REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 210

Virginity Fetish: How Our Obsession With "Sexual Purity" Hurts Women

Boys are taught that the things that make them good are universally accepted ethical ideals; women are told our worth lies between our legs.
May 4, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women by Jessica Valenti, published by Seal Press, 2009.

There is a moral panic in America over young women's sexuality -- and it's entirely misplaced. Girls "going wild" aren't damaging a generation of women, the myth of sexual purity is. The lie of virginity -- the idea that such a thing even exists -- is ensuring that young women's perception of themselves is inextricable from their bodies, and that their ability to be moral actors is absolutely dependent on their sexuality. It's time to teach our daughters that their ability to be good people depends on their being good people, not on whether or not they're sexually active.

A combination of forces -- our media- and society-driven virginity fetish, an increase in abstinence-only education, and the strategic political rollback of women's rights among the primary culprits -- has created a juggernaut of unrealistic sexual expectations for young women. Unable to live up to the ideal of purity that's forced upon them in one aspect of their lives, many young women are choosing the hypersexualized alternative that's offered to them everywhere else as the easier -- and more attractive -- option.

More than 1,400 purity balls, where young girls pledge their virginity to their fathers at a promlike event, were held in 2006 (the balls are federally funded).1 Facebook is peppered with purity groups that exist to support girls trying to "save it." Schools hold abstinence rallies and assemblies featuring hip-hop dancers and comedians alongside religious leaders. Virginity and chastity are reemerging as a trend in pop culture, in our schools, in the media, and even in legislation. So while young women are subject to overt sexual messages every day, they're simultaneously being taught -- by the people who are supposed to care for their personal and moral development, no less -- that their only real worth is their virginity and ability to remain "pure."

So what are young women left with? Abstinence-only education during the day and Girls Gone Wild commercials at night! Whether it's delivered through a virginity pledge or by a barely dressed tween pop singer writhing across the television screen, the message is the same: A woman's worth lies in her ability -- or her refusal -- to be sexual. And we're teaching American girls that, one way or another, their bodies and their sexuality are what make them valuable. The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women.

The Purity Myth is something I've been thinking about for a long time. When I lost my virginity as a high school freshman, I didn't understand why I didn't feel changed somehow. Wasn't this supposed to be, like, a big deal? Later, in college, as I'd listen to male friends deride their sexual partners as sluts and whores, I struggled to comprehend how intercourse could mean one thing for men and quite another for women. I knew that logically, nothing about sex could make a girl "dirty," but I found it incredibly frustrating that my certainty about this seemed to be lost on my male peers. And as I talked to my queer friends, whose sexual experiences were often dismissed because they didn't fit into the heterosexual model, I started to realize how useless "virginity" really was.

I started to see the myth of sexual purity everywhere -- though in the work I do as a feminist blogger and writer, it wasn't exactly hard to find. Whether it appears in a story about a man killing his girlfriend while calling her a whore or in trying to battle conservative claims that emergency contraception or the HPV vaccine will make girls promiscuous, the purity myth in America underlies more misogyny than most people would like to admit.

And while the definition of "virginity" is fairly abstract (as you'll see in Chapter 1), its consequences for young women are not. And that's why I wanted, and needed, to write this book. The Purity Myth is for women who are suffering every day because of the lie that virginity exists, and that it has some bearing on who we are and how good we are. Consider the implications virginity has on the high school girl who is cruelly labeled a slut after an innocuous makeout session; the woman from a background so religiously conservative that she opts to have her hymen surgically reattached rather than suffer the consequences of a nonbloody bedsheet on her wedding night; or the rape survivor who's dismissed or even faulted because she dared to have past consensual sexual encounters.

My reasons for wanting to write this book aren't entirely altruistic, however. I was once that teenage girl struggling with the meaning behind my sexuality, and how my own virginity, or lack thereof, reflected whether or not I was a good person. I was the cruelly labeled slut, the burgeoning feminist who knew that something was wrong with a world that could peg me as a bad person for sleeping with a high school boyfriend while ignoring my good heart, sense of humor, and intelligence. Didn't the intricacies of my character count for anything? The answer, unfortunately, was no, they didn't. It was a hard lesson to learn, and one that too many young women are dealing with nationwide.

Understanding the Myth

On Love Matters, a pro-life, pro-abstinence website, pictures of smiling young women who are "saving themselves" are featured next to quotes about virginity and marriage. Kimberly Gloudemans, Miss California Teen USA 1997, beams under her brunette coiffed hair and a rhinestone tiara. Next to her picture, the caption reads, "It's been echoed to teens over and over again . . . we have no morals, no dreams, and no future. But I know I am not a part of that same generation. In fact, millions of teenagers are finding out the same thing about themselves. . . . We have morals and are standing up for what we believe in. . . . Because of that I am saving sex for marriage."

I've always found the idea of "saving" your virginity intriguing: It's not as if we're packing our Saran-wrapped hymens away in the freezer, after all, or pasting them in scrapbooks (admittedly, not the best visual -- my apologies). But packed-away virginities aside, the interesting -- and dangerous -- idea at play here is that of "morality." When young women are taught about morality, there's not often talk of compassion, kindness, courage, or integrity. There is, however, a lot of talk about hymens (though the preferred words are undoubtedly more refined -- think "virginity" and "chastity"): if we have them, when we'll lose them, and under what circumstances we'll be rid of them.

While boys are taught that the things that make them men -- good men -- are universally accepted ethical ideals, women are led to believe that our moral compass lies somewhere between our legs. Literally. Whether it's the determining factor in our "cleanliness" and "purity" or the marker of our character, virginity has an increasingly dangerous hold over young women. It affects not only our ability to see ourselves as ethical actors outside of our own bodies, but also how the world interacts with us through social mores, laws, and even violence.

Pure Consequences

Women are pushing themselves and punishing themselves every day in order to fit into the narrow model of morality that virginity has afforded them. Some of us get unnecessary plastic surgery -- down to our vaginas, which can be tightened, clipped, and "revirginized" -- in order to seem younger. Others simply buy into old-school gender norms of ownership, dependence, and perpetual girlhood.

And don't be mistaken about the underlying motivations of our moral panic around the hypersexualization of young women. It's more about chastity than about promiscuity. T-shirts sold in teen catalogs with I'm tight like Spandex emblazoned across the front aren't announcing sexiness; they're announcing virginity. The same is true for "sexy schoolgirl" costumes or provocative pictures of Disney teen pop singers. By fetishizing youth and virginity, we're supporting a disturbing message: that really sexy women aren't women at all -- they're girls.

If we're to truly understand the purity myth, we have to recognize that this modernized virgin/whore dichotomy is not only leading young women to damage themselves by internalizing the double standard, but also contributing to a social and political climate that is increasingly antagonistic to women and our rights.

Virginity fetishism has even made its way into politics and legislation. In 2007, Republican South Dakota representative Bill Napoli described his support for a ban on abortion that allowed no exceptions for rape or incest by relaying a (quite vivid) scenario to a reporter. He explained under what circumstances the procedure might be warranted: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated."2

I found this moment so telling: Napoli couldn't help but let his misogyny and paternalism seep into his abortion sound bite, because, to him and to so many other men (and other legislators, for that matter), there's no separating virginity, violence, and control over women's bodies. When it comes to women who are perceived as "impure," there's a narrative of punishment that underscores U.S. policy and public discourse -- be it legislation that limits reproductive rights through the assumption that women should be chaste before marriage, or a media that demonizes victims of sexual violence. And, sadly, if you look at everything from our laws to our newspapers, Napoli isn't as far out of the mainstream as we'd like to think.

Toward a New Morality

Women -- especially young women, who are the most targeted in this virgin/whore straitjacket -- are surviving the purity myth every day. And it has to stop. Our daughters deserve a model of morality that's based on ethics, not on their bodies.

It's high time to do away with outdated -- and dangerous -- notions of virginity. If young women's only ethical gauge is based on whether they're chaste, we're ensuring that they will continue to define themselves by their sexuality.

In The Purity Myth, I not only discuss what the purity myth is and reveal its consequences for women, but also outline a new way for us to think about young women as moral actors, one that doesn't include their bodies. Not just because we deserve as much, but also because our health, our emotional well-being, and even our lives depend on it.

Copyright Seal Press, 2009.

Click here for a copy of The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women.

Jessica Valenti is the executive editor of Feministing.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: sex, media, women, sexism, teens, virginity, mysoginy


Comments are closed-

Chief Man
Posted by: wawwiz on May 4, 2009 1:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barefoot and pregnant, a womans place!
Just kidding, (still have flame suit on incase)
I never understood the differnces that have always been made either, we all know women are more powerful than men, they rule men, sometimes because of what they have between thier legs, but still have the upper hand. To put a girl/woman down just because she had sex is bs, of course depending on circumstances (i.e. for money another whole story) Sexual being is part of life for women or men, boys and girls as well. Any parent who has raised both sexes and watched them closely find that the girs often enjoy themselves a lot earlier than the boys do, whether its a rub while watching tv or a wiggle (and when you ask them why they are doing a particular action they say cause it feels good. Yeah Fruadian in context (not sure of spelling his name) but none the less equal on both sexes, just at differnet maturaty levels. And I know psych 101 doesn't appeal to everyone but still it has 100's of years of study and it holds.
We need full education on how to prevent unwanted preg. and stop with the 2 classes of people men and women we are all the same, same desires and needs and it starts real early in life, not at 18 (some d&*n magic number)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Acceptable? Posted by: AlexaD
» RE: Acceptable? Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Acceptable? Posted by: rinthy
» Do you have anything? Posted by: Kati
» RE: Chief Man Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

konawriter
Posted by: konawriter on May 4, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what I don't get (altho the author alluded to it briefly)..girls are to be "responsible and stay pure" but they are surrounded by media of every kind using women's bodies to sell everything, programs that promote sex as recreation, violence against women is the theme of every one of these "action" programs but...it seems once you get beyond abortion women's groups have nothing to say...what's the deal? Seriously - I don't get it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: konawriter Posted by: munchkinpup

Comments are closed-

The pre-patriarchal definition of virginity
Posted by: seradanon on May 4, 2009 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was one in herself, owned be no man, independent.
Perhaps we should reclaim the meaning of the word as we have restored and transformed other words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go for it. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing

Comments are closed-

Purity
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 4, 2009 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with many feminist articles, this one takes larger issues, such as Puritan concepts of "morality", and critiques them only in terms of how they affect women. In doing so, it ends up simply complaining about the double-standard. Of course, in reality, there are many double-standards which are biased towards either men or women, depending on which double-standard you're talking about.

