They don't want to bump into their spouse's past lovers
• Some people believe that people, especially women, have a hard time bonding well with a spouse if she has previously bonded this way with others
  
• Some women get bored of sex, and so her being a virgin means it will take longer for her get bored of sex with him
  
• Men don't want to pay or pay more for what other men have gotten for less or free
• Some men see it as problematic for their wife to have had another man's cells/DNA inside of her
• STDs
• Virgins haven't had abortions
  
• Virgins don't have any biological children somewhere out there
  

I find some of those reasons to be silly or downright contrary to facts, and you likely do, too, but since Dennis asked the question, I wanted to provide the answer. Those aren't MY reasons, but reasons I know others have.

I wouldn't advise a man look for a virgin to be his wife. But I wouldn't advise most men look for a wife. Men who are just looking for hookups, booty calls, or even just "a girlfriend" should avoid virgins. Sex is a learned skill.

Why Wait?

Dr. Laura's blog was updated with an entry with the title "Why Wait to Have Sex?"

People who engage in sex before or within the first few weeks of dating have lower levels of relationship satisfaction, communication and stability than those who wait longer.

The claim here is the first few weeks. So, a month in is good?

Why?

Because people who wait are so happy to be having sex that that they'll accept a lot of crap.

Because casual sex is lust over love. Without a foundation, the excitement of the passion wanes, and the relationship crumbles.

Not if they enjoy the sex a lot and are compatible. They have both "lust" and love after a while.

Most women want the first time they have sex with a man to be mind-blowing, special and something that brings them closer together.

Men want that, too.

However, there is no love or commitment early on in a relationship, so none of those needs are met.

That doesn't follow. People can have mind-blowing, special sex that brings them closer together without love and commitment.

I find it remarkable how many women would not entrust their apartment keys to a guy they just met (even if it’s just to water their plants) and yet, give no thought to exposing themselves to STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

If they have your keys, they can steal from you for a while without you even knowing. They can squat in your place and it can be a long ordeal to get them out. Some women actually enjoy sex, and don't see it as something a man does to them, but something they do with a man. But yes, STD tests, contraception, and vasectomies can be great things, and some people having sex on a first, second, or third date use those.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, people simultaneously orgasming 20 minutes after meeting each other rarely happens in real life.

Most married people don't experience simultaneous orgasms, either.

First-date sex is usually awkward, and it runs on his timeline — if you get my drift.

So now it's two dates in, rather than a month.

Also, some guys gladly engage in cunnilingus, fingering, etc. until she has at least one orgasm. Even on a first date.

Plus, there isn’t that much warm-up because there isn’t that much caring to give you a warm-up.

How would Dr. Laura know this? And again, the experience of many people goes against this.

Nothing has changed in the double standard. The more sexual partners a guy has had, the less he thinks of women and the sex he has with them. Guys know that the quicker they can get you to bed, the less wifey material you are. You may be humping for a few years or even shacking up, but there’s no true emotional bond.

Except for the millions of people for whom that hasn't been the case. There are couples who seem to have great marriages lasting decades who had sex on the first date. Everyone knows someone like that. I do.

Dr. Laura will tell female callers who've had unmarried sex "He's telling all of his friends he did!" These days, SHE probably told his friends. And hers. Like it or not, times have changed.

Men don’t value what they don’t have to work hard for.

How hard did most men have to work for their mother's love? And yet they value it tremendously.

If you want a healthy relationship, you should charge a high price for sex - the price being attention, care and commitment.

For Dr. Laura, a "commitment" means having a terrible state contract, joint finances, monogamy, and a bunch of other things that must all be together. In her mind, people can be together for ten years with the same goals and treating each other well, and it's not a commitment unless they have a state license and joint finances. Also, people shouldn't marry until after being together regularly for two yeas. There's a lot of room between a month and two or three years.

While she doesn't admit it, Dr. Laura borrows from materialism and religion for her secular program.

Materialism says men should pay - literally pay - for sex, because of supply and demand. This is why Dr. Laura says an unmarried man having sex is "getting sex for free." He hasn't signed over at least half of his income to the woman with whom he's having sex.

Religion: "This Scripture or this Prophet says unmarried sex is wrong."

She struggles to explain why people should save sex for marriage without citing either of those.

