Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

'Born-Again Virginity' in the Age of Girls Gone Wild

By Amy DePaul, AlterNet. Posted March 20, 2007.


Born-again virginity has been repeatedly debunked. Why, then, do so many continue to embrace the chastity pledge?
Advertisement

Oh Ashley... it's been three weeks, am I a virgin again? heart graphicRamona

Born-again virgins, usually young people with a sexual past pledging to start fresh and commit to abstinence, take endless abuse on MySpace. Here, in Web pages filled with youthful accounts of hook-ups, parties and daily minutiae, writers muse over what constitutes born-again virginity, tongue planted firmly in cheek. Is it a year without sex, or as Ramona (above) might suggest, something more short term?

"I used to have a roommate who was a 'born-again virgin'," one Myspace user asserts in a typical posting, " -- what a crock of shit that was." Popular depictions of born-again virgins do little to add credibility. For example, Luanne from the animated sitcom "King of the Hill" vowed in a church ceremony never again to have premarital sex. A later episode depicted her pregnant, however.

Further reinforcing doubts are provocative musical treatments like singer Noa Tylo's 2001 album, "Born Again Virgin," which one reviewer called "a dark and broody dance-music exploration of sexual intensity." Hardly monastic!

Meanwhile, singer-songwriter Cindy Alexander's song "Born Again Virgin" begins, "Hey it's nice to meet you/I'm a born-again virgin" and later proposes, none too coyly, that "maybe we could touch." (Blame it on Madonna's 1984 hit, "Like a Virgin.")

Rooted in Evangelical dogma, born-again virginity has become easy to mock. But, for a large number of teens, abstinence supporters -- and, surprisingly, a cadre of mature single women - born-again virginity is no laughing matter. What, then, is the appeal of born-again virginity, and does it work?

AKA 'secondary virginity'

Born-again virginity originated from chastity campaigns organized by Evangelical Christians in the early 1990s. Currently groups such as Silver Ring Thing (www. silverringthing. com) and Worth the Wait (www. iamworththewait. org) promote teen abstinence on a massive scale, encouraging young people to take virginity pledges and seal the deal with wallet pledge cards and purity rings.

Does pledging work? In the short term, yes. But not in the long term, which is where born-again virginity comes into play. Abstinence pledges are successful with young and mid-adolescents, often delaying sex by 18 months, according to a 2001 study by sociologists Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner. Still, a follow-up study by the same authors showed that 88 percent of pledge-takers eventually had premarital sex.

"Secondary" or "renewed" virginity, then, may be a key retention strategy of the abstinence movement because it allows fallen pledge-takers back into the fold.

Virginity pledgers who break their vows are welcomed home with the proviso that they stop having sex and re-commit to abstinence: "If you have already had sex," it says on the Worth the Wait Web site, "don't throw in the towel just yet. You CAN start over and take a vow of renewed abstinence." Silver Ring Thing offers a similar message: "We recognize the fact that many students who attend the SRT are or have been sexually active, and they need to know if it is possible to begin again. The answer is YES, YOU CAN START OVER and, in fact, for this reason many students attend our program."

In this way, pledge groups touting secondary virginity operate in much the same way as Alcoholics Anonymous, which positions itself as a support system for all problem drinkers -- whether they are on, or off, the wagon.

Seriously, born-again virginity

There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them.

This is essentially the approach that author Wendy Keller took in her 1999 book The Cult of the Born-Again Virgin. Keller had been working as a successful literary agent and stumbled onto born-again virginity in a social circle where you might least expect it: among 30- and 40-something high-powered career women. Rather than emulating Sex and the City's Samantha Jones, who uses her sexual prowess to dominate men and feel powerful, the women depicted in Keller's book had decided that taking themselves off the dating treadmill would empower them, and it did.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: evangelicals, born-again virginity, secondary virginity, chastity, wendy keller

Amy DePaul is a writer and college instructor who lives in Irvine, Calif. Her articles have appeared in The Washington Post and many other newspapers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Between the ages of 15 and 24 I had a LOT of sex
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 20, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it did not do me any harm. In fact, I have fantastic memories of those lithe ladies, and they will always keep my memories warm and happy long into my old age. When you are young and fit and good looking, you are deeply horny.

And it is no surprise young people, looking so attractive to each other, would want to bed each other. The sex made me feel good about myself, helped with all the exam stress I was under (I was trying to get my grades up because I wanted to go to an ivy league university and I was coming from the ghetto). 99 percent of the liberals on here can't even come close to understanding how stressful that is for somebody who is 16 or 17.

Taking sex away seems especially cruel and dishonest. As much as I had sex in high school, it was unbelievable in university.