It would be nice to have a concept of morality which is about being kind to your neighbor rather than who you sleep with, what you wear, or whether your breast pops out during the Super Bowl half-time show. Just be aware that being kind to your neighbor while his wife is at a PTA meeting may be considered a gray area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Double standards? Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Double standards? Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Double standards? Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Purity Posted by: rinthy

Comments are closed-

pig palace
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on May 4, 2009 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really does not matter what other people think. IF one wants to be "pure" let them be that. Society would be much better off if people just paid attention to their own lives and not what other people are doing. Very often what it appears that other people are doing is merely an illusion. In fact most things are illusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pig palace Posted by: dimityrose
» RE: pig palace Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line

Comments are closed-

Feminist, or just being a mature adult?
Posted by: Yankeeinexile on May 4, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Women are pushing themselves and punishing themselves every day in order to fit into the narrow model of morality that virginity has afforded them."

This leaves out the possiblity that when you mature you consruct your own views on "morality". What normal adult spends so much time living up to other peoples judgements? Isn't it better to teach both boys and girls to think on your own, get a backbone, and tell others who would label you to just piss off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WTF????
Posted by: aislinnluv on May 4, 2009 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the federal government is PAYING for these "purity proms"???? isn't that a violation of church and state? i can't believe that it is justifiable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we can't allow that Posted by: aislinnluv

Comments are closed-

No Longer Quivering ‹(ô¿ô)›
Posted by: deni_haven on May 4, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I lost my virginity to a boy that I didn't really like at all, I felt like a failure in the eyes of God ~ and tried to redeem myself by marrying the drug-addicted, abusive guy. Wasted 7 years of my life and nearly got myself killed that way ~ but, hey ~ if that's what it takes to please my "Father in Heaven" ~ at least my soul would be saved, huh?

I am no longer living to please a perverse, male God who is so obsessed with keeping girls "pure" and women serving their men, I am no longer a Christian, and I am No Longer Quivering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reproductive Slavery
Posted by: Jo1028 on May 4, 2009 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a socio-biological factor in the virginity fetish... it was supposed to prove that the father's offspring and heirs were actually his - and not some upstart's who jumped the blanket! Of course the underlying message of that belief was that women are merely vessels for procreation - and have no other intrinsic worth. Reproductive slavery in other words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eproductive Slavery Posted by: jw32181

Comments are closed-

Fetish not only hurts women but men too.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on May 4, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that I'll probably be called a "gay" advocate or some crap for saying this but let's face it. Women get to wear anything they want but men on the other hand are restricted. You won't find men wearing skirts or high heels or for that matter pantyhose (at least not openly) although there is a small but growing market for male nylon legwear. And up until the recent years, men used to be called "gay" for grooming their body hair, wearing earrings, pink shirts, etc ... Maybe if we should stop and consider that perhaps giving both sexes fashion equality might solve this fetish problem out there. Even real feminists would have to admit this at some point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the fashion pendulum Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: the fashion pendulum Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Whaaaaat you talkin' 'bout?!! Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» I'm a man, and I didn't ask for uniforms. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» No thanks. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Fetish not only hurts women but men too. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Downward Social Mobility Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Fetish not only hurts women but men too. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

the trend that is emerging is...
Posted by: ellie on May 4, 2009 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the girls who attend these purity balls have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy...

are more likely to not even consider the abortion option let alone adoption...

have little to no birth control information... have a lower ability to tell a boy no due to patriarchal control...

are more likely to need and use state and federal social services $$, drop out of school and not collect child support from the father...

no, not kidding, know of a data set being compiled right now and these are the preliminary findings...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Horses
Posted by: Karlh on May 4, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don’t know how true it is or if this is just an urban legend, but I understand that riding horses can rupture a women’s hymen that’s why women used to ride side saddle. Today women/girls no longer ride side saddle. Does this mean that a young girl who has her hymen ruptured by riding a horse is a slut?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Nonsense..... Posted by: Fencerider
» maribelle, chill Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Not Nonsense..... Posted by: rinthy
» RE: Horses - yet another example Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Horses - yet another example Posted by: Zipidee DooDah & Dipidee DooDog
» RE: Horses Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Not debunked Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Horses Posted by: rinthy
» Mine Was Broken on a Bicycle Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Horses Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Horses Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

villager
Posted by: villager1 on May 4, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am just a guy who appreciates women generally. I prefer their company to the company of my "Jock" friends.Most women that I know are not virgins and it matters not at all. They are really nice people and that works for me, so Jessica you are right and being a virgin does not mean that you are a good person nor does not being a virgin mean that you are bad!

If my life was devoid of the company of these female persons I would simply not bother. Nothing worse than a bragging drunk male! Since I was a kid I heard all the Bragging Jock Brothers ad nauseum and mostly they all just lied!

Sorry about that ladies! - You are the best but don't push it and don't place too much importance on your virginity - your husband to be won't really appreciate you anyway if he considers that the yardstick by which to measure you! If in fact that is his major criteria then run like hell because he is really just an asshole!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexual Freedom is POWER
Posted by: terradea42 on May 4, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you think the church and the government (run mostly by men) work to keep women from engaging freely in sex? Look at the Middle East; women's sexuality is covered and condemned because Muslim men know the power it contains. Christianity is no different. It, too, strives to oppress women through sexual abstinence.

Sexual freedom (through masturbation and intercourse)gives girls and women a chance to experience their true, innate power as individuals and, as a result, the church and the state loses authority over them.

Knowledge of oneself is a mighty tool - a freeing tool, and sex is a sure path toward that knowledge. As more and more girls and women discover this and lose the shame and fear associated with sexuality, church membership will shrink and the government faith-based initiatives will lose strength. Bring back separation of church and state to bring back individual power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexual Freedom is POWER Posted by: munchkinpup
» ummm...no Posted by: Tombo

Comments are closed-

Lots of assumptions
Posted by: kenhymes on May 4, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe I find the "purity proms" and such as offensive as the author, and surely this topic is not a new one, the whole Madonna/Whore notion of female internalized oppression has been around since the early 60's. But there are a lot of assumptions in this piece, reflecting I believe a lack of experience on the author's part with teenagers living in socially conservative sub-communities. Girls have rarely lived out the things they give intellectual and verbal assent to in family and school situations. And any sociologist worth their salt knows that every apparent confined social space contains multiple layers of "transgression," within which people live their actual lives.
Additionally, Alternet readers may be likely to smugly pat themselves on the back for being enlightened liberals who would never allow these assumptions to operate in their family, but how many parents of any ideological leaning will be happy if their daughter is sleeping with multiple partners? The double standard is real, hurts both men and women, and is definitely NOT a product of one particular religion or worldview, though clearly women under Shariah law are in a far worse place than any of us in the US. The double standard is primal, deeply held, and has to do with ancient patterns of sexual control, and also is more mundanely a result of some basic practical realities - if women sleep around, they sooner or later get pregnant, and everyone knows about it. Some would like to wish this away, but the author never does address in any clear terms the lifestyle and sexual practices she views as preferable for young women and girls. There is also the matter, bafflingly omitted, of sex as a commodity. For some of these girls, it may well be that drawing a boundary around their sexuality is a huge relief in a culture that bombards them with commercial messages imbued with young female sexuality.

I don't defend any of the silly at best, dangerous at worst, events and arguments the author takes on, but if the piece is representative of the book, it's pretty shallow sociology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: paulaH
» Slept around, no kids, see? Posted by: nunsuch
» RE: Slept around, no kids, see? Posted by: munchkinpup

Comments are closed-

the author is a poor writer
Posted by: Suzon on May 4, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Girls "going wild" aren't damaging a generation of women, the myth of sexual purity is.

If "going wild" means having sex with one or more partners, then she is quite ignorant of the impact of sexually transmitted diseases on women of all ages (men, too).

Of course she makes her bias quite clear and is free to write a polemic if she wishes. But if she wants to be taken seriously, she should be wary of overstating her case.

Women (and men) are being damaged every day in all sorts of ways. Sex is not an exception and there are extremists on both ends of the control-exploit spectrum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the author is a poor writer Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

this article feels 10 years old...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on May 4, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article feels 10 years old... isn't this really old news?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some things never change Posted by: Swatopluk
» Quite right. Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent

Comments are closed-

Freedom shouldn't be Free-doom...
Posted by: Salvapath on May 4, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex, sex, sex...
The bunny mentality of some people, the majority of us, had screwed up individuals and societies in a very slavering way through history.

