What is the point of the concept of virginity?

It’s an old concept that tried to guarantee that, at least initially, the women’s child could only be the husband’s.

Today I see it only as a clue to how new someone is to sex: they’d have a lot to learn.

It’s a matter of self worth and self respect. Sex can be pretty damn special or it can be base and routine. Emotionally, the maturing into a sexually active being can be part of emotional growth and respect for one’s body, and thus many people put a value on it.

Most of us these days, don’t place some old value or requirement on it, it’s more of a marker for one’s self.

On a psychological level, I think part of it is not wanting to share the space in your lover’s heart with the ghosts of past lovers. Dealing with insecurities about how one measures up to past lovers, or whether old feelings still linger, can be painful, and virginity could be seen as an assurance that no such complications will arise.

Old emotional, romance comedy-like tradition.

It was mandated in olden times to make sure that the child the woman bears is indeed the husband’s. After the first one, the husband then dominated the wife, his property, with an iron fist, to make sure that all further children were sure to be his as well, further reinforced by the death penalty for adulterers.

To me there is none. To the people around me where I live, it is probably the single most important thing there is.

In general, I think it is an exponent of the males’ drive to control the reproduction of ‘their’ females.

Most religions have a strong base in that ever-going ‘battle’ and it is interesting to see the extremes to which this has pushed us in our cultural mores and behaviors.

Basic.
In times when such things mattered and women were little more than chattel, it was proof of bloodline.

I think today, in some areas, both male and female virginity are emphasized. It seems like a good way to ensure that both parties never know someone else better or worse.

It has value because culture norms drive value into the concept—but aside of culture norms, there really is no value.

What about hymen breaking as a result of rape? Some people think that means loss of virginity, while others say no.

When I speak of virginity I am not excluding young men from the conversation. The idea of virginity until marriage seems to be largely lost in time.

The idea of virginity to me is similar to “purity”. Unfortunately, purity of love and marriage has largely been lost to time also.

There can be no greater gift for a relationship (in my often despised opinion) than two pure people entering into marriage, discovering sexuality and love together. They have no comparisons to draw from, and no need for jealousy and the like. They can be committed forever to each other, meaning every last word of their marriage vows. They can know (to a much higher degree of accuracy) that the person they are with had the composure and willpower to restrain from having sex until it could be something more than just sex. They can know that this person has a personal integrity that can’t be compared to a promiscuous 16 year old who caused a pregnancy, or is pregnant themselves.

It all seems so very evident to me that it’s the best way. However, I need only mention the idea to become labeled an outcast these days.

The purity “argument” requires as its premise that sex is something dirty, immoral and wrong.
It is not, so the purity argument falls apart immediately.
As an aeroplane passenger, you would not accept the purity argument from someone who has never piloted an aeroplane before.

@ragingloli I believe the idea of purity holds sex to a much higher standard.. making it something even more fantastic. It changes it from “something fun to do because it feels good” into “something that is the best thing you’ll ever experience with another person”.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Were we talking about airplanes, it would be a different discussion.

It’s an old concept and like most old concepts it is to stop the spread of the spread of disease (STD’s in this case) and maintian a healthy population.

@digitalimpression One of your arguments, if I understand it correctly, is that if you have no other partners to compare to, then you will never be dissatisfied with your partner, sexually speaking. There will be no jealousy of anyone else and no worries that one isn’t good enough. Correct?

Another argument is that sex is “just” sex unless it is sex within the context of marriage, wherein it becomes “more” than just sex. You further imply that any sex at the age of 16 (presumably without marriage) is “promiscuous” sex.

You label all this as purity. What is the value of purity? Why is it not possible to have sex that is more than “just” sex outside of marriage? Is it possible to treat someone as special even if you have ever met another person in the world?