She didn't bring up abortion. Like STDs, unwanted pregnancies are a risk with sex. From a purely rational perspective, people should avoid sex if they aren't prepared for, or haven't taken steps to prevent, unwanted conception, spreading STDs, or catching unwanted feelings.

I'm not here to tell you to have sex before you marry, much less sex a few dates in. (Many of you will do it anyway.)

But I am here to tell you there's no way you should sign a terrible state contract unless you have experienced sexual compatibility and chemistry with that person, unless both of you don't care about sex (and you can't really be sure they don't). Actually, you shouldn't sign the terrible state contract regardless. But you shouldn't make vows, a joint residence, joint finances, or children with someone unless you know they can fulfill you in that way.

So, stay free.

Does Saving It Make it Better or Divorce-Proof Your Marriage?

A letter was printed at drlaura.com from someone who endorses saving sex for marriage:

Abstinence until marriage is the best!!! It's also the BEST gift you could ever give your future spouse.

To say you WAITED for them, instead of shacking up and throwing the benefits and blessings of marriage to the wind. If you do have sex without the blessing of marriage, you rob yourself and your partner of the best blessing you will ever know.

Its not anything special if you don't wait.

No indication is given as to the sex of the writer, but I think it is safe to say it is a written by a devoutly religious married woman who is happy with her husband, at least for now.

Let's look at it bit by bit.

Hold Those Hormones

I'm a follower of Christ, and I generally fall in line with the positions held by "conservative Christians" or "the Religious Right" (with a libertarian lean when it comes to government involvement), with a few notable exceptions, such as discouraging rather than encouraging men to legally marry, and not thinking that watching pixels of nude women and people appearing to have sex turns people into serial killers. I'm very familiar with the positions and reasoning used in these circles.

That brings me to something I find a bit frustrating, but I have to paint a detailed picture to explain it.

Here is a composite list of rules, based on what you can find in media featuring prominent leaders of this sort:

Waiting For Marriage is Good But Not Risk Free

[This post is from December 12, 2012. I'm bumping it up because it is still relevant.]

When I last updated here, I wrote this. I'll probably explain things more later, but for now, things are OK. I'm alive, she's alive, the kids are alive.

On yesterday's Dr. Laura Schlessinger program (which I listen to every minute of, because she's great), she opened by talking about the risks of fornication (without using that word) and why, statistically, saving sex for marriage (marrying as a virgin) is good. On her Facebook page, a question was asked of readers (even though she regularly says people should not have personal Facebook pages... they have to be on Facebook to respond on Facebook... but I digress.) Her opening commentary said sexual bonding short-circuits decision-making. But if that's true before marriage, it has to be true after marriage, too.

Then, appealing to data, she said

Compared to the early sex group* those who waited for marriage:
Rated relationship stability higher
Rated relationship satisfaction higher
Rated sexual quality higher
Rated communication higher

*A month of less after meeting/dating. There is a sizable gap between those couples and couples who waited for marriage. I wonder how couples who waited, say, three months or six months would compare?


How was this data collected? How were the questions asked? Were they asked as a couple, face to face with the person collecting the data? Was the "less than a month" or "married" question asked before the others? I suspect couples who waited for marriage, especially if they realize what is being studied, and even more so if done face-to-face and in front of each other, will overstate positives because they are financially, legally, socially, and often religiously invested and don't want to admit to others and especially themselves if they are unhappy with their marriages or something in their marriages. Some of these people may be of the mindset that "speaking it makes it so" and if they believe, as Dennis Prager does, that happiness is a choice and a moral obligation, they have even more incentive to claim things are great. Wouldn't they sound selfish and ungrateful to their spouse and God if they said things weren't going well?

What does it mean when people who've never had sex with anyone else rate the sexual quality of their relationship higher? They have nothing with which to compare it! Now, ignorance may be bliss if they want to stay married for life, but that's hardly an effective statistic to cite to any rational unmarried person about why saving sex for marriage is better: "If your married sex life ends up dull, you'll have no idea how much better it could be!!! Isn't that great?!?"

As with all sociology, correlation does not prove causation, nor the direction of causation, and we can't compare the same people to both circumstances, because they are only in one. For all we know, these same "saved it for marriage" couples would say the same things about their relationships if they had, instead, started having sex with each other right away and got married the same time along in the relationship, especially if they did not buy into a belief that sex is for marriage.