To believe that sex is for fun and that it represents freedom, is to be destined to free-doom. This is not solely an argument; this is plain reality in our social fabric and if not, just take a look around: Al sorts of immorality, sexual perversion, infidelity, divorcé, same sex marriage, abortion, child neglect, child abuse, pornography.... we are a zoo-society obsessed with sex without limits and the real myth is that this obsession comes from sexual repression; it is all the opposite; it comes from the bunny mentality and the pure selfishness of self gratification....

Sex represents life at many different levels, not only procreation, and life requires lots of commitment, respect and responsibility. This should be the bottom line when educating any body, girls or boys, about sex, the rest are only arguments to justify the fact that we cannot keep it in our pants....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Honestly.... Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Honestly.... Posted by: Salvapath

Comments are closed-

Patriarchy Demands Female Purity
Posted by: canary131 on May 4, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not so long ago women were the property of men (yes, like slaves). Men want to own and control women, and what better way than to control women's sexuality?

Then "they" site to the animal world for evidence that it's "nature's way" for men to dominate women. Well, let's look at the bonobo primates where the females freely engage in sex with others (male or female). The bonobo primates are far far less aggressive, annoying and destructive than the male-dominated primates called chimpanzees.

Could this work for our primate species? Only if women fully embrace their sexuality!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A site you'll like: Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: A site you'll like: Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Facts
Posted by: stellabloo on May 4, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... are always good and so I am providing the link AGAIN to real world statistics on abstinence-only "sex" "ed":

Rise in US teen pregnancies proves information beats abstinence

Which is not a shameless plug for my new book (hint hint) or a even an endorsement for Vanessa Richmond ... Actually, in referring to this link I saw a new article from Ms. Richmond on the Return of the Scary Teen Blowjob, doubtless to be soon featured on alternet ...

For the poster above on the deeply ingrained patriarchal morality of our civilization, would you feel better knowing that your teenage daughter was giving blowjobs to multiple partners because it wasn't TECHNICALLY sex?

Anyway, can we move into the 21st century anytime soon PLEASE? The oversexualized high heels and war paint of the last 50 years (consider what you are putting on your face) are as ridiculously outdated as the notion of the sacred virgin. Do you not realize that drycleaning is HORRIBLE for the environment? Do you not realize that hair colour can make your hair fall out? Do you not yet realize that every major religion is designed to turn women into second-class citizens dependant upon the word of MEN?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Facts Posted by: kenhymes

Comments are closed-

Most
Posted by: cdlepthien on May 4, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
commenters missed the point, which was that whether the pressure is to be modest or exhibitionist, virgin or sexually active, there is much more obsession with girls' sexuality than boys'. It's been pointed out that this is probably because girls can get pregnant. This would explain parents wanting girls to abstain, but it doesn't explain the relentless sexualization of girls (both by themselves and others) that is the other side of the coin. It seems to me that somehow our civilization has lost any kind of sense for the boundary between public and private.

Although it makes sense to communicate to teenagers that they should abstain from sex until they are old enough to use contraception responsibly & handle the emotional ramifications of a sexual relationship, this is very different than shaming girls for having a sexual relationship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Most Posted by: RHad

Comments are closed-

KDY
Posted by: kdy on May 4, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman who was raised Catholic with twelve years of Catholic schooling, this article really hit home. Even as a child, I found it hard to understand why "virgin" had such a special status in the church. I'd learn about different women saints who'd been killed because they refused to commit "unpure" acts. After their names they bore the title, "virgin and martyr". Virgin even took precedence over getting killed. I never understood why no men were glorified for not giving up their virginity. I also didn't understand a church that would condemn a woman who made the choice under fear of death of commiting an unwanted sex act. It seemed a little harsh to me. We're spending our tax money on purity proms? This has to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read the Book of Revelation(s?) Posted by: Swatopluk

Comments are closed-

How long...
Posted by: Cybershaman on May 4, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before we too, require Burkas to be worn? The Amish and Quakers already have gone this route of sexless dress. Is it another example of us becoming what we fight against?

Denial is easier than transcendence. But only for the state. As we see in our country with pot, it is easier for the state to forbid certain activities than to promote the wiser route of letting a population just get it out of their system and move on. Most activities have self-regulating features. Limitations that naturally occur.

Only when you restrict the activity does it fester and morph into extremely nasty versions. In other words, any energy that is blocked from it's natural course will eventually explode in uncontrollable and unexpected ways. That is the nature of all energy.

Sexual denial becomes sexual dysfunction later in life because the behavioral patterns become ingrained. Permission from some authority figure does not automatically flip a proverbial switch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How long... Posted by: paulaH

Comments are closed-

Total gender bias rubbish. To summarize this article, blame the men for women being the victims.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 4, 2009 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JenniferBedingfield, Suzon, and Kepstein777 raise interesting points from different angles on the reality that there are plenty of biases and double standards towards both sexes. The problem with articles like these are that just like the trashy rightwing articles on gender discrimination I've come across portraying only men as the victims, there's too much blame the men for women suffering bullshit. Men and women are equally guilty of the fucked up societal intolerances that exist today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maxpayne Posted by: munchkinpup
» Your daughter is lucky. Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Fear
Posted by: Urgelt on May 4, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are social conservatives afraid of?

For one thing, they're afraid of unwanted pregnancies and the ancient social stigma that is attached to them.

For most of human history, pregnancy was a dangerous condition. The woman's life was placed at risk by it. Giving birth was not something to be done lightly, and it served a social purpose to place social restrictions and controls over it. The danger of pregnancy has been eased, but it's not gone yet.

Nor was the prospect of fatherless children to be sneered at throughout most of human history. The idea of a social safety net is a recent thing. Fatherless children were to be pitied - fewer resources and opportunities, greater risk of starvation and neglect. The fear of these consequences is what gave paternalistic control its force.

What else? They're afraid of sexually transmitted diseases. A virgin or monogamous partner is a safe partner. Some STDs have been rendered fairly harmless by modern medicine; others, not so much. The fear continues.

What else? They're afraid that if women aren't monogamous, the nuclear family will collapse and we'll find ourselves in some modern-day Sodom. Many Christians take this threat quite seriously and fear it. Their holy book teaches that God is not reluctant to punish the wicked, and he doesn't always wait until the next life to do it.

What else? They're afraid of eroding the social authority of paternalistic religions. The worst thing a Christian can imagine is the end of Christianity on this Earth. Jesus abandoned by his children, a world of atheists inventing their own rules for society. Make no mistake, the rise of feminism directly threatens paternalistic religions. Feminist arguments often make those religions look insane.

Their fear is only exacerbated by the relentless advance of science, which, though it has nothing to say about religions' untestable assertions, has plenty to say about the testable ones.

The prospect for those religions in coming years is bleak, if civilization endures and science and technology continue to advance. Safer pregnancies, better birth control options, and the end of STDs will further extend the trend of making sexual choices an act with few consequences.

You wonder why social conservatives are so compassionate about unborn children, but hate any manifestation of a social safety net? I'll tell you. Easing the consequences of promiscuity is exactly what they do not want to do. It has nothing to do with the sacred life of the unborn. If it did, conservatives would extend the same empathy and compassion to people already born and suffering in poverty.

A social conservative is what he claims to be - a man or woman attempting to conserve the old ways and traditions. This is a time of terrible frustration to such men and women, because change is accelerating. The old ways are doomed. Unless drastic action is taken, of course.

Drastic action is exactly what social conservatives are contemplating right now. They aren't just talking about guns, they're applauding their use against family planning clinics and muttering about armed rebellion.

Social conservatives are often enthralled by the idea of holocaust, of collapse, of "the end of times." Some of them actively desire it. I think it's possible that the reason for this is that in no other way can they see an end to the trends which are devaluing their convictions and way of life.

And they're probably right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fear Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Fear Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Fear Posted by: Urgelt

Comments are closed-

Measured Against Each Other
Posted by: nen on May 4, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the greatest crime against women, and men for that matter, is that it is a social norm to measure women by how useful or attractive they are to men, and measure men by how useful or attractive they are to women. Not only does this not work for queer folks, but it is also a terrible way to measure one's worth.

Imagine a Gillette commercial. A man with a smooth, clean-shaven face. An example of what the pinnacle of male beauty is supposed to be in our society. And what always happens? A beautiful woman runs her hand sensually over his face. ALWAYS. How many commercials have we seen where a woman walks down the street or hallway in slow motion and men's heads turn as they stare at her?

People do have intrinsic worth. In and of ourselves, individual human beings have value, beauty, identity, and a host of qualities and vices.

What I want to say, especially after reading a lot of these comments, is that both women and men are oppressed. In very different ways. Women are hypersexualized, underpaid, assumed unintelligent, presumed weak, expected to be irrational, and many more unfair things. Men are measured by wealth, presumed to be perpetually horny, assumed to be consistently ruled by sex drive over logic, expected to be strong no matter what, and expected to be unemotional in most situations.