I dunno. To me, it’s a worthless concept. There are tons of things I haven’t done before, and once I do them, I’ll never be able to (truthfully) say I’m totally new to those things. But no one’s basing my integrity and my value as a person on the fact that I’ve never gone rock climbing before. Virginity is, to me, one of those “who would possibly give a shit?” issues, and the idea of linking purity to it is appalling.

It really didn’t ensure that a woman’s child is the husband’s, in Ye Olden Times. If a woman has sex with a man years before she marries her husband, there’s nothing to worry about, and yet she’s still “ruined”. There’s only a concern if a woman is sleeping with more than one man within a month. It did protect against STDs, though I’m not really sure which STDs they had to worry about (were they fatal? Could they be swapped with blood?). Mostly, they were a way to know if a girl/woman could be controlled – if she could be controlled by her father to remain pure, she’d probably let her new husband control her.

I have absolutely no frikkin idea.

The point? I believe it’s the hymen isn’t it?

It’s about controlling other people’s sexuality, for political and personal domination purposes, by people who have been abused and dominated and then adopted abusive and dominating strategies and orientations towards life.

It is a sick cycle, pathologically dressed up as moral correctness.

From within that sick mindset, though. Imagine you are a man who is afraid of being taken advantage of, perhaps because you were abused as a child, which you may or may not actively remember. You are afraid that there is something wrong with you and that you will choose a woman who will decide to fool you into supporting her and her children (which may or not be yours unless you dominate her) while she reproduces with other men. Out of fear you take the lesson of the people who have abused you in your life, and go along with a pattern of shaming and terrorizing others with the concept that God wants women to be chaste objects to be owned by men, whose sexuality is an evil bad thing. Combine with a religion that has benevolent aspects, and you can twist it so that people will accept the oppressive aspects along with the rest of it.

@ucme In theory, but it’s crazy easy to break that thing before sex, with running, with stretching, with horseback riding, with tampons, with masturbation…

@Aethelflaed Indeed, granny broke hers when she suffered a sneezing fit back in the summer of 79…..gawd bless.

@ucme ‘79? My goodness, she’s a young grandmother…

I didn’t say which century, now did I?

lol

There are not any pointy things in virginity.

I think it is simple the point of whether or not you’ve had sex before. Nothing more. Nothing less. Where the heck do you guys come up with some of these things?

@bkcunningham Ponderers that ponder everything

True story.

I dated my first boyfriend for a year before we did the deed. We stayed together for a whole ‘nother year on top of that. Eventually, being young and filled with raging hormones (and my boyfriend being not terribly satisfying, frankly), I was consumed with the desire to see what other people would be like. So, being in college, pretty much all I had to do was swing a bookbag around and I hit several people willing to help me out. Some of them I took up on this. Some, before I left my boyfriend, some after.

I’m so glad that this happened before I married him, or before I married anyone, really. That young, I wasn’t ready to be married, and since I still am in touch with that first boyfriend, it’s abundantly clear that he would have been a very poor match for me.

Now that I’m married, I’m far more clear on what I want in a partner, and I know my partner is an excellent match for me, in bed and out. We’ve both been with other people and don’t “always wonder what that would have been like,” and are more committed to each other because of it.

The funny thing, and why I bring this up, is because, like @digitalimpression says, “It all seems so very evident to me that it’s the best way.” But it is only the best way, for me. It may not be the best way for you, and it’s clearly not the best way for @digitalimpression. To me, the important thing is that each person is able to decide for him/herself what their own best way is, and be able to follow it.

It’s not a concept; it is a factual state of being for everyone until….....

@wundayatta
“One of your arguments, if I understand it correctly, is that if you have no other partners to compare to, then you will never be dissatisfied with your partner, sexually speaking.”
I never said that you would be sexually gratified beyond your wildest dreams. But perhaps society would be surprised that there is more to sex than how the parts fit together.