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

» father-daughter purity balls Posted by: DeeOhGee
Chastity??
Posted by: gellero on Mar 20, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chastity is its own punishment. when you're young you should have sex just for the fun of it. If you didn't........too bad. When you're older and are tired of the beauty you're doing, you'll regret not having gotten your share of strange.

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

» RE: Chastity?? Posted by: Ayla87
The two concepts are not the same
Posted by: Erik1968 on Mar 20, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're opposites. The christian abstinence (and re-abstinence) movements seek to control women's sexuality. The more adult "abstinence" movement is about women taking control of their lives and sexuality in order to face themselves.

Sex is complicated. To be simply pro or anti sex is just dumb. Everyone has sex before marriage, and they have forever. Even the pilgrims had bundling!

The issue isn't abstinence per se, but whether women should be allowed to make their own decisions, and be informed, abotu their own sexuality. Despite the age of "girls gone wild," (and in some ways, because of it) women still have a long way to go. When choosing to pursue goals and "going wild" are considered two sides of the same coin, the space for freedom is narrowing, not growing.

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

Sex is the key to Enlightenment
Posted by: terradea on Mar 20, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is the door to enlightenment. It allows a person to explore the universe, one experience at a time, and encourages a connection among the individuals who make up the vast entity some call God. Religious leaders want to oppress this wonderful gift of nature in their flocks because, if people explored the power of sexuality, they would no longer need religion or believe the lies they're told by the church. Sex opens doors, cleanses the mind and improves awareness. And it's FUN.

On the flip side, those who do not engage in sex, or who think it should be oppressed, are not to be trusted. They are nothing more than pods, fake humans, without soul. These are the people who start wars for "whatever," believe that killing others in the name of religion or nationalism is justified, and exhibit greed on a daily basis. These people hate enlightenment; they are the "anti-humans. "

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

» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Sex is the key to Enlightenment Posted by: jack alexander
» Enlightenment Posted by: hbw
empowerment or guilt?
Posted by: ktm on Mar 20, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a couple of friends took a vow of virginity and who waited a long time until they had sex... none of them made it until marriage, but they were at least into their twenties before they took the plunge... and in each case, it did sooooooo much damage to their self estemm because of the guilt they felt afterwards.

and i don't think this movement is healthy for that reason. breaking the virginity vow (once or twice or however many times), which the author admits is frequent, only furthers to make the girl (or woman) feel as if she has betrayed herself or her father or her future husband or some other hideous damaging lie. if you really want to pour some effort into healthy sexual choices, please pour it into supporting the movement AGAINST abstinence only education.

and what about the ones who break the vow of secondary virginity? is their chance at an empowering sexuality gone? how many chances do you get? regardless, putting a limit on sexual experiences only serves to throw judgement on those who break the vow or opt out of taking it.

this might be the right choice for a woman who knows herself, her temptations, and how strong her will is, but i would hazard a guess that an adolscent who has already slipped into 'sexual sin' before will find it a very hard standard to uphold and will probably suffer more damage as the result of not being able to keep the vow a second time.

i think our empowerment should come from confidence in our sexual choices, no matter what they might be. And i do not think that that is the motivating force behind the 'worththewait' and the 'silverringthing'. their motivation comes from categorizing 'good' and 'bad' sexuality, not educating women about their sexual choices. empowerment, at least for me, has come from the realization that MY sexuality is MY choice.

just because the religious right and feminist movement is temporarily aligned in this abstinence by choice/empowerment of choices virginity does not mean that each are doing it for the correct reasons. education and empowerment should always remain our focus.

placing judgement or guilt on a natural biological urge will not now, nor ever be an educational or empowering thing.

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

» RE: empowerment or guilt? Posted by: hms2004
» RE: empowerment or guilt? Posted by: lively56
Contradictions...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 20, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contradictions...
My first opinion is that ANYTHING that stops teens from becoming parents is a great idea so if these kids want to do abstinence or born-again virginity or whatever, fine with me, as long as they're not spewing out babies.

My second opinion is this: teens and young people are going to have sex. We are biological sex machines. It's what we DO. It's why we are here on the planet-to reproduce. Sadly. I'd much rather see programs supporting family planning, free birth control in schools, etc.. that programs shoving re-abstinence down kid's throats.

Either way, there are far too many people on the planet. I, for one, am a non-breeder at 44. So as long as whoever is having sex is doing it safely, consentually, and with BIRTH CONTROL, cool.

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

» for Tatarize Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Contradictions... Posted by: hbw
Adult celibacy
Posted by: Sunfell on Mar 20, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll admit that I despise the term 'born-again virgin'. Especially the religious taint of the first two words. The third is also questionable.