There are a lot of stupid assumptions we're expected to live by on both sides of the gender divide. These are the things which are contributing a great deal to the social sickness of our community. There are reasons why we are unhappy. There are reasons why we are stressed and feel trapped. We find ourselves struggling with what it means to be a "good man" or a "good woman". I think it's about time to redefine what those terms mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't redefine the terms, abandon them. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» RE: Don't redefine the terms, abandon them. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» Turn off your CAPS LOCK. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing

Comments are closed-

Interesting
Posted by: cyrstal on May 4, 2009 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article interesting and although I personally made a lifestyle choice to remain a virgin until I was married about a year ago, I never felt that being a virgin was what made me a "good" person, or that all my friends were "bad" people because the were sexually active. Perhaps this has to do with the socialization and teachings from my church in which I was taught that there are many things that help teach a girl to be good- including understanding these seven principles- faith, divine nature, individual worth, knowledge, choice and accountability, good works, and virtue. http://www.lds.org/youthresources/pdf/YWProgress36035.pdf
I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and although we highly value virginity and not being sexually active until married, we also believe in repentance and forgiveness and that we are still loved no matter what by our Heavenly Father. Everybody must choose for themselves what type of lifestyle they would like to live, and no one should be judged solely based on their sexual activity... this does not mean that just because you value virginity that you also think it is the only attribute that defines you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The LDS Church is Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

Men with a virginity fetish don't want women.
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on May 4, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They just want brand-new, shrink-wrapped sex dolls fresh from the factory. And they should get them, instead of inflicting their fetishes on other people. A RealDoll isn't that expensive, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

EVERYONE'S FAVORITE SUBJECT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 4, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never fails. On a scale of things taking a look around the world, does virginity have a whole hell of alot to do with anything? If some guy is repulsed by "damaged merchandise" that's too bad. He should just move on. He's problably a pain in the ass anyway. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RELIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: joeocho88
» RE: LIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: LIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: Kati

Comments are closed-

GADFLY PAT
Posted by: pest on May 4, 2009 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE MAJOR PROBLEM FOR WOMEN IS REDUCING THEM TO SEX OBJECTS-SOLELY. BOOKS CONTINUE THIS CLASSIFICATION AND JUSTIFY THIS CONCEPT. TV MORES, DRESS AND ACTIONS PROMOTE
THIS SEX ONLY ROLE. IT'S ALL BOOBS,BUTTS & BELLY BUTTONS BUT NO BRAINS-NEVER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why do we have to be in charge?
Posted by: pamcdowe on May 4, 2009 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always thought it was weird that the focus is always on how it's the girl's job to "save herself" or say no to sex. I don't think I've ever seen any education that focused on teaching guys not to pressure girls or not to give into their urges. Guys are just given up on as a lost cause or actually encouraged to "keep trying"..."morality" is supposed to be totally controlled by the girl's "strength or weakness."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do we have to be in charge? Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

THE DOUBLE STANDARD GETS WORSE WHEN YOU GET OVER 50 BOTH GENDERS GET THE SHAFT
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 4, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are FINISHED if you are a woman over 50 and are not established in a loving marriage relationship where the guy can provide for you while you are living and after he has passed away or you are not from a wealthy family or you have not made a lot in your own profession because your boss will try and find a way to get rid of you at work and you will be stuck and possibly homeless -- especially if you don't have a family to take you in when the man you live with divorces you for a younger trophy wife.
AGE IS NOT GOOD TO WOMEN! NOT AT ALL.
IF YOU ARE NOT VERY,VERY CAREFUL,YOU WILL END UP TOO OLD TO WORK A JOB AND TOO YOUNG FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY and usually you are thrown out around your late 50s.
AND WOMEN ARE LIVING LONGER... WHAT TO DO WITH UNWANTED OLDER WOMEN WHO HAVE NO CHILDREN OR OTHER RELATIVES TO TAKE YOU IN ?????
AND THERE WILL BE THOUSANDS OF BABY BOOMERS WHO READ THE POPULATION BOMB AND HAD NO CHILDREN...OR HUSBANDS... OR RETIREMENT...OR PENSIONS BECAUSE THOSE INDUSTRIES IN THE SOUTH THAT OFFERED THOSE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WOMEN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Girls are Stupid !!
Posted by: gellero1 on May 4, 2009 9:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh....you take offense?

I wasn't referring to you. You can be as sexual as you want. Even if you're 15. I've had hundreds of you. From 15 to now.

I'm referring to THEM ! The stupid ones that get pregnant. The stupid ones that refuse to abort (and then expect the sperm donor to support them and their bastard child ). Over 50% of 'minority' children are bastards. Sorry if that sounds cruel or bigoted. THEY are the selfish ones. Especially with the Right to Abort.

THAT'S WHY parents throw virginity proms for their daughters.....they can't trust them not to be STUPID !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Girls are Stupid !! Posted by: richholland
» Boys are stupid! Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

purity
Posted by: sureshot45 on May 5, 2009 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the idea is also a dangerous one. with men (and i guess some women?) paying substantial amounts of money for virgins. these virgins are trafficked human beings. the sex trade is alive and well..and by societies promoting the attraction and allure of chastity, they are feeding into the horrible atrocity. 70% of trafficked people are women and children, and it is predominantly to support the demand for sex. virgin sex. a lot more little boys are sex slaves than one might imagine. children are kidnapped at a young age, raised in brothels, then sold to the highest bidder. they can still work as non virgins, but the price drops drastically. hence..the traffickers and pimps need new kids. this is the real horror. not if the prom queen or head cheerleader is now being called a slut behind her back. i know that society needs to work on the ways we value/devalue women. and if our ideas change, perhaps the demand for virgin sex, or sex with young children will not be so appealing. i realize that the sex trade goes hand in hand with societies views on sex..which needs to change.

i just cant get all worked up over what complete strangers think of my sex life when the real unimaginable, vicious, and disgusting sale of (virgin) sex is happening every day. in every city. in every country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: purity Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: purity Posted by: richholland
» RE: purity Posted by: sureshot45

Comments are closed-

Who's guilty of moral panicking?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 5, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Establishment feminists have been wringing their hands and getting all sanctimoniousness over "raunch culture" ever since third wave feminism, lipstick feminism, girly feminism, and stripper chic appeared about a dozen years ago, just like they're now getting all in a tither over "purity culture". It would be enough to make a young woman schizo, I'd imagine. There's no way to please feminists because they're inconsistent, swinging from one emotional extreme to the other.

Evidently, the choices of women only matter to feminists when they affirm their cant. This is yet another example of the way in which feminists are contemptuous of actual women. When one has an independence of mind it places them on the wrong side of "the struggle".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Yanaar
Posted by: context on May 5, 2009 4:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most beautiful woman I've ever seen was about 180 lbs, black straight hair, strong hands and arms, dressed in a brown floor length garment, and wore a warm smile. She was a Lakota Sioux who came to our town with her tribe and family to sell some of their homemade wares. I was working in a small restuarant at the time (we hosted the event,) and this woman came in to cook. And could she ever cook. She put me right to work, the other women too, and I remember thinking to myself, "if I ever got sick, this is the woman I want to take care of me."

That's womanhood. That's beauty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

BALONEY PREMISE
Posted by: reelman on May 5, 2009 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because you are a secularist does not mean virginity is not still the best way to enter marriage...
76% fornication black families
28% fornication white families
Now tell us how this is superior...
and you wonder why their children are such a high risk mess...
Your baloney premises and rants do not change the all-time fact that morals matter and character counts...
And your pastor is?
Just another secular kook trying to make themselves feel superior...pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

men getting old?
Posted by: Kati on May 6, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what happens when you get old and no one is there to take care of you? By the way, haven't you noticed, women on average live longer than men and we do pretty well once we don't have to nurse our old husbands 24/7...

Also, married men live longer than single men. Why do you suppose that is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: men getting old? Posted by: Kati

Comments are closed-

Its the males turn.
Posted by: osd on May 6, 2009 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more way for men to try and control the women and "there pussy". So they seem to think, that they have some kind of ownership in a women virginity. They should concentrate on there own virginity first. Mens whole world is locked up in how much they can control and thats why they have to have 5 or 6 didferent drugs to help "get it hard" or "Bigger/Longer." They still haven't addressed the fact they do not have much in the way of "birth control" for themselves. But we all know thats a womens problem. If you want to be "the controller" then first you need to be responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Single Standard
Posted by: Red State Gal on May 6, 2009 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the double standard hurts women. A single standard for both men and women is what is needed.

But why should that single standard be promiscuity? Instead, let's have the single standard be chastity outside of marriage and perfect fidelity within marriage. Let's hold both men and women to that standard.

The consequences would be hugely positive: no STDs, no fatherless children, no adultery, no date rape . . .

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have a better idea: Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» How about Posted by: BlueTigress

Comments are closed-

It is all about control
Posted by: jimidee on May 9, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men are amazingly insecure about all things sexual...am I big enough, tough enough, good enough? The answer is probably not. We all know that size DOES matter...we have seen with our own eyes women select for penis size over and over. We all know that they will give up most everything for a man with a large penis. And they don't have one...darn it. All they know is that it is something about the difference between picking your nose with your finger or your thumb.

So, armed with this information, men must keep women from finding out about the whole big dick thingy using guilt, religious doctrine (your going to Hell, young lady!), societal pressures, slander, name calling, or anything else that they can think of to control women's sexual appetite for the large penis. It is an imperfect plan at best, because women are going to find out about big dicks eventually, and they are gong to leave you because you don't have one.

