A Case For Disposing Of Virginity As A Life Marker

[kokigami]

here, discuss

[Seeker]

virginity is a social construction that came about because of the commodification of women.

Nonsense.

The rest of the article is similar BS. It attempts to show that the concept of virginity in some way causes all sorts of stigmatisation. This obfuscates the (very real) issues, rather than leading to understanding.

Sexual status may very well be used in the context of heteronormative and/or mysogynistic attitudes, but to identify it (via a narrow and misleading definition) as an invented status is utterly bogus. Articles like this do more harm then good IMHO.

[Atwater Vitki]

Seeker - I agree with you in principle on the over all article, but disagree that virginity has never been or is currently relative to "the commodification of women". I base my appraisal in part on the author's statement "not being pure when you marry in many societies brings shame and dishonor to your family"....because that is very true. Even my very religious parents created my sister before they were married and that caused a huge bruhaha in the community in 1943...one that caused them to move to California from Connecticut...but..."they LOVED each other and father was going off to war" and they stuck together 63 years...so I guess they did have a bond of honorable "love" when having my sister.

I wasn't a virgin when I married the first time nor was my wife, but we live in the US and nobody I know was a virgin either when they married. In my travels around the world I did witness many of the cruelties the author mentioned being taken out on women and girls...many times by their own father or brother and as a matter of familial "honor". IMHO, they were nutz, crazy stupid for allowing some ancient command from an unseen deity dictate their actions in todays society, but hey, that's their baggage to deal with in the next realm.

I also agree that this article does more to incite the issue than offer any constructive solution...in fact...almost sounds like it may have been written by a sexually shamed modern woman...pardon my direct reference and does not indicate my feelings towards modern women in general. Frankly, I feel that sex, like our religious or spiritual relationship, is something personal to each individual. What other people think we should or shouldn't do is none of their business.

How I feel towards the issue may be completely different than other men and women alike, but should be left up to them how they choose to act or not act upon their own views of virginity.

So Koki....what was your intention on discussing this article?

Blessings of Peace,

[kokigami]

Nonsense.

The rest of the article is similar BS. It attempts to show that the concept of virginity in some way causes all sorts of stigmatisation. This obfuscates the (very real) issues, rather than leading to understanding.

Sexual status may very well be used in the context of heteronormative and/or mysogynistic attitudes, but to identify it (via a narrow and misleading definition) as an invented status is utterly bogus. Articles like this do more harm then good IMHO.

Well, depends a bit on what you mean. Certainly that status of being a virgin is a real state.. but it is a status far out of proportion to its importance, and almost exclusively as regards women, at least in most of the world. I am curious as to what you see as the very real issues being obfuscated, however.

It is an invented status in that we put emphasis on sexulal virginity, but no consideration to most other firsts in ones life. First words, and first steps... maybe riding a bike, or hunting, neither of which has any negative connotations. We generally celebrate firsts, but sexual virginity is treated differently, and, I think the author is correct in saying that it is for very misogynistic reasons.

Seeker - I agree with you in principle on the over all article, but disagree that virginity has never been or is currently relative to "the commodification of women". I base my appraisal in part on the author's statement "not being pure when you marry in many societies brings shame and dishonor to your family"....because that is very true. Even my very religious parents created my sister before they were married and that caused a huge bruhaha in the community in 1943...one that caused them to move to California from Connecticut...but..."they LOVED each other and father was going off to war" and they stuck together 63 years...so I guess they did have a bond of honorable "love" when having my sister.

I wasn't a virgin when I married the first time nor was my wife, but we live in the US and nobody I know was a virgin either when they married. In my travels around the world I did witness many of the cruelties the author mentioned being taken out on women and girls...many times by their own father or brother and as a matter of familial "honor". IMHO, they were nutz, crazy stupid for allowing some ancient command from an unseen deity dictate their actions in todays society, but hey, that's their baggage to deal with in the next realm.

I also agree that this article does more to incite the issue than offer any constructive solution...in fact...almost sounds like it may have been written by a sexually shamed modern woman...pardon my direct reference and does not indicate my feelings towards modern women in general. Frankly, I feel that sex, like our religious or spiritual relationship, is something personal to each individual. What other people think we should or shouldn't do is none of their business.

How I feel towards the issue may be completely different than other men and women alike, but should be left up to them how they choose to act or not act upon their own views of virginity.

So Koki....what was your intention on discussing this article?

Blessings of Peace,

Well, I ran across it on facebook, and it has never, as I recall, been an issue discussed here, it has lots of moral/religious overtones, and it is a subject on my mind for the last few weeks after watching a documentary on the "Purity" movement. I am sure there are those here who will defend the concept as somehow important, and I am curious to see that. I am personally having trouble seeing why it is a big issue. I know it seemed like it was to me, once upon a time.

There was another article a bit ago with a similar theme that I had nearly used to start this thread. It is here. It reinforces a good deal of what is said in the OP article. Our social culture puts heavy stock on womens virginity, but almost none on mens. It is a common theme for fathers of young women of a certain age to get all worked up over the possibility that someone my have sex with their daughters. Even that phrasing implies a passive or even unwilling role on the part of the daughter, and, as I recall from my youth, that is terribly misleading. This appears to be all about controlling women, controlling reproduction, removing their free agency.

So, hope that answers the question.

How do you suppose something personal for each individual becomes something personal for each individual?

[grateful]

spot on, on many levels.

[kokigami]

consider the movie the 40 year old virgin. Would that movie have made any cultural sense if it were about a woman?

[Seeker]

My point was that virginity per se is not the issue. There are quite enough genuine problems around without focussing energy on derivative targets.