The original meaning of the word 'virgin' meant a woman who was not pregnant, a woman who belonged to herself. Such women might have sex, but manage to avoid both pregnancy and being bound to a man.

Today, the word 'virgin' has become a word riddled with religious connotations. So has 'celibate'. But the act of deliberately eschewing sex and the energy expended in pursuing it is a very empowering one, and should not be tossed aside because of its religious links.

This does not mean becoming 'anti-sex', or some sort of celibate zealot. The choice to eschew sex should be a personal one, taken with deliberation and the desire to nurture yourself. It is an empowering thing, a profound secret, a place of healing and growth. You don't have to make elaborate vows or wear silly jewlery. You simply close that door and move on.

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

» interesting comment Posted by: off-the-radar 2
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SOME WOMEN WON'T BUY INTO
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 20, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once you've done something, you can never do it again for the first time. What low life creates the guilt and then sells the cure for it? Funny how we never run out of women to degrade. There's always a fresh supply. They seem to be raised to think they're worthless. The whole 'born again virgin' thing is a crock of s--t. Thanks, ANNA

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

funnier and funnier
Posted by: Guy on Mar 20, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The avangelical Christian movement just gets funnier and funnier, doesn't it? I think I'll watch "Saved" one more time.

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

Men and Women are sexually incompatible
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his Love and Sex column, Dan Savage writes"

"In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tears into the intelligent design idjits. I feel bad about piling on—almost. Hey, intelligent design idjits? If God really wants us to have heterosexual sex only, and then only within the bounds of holy matrimony, and if adultery offends Him so much—it's a stoning offense, right up there with gay sex—how come He designed men and women to be sexually incompatible?

"Well, I should say that He designed straight men and straight women to be sexually incompatible. Lesbian couples, with their bags of Doritos, and gay couples, with our mutually insatiable sexual appetites, seem pretty intelligently designed. Thank you, Jesus!"


The burden of sexual temptation is carried largely by women. Young women and girls must be horribly confused by a society that blames them for rampant sex and yet told to preserve their virginity for marriage, when it is the young men and boys who have the larger part of the sexual energy that drives much of the sexual activity. Meanwhile, while the young men and boys may be taught that virginity is a good thing, they tend to escape the kind of blame that the young women and girls must shoulder.

This is not a right or wrong statement about youthful sexual activity, but a recognition that society and culture are what determine how negative outcomes (pregnancy, disease) are viewed and treated.

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

My understanding is that what other people choose to do with their naughty bits...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 20, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is none of my damn business, whatever chic name or pop-tricksy monikers they choose to apply to such behavior. If being reborn again for the second time since breakfast makes you feel fulfilled, all the more power to you.

This was an interesting article, in particular because I couldn't put a finger on the author's exact bias. That's an exemplary trait for an expository essay, and it was a surprising treat to find on this website. One note of contention:

Second, born-again virginity should be a feminist-inspired route to autonomy of mind and body: a recourse for adolescent girls seduced by exploitative and ultimately fraudulent media depictions of youth sexuality.

In circles with fewer X-chromosomes, this is covered under the topic of "keeping your willy in your pants". The verbiage to describe this approach, in contrast with the author's offering above, does not wax nearly so poetic, nor does it satisfy the insatiable need for an indictment of "society" as a requisite preamble to what I find on the whole (so to speak) to be genuinely agreeable propositions.

Where the more direct approach shines, on the other hand, is to place the focus on the individual making choices that are less destructive for himself and those around him: the impetus to make "humanist" choices, versus highly codified and exclusionary "feminist" ones.

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

Uh, few take them seriously because...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because the entire concept is utterly ludicrous! It isn't abstinence that is ludicrous... it is building up this big thing about it that is ludicrous.

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

thoughtful article
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Mar 20, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
interesting article, very even-handed exploration.

Promiscuity is relentlessly hyped by our corporate culture (and is a fine choice for some) but for many other people, it is not the right path.

So promoting abstinence (or waiting!) is a very valid option---for women and men.

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

» RE: thoughtful article Posted by: hms2004
Heidi
Posted by: hhunt on Mar 20, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One CANNOT become a born-again virgin - it is physiologicallly impossible without surgery. One can be born-again chaste. To encourage women to think that they are physically virgins after having sex is to confuse the day-lights out of them. They can change their future behavior but not the RESULT of previous behavior

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

Stranger Days
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 20, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the bizarre binaries the author sets up:
• GGW vs. Virginity, ("born-again"?! WTF?)
• celibacy vs. lack of self-control
• sex as lack of autonomy vs. no-sex as virtue

Good grief, what a bunch of complete stoopid this entire concept is that there is one or the other of any of these things. The species is utterly doomed if that's truly the case.