Dr. Laura ended the commentary by saying  "there are a lot of benefits, and no downs".

Really?

I wrote the letter below to her, and I doubt it is going to show up on her website, so here goes...
*****

I now believe sex is for marriage and that the world would be a better place if everyone reserved sex for their one and only spouse, and if widowed, again reserved sex for their next spouse.

But we who believe this should NOT:

1. Overpromise. Just about anyone who believes what we do is very religious or at least socially conservative, and the message we send is that if someone just saves sex for marriage and marries within the same faith, things will generally be great and the sex life will be great. The statistics often cited (including by you) are usually based on self-reporting, which I find dubious. The married-as-virgin people have nothing to compare their relationship to and no idea how things would be for them if they hadn’t married, or married as virgins. Even if accurate, as you recognize, statistics are generalizations. There are many unmarried people having lot of sex and are happy with their sex lives and lives in general, and many married people who are getting little or no sex and are unhappy.

2. Deny there are tradeoffs. Yes, there are. Every day we save sex for marriage is another day we don't enjoy sex, for example, and plenty of people, including women, do find sex outside of marriage enjoyable and it has many of the same benefits married sex does. It is very easy for those of us who are married and having sex to tell those who aren't "You should wait." Many of them see it like we're enjoying a nice meal while they are standing around with growling stomachs and we're telling them "Don't eat that junk food! Wait and MAYBE you'll be seated at that gourmet restaurant." They're hungry NOW, and while they might sit alone listening to good reasons to save sex for marriage, things look very different while sharing a passionate moment with someone they love.

3. Deny or ignore the risks. a) Almost anyone who believes sex is only for marriage also believes divorce is only permissible (and even then, still to be avoided if possible) if there is abandonment or abuse (including adultery and addictions). They may think they are marrying a virtuous, strong person because they are marrying a virgin, only to find they've married someone who has a low sex drive or other physiological problem, a psychological aversion to sex, or is homosexual. b) While people often stay in bad or mismatched relationships too long because they are having sex, there are also people who marry too young, too quickly, or the wrong person because they have a natural yearning for sex and want to be able to say they saved sex for marriage. [After I wrote this and sent this, I got to the 40-minute mark in the 2nd hour of the podcast and she got a call from a woman whose son was marrying too quickly/young/to the wrong person precisely because they were saving sex for marriage, illustrating my point.] c) Sexual incompatibility, especially when these incompatibilities can't be reconciled[1] or one spouse refuses to try to reconcile them. Although YOU wouldn't tell them to, they then think they are compelled by the same religious community and beliefs (including that divorce is shameful) to suffer and struggle through such a marriage.

4. Ignore that we've created a culture in which it takes longer to become established, independent adults and for men to earn enough to provide for a family, while at the same time making it easier to have unmarried sex without unwanted physical or social consequences. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, people married a lot younger, usually to someone they'd known all their lives and were pledged to marry, and unmarried sex, casual or otherwise, wasn't so easy to have and keep private as it is now.

Personal disclosure: I married a virgin, even though I did not require that in a wife. I now believe she was able to maintain her commitment to save sex for marriage due to the many medications she takes, as I discovered after we'd married, despite (or perhaps because of) making it clear I didn't want to marry someone who was chronically ill or constantly treating illness. After marrying, there was one situation after another that could be cited as interfering with our love life, and by the time I realized this was the way things were always going to be, we had children. I have crunched the numbers and even with rounding off to the benefit of marriage, I am one of those people who had a more active sex life (as wrong as it was) when I was unmarried, with no pregnancies that I'm aware of, and no STDs, confident I do not have any children from those relationships. If I hadn't had those relationships, I would be more anxious/bitter in my marriage because I would have to live with knowing that I'd never know what it is like to have an enthusiastic lover who wants sex enough to initiate and what it was like to do some rather common things my wife won't do with me. Thanks to you, I at least get some "mercy action" between the times she is willing to actually get naked , let me make love to HER, and have intercourse, but it emotionally feels like me masturbating, only while adding a chore to her day, which makes it less enjoyable to me than masturbation.

I appreciate all you do to encourage everyone to lead better lives. If we're honest about saving sex for marriage, we'll maintain credibility and avoid prompting general disillusionment with people who do not share so many of the positive results of saving sex for marriage.