[kokigami]

So, do you think our cultural obsession with virginity, both the keeping and the loosing of such, depending primarily on gender, is perfectly ok? Or do you just mean that there are bigger issues, like hunger, and Saints Row?

[Cornelius]

consider the movie the 40 year old virgin. Would that movie have made any cultural sense if it were about a woman?

It would have been much less plausible imo.

[Atwater Vitki]

Our social culture puts heavy stock on womens virginity, but almost none on mens. It is a common theme for fathers of young women of a certain age to get all worked up over the possibility that someone my have sex with their daughters. Even that phrasing implies a passive or even unwilling role on the part of the daughter, and, as I recall from my youth, that is terribly misleading. This appears to be all about controlling women, controlling reproduction, removing their free agency.

Unwilling? I lost my virginity very young to the "Virgin Killer" of Davis High School in Modesto. At the time she was the gf of a friend of mine and they had a huge fight, breaking up...she asked me to walk her home...and once there...well let's just say I didn't argue or complain.

Ever since I've always tried to remain a "gentleman" and allowed the gal to set the mood for when the time was "right". Nearly every time they have been the initiator, not me. While societal norms may say one thing, it's fairly clear to me that societal reality is another. Respecting when a gal says "No!" is honorable for any man. But what dude says "No!" when a gal they are with says "Now!"? So far, I have yet to meet the fella that has.

That is yet another double standard in this controversy.

Blessings of Peace,

[kokigami]

Atwater, I am curious as to know what the Reputation of the Virgin killer was amongst her class mates. Though it would have been mid seventies california, so it may not be a very representative sampling..

[grateful]

I see the double standard the vitki points to, young women who deflower young men as opposed to young men who deflower young women. when I was young, my parents didn't talk about it - inferred though was "good girls don't".

er, yes they do..

as a parent myself, we talked about sexuality, no shaming involved, but an invitation to consider the ramifications of one's decisions and a directive that one needs to be mature enough to take responsibility for one's actions. my daughter was quite a few years older than I was when she decided to have sex for the first time. I believe that was due to open and honest discourse from early on, a strong sense of self and the support she needed to make good decisions that worked for her.

I feel very strongly that I would have raised a son with the same love, respect and support to make good decisions that I did her

[Brother Kaman]

Unless one is to remain celibate their entire lives, losing one's virginity will always be a life marker just as all "firsts" are. Whether or not we can agree on the connotations of our life markers, is another thing.

[Atwater Vitki]

Atwater, I am curious as to know what the Reputation of the Virgin killer was amongst her class mates. Though it would have been mid seventies california, so it may not be a very representative sampling..

In some circles she would have been considered a "Sl- to the -ut" in others simply a "Loosie", but in all circles she was considered a drop dead gorgeous gal who really enjoyed popping dudes cherries. By my sophmore year it was rumored she deflowered "more than 100" guys at Davis, but I only have first hand knowledge of three, possibly a fourth. At her 10th reunion (my 8th) she showed up with her hubby of 8 or 9 years that was from So.Carolina and an Navy Ltjg. and showed off pictures of their 4 kids. The last I heard 3-4 years ago (from her brother) she was still east coast, still married to the sailor and a grand mother many times over and great grandma twice.

"Representative sampling" or not I'm sure in every high school there were guys and gals who had reputations they did not deserve and others who should have been seen for what they really were. Regardless, losing one's virginity is something I don't believe anyone forgets.

Blessings Be,

[Seeker]

So, do you think our cultural obsession with virginity, both the keeping and the loosing of such, depending primarily on gender, is perfectly ok?

No.

Or do you just mean that there are bigger issues, like hunger,

I don't think "just" is appropriate - hunger is a more fundamental issue. It's not one I referred to, however.

and Saints Row?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

If my words aren't good enough for you, try Bro Kaman's reply...

Unless one is to remain celibate their entire lives, losing one's virginity will always be a life marker just as all "firsts" are. Whether or not we can agree on the connotations of our life markers, is another thing.

Misogyny and homophobia (and general out-group vilification) are real problems. Those attitudes are what lead to the obsession with sexual status, not the other way round. Their first sexual experience is a big deal for most people, and that does not necessarily make them a party to oppressive attitudes. Attacking that reality is counter-productive. It's the hateful attitudes which are tacked on which should be the focus.

The whole thrust of the article is based on treating the symptoms not the disease. This serves to divert attention away from the real issues, which is why I consider it harmful.

[kokigami]

Unless one is to remain celibate their entire lives, losing one's virginity will always be a life marker just as all "firsts" are. Whether or not we can agree on the connotations of our life markers, is another thing.

well, yes, I agree in general. But as life markers go, this is a big one and it has unique social contexts.

[kokigami]

No.

I don't think "just" is appropriate - hunger is a more fundamental issue. It's not one I referred to, however.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

If my words aren't good enough for you, try Bro Kaman's reply...

Misogyny and homophobia (and general out-group vilification) are real problems. Those attitudes are what lead to the obsession with sexual status, not the other way round. Their first sexual experience is a big deal for most people, and that does not necessarily make them a party to oppressive attitudes. Attacking that reality is counter-productive. It's the hateful attitudes which are tacked on which should be the focus.

The whole thrust of the article is based on treating the symptoms not the disease. This serves to divert attention away from the real issues, which is why I consider it harmful.

The symptoms promote and transfer the disease. The obsession leads to the attitudes just as much as the other way around. When my daughter first stepped into a relationship that was probably sexual, I freaked a bit. I had to consciously over ride my indoctrination. When I mention to people she is now living with her boyfriend, they almost unanimously make what I have to call, the LOOK. It says, you shouldn't allow that.. But she is an adult.. Not allowing isn't even an option.