Obsession with Virginity - Female Sexual and Bodily Freedom

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Currently, there is a picture from R/Atheism on Reddit's frontpage...

image

...and there is an interesting discussion in the comments:

Atlas6:
Virginity is a concept recognized in multiple cultures regardless of religious affiliation because in the old days, there weren't such things as paternity tests so a woman's virginity was the only way a man could assure that the son they had was their own and could therefore could be certain that someone of his bloodline was receiving his inheritance. Virginity isn't a modern concept thought up in western society to make men dominate over women. Yes, some people do think this way here and now, but that's not why virginity and purity of women became a thing.

Linneaaa:
But... arranging society so that men's "investment" or inheritance isn't lost to other than "their own" obviously compromises womens sexual and bodily freedom. There is no way to get away from that. No matter the intention, the purity concept has very real (and negative) consequences for the child bearing half of the population...

Gunslingermomo:
There is biological significance to the fact that men who reproduce with less promiscuous women are more reproductively successful. Period. Draw your own conclusions. Here's mine. Women know that not being promiscuous is valued, therefore they try to maintain that image. Men try to project valued qualities also. Yes, when religion and government dictate what a person can and can't do it restricts freedom, which is why the post is in r/atheism; but the reason the top comment criticizes the meme is that it purports purity being irrelevant and purely religious ideology when it has valid importance.

I don't think it's bad to be "obsessed" with virginity - I do think it's bad to solely be obsessed with female virginity.

I've had sex with only one person - my current partner, and it holds true for her as well. I think that's great. I wouldn't really mind if a new partner was not a virgin, but I would like it if she had only had sex in long-term-relationships. I would not want a partner that has had sex with loads of different partners (one-night-stands etc.).

This is kind of limiting female sexual freedom - but it should limit male sexual activity as well. And I won't call you an immoral slut if you have sex with many people - but I won't like it.

TL;DR: I'm not really obsessed with virginity, but I'd like people to have sex in long-term-relationships as much as possible. That's what I'll teach my children and that's how I select my partners. I think this behavior is based on "biological" instead of cultural values.

So, what do you think about virginity and how society deals with it?

Danyal:

So, what do you think about virginity and how society deals with it?

The pic may be unfair. For all we know, the term "slut" was not created by men any more than "scab" was created by management.

I can think of one other reasons for sex difference on virginity might be the value of experience. A man with experience is likely better in bed than one without. A virgin girl still retains qualities of not having to worry that someone else got her pregnant first, but is still a lot of fun in the other ways. But an experienced girl is likely better than one without. Like the good bad song goes, "virgin good, slut... gooood!!!"

Doesn't really matter, since personal preferences concerning only one's own choices are beyond criticism.

If somebody refuses to be in a relationship with anybody who isn't a virgin, such choice need no justification - logical or moral - as it concerns only themselves. Nor would finding people unattractive as partners due to their looks, race, religion, or gender... the latter in particular being rather common.

So long as the state does not discriminate people based on whether or not they're virgins, its citizens may of course assign it whatever meaning they'd like to, certainly when deciding on partners.

You have to remember that it works both ways. Men that are virgins are not considered to be "Men" just because they haven't given into there own personal lust. Many feminists will argue your point while conveniently ignoring this one, apparently the only use for a "sexually repressed" male is in the church teaching others how to also be "sexually repressed".

The problem here is that the concept of virginity was really up-played in the victorian era and then later in the post-war decades (1945-1965 roughly) and lots of anthropological studies, especially from the victorian era, tended to specifically look for any and all co-incidental evidence that virginity was an "exalted" concept all around the world while readily ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

It is well worth noting that we just don't know how important virginity has been for most of recorded history, prior to the medieval era we don't have many sources discussing it at all in Europe and outside of Europe, especially in the american and african cultures, there are no sources at all.