What I get from this article is that the whole notion of virginity and celibacy (outside of a cultural construct for specific individualized purposes) is just making shit up to compensate for emotional and sexual illiteracy. It sounds as grossly unhealthy and pre-pubescent as GGW.

Is there any way we can get an RFID tag for these folks to wear so normal humans can avoid them, or at least offer some therapeutic assistance? Seems to me, neither approach to sex and sexuality is very useful, the author's meager attempt at the same notwithstanding.

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

Proof of virginity
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hhunt posted:

"One CANNOT become a born-again virgin - it is physiologicallly impossible without surgery. One can be born-again chaste. To encourage women to think that they are physically virgins after having sex is to confuse the day-lights out of them. They can change their future behavior but not the RESULT of previous behavior."

People also retain the memory of what they did and so does the person with/to whom they did it!

While the means test for determining virginity in a woman is only somewhat reliable (horsey riding and swmming can bust a hymen, too), I'd like to see a means test to determine whether a man can prove he is a virgin.

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

As a male, I was pretty darn good at TOTAL abstinence. In fact,
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 20, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hadn't even considered dating until I was 26. And yes, it took me 3 years until I found an excellent partner. By 30, I was married and settled in just fine. You don't have to be an "evangelical" to get it right.

P.S.: I'm glad I was armed with education all the way to grad school to take survive this brutal world. Job security is a joke in America as it is and every Alternet user knows that when one or the other partner is a victim of it, that can damper a good relationship.

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

celibate = not dating either?
Posted by: drmeow on Mar 20, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A woman was there who was dynamic and vivacious and successful and pretty. I asked if she was dating anybody and she said, 'No, I'm a born-again virgin and believe in being celibate until I find the right guy.'"

Since when did not having sex equal not dating. How is someone going to "find the right guy" unless they are open to dating? And why did she need to announce this. The question was "are you seeing anyone" not "are you sexually active?"

I know this quote was just to explain Keller's interest in exploring this phenomenon but to me it illustrates an underlying problem with the "born-again virgin" movement. What I see in this woman is someone who connects dating with sex (suggesting that she tended to jump into sexual relationships very quickly in the dating process) and identifies herself in terms of whether she's having sex or not (not necessarily in terms of her sexuality but from a much narrower perspective). What I take from this is that she (and other women who have embraced the "born-again virgin" movement) is not dealing with her sexuality or her issues around her sexuality but is merely trying to exert control over one relatively narrow aspect of sexual behavior. While there is nothing wrong with trying to exert control over one's sexual behavior, doing so without addressing deeper issues with one's sexuality is only likely to be successful in the short-term.

I think there is a big difference between chosing to be celibate and calling yourself a born-again virgin. I see chosing to be celibate (for whatever reason) as empowering but do not feel that being a born-again virgin is empowering (the one exception is with girls/women who have been sexually abused ... especially those who lost their virginity through rape ... if it is a way of separating who they are from the abuse). To me, being a born-again virgin is buying into a moral attitude about sexuality that is paternalistic and controlling.

Finally, what does being celibate or a born-again virgin mean? Does it just mean not having P-V sex (e.g., oral, etc, is OK)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact (P-V, oral, anal, heavy petting)? Does it mean not having any sexual contact or any contact that might lead to sexual behavior (e.g., no kissing, either)? Does it mean not having orgasms or sex (no masturbation or fantasy allowed)? I'm sure it means something different to everyone who adopts it which is also one of the flaws with the whole movement.

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

» RE: celibate = not dating either? Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
stupid
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People can decide to be celibate for a while for many different reasons. But calling it "born again virgins" is hella stupid. You can't take BACK experiences you've already had - they make you what you are! (no matter how wrong or traumatic you feel they are.) Everyone has things they wished never happened to them, but part of being a balanced adult is dealing with your past and moving on. Denial doesn't help, and being anti-sex is just reactionary. Can we just be whole human beings for once?

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

scary
Posted by: madaha on Mar 20, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, what's scary about this (touched on by someone above), is not that some women are not having sex *right this minute*, but that it's becoming a quasi movement. What each individual decides to do with their own body, and when, SHOULD NOT BE POLITICIZED OR RELIGIOUSIZED. (if that's a word - if it's not, it should be) No "pledges" should be made about this. Making rules about sex is creepy. Why can't we in our warped culture leave women's sexuality alone, already?

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

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Mar 20, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Born again is a contradiction. We are born, we live, we die. Unless you believe in reincarnation, that's it.

