Jump to content

Is Virginity really the problem?


Moontanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

We seem to get lots of threads about abortion, sex education, birth control and other ways women seem to be "special" in our society.

 

I ask is our obsession with and or the high value we place on female virginity and sexual innocence at the heart of our apparent need to if not subjugate at least infantilize women at the root of our male dominated society and it's approach to women.

 

We praise the virgin, demonize the slut when it come to women but men are ridiculed as immature or praised as studs... I think it says a lot about our culture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the obsession about virginity as much as the obsession about fidelity and the insecurity about progeny. If a man controls who a woman has sex with, he is assured of who the father of her children is. Being cuckolded seems to be an insult of such magnitude that men will go to ultimate lengths to prevent it. And to risk passing on all you've achieved to another man's children is even worse.

 

Basic trust is such an important concept among humans that trying to do anything remotely sane in its absence causes lots of strange behavior. I think the more conservative a person is, the less they trust the motives of others, even those closest to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your answer, Phi, but am curious: Why would you say that the more conservative a person is, the less they trust the motives of others?

I think the foundation for extreme conservatism is rooted in fear. The more someone is afraid of the consequences of a progressive action, the more they fear that outcome. A lot can happen to erode trust and I think the more extremely conservative the person is, the quicker that erosion is.

 

I also think extreme conservatism isn't a very positive stance when it comes to forgiveness. My experiences have shown me that people who fear betrayal the most are the least likely to ever forgive it. Sometimes that fear of betrayal is so extreme it can cause those people to mistrust even those who've never broken trust with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the obsession about virginity as much as the obsession about fidelity and the insecurity about progeny. If a man controls who a woman has sex with, he is assured of who the father of her children is. Being cuckolded seems to be an insult of such magnitude that men will go to ultimate lengths to prevent it. And to risk passing on all you've achieved to another man's children is even worse.

 

Basic trust is such an important concept among humans that trying to do anything remotely sane in its absence causes lots of strange behavior. I think the more conservative a person is, the less they trust the motives of others, even those closest to them.

 

 

I remember my dad encouraging me to have sex with the girls but he went berserk at the thought of my sister even being kissed. I think it goes deeper than that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember my dad encouraging me to have sex with the girls but he went berserk at the thought of my sister even being kissed. I think it goes deeper than that...

I think father/daughter dynamics are a whole other matter, but it might tie into the whole protecting-your-children-at-all-cost scenario, living and unborn alike. And it could be that virginity = trust and losing virginity, for women, is a betrayal of trust in the eyes of some men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a greater investment required from females than males when it comes to the likely outcome of sex. When a man has sex, he has the ability to simply move on without any impact whatsoever to him and his family or his pack. When a female has sex, she quite often leaves that encounter with a resource commitment that lasts at minimum 9 months and more often 18 years that takes resources away from her, her family, and her pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a greater investment required from females than males when it comes to the likely outcome of sex. When a man has sex, he has the ability to simply move on without any impact whatsoever to him and his family or his pack. When a female has sex, she quite often leaves that encounter with a resource commitment that lasts at minimum 9 months and more often 18 years that takes resources away from her, her family, and her pack.

I agree. Do you think this plays a part in the virginity issue, the trust issue or both? I could see men developing a bit of guilt because of their disproportionate investment.

 

It just seems to me that normal caution (conservatism) can become overblown into an irrational fear (ultra-conservatism). Men often hate to admit their fears and will thus come up with lots of justifications for it, and the greater the fear the more wacky those justifications can become. So the establishment of some kind of moral control through virginity manipulation, denial of sex education and birth control, and anti-abortion laws becomes more bizarre as the fear becomes more extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than anything, I think there is at least some rationality underlying the different treatments of males and females who are sexually active. I'm all about equality, but that doesn't mean that the potential consequences faced by both genders are equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past, daughters were often "married" at a very young age and their virginity or lack there of greatly influenced the price dowry involved. How ever in other, less male dominated societies, a young girl was expected to produce a child before she was considered a valuable asset to any future husbands.

 

It seems to me that the idea of virginity or innocence having a potential value in the sale of a woman drives this not some question of cuckold, more like owning the woman as property and used property is less valuable than new property...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

In the past, daughters were often "married" at a very young age and their virginity or lack there of greatly influenced the price dowry involved. How ever in other, less male dominated societies, a young girl was expected to produce a child before she was considered a valuable asset to any future husbands.

 

It seems to me that the idea of virginity or innocence having a potential value in the sale of a woman drives this not some question of cuckold, more like owning the woman as property and used property is less valuable than new property...

 

I think that is more of a cultural expression. I agree with Phi that it is mostly the cuckold issue, but keep in mind that this is evolution, not conscious selection of the male that drives this. This video explains it very well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZw3lxyuhEU

 

 

 

 

From 5:00 on is relevant to this thread.

Edited by john5746
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've visited this thread three times and each time I go away thinking, "The problem here is the respondents have some notion, conscious or unconscious, that in relation to this issue humans are rational." Is that making clarity of thinking difficult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've visited this thread three times and each time I go away thinking, "The problem here is the respondents have some notion, conscious or unconscious, that in relation to this issue humans are rational." Is that making clarity of thinking difficult?

Agree with the section in quotes - but as we cannot rationalise the irrational we try to make a logical reasoned simulacrum that replicates the emotional non-linear reactions as closely as possible. as an analogy we cannot predict the path of a particle in a myriad of interacting colliding particles - but we can calculate the pressure a certain number of them will exhibit in a vessel at a determined temperature (I think). The clunky parallel is meant to agree with your first contention but disagree with your conclusion - whilst the decision may not be rational we can still discuss the decision and the possible deciding factors with interest and meaning in a rational manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

 

 

I remember my dad encouraging me to have sex with the girls but he went berserk at the thought of my sister even being kissed. I think it goes deeper than that...

I think that this attitude is a reflection on how the men view the men of their society. If I and the males of my group are encouraged to have promiscuous sex with many women, and show disrespect for them, then I will certainly want to shelter my daughter from them. On the other hand, if the men of my society show restraint and respect, then I will be happy to see my daughter courted by them. Indeed, in many of the societies where men shelter the women, the women gets most of the blame for having sex, the men are not required to restrain themselves. Very odd behaviour and standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I remember my dad encouraging me to have sex with the girls but he went berserk at the thought of my sister even being kissed.

Your dad was right. You shouldn't have been trying to kiss your sister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I didn't pick up on that the first time I read it. laugh.pngevil.gif Straight lines like that don't grow on trees. wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your dad was right. You shouldn't have been trying to kiss your sister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I didn't pick up on that the first time I read it. laugh.pngevil.gif Straight lines like that don't grow on trees. wink.png

 

 

Actually there is a funny story behind that. My sister is 5 years younger than me and of course she always wanted to follow me around and get in the middle of anything me and my friends were doing. When she would inevitably get knocked down or what ever she would go home to mom crying and of course mom would come and get me wanting to know what happened. Mom would always kiss my sister to make her feel better and would insist i do the same thing. Eventually it got to the point where I would kiss her immediately hoping she would not disrupt what ever game we were playing by going to momma...

 

Of course my biddies always ragged me hard about my mom making me kiss my sister to make her feel better. One day in school we were playing at lunch break in the school yard and there was this girl... Barbara Ashworth... oh yes I was in love, 2nd grade, i was enamored beyond belief with Barbara Ashworth... one day, playing tag, I accidently knocked her down and you guessed it I immediately kissed her to make her feel better... the rest of the year was a living hell as my buddies teased me incessantly... my first kiss... well non family member kiss... frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simple biology, the reality of evolution is sexist. A man has little incentive to invest in the next generation if he has no certainty of his fatherhood, historically before DNA tests marrying a women who doesn't sleep around has been the only way to get some assurance on this issue. The womb is the main limiting factor in the fecundity of a marriage, so a woman's main assets in the mating game are her youth and virginity. But a man can provide no breast milk or placental fluids, biologically his only contribution is a single sperm which can be produced in old age, so a mans main asset in the mating game is his financial wealth, or in the paleolithic hunting ability both of which peak much later in life over 40, so he passes his time sowing his wild oats with easy women or war raids till then. Obviously in recent centuries things and selective pressures have changed a few times the spread of STDs in the age of sail probably selected for more monogamy inclined males. How human instincts will evolve in response to modern environment with access to genetic paternity test, contraception, enforced child support payments, and welfare programs who knows.

 

It would take genetic engineering or many generations of selective breeding to remove these instincts to expect them to go away with a little bit education/propaganda is fantastical and action based on fantasy are dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I do agree there is a big degree of wanting to be sure of children, so there is a value in a primitive society for virginity, without the knowledge of pregnancy testing, BUT the furphy that that would somehow guarantee even the first child was theirs, if the woman had a life non restricted, means that the obsessional control of women is MORE likely with obsession with virginity.

 

Yet the 'spoiling' of an 'owned' wife of years, (even if she is raped, and there is no subsequent child), points to this also being the obsessive insecurity of men in their performance, sexually, in these primitive societies. I think the idea of a woman being able to compare them to other men is the stronger enrager, even over the practical fear of raising another man's child.

 

Religion, I've always found, is RIFE with hypocracy, especially around sex. I'm sure there are so called impure women known to have sex with a number of men, and if SHE shows obsession, great desire for only one man in that group, the question of 'What's he got that haven't' is going to remain. Most of those deeply controlling men would never dream of improving their performance.

 

A number of religions with the virgin obsession also practise female circumcision, or did until people moved to western countries, (There is certainly illegal FC done in Britain and Oz). That is basically trying to remove pleasure from sex, for women, so there isn't reason to look for pleasure elsewhere. I think much of these purity obsessions are, on the ground, more about men suspecting that if their wives had a good sex life, they wouldn't put up with them, or even be uncomplaining, due to being unaware there was better offered.

 

Is virginity a problem at all? People who voluntarily have no sex are doing more to help the human population problem, and less likely to catch numerous diseases, than most of the population. No chance of a mistake, tho I guess you could be a virgin and get AI... All the problems start to fly with being enthusiastic about not being a virgin or keeping their habits. For most, the payoff of children and family and/or partner support more than makes up for the demands of family or being a recognised couple, which generally involve sex, not being able to spontaneously accept enjoyable invitations before checking everyone elses timetables, etc

Edited by menageriemanor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cultures were women are sold for cattle... Their virginity is more valued, because otherwise the woman will not be able to get married. Then, if there isn't any other distraction, all the society will put an excessive stress on sex. An if the family does not have nothing except respect from other families (ie.rural areas of turkey), they will put an excessive stress on honour, so if someone finds out that the girl lost virginity with a man from another family, for they is like an invitation to other clans to steal all the remaining assets of the family and put them in economic disadvantage (like an additional baby).Furthermore, potential husbands will believe that women from this family are not serious (Who will arrange a marriage with a family if you can simply get the woman and scape?) . So they kill the woman to say: "If you steal us, we gona kill you".

 

In cultures where sex is restricted to married people, the family of the man, will decline marriage if the woman is not virgin because it means that other man (or more than one), had sex with the woman, but who has to pay it, is the husband. So everybody will think: "I pissed off this guy", especially if the woman has a child that is obviously from another father.

 

So, The value of feminine virginity arises from respect and honour.

Edited by POLLITO110
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cultures were women are sold for cattle... Their virginity is more valued, because otherwise the woman will not be able to get married. Then, if there isn't any other distraction, all the society will put an excessive stress on sex. An if the family does not have nothing except respect from other families (ie.rural areas of turkey), they will put an excessive stress on honour, so if someone finds out that the girl lost virginity with a man from another family, for they is like an invitation to other clans to steal all the remaining assets of the family and put them in economic disadvantage (like an additional baby).Furthermore, potential husbands will believe that women from this family are not serious (Who will arrange a marriage with a family if you can simply get the woman and scape?) . So they kill the woman to say: "If you steal us, we gona kill you".

 

In cultures where sex is restricted to married people, the family of the man, will decline marriage if the woman is not virgin because it means that other man (or more than one), had sex with the woman, but who has to pay it, is the husband. So everybody will think: "I pissed off this guy", especially if the woman has a child that is obviously from another father.

 

So, The value of feminine virginity arises from respect and honour.

 

I don't see how that conclusion follows. I see it more as virginity is valued because women are treated as property. They are valued less if they are not virgins. Much like a car loses value as soon as you drive it off the lot, or a dented or scratched item is discounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe that the initial value of virginity is the guarantee that you aren't taking on a woman pregnant with another man's child, but frankly, after day one, that proves nothing. Certainly it is the 'ownership' of a woman that makes men and indeed their own mothers, etc buy into the lunacy of 'honour'.

 

Widows can and do remarry and whilst they are not valued, as virgin brides, they do not theoretically have another man walking about, having 'known; (biblically), someone's wife. Often these cultures devalue old women. They aren't desired, therefore worthless. It is without doubt, a male 'ownership', but the offensiveness of killing the victim in a rape clearly shows how women are seen and valued as individuals. There's a cowardice in killing a woman already in your control, rather than the thug that actually did something wrong... It offends on so many levels, it's hard to discuss.

 

I suspect that the reason the logical killing or castrating of rapists never got a look in, was a good Percentage of the men making the rules of honour knew that they would be condemning themselves. Those primitive cultures, like most religions, drown in hypocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.