Ok, so that covers white boy's issues...how do we 'splain the brother's problems? Hmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Most hymens are broken when the little girls...
Posted by: jimidee on May 9, 2009 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
start sticking fingers, then candles, then hairbrush handles, etc. into themselves at an early age...because it feels good. More power to them...it is their body. It is an insignificant membrane, so what is the big deal. And it does feel good, so how ya' gonna stop 'em?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Same Old Story
Posted by: Candleinheart on May 9, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In high school the few doing 'it' were looked upon with the invisible Scarlet Letter A emblazoned on their chests. I was a senior in college for 'first' experience. Was 'saving' myself for marriage thinking I would be loved by him and 'God' more. But, after years of heavy petting, necking, fear of pregnancy my year and a half with boyfriend's father died. I was moved by his sorrow and 'gave in'. What a massive disappointment. Worse than a bunny. Over in seconds. To add insult to injury I never heard from him again while I suffered 3 weeks fearing i would be pregnant.
Well, fast foward to 72 now. Had for years a life cycles counseling practice where I heard the laments of hundreds of women, forced to watch porno movies, forced to do threesomes, forced to have sex 3x a day,bedroom rapes, neighbors, fathers, ministers molesting, a minister who counseled 6 people naked together, had an affair with one of them and wife ended up raising the kid. What an education.
After my marriages ended I was SHOCKED at the number of married men coming to see me. Declined all as I wouldn't hurt another woman this way.
After all, I surely wouldn't want my husband 'servicing' every single woman out there. I tried to live by the Golden rule but it's been hard. What with married men 'hitting on me'(declined) and single men who I know had ladies, I wanted to be the only one, my senior years have been pretty lonely in that department. Morality does play a part for me.
Women cried their hearts out. They met a 'nice man'. Dinner out. Sex pressured first date. Never called again. Then there are the articles where men stated they married the first gal who said 'No'. Double standard once again. flirt, pressure to get laid, poor woman wanting sex but love and commitment, and then hurt.
Now, what with the culture as it is, every woman has as much a right to have sex as the man. BUT,
if you can handle one night stands fine, but most women can't. You THINK you can but if you're honest you know you can't. You want a relationship of quality, you must say NO on first date.
Three European women I've known through the years stated, "What has America done to its men?'
I was late in my life when I heard this expression......"Women give sex to get love. Men give love to get sex." Most women I know gave much sex but got little 'love.'
Sex is God in this country and true love, tenderness, honesty, respect, caring for another's well-being is what is important. You cannot establish this between two people until you 'court' for awhile. Date. Get to know one another. Find out the family background. Wait til marriage? Not necessarily, but at least establish some mutual respect,understanding, trust. He/she not interested? Then let them go.
Several women I counseled who were very active sexually before marriage, of those I listened to, none remained faithful in their own marriages.
Every male who came to me were involved in relationships outside their marriage. Everyone!
Have no answers. I know what I want and hold off. Even at 72 I have hope. Dating services? Tried them all. Every male 55 plus want a woman many years younger than themselves.
Save your virginity for marriage? Fine. What about the education of men to properly make love to their virgin wife? Hadn't heard many truly heartwarming accounts of first nighters. We called Native American 'savages' but in the book Hanta Ho by Dee Brown , I believe around page 75? There is an account of how the elders taught a young brave how to treat his bride on wedding night. I cried when I read that account. I cried for all the awful stories I heard from women, I cried for how I longed to be treated so. Beautiful. Where are the men to teach young men about real sexuality? The whole thing is so sad. In a group meeting a woman spoke of so many broken relationships that she felt 'dead.' She probably gave in for love and ended up being left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Emotional dishonesty behind the "sex and power" mindset
Posted by: grailsnail on May 11, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all about power -- Corporate advertising says women's sexuality is all about power, not sensuality or affection. Purity crusades are similar, regarding female sexuality as too threatening, too dangerous not to be contained.

The emotional dishonesty behind it all is simple: anyone who uses the word "slut" is sexually insecure. If men were taught to be honest and say, "Sexually free women trigger my insecurity and fear of abandonment", there would be no need for labeling.

I'm male and have never heard any of my male friends talk about women they sleep with as "whores". It might be because the people I hang out with a generally free admitting their emotions. Nobody tries to gain status by acting "hard" or picking on others. The world isn't made up of only one kind of culture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Um. Again, stop saying "double standard" if you don't know what it means.
Posted by: RHad on May 24, 2009 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go again, for the slow ones:

There is one standard for men.
There is one standard for women.

Yes, physiology, psychology and biology dictate that these are indeed different standards, particularly when it comes to sexual relationships. A double standard might apply should you have two standards for a group of men, or for a group of women. A double standard simply cannot exist among two different subsets.

Having different standards for men and women, then, does not constitute a "double standard." It constitutes reality. Just because you hear this term used incorrectly does not mean you too may use it incorrectly. Unless, of course, you're trying to push some sort of sham sexual agenda. Which you are. And it seems Ms. Valenti's career is somewhat based on this misnomer.

So once again for the class, when it comes to comparing men and women, the term "double standard" does not apply or even make sense. Apples and oranges. Please refrain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Chief Man
Posted by: wawwiz on May 4, 2009 1:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barefoot and pregnant, a womans place!
Just kidding, (still have flame suit on incase)
I never understood the differnces that have always been made either, we all know women are more powerful than men, they rule men, sometimes because of what they have between thier legs, but still have the upper hand. To put a girl/woman down just because she had sex is bs, of course depending on circumstances (i.e. for money another whole story) Sexual being is part of life for women or men, boys and girls as well. Any parent who has raised both sexes and watched them closely find that the girs often enjoy themselves a lot earlier than the boys do, whether its a rub while watching tv or a wiggle (and when you ask them why they are doing a particular action they say cause it feels good. Yeah Fruadian in context (not sure of spelling his name) but none the less equal on both sexes, just at differnet maturaty levels. And I know psych 101 doesn't appeal to everyone but still it has 100's of years of study and it holds.
We need full education on how to prevent unwanted preg. and stop with the 2 classes of people men and women we are all the same, same desires and needs and it starts real early in life, not at 18 (some d&*n magic number)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Acceptable? Posted by: AlexaD
» RE: Acceptable? Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Acceptable? Posted by: rinthy
» Do you have anything? Posted by: Kati
» RE: Chief Man Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

konawriter
Posted by: konawriter on May 4, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what I don't get (altho the author alluded to it briefly)..girls are to be "responsible and stay pure" but they are surrounded by media of every kind using women's bodies to sell everything, programs that promote sex as recreation, violence against women is the theme of every one of these "action" programs but...it seems once you get beyond abortion women's groups have nothing to say...what's the deal? Seriously - I don't get it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: konawriter Posted by: munchkinpup

Comments are closed-

The pre-patriarchal definition of virginity
Posted by: seradanon on May 4, 2009 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was one in herself, owned be no man, independent.
Perhaps we should reclaim the meaning of the word as we have restored and transformed other words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go for it. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing

Comments are closed-

Purity
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 4, 2009 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with many feminist articles, this one takes larger issues, such as Puritan concepts of "morality", and critiques them only in terms of how they affect women. In doing so, it ends up simply complaining about the double-standard. Of course, in reality, there are many double-standards which are biased towards either men or women, depending on which double-standard you're talking about.

It would be nice to have a concept of morality which is about being kind to your neighbor rather than who you sleep with, what you wear, or whether your breast pops out during the Super Bowl half-time show. Just be aware that being kind to your neighbor while his wife is at a PTA meeting may be considered a gray area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Double standards? Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Double standards? Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Double standards? Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Purity Posted by: rinthy

Comments are closed-

pig palace
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on May 4, 2009 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really does not matter what other people think. IF one wants to be "pure" let them be that. Society would be much better off if people just paid attention to their own lives and not what other people are doing. Very often what it appears that other people are doing is merely an illusion. In fact most things are illusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pig palace Posted by: dimityrose
» RE: pig palace Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line

Comments are closed-

Feminist, or just being a mature adult?
Posted by: Yankeeinexile on May 4, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Women are pushing themselves and punishing themselves every day in order to fit into the narrow model of morality that virginity has afforded them."

This leaves out the possiblity that when you mature you consruct your own views on "morality". What normal adult spends so much time living up to other peoples judgements? Isn't it better to teach both boys and girls to think on your own, get a backbone, and tell others who would label you to just piss off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WTF????
Posted by: aislinnluv on May 4, 2009 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the federal government is PAYING for these "purity proms"???? isn't that a violation of church and state? i can't believe that it is justifiable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we can't allow that Posted by: aislinnluv

Comments are closed-

No Longer Quivering ‹(ô¿ô)›
Posted by: deni_haven on May 4, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I lost my virginity to a boy that I didn't really like at all, I felt like a failure in the eyes of God ~ and tried to redeem myself by marrying the drug-addicted, abusive guy. Wasted 7 years of my life and nearly got myself killed that way ~ but, hey ~ if that's what it takes to please my "Father in Heaven" ~ at least my soul would be saved, huh?

I am no longer living to please a perverse, male God who is so obsessed with keeping girls "pure" and women serving their men, I am no longer a Christian, and I am No Longer Quivering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reproductive Slavery
Posted by: Jo1028 on May 4, 2009 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a socio-biological factor in the virginity fetish... it was supposed to prove that the father's offspring and heirs were actually his - and not some upstart's who jumped the blanket! Of course the underlying message of that belief was that women are merely vessels for procreation - and have no other intrinsic worth. Reproductive slavery in other words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eproductive Slavery Posted by: jw32181

Comments are closed-

Fetish not only hurts women but men too.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on May 4, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that I'll probably be called a "gay" advocate or some crap for saying this but let's face it. Women get to wear anything they want but men on the other hand are restricted. You won't find men wearing skirts or high heels or for that matter pantyhose (at least not openly) although there is a small but growing market for male nylon legwear. And up until the recent years, men used to be called "gay" for grooming their body hair, wearing earrings, pink shirts, etc ... Maybe if we should stop and consider that perhaps giving both sexes fashion equality might solve this fetish problem out there. Even real feminists would have to admit this at some point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the fashion pendulum Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: the fashion pendulum Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Whaaaaat you talkin' 'bout?!! Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» I'm a man, and I didn't ask for uniforms. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» No thanks. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Fetish not only hurts women but men too. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Downward Social Mobility Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Fetish not only hurts women but men too. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

the trend that is emerging is...
Posted by: ellie on May 4, 2009 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the girls who attend these purity balls have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy...

are more likely to not even consider the abortion option let alone adoption...

have little to no birth control information... have a lower ability to tell a boy no due to patriarchal control...

are more likely to need and use state and federal social services $$, drop out of school and not collect child support from the father...

no, not kidding, know of a data set being compiled right now and these are the preliminary findings...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Horses
Posted by: Karlh on May 4, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don’t know how true it is or if this is just an urban legend, but I understand that riding horses can rupture a women’s hymen that’s why women used to ride side saddle. Today women/girls no longer ride side saddle. Does this mean that a young girl who has her hymen ruptured by riding a horse is a slut?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Nonsense..... Posted by: Fencerider
» maribelle, chill Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Not Nonsense..... Posted by: rinthy
» RE: Horses - yet another example Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Horses - yet another example Posted by: Zipidee DooDah & Dipidee DooDog
» RE: Horses Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Not debunked Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Horses Posted by: rinthy
» Mine Was Broken on a Bicycle Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Horses Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Horses Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

villager
Posted by: villager1 on May 4, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am just a guy who appreciates women generally. I prefer their company to the company of my "Jock" friends.Most women that I know are not virgins and it matters not at all. They are really nice people and that works for me, so Jessica you are right and being a virgin does not mean that you are a good person nor does not being a virgin mean that you are bad!