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

» RE: frank67 Posted by: Monk
I can' believe no one noticed and commented on...
Posted by: Idunno on Mar 20, 2007 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the fact that there was not one mention of men or boys in an article about a universally bipartisan "human" experience of chastity/abstinence. Wow! Amy, you must be so successful at being abstinent that you have erased the notion of men totally right out of your head. I am currently a middle aged bachelor who is purposefully embracing celibacy in order to help myself remember who I am and what I am doing on this planet... Self exploration and development is just easier to do without the responsibility of a relationship. The time will come for me to engage with someone again you see, because as someone said above... " Sex is the key to Enlightenment "

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

Anti-Feminist?
Posted by: xgroverx on Mar 20, 2007 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article seems to operate from an inherently anti-feminist notion, the idea that sex is only a tool of male domination that can't be an empowering experience for females and that women who have multiple sexual partners are somehow impure and not in control of their bodies. Maybe I'm misreading the article, but this seemed to be the underlying assumption. I think the problem is that sex has been socially constructed as an act of enjoyment for the male and objectification for the female. Therefore, women, as objects, who have multiple sexual partners are somehow 'spoiled goods', while men with multiple partners are strong and virulent. True female empowerment would thus come from changing this construction to one that considered sex an equally pleasurable and empowering act. By proposing celibacy, the suggestions made by the writer seem to buy into the existing sexist framework instead of trying to change it.

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

» RE: Anti-Feminist? Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Anti-Feminist? Posted by: xgroverx
» read it again Posted by: Phenix
» RE: read it again Posted by: xgroverx
what do you mean with SEX???????
Posted by: richholland on Mar 21, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you mean with Sex?/ In islamic countries virginity is important but who knows about your experiences oral, mastubation, anal?????
I told my daighter and son when they were about twelf years old that kissing and caressing with the right person was OK.

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

Most, Don't Understand the Problem.
Posted by: edraven on Mar 21, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't reply to all of the delusion that has been posted, but here are a few rules to live by:

Sex is good, and fun - - not EVIL.
We should learn how to have great sex in school.
Churches and presidents should stop twisting our minds with crap.
Virgin is a made-up concept to cause guilt. The word has no meaning otherwise.
Other words like: Abstinence, Chaste, Born Again, WWJD, Slut (and all of its variations), and Sin - - are stupid, hurtful, and controlling.

Why do you all (well, most of you) buy into things that are designed to hurt you?

Ed Graham

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

Oh for friks sake!!
Posted by: mizkaye on Mar 21, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are we gonna stop being so afraid of girls having sex???? Isn't it time we got over this ridiculous (and a little creepy) idolizing of 'pure' women???? It's just so stupid!! Not to mention patronizing...I'm a woman so if I am sexual it's not because I happen to 'ENJOY' sex it's because I'm chasing and trapping a man?!? I'm also so irresponsible that I can't be trusted with the information I need to keep me healthy and safe...I must wait for some knight in shining armor to come along and take me by the hand and make me his?!? And I have nothing to offer to that man...not intelligence, not companionship, not love, not loyalty, not humor,...none of those things...just my friggin' cherry?????!!!! Makes me wanna puke!!

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

It's all about marketing
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 22, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since a retread virgin is an impossibility, shouldn't the Federal Trade Commission be cracking down on these bogus advertising claims?

Just like buying 'organic', if I'm gonna pay more for a 'virgin' I want it to be properly certified.

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

» RE: It's all about marketing Posted by: mizkaye
Women these days...
Posted by: ateo on Mar 24, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most women my age (25) don't have much tread left on the tires so to speak these days. It's kinda like throwing a hot dog down a hall way to borrow a quote from Family Guy.

I think I'll wait until I've bought a house and can afford to "buy" a wife. A hot little 18 or 19 year old from Russia will do just fine thank you very much.

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

It is really quite simple...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 25, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if you can control one of the most powerful human drives (sexuality) then it is easy to control most everything else about that person.

THAT is why the religious are so hung up on other people's sexuality. THAT is how you can get them to drink any kind of Kool-Aid...such as going to war for no reason and/or believing that your Invisible Friend in the Sky wants you to do...whatever.

Another reason in the very full barrel of hypocrisy and BS of the religious...their barrel of "good" reasons to be religious is quite empty these days.

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

www.virginityproject.typepad.com - would anyone like to contribute a story?
Posted by: KateMonro on Apr 16, 2007 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all make fascinating insights into this issue. I write about virginity from the UK. If any of you have stories that you would like to share from your side of the pond, I would really welcome your contributions. All names are changed to protect your identity. Very best English wishes, Kate

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