We do know however that for the vast majority of people in Europe, it has never been that big of a deal. It was far more important just to get married, as to increase the material wealth and workforce of the household. In fact, recent studies in Sweden suggests that as many as 80% of widows in the peasant population re-married in the 18th and first half of the 19th century. Sources even suggest that a widow was a good catch, because not only did you know if she was fertile (something you never know with a virgin) but you also knew that she had experience taking care of a household.

So arguably, virginity and "purity of genes" seems to have been pretty secondary to the every day toils of the peasant. In fact, not even nobility seems to have been that obsessed with virginity, considering that widows of higher status had no shortage of men trying to become their husband and they certainly didn't seem to care much for the multitude of children they spawned with their mistresses and prostitutes.

Like so many other things, this whole "genetical purity" thing seems to be a false cause fallacy created by the "evo psych"-crowd (in this case I am referring to the pop-culture version, not the supposedly scientific version) to explain why it really is alright to infringe on a female's right to her own sexuality and body because "that's how nature made us".

There are some very sound practical reasons to keep it in your pants. In an age before welfare family and community groups had to carefully balance breadwinners and dependent. After all, the past lacked many of the things we take for granted such as stability, food security and easy access to contraception. This needs to be understood when evaluating past societies. In any case, our knowledge of day to day life for the majority of people is understood only in it's most basic terms.

Statements like this are all to easily twisted and deprived of context and twisted into political agendas than a realistic attempt to understand social concepts.

Gethsemani:
It is well worth noting that we just don't know how important virginity has been for most of recorded history, prior to the medieval era we don't have many sources discussing it at all in Europe and outside of Europe, especially in the american and african cultures, there are no sources at all.

We do know however that for the vast majority of people in Europe, it has never been that big of a deal.

While I do study history, I'm not an expert on the "history of virginity". But I do think your post is overly optimistic about the past/non-western countries. Two arguments...

1. Female Genital Mutilation.

The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among migrants from these areas.

FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

I've studied FGM and "women in Islam", and the virginity of those women was an important recurring theme, expressed in for example FGM. FGM is actually older than Islam - it has been practiced for thousands of years. It's now linked to protecting virginity, and it has probably always been.

2. I've read about the history of the region where I live and it seemed like contact between boys and girls was frowned upon. Doesn't really sound like "losing your virginity is not really a big deal".

To quote a flatmate of mine from many years back: "You're not a real man until you've deflowered your first virgin". Although he was joking - I think.

* * *

Danyal:
I wouldn't really mind if a new partner was not a virgin

So you'd mind a bit, then. Why is that?

I'm not really obsessed with virginity...

Just somewhat concerned.

...but I'd like people to have sex in long-term-relationships as much as possible. That's what I'll teach my children and that's how I select my partners. I think this behavior is based on "biological" instead of cultural values.

And why do you think it is biological? Why do want to think it is biological?

The obsession is very weird, yes.

I'd say its particularly strange in that you have the obsession with female purity, but also with sexuality. Women and girls have to be sexy, while at the same time not sexual.

Agema:

Danyal:
I wouldn't really mind if a new partner was not a virgin

So you'd mind a bit, then. Why is that?

I think it's kind of special when you're "the only one" for your partner. Very crude comparison - I prefer new products above second-hand products, even if the second-hand product doesn't have any notable damage/"wear and tear". You probably don't want your partner to be physically intimate with others - if the same hasn't happened even before your current relationship, isn't that positive?

Agema:

I'm not really obsessed with virginity...

Just somewhat concerned.

Yes.

Agema:

...but I'd like people to have sex in long-term-relationships as much as possible. That's what I'll teach my children and that's how I select my partners. I think this behavior is based on "biological" instead of cultural values.

And why do you think it is biological? Why do want to think it is biological?

"Jealousy" and "I don't want my partner to have sex with others" seem to be rather universal emotions - they're not cultural quirks. Evolution is based on procreation, and it seems to make a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective to want your partner to procreate with you, not with others.

thaluikhain:
I'd say its particularly strange in that you have the obsession with female purity, but also with sexuality. Women and girls have to be sexy, while at the same time not sexual.