***** [End of letter]
[1]Off the top of my head, some basic sexual incompatibilities married couples may experience include: 1) Who "may" initiate and how. 2) Who takes the lead 3) Positions for intercourse 4) Whether or not sexy talk is allowed, and just how explicit/which words to use. 5) Use of sex toys or common items household items (whipped cream?) 6) Lights on vs lights off. 7) Role playing
8) Who climaxes when
9) General limitations (examples: Once something has her natural lubrication on it, her mouth will not touch it, or he will refuse to kiss her on the lips if she has gone down on him.)
10) Cunnilingus? Fellatio?
11) Very soft and gentle and slow, or rougher?
12) Frequency
13) Morning, afternoon, or night?
Now, I know there are people reading this who are saying to themselves "They should just talk it over." That only works with someone who is willing to try, or willing to do it to please their spouse (without indicating to their spouse they find it a chore, thereby ruining it for their spouse). I've made it clear on this blog that I love cunnilingus. But what if a woman who more or less needed either that or a vibrator to orgasm married a man who said both of those things were "of the devil"? How likely is he to be talked into providing those things to her?   In my case, my wife has never ever suggested something I've turned down, while she has turned down several things, or has volunteered after the fact, even though she should have been able to tell I enjoyed it, that it, at best, does nothing for her.

Dear Abby Assumes Almost All Women are Sluts

Let’s check in on Dear Abby, shall we?

Couple’s Views on Sex Don’t Bode Well For Their Future
<

DEAR ABBY: I am a 28-year-old woman and have been dating a 26-year-old man I'll call "Chris" for four months. We have become good friends. On our last date, the topic of sex came up, and Chris told me that he was a virgin and
that it was very important for him to find a girl who had "never been with anyone"
either.

Well, Abby, that bridge was burned when I was a teenager.

That’s when you say “Goodbye.” But noooooo… you had to hope he would change his mind.

I was honest with Chris about it, which was not easy because I now regret some of the poor choices I made at that time of my life. I am a completely different person now due to a religious conversion and am waiting until I am married to have sex again.

I told Chris this, and asked if he wanted to continue the relationship.

He had already given you an answer. You just didn’t want to hear it.

His answer was he'd "have to think about it." We are still friends. He says he likes me and still wants us to date.

Do you really want a man who “changes” his convictions so easily? I can guarantee you this will be an issue down the road.

However, although I care deeply for him, I now feel devalued.

So you are upset because your ego was brought down to reality?

I'm afraid this issue is going to cause problems in the future.

It will. It will. It will. Go find someone who is compatible with you.

I believe that purity is an issue more of the heart than the body. If I had known that virginity was so important to Chris, I would never have dated him in the first place.

Well you know now. Time to move on. Really, are you so repulsive that you can’t find anyone else?

I can't change the past, and I have strong opinions about men who sing "Amazing Grace" in church while insisting on marrying virgins.

That, along with your statement about “more of the heart than the body” is ridiculous. What if a man had a past filled with substance abuse? What if a man had a history of molesting children? What if he had a history of cheating on his girlfriends? What if he had a history of beating his girlfriends? What if he had a bunch of kids running around out there with psycho ex-girlfriends…but his “heart” was “pure”? Would you still marry him? Give me a break. He said he wants to marry a virgin. There’s nothing hypocritical in a Christian believing in grace and still wanting to marry a virgin.

Marriage is a choice, not a necessity, not an obligation. He doesn’t have to marry you. He can hold out for a woman with a certain hair color, a certain weight, a certain body type, a certain height, and a certain sexual history. Same goes for you!

Okay, well let’s see how “Abby” handled this one.

DEAR "DEE": Cross Chris off your list as husband material.

Right! That’s all you need to say.

Your friend may be self-conscious about his lack of experience or his old-fashioned values. It's the old double standard, and even some men who have sown acres of wild oats feel this way.

While most men today have more sophisticated thinking about sex, the one you are dating has his heart set on a "sweet old-fashioned girl."

“Sophisticated”? Is that the euphemism for it now?

If that's what he wants, it's his privilege -- provided he can find one.

He can find one if he tries. Some women save sex for marriage. The trick is finding a woman who was able to do it despite her libido and attractiveness.