If my life was devoid of the company of these female persons I would simply not bother. Nothing worse than a bragging drunk male! Since I was a kid I heard all the Bragging Jock Brothers ad nauseum and mostly they all just lied!

Sorry about that ladies! - You are the best but don't push it and don't place too much importance on your virginity - your husband to be won't really appreciate you anyway if he considers that the yardstick by which to measure you! If in fact that is his major criteria then run like hell because he is really just an asshole!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexual Freedom is POWER
Posted by: terradea42 on May 4, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you think the church and the government (run mostly by men) work to keep women from engaging freely in sex? Look at the Middle East; women's sexuality is covered and condemned because Muslim men know the power it contains. Christianity is no different. It, too, strives to oppress women through sexual abstinence.

Sexual freedom (through masturbation and intercourse)gives girls and women a chance to experience their true, innate power as individuals and, as a result, the church and the state loses authority over them.

Knowledge of oneself is a mighty tool - a freeing tool, and sex is a sure path toward that knowledge. As more and more girls and women discover this and lose the shame and fear associated with sexuality, church membership will shrink and the government faith-based initiatives will lose strength. Bring back separation of church and state to bring back individual power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexual Freedom is POWER Posted by: munchkinpup
» ummm...no Posted by: Tombo

Comments are closed-

Lots of assumptions
Posted by: kenhymes on May 4, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe I find the "purity proms" and such as offensive as the author, and surely this topic is not a new one, the whole Madonna/Whore notion of female internalized oppression has been around since the early 60's. But there are a lot of assumptions in this piece, reflecting I believe a lack of experience on the author's part with teenagers living in socially conservative sub-communities. Girls have rarely lived out the things they give intellectual and verbal assent to in family and school situations. And any sociologist worth their salt knows that every apparent confined social space contains multiple layers of "transgression," within which people live their actual lives.
Additionally, Alternet readers may be likely to smugly pat themselves on the back for being enlightened liberals who would never allow these assumptions to operate in their family, but how many parents of any ideological leaning will be happy if their daughter is sleeping with multiple partners? The double standard is real, hurts both men and women, and is definitely NOT a product of one particular religion or worldview, though clearly women under Shariah law are in a far worse place than any of us in the US. The double standard is primal, deeply held, and has to do with ancient patterns of sexual control, and also is more mundanely a result of some basic practical realities - if women sleep around, they sooner or later get pregnant, and everyone knows about it. Some would like to wish this away, but the author never does address in any clear terms the lifestyle and sexual practices she views as preferable for young women and girls. There is also the matter, bafflingly omitted, of sex as a commodity. For some of these girls, it may well be that drawing a boundary around their sexuality is a huge relief in a culture that bombards them with commercial messages imbued with young female sexuality.

I don't defend any of the silly at best, dangerous at worst, events and arguments the author takes on, but if the piece is representative of the book, it's pretty shallow sociology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Lots of assumptions Posted by: paulaH
» Slept around, no kids, see? Posted by: nunsuch
» RE: Slept around, no kids, see? Posted by: munchkinpup

Comments are closed-

the author is a poor writer
Posted by: Suzon on May 4, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Girls "going wild" aren't damaging a generation of women, the myth of sexual purity is.

If "going wild" means having sex with one or more partners, then she is quite ignorant of the impact of sexually transmitted diseases on women of all ages (men, too).

Of course she makes her bias quite clear and is free to write a polemic if she wishes. But if she wants to be taken seriously, she should be wary of overstating her case.

Women (and men) are being damaged every day in all sorts of ways. Sex is not an exception and there are extremists on both ends of the control-exploit spectrum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the author is a poor writer Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

this article feels 10 years old...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on May 4, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article feels 10 years old... isn't this really old news?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some things never change Posted by: Swatopluk
» Quite right. Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent

Comments are closed-

Freedom shouldn't be Free-doom...
Posted by: Salvapath on May 4, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex, sex, sex...
The bunny mentality of some people, the majority of us, had screwed up individuals and societies in a very slavering way through history.

To believe that sex is for fun and that it represents freedom, is to be destined to free-doom. This is not solely an argument; this is plain reality in our social fabric and if not, just take a look around: Al sorts of immorality, sexual perversion, infidelity, divorcé, same sex marriage, abortion, child neglect, child abuse, pornography.... we are a zoo-society obsessed with sex without limits and the real myth is that this obsession comes from sexual repression; it is all the opposite; it comes from the bunny mentality and the pure selfishness of self gratification....

Sex represents life at many different levels, not only procreation, and life requires lots of commitment, respect and responsibility. This should be the bottom line when educating any body, girls or boys, about sex, the rest are only arguments to justify the fact that we cannot keep it in our pants....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Honestly.... Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Honestly.... Posted by: Salvapath

Comments are closed-

Patriarchy Demands Female Purity
Posted by: canary131 on May 4, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not so long ago women were the property of men (yes, like slaves). Men want to own and control women, and what better way than to control women's sexuality?

Then "they" site to the animal world for evidence that it's "nature's way" for men to dominate women. Well, let's look at the bonobo primates where the females freely engage in sex with others (male or female). The bonobo primates are far far less aggressive, annoying and destructive than the male-dominated primates called chimpanzees.

Could this work for our primate species? Only if women fully embrace their sexuality!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A site you'll like: Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: A site you'll like: Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Facts
Posted by: stellabloo on May 4, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... are always good and so I am providing the link AGAIN to real world statistics on abstinence-only "sex" "ed":

Rise in US teen pregnancies proves information beats abstinence

Which is not a shameless plug for my new book (hint hint) or a even an endorsement for Vanessa Richmond ... Actually, in referring to this link I saw a new article from Ms. Richmond on the Return of the Scary Teen Blowjob, doubtless to be soon featured on alternet ...

For the poster above on the deeply ingrained patriarchal morality of our civilization, would you feel better knowing that your teenage daughter was giving blowjobs to multiple partners because it wasn't TECHNICALLY sex?

Anyway, can we move into the 21st century anytime soon PLEASE? The oversexualized high heels and war paint of the last 50 years (consider what you are putting on your face) are as ridiculously outdated as the notion of the sacred virgin. Do you not realize that drycleaning is HORRIBLE for the environment? Do you not realize that hair colour can make your hair fall out? Do you not yet realize that every major religion is designed to turn women into second-class citizens dependant upon the word of MEN?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: harping on matriarchy Posted by: stellabloo
» RE: Facts Posted by: kenhymes

Comments are closed-

Most
Posted by: cdlepthien on May 4, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
commenters missed the point, which was that whether the pressure is to be modest or exhibitionist, virgin or sexually active, there is much more obsession with girls' sexuality than boys'. It's been pointed out that this is probably because girls can get pregnant. This would explain parents wanting girls to abstain, but it doesn't explain the relentless sexualization of girls (both by themselves and others) that is the other side of the coin. It seems to me that somehow our civilization has lost any kind of sense for the boundary between public and private.

Although it makes sense to communicate to teenagers that they should abstain from sex until they are old enough to use contraception responsibly & handle the emotional ramifications of a sexual relationship, this is very different than shaming girls for having a sexual relationship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Most Posted by: RHad

Comments are closed-

KDY
Posted by: kdy on May 4, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman who was raised Catholic with twelve years of Catholic schooling, this article really hit home. Even as a child, I found it hard to understand why "virgin" had such a special status in the church. I'd learn about different women saints who'd been killed because they refused to commit "unpure" acts. After their names they bore the title, "virgin and martyr". Virgin even took precedence over getting killed. I never understood why no men were glorified for not giving up their virginity. I also didn't understand a church that would condemn a woman who made the choice under fear of death of commiting an unwanted sex act. It seemed a little harsh to me. We're spending our tax money on purity proms? This has to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read the Book of Revelation(s?) Posted by: Swatopluk

Comments are closed-

How long...
Posted by: Cybershaman on May 4, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before we too, require Burkas to be worn? The Amish and Quakers already have gone this route of sexless dress. Is it another example of us becoming what we fight against?

Denial is easier than transcendence. But only for the state. As we see in our country with pot, it is easier for the state to forbid certain activities than to promote the wiser route of letting a population just get it out of their system and move on. Most activities have self-regulating features. Limitations that naturally occur.

Only when you restrict the activity does it fester and morph into extremely nasty versions. In other words, any energy that is blocked from it's natural course will eventually explode in uncontrollable and unexpected ways. That is the nature of all energy.