Just as with Agema - this is a very crude comparison, but it seems to make sense if you think about in term of "market mechanisms". You want hamburgers (women) to be as cheap ("sexy") as possible, but at the same time, you don't want your own hamburgers (partner/daughter) to be cheap...

Danyal:
I think it's kind of special when you're "the only one" for your partner. Very crude comparison - I prefer new products above second-hand products, even if the second-hand product doesn't have any notable damage/"wear and tear". You probably don't want your partner to be physically intimate with others - if the same hasn't happened even before your current relationship, isn't that positive?

Danyal:
Just as with Agema - this is a very crude comparison, but it seems to make sense if you think about in term of "market mechanisms". You want hamburgers (women) to be as cheap ("sexy") as possible, but at the same time, you don't want your own hamburgers (partner/daughter) to be cheap...

Crude analogies, and I don't like that sort of reasoning, but it doesn't seem unlikely.

Danyal:

"Jealousy" and "I don't want my partner to have sex with others" seem to be rather universal emotions - they're not cultural quirks.

It's funny, we were literally just looking at this today in social anthropology. Partnering customs are far from universal. The only thing they have in common (although they do all have this in common) is an aversion to incestuous relations.

Monogamy is not biological.

I'd say I care even less about virginity than you do. The thought never even occurs to me.

Danny Ocean:
It's funny, we were literally just looking at this today in social anthropology. Partnering customs are far from universal.

Not everyone is homosexual, yet we're not claiming that homosexual is "just a choice" and that "gay culture can make you gay".

Danny Ocean:
The only thing they have in common (although they do all have this in common) is an aversion to incestuous relations.

Yet it's common to marry your cousin in many Islamic countries.

Danny Ocean:
Monogamy is not biological.

People agreeing not to have sex with others while in a relationship, and people becoming jealous when their partner breaks this rule or when they get "too close" to others - that's all cultural?

Danyal:

Not everyone is homosexual, yet we're not claiming that homosexual is "just a choice" and that "gay culture can make you gay".

Eh? How does this relate to what I said?

Danny Ocean:

Yet it's common to marry your cousin in many Islamic countries.

Cousins are not so closely related as to be regarded as incest.

Parent-child and sibling-sibling relations are pretty much universally taboo.

Danny Ocean:

People agreeing not to have sex with others while in a relationship, and people becoming jealous when their partner breaks this rule or when they get "too close" to others - that's all cultural?

Not entirely so, but mostly yes. It's very pervasive but not universal.

You should look into anthropology by the way, I think you'd find it really interesting.

Danyal:

"Jealousy" and "I don't want my partner to have sex with others" seem to be rather universal emotions - they're not cultural quirks. Evolution is based on procreation, and it seems to make a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective to want your partner to procreate with you, not with others.

Whilst this explains why one might want one's partner to not be promiscuous, it does not explain why one should not be promiscuous oneself.

The classic model of promiscuity goes back to (if I recall rightly) the "Bateman model" in Drosophila, which suggests females should be careful about partners and males should spread their oats far and wide. One might look at the behaviour of any number of human individuals or cultural paradigms and see a corresponding disparity between what is expected from partners, and from themselves. Of course, subsequent research has shown the Bateman model over-simplistic to explain much sexual behaviour, particularly with relation to primates.

We might introduce a lot of other factors. A female may happily have progeny with different fathers - just so long as some male is there to act as a co-carer. In line with this, males would quite happily prefer to play cuckoo and lay eggs in other birds' nests. There are more, but...

We could skip other analyses and say that there are very obviously many different strategies employed for reproductive success and attitudes towards promiscuity in humans. This is true also within closely related kin who shares the same genes. Evolution has clearly not "selected out" these things, nor is it likely they are genetic. One may defend lots of behaviours with relation to some biological reason, but when there are a panoply of different behaviours also biologically reasonable, I'm not sure exactly what the point is of trying to argue one's preference is biological, as it has no privileged justification.