“Another argument is that sex is “just” sex unless it is sex within the context of marriage, wherein it becomes “more” than just sex. You further imply that any sex at the age of 16 (presumably without marriage) is “promiscuous” sex.”
I didn’t say that sex is just sex outside of marriage. I only implied that its better inside a pure, mongamous relationship. And sex at the age of 16 is irresponsible and just plain wrong if you ask me. I don’t mean to imply that it is promiscuous, but 16 year olds aren’t even old enough to drink yet. Should it be acceptable to “fool around” then? I don’t think it is old enough. But again, my opinions are largely despised these days, as evidenced every day on fluther.

“You label all this as purity. What is the value of purity?”
I thought I outlined pretty clearly my view of the value of purity.

“Why is it not possible to have sex that is more than “just” sex outside of marriage?”
Repeat question. See above.

“Is it possible to treat someone as special even if you have ever met another person in the world?”
Never met another person? Or never slept with another person? I don’t understand the question.

@Aethelflaed
“the idea of linking purity to it is appalling”
I can’t really justify spending more time to respond to you based on this statement.

@Zaku
“It’s about controlling other people’s sexuality, for political and personal domination purposes, by people who have been abused and dominated and then adopted abusive and dominating strategies and orientations towards life.”
What? Conspiracy theory much?

“It is a sick cycle, pathologically dressed up as moral correctness.”
How so?

“whose sexuality is an evil bad thing”
It isn’t. The bible says pretty plainly that it isn’t. And I only bring up the bible because you brought up God.

@whoever
Looks like another thread where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Some of the things said here are appalling and down right sickening to me.. but apparently purity and the wait-for-marriage idea are just as appalling to some of you. I can’t imagine how it’s sick, twisted, and irresponsible to wait until marriage.. perhaps divorce statistics don’t mean anything after all.

@digitalimpression Then why would you respond that you couldn’t justify spending any more time responding to me? That makes no sense, especially since I didn’t address my comment to you.

@Aethelflaed It’s an appalling perspective. If you were talking solely to someone else, you didn’t specify. I wasn’t aware this was a private thread. I’ll leave you to it then. =)

@digitalimpression I didn’t specify because I wasn’t replying to any one person. I hear several times a week that a woman’s worth is tied to her virginity, and was responding to a very common idea. My statement was that the idea that a woman’s worth, her purity, her integrity, is somehow tied to if she’s had sex or not (and worse, to the status of her hymen) is appalling, especially since I almost never hear the same said about men. Oh, sure, in theory, some say “well, obviously, both should wait” but no one ever shames men or actually lowers their level of respect for a man because he has sex before marriage; after all, “boys will be boys”, and that’s why it’s up to women to be gatekeepers. I didn’t even read most of the comments on this thread before making my statement; don’t know why you think my comment is all about you.

@Aethelflaed So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the point of the concept of virginity is to assign worth to women. Or girls. What kind of worth? Surely not worth as persons. It must be worth as vessels for male seed, no?

Does anyone think it could have something to do with the idea that the first time is somehow extra-special?

@wundayatta Well, I think exactly what the point is changes with time and place. Right now, yeah, worth as persons, worth as sub-persons, worth as vessels for male seed, worth as a wife, worth as properly for men and not for themselves.

Maybe, but I don’t understand why the first time has to be so extra-special. We don’t put all the extra emphasis on other first experiences being extra-special, and in terms of satisfaction, the first time for having sex very rarely is particularly good, much less extra-special.

I think it can be extra special for the guy. For the girl it hurts like holyfreakinghell.

I know some guys in colleges who “collect” virgins and get their kicks buttering up the girls, getting them in love, popping cherries then dumping them. Sick bastards, IMO, not because they’re breaking virginities, but who the heck would enjoy getting their jollies off hurting naive girls emotionally and physically?

Guys like that exist because the value of virginity exists. If there was no value on virginity that these young girls clung to, then those guys wouldn’t have the thrill of the “forbidden fruit.” Just my opinion.

I still think it is predominantly a matter of men controlling women and viewing them as their personal property.