Sexual denial becomes sexual dysfunction later in life because the behavioral patterns become ingrained. Permission from some authority figure does not automatically flip a proverbial switch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How long... Posted by: paulaH

Comments are closed-

Total gender bias rubbish. To summarize this article, blame the men for women being the victims.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 4, 2009 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JenniferBedingfield, Suzon, and Kepstein777 raise interesting points from different angles on the reality that there are plenty of biases and double standards towards both sexes. The problem with articles like these are that just like the trashy rightwing articles on gender discrimination I've come across portraying only men as the victims, there's too much blame the men for women suffering bullshit. Men and women are equally guilty of the fucked up societal intolerances that exist today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maxpayne Posted by: munchkinpup
» Your daughter is lucky. Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Fear
Posted by: Urgelt on May 4, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are social conservatives afraid of?

For one thing, they're afraid of unwanted pregnancies and the ancient social stigma that is attached to them.

For most of human history, pregnancy was a dangerous condition. The woman's life was placed at risk by it. Giving birth was not something to be done lightly, and it served a social purpose to place social restrictions and controls over it. The danger of pregnancy has been eased, but it's not gone yet.

Nor was the prospect of fatherless children to be sneered at throughout most of human history. The idea of a social safety net is a recent thing. Fatherless children were to be pitied - fewer resources and opportunities, greater risk of starvation and neglect. The fear of these consequences is what gave paternalistic control its force.

What else? They're afraid of sexually transmitted diseases. A virgin or monogamous partner is a safe partner. Some STDs have been rendered fairly harmless by modern medicine; others, not so much. The fear continues.

What else? They're afraid that if women aren't monogamous, the nuclear family will collapse and we'll find ourselves in some modern-day Sodom. Many Christians take this threat quite seriously and fear it. Their holy book teaches that God is not reluctant to punish the wicked, and he doesn't always wait until the next life to do it.

What else? They're afraid of eroding the social authority of paternalistic religions. The worst thing a Christian can imagine is the end of Christianity on this Earth. Jesus abandoned by his children, a world of atheists inventing their own rules for society. Make no mistake, the rise of feminism directly threatens paternalistic religions. Feminist arguments often make those religions look insane.

Their fear is only exacerbated by the relentless advance of science, which, though it has nothing to say about religions' untestable assertions, has plenty to say about the testable ones.

The prospect for those religions in coming years is bleak, if civilization endures and science and technology continue to advance. Safer pregnancies, better birth control options, and the end of STDs will further extend the trend of making sexual choices an act with few consequences.

You wonder why social conservatives are so compassionate about unborn children, but hate any manifestation of a social safety net? I'll tell you. Easing the consequences of promiscuity is exactly what they do not want to do. It has nothing to do with the sacred life of the unborn. If it did, conservatives would extend the same empathy and compassion to people already born and suffering in poverty.

A social conservative is what he claims to be - a man or woman attempting to conserve the old ways and traditions. This is a time of terrible frustration to such men and women, because change is accelerating. The old ways are doomed. Unless drastic action is taken, of course.

Drastic action is exactly what social conservatives are contemplating right now. They aren't just talking about guns, they're applauding their use against family planning clinics and muttering about armed rebellion.

Social conservatives are often enthralled by the idea of holocaust, of collapse, of "the end of times." Some of them actively desire it. I think it's possible that the reason for this is that in no other way can they see an end to the trends which are devaluing their convictions and way of life.

And they're probably right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fear Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Fear Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Fear Posted by: Urgelt

Comments are closed-

Measured Against Each Other
Posted by: nen on May 4, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the greatest crime against women, and men for that matter, is that it is a social norm to measure women by how useful or attractive they are to men, and measure men by how useful or attractive they are to women. Not only does this not work for queer folks, but it is also a terrible way to measure one's worth.

Imagine a Gillette commercial. A man with a smooth, clean-shaven face. An example of what the pinnacle of male beauty is supposed to be in our society. And what always happens? A beautiful woman runs her hand sensually over his face. ALWAYS. How many commercials have we seen where a woman walks down the street or hallway in slow motion and men's heads turn as they stare at her?

People do have intrinsic worth. In and of ourselves, individual human beings have value, beauty, identity, and a host of qualities and vices.

What I want to say, especially after reading a lot of these comments, is that both women and men are oppressed. In very different ways. Women are hypersexualized, underpaid, assumed unintelligent, presumed weak, expected to be irrational, and many more unfair things. Men are measured by wealth, presumed to be perpetually horny, assumed to be consistently ruled by sex drive over logic, expected to be strong no matter what, and expected to be unemotional in most situations.

There are a lot of stupid assumptions we're expected to live by on both sides of the gender divide. These are the things which are contributing a great deal to the social sickness of our community. There are reasons why we are unhappy. There are reasons why we are stressed and feel trapped. We find ourselves struggling with what it means to be a "good man" or a "good woman". I think it's about time to redefine what those terms mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't redefine the terms, abandon them. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» RE: Don't redefine the terms, abandon them. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» Turn off your CAPS LOCK. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing

Comments are closed-

Interesting
Posted by: cyrstal on May 4, 2009 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article interesting and although I personally made a lifestyle choice to remain a virgin until I was married about a year ago, I never felt that being a virgin was what made me a "good" person, or that all my friends were "bad" people because the were sexually active. Perhaps this has to do with the socialization and teachings from my church in which I was taught that there are many things that help teach a girl to be good- including understanding these seven principles- faith, divine nature, individual worth, knowledge, choice and accountability, good works, and virtue. http://www.lds.org/youthresources/pdf/YWProgress36035.pdf
I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and although we highly value virginity and not being sexually active until married, we also believe in repentance and forgiveness and that we are still loved no matter what by our Heavenly Father. Everybody must choose for themselves what type of lifestyle they would like to live, and no one should be judged solely based on their sexual activity... this does not mean that just because you value virginity that you also think it is the only attribute that defines you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The LDS Church is Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

Men with a virginity fetish don't want women.
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on May 4, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They just want brand-new, shrink-wrapped sex dolls fresh from the factory. And they should get them, instead of inflicting their fetishes on other people. A RealDoll isn't that expensive, after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

EVERYONE'S FAVORITE SUBJECT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 4, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never fails. On a scale of things taking a look around the world, does virginity have a whole hell of alot to do with anything? If some guy is repulsed by "damaged merchandise" that's too bad. He should just move on. He's problably a pain in the ass anyway. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RELIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: joeocho88
» RE: LIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: LIGIOUS FANATICS Posted by: Kati

Comments are closed-

GADFLY PAT
Posted by: pest on May 4, 2009 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE MAJOR PROBLEM FOR WOMEN IS REDUCING THEM TO SEX OBJECTS-SOLELY. BOOKS CONTINUE THIS CLASSIFICATION AND JUSTIFY THIS CONCEPT. TV MORES, DRESS AND ACTIONS PROMOTE
THIS SEX ONLY ROLE. IT'S ALL BOOBS,BUTTS & BELLY BUTTONS BUT NO BRAINS-NEVER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why do we have to be in charge?
Posted by: pamcdowe on May 4, 2009 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always thought it was weird that the focus is always on how it's the girl's job to "save herself" or say no to sex. I don't think I've ever seen any education that focused on teaching guys not to pressure girls or not to give into their urges. Guys are just given up on as a lost cause or actually encouraged to "keep trying"..."morality" is supposed to be totally controlled by the girl's "strength or weakness."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do we have to be in charge? Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

THE DOUBLE STANDARD GETS WORSE WHEN YOU GET OVER 50 BOTH GENDERS GET THE SHAFT
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 4, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are FINISHED if you are a woman over 50 and are not established in a loving marriage relationship where the guy can provide for you while you are living and after he has passed away or you are not from a wealthy family or you have not made a lot in your own profession because your boss will try and find a way to get rid of you at work and you will be stuck and possibly homeless -- especially if you don't have a family to take you in when the man you live with divorces you for a younger trophy wife.
AGE IS NOT GOOD TO WOMEN! NOT AT ALL.
IF YOU ARE NOT VERY,VERY CAREFUL,YOU WILL END UP TOO OLD TO WORK A JOB AND TOO YOUNG FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY and usually you are thrown out around your late 50s.
AND WOMEN ARE LIVING LONGER... WHAT TO DO WITH UNWANTED OLDER WOMEN WHO HAVE NO CHILDREN OR OTHER RELATIVES TO TAKE YOU IN ?????
AND THERE WILL BE THOUSANDS OF BABY BOOMERS WHO READ THE POPULATION BOMB AND HAD NO CHILDREN...OR HUSBANDS... OR RETIREMENT...OR PENSIONS BECAUSE THOSE INDUSTRIES IN THE SOUTH THAT OFFERED THOSE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WOMEN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Girls are Stupid !!
Posted by: gellero1 on May 4, 2009 9:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh....you take offense?

I wasn't referring to you. You can be as sexual as you want. Even if you're 15. I've had hundreds of you. From 15 to now.

I'm referring to THEM ! The stupid ones that get pregnant. The stupid ones that refuse to abort (and then expect the sperm donor to support them and their bastard child ). Over 50% of 'minority' children are bastards. Sorry if that sounds cruel or bigoted. THEY are the selfish ones. Especially with the Right to Abort.