Just as with Agema - this is a very crude comparison, but it seems to make sense if you think about in term of "market mechanisms". You want hamburgers (women) to be as cheap ("sexy") as possible, but at the same time, you don't want your own hamburgers (partner/daughter) to be cheap...

Are wooing and keeping a partner or raising a daughter "market mechanisms"? Surely not!

That specific example also fails: someone buys a hamburger to eat it. There is no benefit to the existence of cheap (i.e. low-quality) hamburgers if an expensive (high quality) one is desired. I'd stick to the second-hand clothing analogy. Although your girlfriend might not appreciate being compared to an item of clothing ;)

Danyal:

While I do study history, I'm not an expert on the "history of virginity". But I do think your post is overly optimistic about the past/non-western countries. Two arguments...

1. Female Genital Mutilation.

[...]

I've studied FGM and "women in Islam", and the virginity of those women was an important recurring theme, expressed in for example FGM. FGM is actually older than Islam - it has been practiced for thousands of years. It's now linked to protecting virginity, and it has probably always been.

2. I've read about the history of the region where I live and it seemed like contact between boys and girls was frowned upon. Doesn't really sound like "losing your virginity is not really a big deal".

1. The problem here is the classical source problem of Africa. We know what the arabs (who moved in and conquered parts of Africa) wrote about FGM, but they are relative late comers (coming in first after the fall of West Rome) and there are no written sources from before their arrival. We think FMG has a history that stretches back thousands of years, but there is really no way to prove it and it is also not practiced by all of the ethnicities present in the areas were it do occur. Hence, we can't really know what took place in Africa prior to the arabs coming there or what happened in the areas where the arabs didn't bother going or writing about.

2. I am not saying it just warranted a shrug, I am saying that its' importance was heavily up-played during the Victorian era. Obviously, keeping boys and girls apart is a "good idea" in a subsistence society, since keeping them apart means one less mouth to feed until such a time as the parents are living together and can care for their own children. Just because casual sex was frowned upon, that does not magically equate to virginity being a big deal.

Agema:
To quote a flatmate of mine from many years back: "You're not a real man until you've deflowered your first virgin". Although he was joking - I think.

* * *

Ugh, I hope he was.

Agema:
So you'd mind a bit, then. Why is that?

I'll just answer this too since I'm in a simular position regarding virginity. My problem is I'm a very fucking jealous guy. I dunno if its by nature, or a consequence of various things happened around and to me while growing up, but I'm jealous to the point where thinking about my girlfriend having lost her virginity before she met me makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.

If I had to guess I'd say its a mix of trust issues, biological traits and just the way society regards virginity and sexuality. (Something that is bound to influence you greatly.)

I will say I'm sensible enough to dismiss these feelings as best I can, and I absolutely despise the attitude a lot of people around my age have right now. (Not a virgin? Not relationship material, whore, etc.) But theres my 2 cents.

I could care less if someone is a virgin or even how much sex they have. A lot of people like me just veiw sex as a thing you can do in your free time and don't put all the extra relationship fluff with it.

I think people need to stop thinking about sex in such a taboo way. It all seems so prudish to me.

The obsession with female virginity is dumb and often hypocritical.
If you are a virgin seeking another virgin, fine.
If you aren't and you insist that your partner is, you are a hypocrite.

Virginity is not important at all to me. I wasn't a virgin when I met my boyfriend, and nor was he. People come with a past and that's perfectly normal.
Some people may be jealous but the key is to deal with those emotions, not exclusively to seek virgins.

Hymen-obsessed dudes are just plain creepy, imo.
Besides, most active ladies will break theirs anyway during normal activities such as riding a bike.

Want obsession?
In Iran, and Saudi Arabia they rape women on death row before their execution in order to prevent them going to heaven(since they for some reason think that if you die a virgin you go to heaven, that explains why every suicide bomber can get 70 virgins, but sadly it also makes it rather likely that they are of the wrong sex ;))

There's an obsession with male virginity as well, it just comes from the opposite direction.

