The most disgusting wedding announcement ever:

WriterMom

Tue, Dec 21 2010, 10:10 pm

marina wrote:

kitov wrote:

In our circles, invitations have a header for the chosson that reads "habocher hachosson hachashiv" and for the kallah "hakalla habsula hamhulala".

If boy is second marriage, it's "hachosson hachashiv", the kallah would be "hakalla hachashiva hamhialala".

help me to understand why a woman's virginity is something to extoll her about. Why don't you just write hakalla hachashiva in the first place?

Same reason produce is labelled "organic," you can persuade people to pay more if something is "pure" even if that doesn't actually translate to a real difference Rolling Eyes

The terminology evolved in societies where a virginal wife was considered a) more authentically her husband's property and b) more likely to bear her husband's children rather than someone else's. Yes, it's based upon offensive premises, but it's pretty far down my list of "things I'd change about Judaism because it's demeaning to women."

It would be delightful if the man's virginity were advertised and presumed important, in a twisted sort of way - honestly, the number of people who get VD from their husbands, or find out that their husband is already a father from way back when, means that baggage from previously soxual relationships is a two way street.

anon for this

Tue, Dec 21 2010, 11:10 pm

WriterMom wrote:

It would be delightful if the man's virginity were advertised and presumed important, in a twisted sort of way - honestly, the number of people who get VD from their husbands, or find out that their husband is already a father from way back when, means that baggage from previously soxual relationships is a two way street.

But doesn't the term "habachur" correspond with "habesula"? Every wedding invitation that I've seen mention one mentions the other as well. And the kesubah also refers to both the chosson and kallah as bachur and besulah, if the terms apply.

WriterMom

Tue, Dec 21 2010, 11:47 pm

My understanding is that "bachur" doesn't carry connotations of not having had sox, the way "betula" does. My working knowledge of modern Hebrew is pretty elementary, and it's entirely possible that other modes of Hebrew do use the word this way. Would be interested to hear from people who know more than I do about the language!

I don't think virginity should be fetishized, but I can see the very real value in marrying someone who's never had sox before, both in terms of the sanctity of it within marriage, and in more practical terms, like disease etc. It just bugs me that, even in cultures that frown on male premarital sox, young guys aren't "ruined" if they're not virgins the way women are.

anon for this

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 12:09 am

WriterMom wrote:

Sorry, it seemed to me that it's generally used to refer to a man who's never married, if not specifically a virgin. Could be I'm wrong though--wouldn't be the first time today.

Raisin

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 4:54 am

WriterMom wrote:

I know plenty of frum girls who refuse to date guys who have had previous relationships. eg if they became frum later in life.

chavamom

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 6:17 am

Ruchel wrote:

I've heard the betula thing is a machlokes. Some always say it unless it's obvious (second marriage, single mother), some say it if it's true/can be assumed realistically, some say it if the husband knows it's not true and agrees to it.
Others will have nothing, or isha.

Interestingly, my cousin's second marriage (America, reform) said "betula" - she was a mother of two and known for "boyfriends" including this one she lived with for years before Rolling Eyes

She was all happy to show her ketuba to my mother, who fought the urge to laugh. If she shared it with me later it must really have been hard for her to not comment, given I was at the time single and innocent Wink

Reminds me of the Reform diplomas from their rabbinical college where the college president had signed his name as something like "hagaon vehatzadik" - and humble too!

saw50st8

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 6:27 am

MidwestMommy wrote:

sequoia wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

I recently read a book ("Wedding in November" by Anita Shreve) that was basically a story where almost everyone was cheating, thinking about cheating or had cheated on their spouse. All under the guise of a wedding plot.

It was rather disturbing.

But I do think I would rather my husband leave than pine for his love that he can't be with, especially if he's going to cheat on me.

I read a lot of Anita Shreve as a teenager. Her books are disturbing but (I thought) psychologically realistic.

I think it's actually called "A Wedding in December" for anyone who wants to read it. Smile

I read it, too, and found it rather disturbing.

Yes, that's it!

Tzippora

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 7:40 am

Rodent wrote:

Definitely an awful story to feature in that way but to be honest I have more issues with Jewish wedding invitations that list the kalla as a bitula. That is not the business of the invited guests and makes the bride seem like a piece of meat to me. Hear it during the ceremony whatever, but to ADVERTISE it makes me cringe.

That's why I didn't write it - why on earth is that a virtue anyone coming to the wedding would care about? Totally untznius - and I never say that! It's practically inviting them to check the sheets the next morning! (and certainly, if one weren't a betula, it isn't assur to write it on the wedding invitation at least!)

If you didn't know that both husband and I were both mehullal and appropriately virginal, you didn't belong at the wedding Smile

chavamom

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 10:19 am

Well by golly! It's practically a MITZVAH to divorce your wife when you see someone more attractive! Where is your emunas chachamim? What are you? A bunch of fundies?

Couple critiques of Dovbear's insipid presentation of issue. First of all, there is no halachic mechanism for or similar allowance for a woman to leave her husband for a man that she has found more attractive. So Ms. Riddell wannabes are SOL. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, R. Hillel and R. Akiva are answering the question of "is such a divorce valid?". That's far from making it the Jewish value that Dovbear claims it to be. You can get divorced for pretty much any reason you want to and have it be a valid divorce, but that hardly makes it exemplary behavior. If one obtained a divorce, leaving his wife and 10 children because he decided that "marriage is for losers and I want to go find myself on a mountaintop" would also be valid. However, I don't think it would merit defense, nay, claim to be daas torah to do so (!) on anyone blog. Furthermore, the entire structure of the body of halacha is designed to minimize contact between the sexes, esp. time alone, to prevent exactly such things from happening. SOOOO - tell me again, why is this all well and good and practically a Jewish value to be celebrated?

Ruchel

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 10:33 am

You think girls don't value virginity? they do, even just shomer negia.
I have a few great boys who "have a past" and cannot find, mainly because of this. And it's not like they discuss it on first date!
I also have FFB boys who don't mind a "normal" non frum past, as in stable relationships.

Ruchel

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 10:41 am

My rav, as well as dh's rav, rule that while you don't write something "special" for a virgin guy, a guy is forced to tell the truth when asked, and to warn about a past (without details) if not asked. When? "at best before engagement, but certainly before marriage".
I learned that the emphasis on betula vs non betula is because it makes a difference in the price.

I have heard of "isha" or "nothing" said instead of betula, at weddings.

saw50st8

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 10:43 am

chavamom wrote:

I agree with you. I just thought a different perspective was interesting.

You can't always equate halacha with morality. Since his premise is off, his conclusion is too.

chavamom

Wed, Dec 22 2010, 11:05 am

saw50st8 wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I agree with you. I just thought a different perspective was interesting.

You can't always equate halacha with morality. Since his premise is off, his conclusion is too.

Dovbear's got an ax to grind and is willing to pervert presentation of sources to make his points.