When talking to the average man around where I live (I cannot speak to women), the response often is along one of the following two lines:

“I have to protect my….. from these evil men.” or
“would you like to have your dinner after someone else spit in it?”

And no… in general male virginity seems not so important. Men can have multiple wives here, but each of them need to be virgin. When i lived in Europe, i also felt that promiscuous men were looked at in a far more forgiving way than promiscuous women.

… There’s just something about driving a brand new car.

@majorrich Yeah, but, women aren’t cars, they’re autonomous people…

@Zaku wrote:
“It’s about controlling other people’s sexuality, for political and personal domination purposes, by people who have been abused and dominated and then adopted abusive and dominating strategies and orientations towards life.”
@digitalimpression asked: What? Conspiracy theory much?

Zaku answers: No, it’s just a common conclusion of people who study oppression theory, or feminist theory. I’m just being straightforward.

@Zaku wrote: “It is a sick cycle, pathologically dressed up as moral correctness.”
@digitalimpression asked: How so?

Zaku answers: Well, at least 60% of US females are sexually abused by the time they are 18. Many of the boys get molested too. When humans are severely traumatized, especially at a young age and particularly when by their own parents, they do what they need to to survive, which is generally to forget, dissociate, and rationalize. Many abuse victims end up becoming abusers out of their untreated abuse, creating more victims and abusers. Now, even one abuser or abuse victim causes all kinds of chaos and reactions around them. Even people who have not been abused, grow up with abusers and victims as peers, most of whom are not talking about it because our culture has a strong taboo about even talking about sexual abuse, and because it also tends to stigmatize or even blame the victims. There is enough of this culture of abuse that the rest of the culture is strongly influenced, and so we have somewhat milder forms in men fearing abandonment and finding it convenient to use the existing abundance of cultural shame about sexuality to convince women they should be ashamed of their sexuality and blame each other and themselves for it, which in turn creates resentment, which fuels that part of the cycle. Resentful and projecting people have used this to attack and control people since even before Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire, but Christianity became a tool of all levels of politics after that, providing a moral code that combines many wise and benevolent messages (e.g. Jesus talking about love) with threats of eternal damnation from an all-knowing judgemntal intelligence that demands obedience (e.g. Old Testament).

It depends on who you would ask. Not every person who is a virgin remains so for religious reasons, though I’m sure that is a part of it for some. I was a member of a Conservative Christian forum that was a Q&A site similar to this, but it was also a dating site, and the majority of the women on there did not want a virgin for a partner (coming from their own words). The men however were more open to consider dating a virgin. Obviously (at least from what I’ve seen both on and offline) even many conservative religionists do not hold virginity in high regards today.

Personally I don’t see any special status with virginity, outside of the fact that it is a rather rare thing today. In a day and age where it is not only considered popular, normal and positive to be sexually promiscuous, but it is to be expected. It is actually the concept of virginity that seems to be attacked and looked down upon today, especially if you havn’t done the deed by a certain age. Like I’ve said above religion is not the only reason why some people choose to be virgins today. Sexual promiscuity seems to be the bigger concept that most people (including many conservative religionists) seem to accept today, not virginity.

@Paradox25 You seem to describe an either/or situation where one is either a virgin or is promiscuous. Most people, including teen and young adults, are more interested in healthy sexual activity, not promiscuity. There is a big difference, and most people recognize being promiscuous as being emotionally unhealthy.

@zenvelo That wasn’t the most important point of my post. What I emphasized is that the concept of virginity is not important today for most people, and is even looked down upon. There is no real concept of virginity today, except maybe in some people’s minds. Being sexually active, whether it is done in a responsible way or not, is probably considered to be a more important aspect today in most people’s lives than remaining a virgin for whatever reasons. As to try to answer the other part of this question I’m not sure why some people seem concerned whether one is a virgin or not, but regardless this concern is more likely to present virginity in a negative light rather than a positive one.