There's an entire literary trope built around it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AManIsNotAVirgin

Strangely enough, the female trope about virgins being better: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NatureAdoresAVirgin is far less filled then the trope about http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyGirlIsASlut

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadonnaWhoreComplex is also a pretty big thing towards the topic.

Mind you these are A: Uncredited and B: literary tropes but they're an interesting jumping off point for research for yourself.

While there certainly are religious reasons for obsessions with virgins, I feel when I observe that part of the sexual freedom movement for men and women is less 'because it's good for society' and more 'because it's anti-religious/traditional'. There are certainly good arguments for it, or at least arguments completely unrelated to rejection of traditionalism or rejection of religion, but I find many tend to be rooted in that area. They so we can't so we must, sort of attitude.

To sum up my society: A man is not a virgin, a woman is not a slut. It's unfair and stupid but there you have it. Although the latter view seems to be changing, the former view remains steady as always, unfortunately.

For me personally? Virginity is largely a non-issue. One, having sex with a virgin seems icky as all hell, but if I care about my partner and she desires that then I can get over it. And two, if they aren't a virgin, while in today's modern society with all the STD's around I'd really like to know how promiscuous a partner was. Below, as much as I sound like a naive person, I know relationships end. I'm actually quite cynical when it comes to love while at the same time being a starry eyed idealist. And if my potential partner has something that I WILL catch if I have relations with them, I have to think about context. Yes, I can make that sacrifice to be with that partner, but how will the partner feel about me tomorrow? Getting infected with something like that tends to be a life-time deal. Is the relationship going to be one?

On a relationship level, I've only had one partner and we broke up several years ago. But during the time I was with her, despite many many offers from other women, I never had any desire to hook up with anyone else. The idea of cheating on either partners side within my own relationship strikes at the core of my very being. If either one of us did it, it'd be over, for me. That being said, over the years I've accepted that OTHER couples, if they talk about it and are honest about it and most importantly agree to it, they can live the lifestyle they so choose; that being said, even now (I'm still single) I would not assist a woman in cheating on her husband/boyfriend. Nor do I have the capacity of pulling a 'one night stand'. It's another thing that I just can't wrap my head around, having sex with someone once for physical release without any real emotional attachment. Even having sex period without emotional attachment just makes my head hurt.

The thing is, I was raised in a very secular household. God was only mentioned in blasphemies (Oh my god!) and God dammit!), not until I was in high school and my mother and I would discuss philosophy or politics. My father doesn't give a damn about religion anymore and my mother rejected the catholic church shortly before her excommunication. So it's not like these values were pushed into my head by 'religious parents brainwashing their children into believing iron age myths'.

There are a lot of double standards both ways, and at the absolute heart of the issue, people just need to get over themselves and let others fuck whoever they want. I'll still think badly of someone if they make bad decisions (getting drunk out of their mind and fucking three guys in a night), but if they're entirely sober and make the decision in an informed way then I wouldn't care at all.

Also, I'm going to say that Twilight is pretty much a perfect example of society's fucked up attitudes to virginity, and the various double standards. And if you'll now excuse me, I'm going to go kill myself for giving Twilight credit for being anything other than a piece of poorly written crap.

Esotera:

Also, I'm going to say that Twilight is pretty much a perfect example of society's fucked up attitudes to virginity, and the various double standards. And if you'll now excuse me, I'm going to go kill myself for giving Twilight credit for being anything other than a piece of poorly written crap.

I am not sure you are giving Twilight "credit" by pointing out that it features a terrible amount of double-standard in terms of gender and manages to glorify just about everything that the equality movement has been fighting against in the last 30 years. The problem is that Stephanie Mayers didn't write a satire, she was being dead serious when she wrote it. To think that an entire generation of young women (and men, who sadly have to filled the shoes of "victorian gentleman" Edward) will grow up reading that and potentially thinking it all sounds like a good idea.

Agema:
To quote a flatmate of mine from many years back: "You're not a real man until you've deflowered your first virgin". Although he was joking - I think.