THAT'S WHY parents throw virginity proms for their daughters.....they can't trust them not to be STUPID !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Girls are Stupid !! Posted by: richholland
» Boys are stupid! Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

purity
Posted by: sureshot45 on May 5, 2009 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the idea is also a dangerous one. with men (and i guess some women?) paying substantial amounts of money for virgins. these virgins are trafficked human beings. the sex trade is alive and well..and by societies promoting the attraction and allure of chastity, they are feeding into the horrible atrocity. 70% of trafficked people are women and children, and it is predominantly to support the demand for sex. virgin sex. a lot more little boys are sex slaves than one might imagine. children are kidnapped at a young age, raised in brothels, then sold to the highest bidder. they can still work as non virgins, but the price drops drastically. hence..the traffickers and pimps need new kids. this is the real horror. not if the prom queen or head cheerleader is now being called a slut behind her back. i know that society needs to work on the ways we value/devalue women. and if our ideas change, perhaps the demand for virgin sex, or sex with young children will not be so appealing. i realize that the sex trade goes hand in hand with societies views on sex..which needs to change.

i just cant get all worked up over what complete strangers think of my sex life when the real unimaginable, vicious, and disgusting sale of (virgin) sex is happening every day. in every city. in every country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: purity Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: purity Posted by: richholland
» RE: purity Posted by: sureshot45

Comments are closed-

Who's guilty of moral panicking?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 5, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Establishment feminists have been wringing their hands and getting all sanctimoniousness over "raunch culture" ever since third wave feminism, lipstick feminism, girly feminism, and stripper chic appeared about a dozen years ago, just like they're now getting all in a tither over "purity culture". It would be enough to make a young woman schizo, I'd imagine. There's no way to please feminists because they're inconsistent, swinging from one emotional extreme to the other.

Evidently, the choices of women only matter to feminists when they affirm their cant. This is yet another example of the way in which feminists are contemptuous of actual women. When one has an independence of mind it places them on the wrong side of "the struggle".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Yanaar
Posted by: context on May 5, 2009 4:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most beautiful woman I've ever seen was about 180 lbs, black straight hair, strong hands and arms, dressed in a brown floor length garment, and wore a warm smile. She was a Lakota Sioux who came to our town with her tribe and family to sell some of their homemade wares. I was working in a small restuarant at the time (we hosted the event,) and this woman came in to cook. And could she ever cook. She put me right to work, the other women too, and I remember thinking to myself, "if I ever got sick, this is the woman I want to take care of me."

That's womanhood. That's beauty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

BALONEY PREMISE
Posted by: reelman on May 5, 2009 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because you are a secularist does not mean virginity is not still the best way to enter marriage...
76% fornication black families
28% fornication white families
Now tell us how this is superior...
and you wonder why their children are such a high risk mess...
Your baloney premises and rants do not change the all-time fact that morals matter and character counts...
And your pastor is?
Just another secular kook trying to make themselves feel superior...pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

men getting old?
Posted by: Kati on May 6, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what happens when you get old and no one is there to take care of you? By the way, haven't you noticed, women on average live longer than men and we do pretty well once we don't have to nurse our old husbands 24/7...

Also, married men live longer than single men. Why do you suppose that is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: men getting old? Posted by: Kati

Comments are closed-

Its the males turn.
Posted by: osd on May 6, 2009 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more way for men to try and control the women and "there pussy". So they seem to think, that they have some kind of ownership in a women virginity. They should concentrate on there own virginity first. Mens whole world is locked up in how much they can control and thats why they have to have 5 or 6 didferent drugs to help "get it hard" or "Bigger/Longer." They still haven't addressed the fact they do not have much in the way of "birth control" for themselves. But we all know thats a womens problem. If you want to be "the controller" then first you need to be responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Single Standard
Posted by: Red State Gal on May 6, 2009 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the double standard hurts women. A single standard for both men and women is what is needed.

But why should that single standard be promiscuity? Instead, let's have the single standard be chastity outside of marriage and perfect fidelity within marriage. Let's hold both men and women to that standard.

The consequences would be hugely positive: no STDs, no fatherless children, no adultery, no date rape . . .

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have a better idea: Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» How about Posted by: BlueTigress

Comments are closed-

It is all about control
Posted by: jimidee on May 9, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men are amazingly insecure about all things sexual...am I big enough, tough enough, good enough? The answer is probably not. We all know that size DOES matter...we have seen with our own eyes women select for penis size over and over. We all know that they will give up most everything for a man with a large penis. And they don't have one...darn it. All they know is that it is something about the difference between picking your nose with your finger or your thumb.

So, armed with this information, men must keep women from finding out about the whole big dick thingy using guilt, religious doctrine (your going to Hell, young lady!), societal pressures, slander, name calling, or anything else that they can think of to control women's sexual appetite for the large penis. It is an imperfect plan at best, because women are going to find out about big dicks eventually, and they are gong to leave you because you don't have one.

Ok, so that covers white boy's issues...how do we 'splain the brother's problems? Hmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Most hymens are broken when the little girls...
Posted by: jimidee on May 9, 2009 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
start sticking fingers, then candles, then hairbrush handles, etc. into themselves at an early age...because it feels good. More power to them...it is their body. It is an insignificant membrane, so what is the big deal. And it does feel good, so how ya' gonna stop 'em?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Same Old Story
Posted by: Candleinheart on May 9, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In high school the few doing 'it' were looked upon with the invisible Scarlet Letter A emblazoned on their chests. I was a senior in college for 'first' experience. Was 'saving' myself for marriage thinking I would be loved by him and 'God' more. But, after years of heavy petting, necking, fear of pregnancy my year and a half with boyfriend's father died. I was moved by his sorrow and 'gave in'. What a massive disappointment. Worse than a bunny. Over in seconds. To add insult to injury I never heard from him again while I suffered 3 weeks fearing i would be pregnant.
Well, fast foward to 72 now. Had for years a life cycles counseling practice where I heard the laments of hundreds of women, forced to watch porno movies, forced to do threesomes, forced to have sex 3x a day,bedroom rapes, neighbors, fathers, ministers molesting, a minister who counseled 6 people naked together, had an affair with one of them and wife ended up raising the kid. What an education.
After my marriages ended I was SHOCKED at the number of married men coming to see me. Declined all as I wouldn't hurt another woman this way.
After all, I surely wouldn't want my husband 'servicing' every single woman out there. I tried to live by the Golden rule but it's been hard. What with married men 'hitting on me'(declined) and single men who I know had ladies, I wanted to be the only one, my senior years have been pretty lonely in that department. Morality does play a part for me.
Women cried their hearts out. They met a 'nice man'. Dinner out. Sex pressured first date. Never called again. Then there are the articles where men stated they married the first gal who said 'No'. Double standard once again. flirt, pressure to get laid, poor woman wanting sex but love and commitment, and then hurt.
Now, what with the culture as it is, every woman has as much a right to have sex as the man. BUT,
if you can handle one night stands fine, but most women can't. You THINK you can but if you're honest you know you can't. You want a relationship of quality, you must say NO on first date.
Three European women I've known through the years stated, "What has America done to its men?'
I was late in my life when I heard this expression......"Women give sex to get love. Men give love to get sex." Most women I know gave much sex but got little 'love.'
Sex is God in this country and true love, tenderness, honesty, respect, caring for another's well-being is what is important. You cannot establish this between two people until you 'court' for awhile. Date. Get to know one another. Find out the family background. Wait til marriage? Not necessarily, but at least establish some mutual respect,understanding, trust. He/she not interested? Then let them go.
Several women I counseled who were very active sexually before marriage, of those I listened to, none remained faithful in their own marriages.
Every male who came to me were involved in relationships outside their marriage. Everyone!
Have no answers. I know what I want and hold off. Even at 72 I have hope. Dating services? Tried them all. Every male 55 plus want a woman many years younger than themselves.
Save your virginity for marriage? Fine. What about the education of men to properly make love to their virgin wife? Hadn't heard many truly heartwarming accounts of first nighters. We called Native American 'savages' but in the book Hanta Ho by Dee Brown , I believe around page 75? There is an account of how the elders taught a young brave how to treat his bride on wedding night. I cried when I read that account. I cried for all the awful stories I heard from women, I cried for how I longed to be treated so. Beautiful. Where are the men to teach young men about real sexuality? The whole thing is so sad. In a group meeting a woman spoke of so many broken relationships that she felt 'dead.' She probably gave in for love and ended up being left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Emotional dishonesty behind the "sex and power" mindset
Posted by: grailsnail on May 11, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all about power -- Corporate advertising says women's sexuality is all about power, not sensuality or affection. Purity crusades are similar, regarding female sexuality as too threatening, too dangerous not to be contained.

The emotional dishonesty behind it all is simple: anyone who uses the word "slut" is sexually insecure. If men were taught to be honest and say, "Sexually free women trigger my insecurity and fear of abandonment", there would be no need for labeling.

I'm male and have never heard any of my male friends talk about women they sleep with as "whores". It might be because the people I hang out with a generally free admitting their emotions. Nobody tries to gain status by acting "hard" or picking on others. The world isn't made up of only one kind of culture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Um. Again, stop saying "double standard" if you don't know what it means.
Posted by: RHad on May 24, 2009 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go again, for the slow ones:

There is one standard for men.
There is one standard for women.

Yes, physiology, psychology and biology dictate that these are indeed different standards, particularly when it comes to sexual relationships. A double standard might apply should you have two standards for a group of men, or for a group of women. A double standard simply cannot exist among two different subsets.

Having different standards for men and women, then, does not constitute a "double standard." It constitutes reality. Just because you hear this term used incorrectly does not mean you too may use it incorrectly. Unless, of course, you're trying to push some sort of sham sexual agenda. Which you are. And it seems Ms. Valenti's career is somewhat based on this misnomer.

So once again for the class, when it comes to comparing men and women, the term "double standard" does not apply or even make sense. Apples and oranges. Please refrain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS