Example of Catholic Church-sanctioned sexless marriage, OK knock yourself out and go for it. I didn't sing up for a Josephite relationship. Most thought sex would be multiple times a week.
If a couple wants something like that and agrees to that, then okay, fine. But the unilateral imposition of such a marriage? Divorce court in the offing.
The moral logic in play by refusers isn't outlandish though.
If Saul of Tarsus said it was best to be like him, isn't unilateral celibacy an effort to "correct the mistake"?
He says marriage is what you do if you cannot be chaste around the opposite sex. (it actually spoke of men showing restraint, I suppose female chastity wasn't seen as a challenge?)
Invocation of 1 Corinthians 7
cuts both ways and the use of shame to insist that refused spouses rise to the example of Saul is arguably Godly and righteous...if you're a Paulene Christian.
Still, Saul basically says marriage is for those who cannot contain themselves. It is better to be unmarried if you can, and, he says, should.
This runs afoul of the Old Testament permission/blessing/command to be fruitful and multiply. Christians not uncommonly support both verses, despite contradiction.
Logically, a person should either toss out the directives of the Old Testament as Paulenes say you can and embrace chastity as Saul instead recommends, OR reject Saul of Tarsus' (erroneously?) canonized books and recognize the moral necessity of marriage, sex, and reproduction going together. (is fertility treatment a religious duty to "open the matrix"?) perhaps even condemning virginity and Onanism and encouraging out of wedlock birth (whores' birth control was no more reliable than anyone else's at the time.)WorksForMe2's observation:
"They all enjoyed it and indulged themselves at their pleasure. I didn't have sex with all of them, but for those who stayed the night, none of them came across as damaged from exposure to the Catholic faith."
I'd be curious what became of those who didn't spend the night. Maybe those are the damaged future refusers or guilt-ridden refused wives?
Buddhism appears to warn against sex of all kinds, not just pre-marital. It is an appetite, like any other and appetites produces suffering which Buddhism attempts to relieve.
Hinduism, from the cursory search I made has little to say, but Hindu populations appear to disapprove of it socially.
As to why, we get to catlover
's question and Handy
's guess at the answer:Why do these religions make such a big deal about virginity anyway?? Uptight bunch of.... whatevers
For the same reason we get upset about unwed mothers.
Before the reliable birth control of the 60's (or mass produced latex condoms, to go back a little further), young rakes that impregnated young maidens produced mouths to feed with potentially no responsibility of the father to support them.
There is socially imposed child support (a unreliable system, to be sure) today, but in days of yore, shotgun marriages weren't just for morality's sake, but to lock down young father's from spreading seed everywhere, burdening future husbands with childcare they didn't cause.
The prohibition of adultery is a commandment for an even more egregious reason. Husbands could be cuckolded and their shoulders put to the plow in servitude of another man, raising someone else's progeny. Perhaps for life if the lack of resemblance is undetected. Adultery was cause for divorce, in large part, due to the bastard children that resulted. Adultery might otherwise not be detected. That which was discovered without children produced might be seen as so serious due to the reckless imposition of risk to an established family and introduction of a burden upon the husband for a decision of the wife. What do you do with such a child! Banish your wife's child from her home? Have the reminder of the wife's poor decisions toddling around 24-7? Modern times have dismantled the cause and effect of former inevitabilities.
An unwed mother stayed at home, possibly unmarried for life, having produced extra effort by the household with no contribution from an additional adult male to ease the burden. Foundlings might be disposed of at a nunnery so as to disguise the indiscretion of the maiden and preserve her suitability for marriage. Thus, the absurd lies about a 50 year old mother having a new brother for their virginal daughter, or the adoption of a nephew/cousin from relations where the daughter visited their distant farm. The burdens of child rearing may be behind the double standard of sexuality. With males' recklessness being so much easier to hide; the "disgraced" family not being able to condemn the casanova lest others question why they are so judgmental and tipping folks off as to their daughter's deflowered state. Rumor and reputation followed such studs, but no one offered actual proof.
I welcome nuanced correction to this imperfect history.