Actually, that's something I've been thinking - is it weird that I actually really don't want to have sex with virgins? I'd be worried about not making it special enough, or of hurting them.

Not that someone who hasn't had sex will inevitably be a delicate little flower (baaaad choice of words there) about the deed, but it feels like it could be a little more likely to cause hurt than doing it with someone who has.

thaluikhain:
The obsession is very weird, yes.

I'd say its particularly strange in that you have the obsession with female purity, but also with sexuality. Women and girls have to be sexy, while at the same time not sexual.

The strangest combination of this I have seen is in American and European gypsies. There were those shows not long ago "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" (and its American cousin) that showed a bit of the gypsy culture, and it was very...strange. The women dress very promiscuously, even to church and their own weddings, beyond what even reveling sorority girls I've known would call "slutty." However, as you said, they are not really supposed to be sexual, or express their sexuality. A woman's virginity is much more valued than a man's, and they will say straight out that it's the man who should be in charge on that wedding night. As one roughly put it, "If the woman is showing you things on your wedding night...then that's not good." Men are allowed to "know" things about sex, but women and girls are to be kept in the dark until their wedding night.

And even everyday society has this as well, what with hypersexualization in media but a strict aversion to nudity in real people (though from what I hear this problem is more of an American thing than anything else). It very much makes me think of this comic:

image

So...yeah. Society is strange. Women are to be sexy but not sexual, and male breasts are perfectly acceptable while female breasts are tools of the devil for inspiring innocent children to hump like bunnies at the very sight of them.

Since I don't have much sexual experience with women, I don't think I could care less either way. It probably would be better if a woman I was having sex with wasn't a virgin, since she could guide me through and I might escape the awkwardness of her bleeding out on the sheets.

Sometimes I wish I lived in a culture where the obsession was with male virginity (as such cultures assuredly existed).

As for the actual topic at hand, I usually question evo-psych, and this is yet another one of those places where history just does not agree. There were societies where women had multiple partners, there is little proof that our obsession with female virginity is anything approaching universal. Sibling and parental incest taboos is literally the only known universal regarding sex partners, likely due to role confusion before any kind of biological drive.

Revnak:
Sometimes I wish I lived in a culture where the obsession was with male virginity (as such cultures assuredly existed).

Oh but there is an obsession with male virginity. Just in the opposite direction. You can hear the laughing a lot coming from macho guys towards "virgings" BUT i've also heard women say "i wouldn't want to go out with a guy with less experience than me".
Maybe that's also part of the male obsession with female virginity, the fact they don't want to be the one with less experience or something?

With me it's just a matter of health. the less sexual intercourse (or to be precise with the least possible different partners) a women has the lower the odds she has an STD.

Danyal:

So, what do you think about virginity and how society deals with it?

I think your post is one sided. Are women encouraged to sleep with few men? Yes, and they are generally looked down upon by society. However, the flip side is that if a guy doesn't have sex with multiple women or isn't sexually active, generally he is also looked down upon.

This is to say, if a women has "too much" sex she is called a slut, and if a man doesn't have "enough" sex his sexuality is called into question. Neither situation is ideal when you think about it.

Gethsemani:
Sweden

This is somewhat on topic, but I'm curious about something. What does modern Sweden think about virginity? I mean is it a big deal with Sweds if girls have multiple partners or if guys are not active is sex?Do women face slut shaming or do guys face virginity bashing?

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Germany

Same question to you about virginity. What does modern Germany think about virginity? Do Germans care if a guy doesn't have a lot of sex or if a girl does have a lot of sex? Do guys get shit for being virgins or do girls get shit for having sex with lots of guys. Bonus question, I heard that Bavaria is quite conservative, do you know if they view virginity differently from the rest of the country.

Probably slightly off-topic but am I the only one wondering how exactly they found out that this concept was invented by men?

And if, as seems likely, they didn't actually find this out why exactly they're, despite their best intentions, introducing yet more bullshit into a discussion that already has so much bullshit going around...

As far as I'm concerned the facts are pretty simple. In an age of modern medicine, STD tests and condoms there's simply no benefit to assigning any value to virginity beyond personal emotions, which should be kept personal and not imposed upon others.

If you assign any value to virginity, be it positive or negative, that's fine. But keep it to yourself and your partner, how the rest of the world deals with it is wholly up to them.

There are very sound reasons for wanting to be with a virgin. Evolutionarily and psychologically.

It's obvious with evolution. Being with a female virgin makes you certain you're going to be the one "planting your seed" as it were. Thus, terribly important to any biological species.

It's less obvious with psychology, but that still has a lot to do with biology as well. You see, when a person feels an orgasm, the mind releases chemicals that are linked to trust and bonding. The more partners a person has had, the more likely they've bonded with another person. The more times that bonding is felt and the more partners it's felt with decreases the actual hold that bond makes.

I've heard someone liken it to "sticky tape." The first time you bond it with a surface, it holds pretty well. The second time, not anywhere near so well. After that, it'll just fall right off. An example of this can be found here:

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

The Article:
A soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.

That's down from as high as 75%. Rather significant fall for a single other partner.

Full disclosure: I'm a male virgin who is not ashamed of his virginity. I might actually feel some slight amount of pride in my virginity had there ever been a time when it was actually tested.

Revnak:
Sometimes I wish I lived in a culture where the obsession was with male virginity (as such cultures assuredly existed).

As for the actual topic at hand, I usually question evo-psych, and this is yet another one of those places where history just does not agree. There were societies where women had multiple partners, there is little proof that our obsession with female virginity is anything approaching universal. Sibling and parental incest taboos is literally the only known universal regarding sex partners, likely due to role confusion before any kind of biological drive.

See my above post which talks about this.

tl;dr version:

Western society is obsessed with male virginity as much as female virginity, but it's obsessed in the opposite direction.

The post above is much more thorough.

Helmholtz Watson:
This is somewhat on topic, but I'm curious about something. What does modern Sweden think about virginity? I mean is it a big deal with Sweds if girls have multiple partners or if guys are not active is sex?Do women face slut shaming or do guys face virginity bashing?[quote="SmashLovesTitanQuest"

I can't speak much for the teenagers, but in my generation (the 18-35 year old crowd) sexual promiscuity isn't that big of a deal today. Sweden has had a very active organization (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning. Rougly meaning "National organization for sexual education") promoting the ideas of safe and enjoyable sex as well as trying to normalize the idea that all people prefer their sex differently and nothing is wrong with that.

Of course, you'll still run into parts of the population that think men has to have been with at least as many girls as his age and that any girl who has ever had one one-night stand is a slut (and the other way around, for that matter) but they are a clear minority. All in all, sex in Sweden has pretty much become something that everyone accepts that most people do. We are still shy as hell when it comes to talking about sex, but we don't mind people getting it on.

Gethsemani:

Helmholtz Watson:
This is somewhat on topic, but I'm curious about something. What does modern Sweden think about virginity? I mean is it a big deal with Sweds if girls have multiple partners or if guys are not active is sex?Do women face slut shaming or do guys face virginity bashing?[quote="SmashLovesTitanQuest"

I can't speak much for the teenagers, but in my generation (the 18-35 year old crowd) sexual promiscuity isn't that big of a deal today. Sweden has had a very active organization (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning. Rougly meaning "National organization for sexual education") promoting the ideas of safe and enjoyable sex as well as trying to normalize the idea that all people prefer their sex differently and nothing is wrong with that.

Of course, you'll still run into parts of the population that think men has to have been with at least as many girls as his age and that any girl who has ever had one one-night stand is a slut (and the other way around, for that matter) but they are a clear minority. All in all, sex in Sweden has pretty much become something that everyone accepts that most people do. We are still shy as hell when it comes to talking about sex, but we don't mind people getting it on.

What about virgin shaming though? Do people get harassed or made fun of if they wait till marriage?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked