Dear Lord, the idiocy here

First things first: virginity doesn’t exist

Well, actually, it does. It’s the state of not having had penetrative vaginal sex as yet.

Whether it’s important or not is entirely another matter. But it does exist.

and there’s no way to test it. Hymens can be broken by things other than penises. Some girls are born without hymens. Many women and girls who have never had penetrative vaginal sex nonetheless lack an intact hymen; some women who have had penetrative vaginal sex see their hymens remain intact.

All of that’s true. And yet none of it changes the falsity of the first assertion.

Of course, the entire concept of virginity is misogynistic: men aren’t valued for their sexual inexperience, there’s no male virginity test, and male sexual desire and experience are considered both normal and appropriate. It’s also just plain stupid, logically and conceptually. If a woman has sex exclusively with women and has 500 partners in her life, is she still a virgin? Why is a woman who has anal but not vaginal sex a technical virgin, but a man who has only had anal sex with men not one? A woman could ostensibly have a long and active career as a porn star and still be a virgin, so long as the vaginal sex was the one act she would not engage in. Is a woman still a virgin if she’s penetrated with a sex toy but not a human penis?

What fun with the hypotheticals.

And yet it has been something our forbears placed great importance upon. Why so for all those thousands and thousands of years? The absence of contraception of course.

A bloke is going to spend the majority of his life’s work in supporting his family. The aim and purpose of the entire idea of life itself is to be raising part copies of one’s own DNA. Thus the treasure of his labour should be spent upon his children, not those of the bloke next door or the wife’s first boyfriend.

Thus the importance placed upon the woman’s chastity. One useful signifier of which is her virginity.

This isn’t complicated and it may not be all that relevant these days. But knowing how we got to where we are is useful.

But then that’s asking a woman to be logical, isn’t it?

16 comments on “Dear Lord, the idiocy here

  1. But then that’s asking a woman to be logical, isn’t it?

    But it’s not really a question of logic, but rather reality.

    The Fems would rather not have their rampant promiscuity and the problems that said promiscuity rubbed in their faces. It’s not the “one guy who took her virginity” that’s the problem so much as the football team or more that followed him.

    For the Fems, the real problem is not the differences between male and female virginity, so much as what follows. In my day it was “the number game”, but nowadays a more cruder version called “How many miles of dick?” is the method of valuation.

    That’s the problem.

  2. “Of course, the entire concept of virginity is misogynistic: men aren’t valued for their sexual inexperience”

    Jesus, this broad should try being a male virgin, and see how pro-male the concept of virginity is then. The whole point is that it just values and denigrates men and women equally, just for a different side of the equation. Women get valued for virginity, and denigrated for being sexually experienced, and men get precisely the opposite. They all get penalised for failure, its just that failure varies between the sexes.

  3. That’s why devil worship has never taken off in [insert location of your choice].

    They can’t find any young virgins to sacrifice.

  4. “virginity doesn’t exist”
    Dunno about does not exist. But it’s rarely spotted in the wild & in danger of extinction..

  5. I mean yeah the concept of “checking” is very dubious. Lady’s Di’s visit to the Royal gyno … do we think that was passed? 20 years later was Camilla checked?

  6. I believe that it was local folklore in Liverpool that the stone “Liver Birds” on the top of the Royal Liver Building would flap their wings if a virgin walked past…

  7. Typical SJW, the less problematic a “problem” is the more they squeal about it, and aim at the wrong target.
    In most western countries when was the last time that anyone made a big deal about the average woman’s virginity or otherwise?
    On the other hand, certain demographics are very hard on women who have lost their virginity when they “shouldn’t” have. Will our dear author kick up a fuss about them?
    Silence….

  8. Also a very modern metropolitian viewpoint. In my living memory I have ancestors who would only commit to marriage once they’d ensure she could get pregnant. No good running a farm with no supply of extra hands. Also, being a fishing town, male ancestors happy to take on a young lady whose beau had been lost at sea, clearly knowing they would have been doing the pre-marital fertility test four-step.

  9. I heard that if a virgin walked past the Royal Liver Building, the Liver Birds would shit, which is probably more do to with being told that by a Manc,

    Anyway, interesting to note the difference between the discourse here and that when discussing incels or MRAs

  10. Ancient civilisations were often Matriarchal and inheritance matrilinear as only the maternal parentage of a child could be fully known . This was often reflected by the worship of female earth goddesses whose conquest by males sky gods came when social development reached a stage whereby the male line could be protected by enforcing female chastity and fidelity.
    In Rome and Greece male sexuality was a complex and various thing but since trhe Christian period chastity was , at least in theory valued for both sexes and sex out of wedlock discouraged for men and women ( and ideally avoided entirely )
    These ideals have , of course generally not been observed . Chaucer`s Wife of Bath shows us some ages have been more kindly disposed to female lust than the Victorian Non Conformists and the ageless mirth old men besotted with young girls ( or boys) shows some things never change whilst the attitude of Greek to pederasty shows that some thing do ( I speak as a catamite of my EU master here …:) )

    Tim is right , of course about virginity . The odd thing about feminist critiques of history is that while it discovers interesting subjects previously ignored it is then incapable of approaching them with any historical imagination whatsoever .

  11. Do you wish to name these matriarchal ancient civilisations, Newmonia? Actual civilisations with writing & laws, proper buildings ‘n that.

  12. @Jim November 9, 2019 at 10:58 am

    Spot on. Girls mock male virgins

    Also, if a girl wants sex and boy says no he’s ridiculed, yet a girl saying no must be respected.

    Furthermore, if a guy has sex with a sleeping woman it’s rape; if a woman has sex with a sleeping guy that’s fine and if she becomes pregnant guy is fined for 18+ years

  13. Ok bloke civilisations is exactly the wrong word , I was thinking of Celtic society in which , Queens were common . Matriarchal is probably too strong , formally matrilinear and female centred. The earliest ‘civilisations ‘ surround a god king and here I am thinking of Mycenae and Egypt and have vast bureaucracies of Priests and burial .
    The fascinating period is the so called ancient dark age form which emerges a new freeer warrior spirit , more democratic in the that the Vikings were , this is the birth of Europe and the West ..
    It all nearly lost to the Persian empire and again wit the fall of Rome where the idea clung onto rocks around our little country .

  14. “Thus the importance placed upon the woman’s chastity. One useful signifier of which is her virginity.”

    That’s a weak argument, ancient cultures never expected chastity from women, the assumption was that given a suitable incentive women would exercise their sexual freedom, as in “the mother is always certain, the father never”. Also because when a woman is urgently trying to get married the standard assumption was “pregnant with someone who has disappeared”. That’s why many cultures are matrilineal, because siblinghood is much harder to get wrong than fatherhood.

    The only case in which the husband would have some certainty of paternity was when the bride was physically a virgin, and then only for the firstborn (which otherwise would not be special), especially if male and resembling their alleged father.

    Now there is DNA testing, and in many countries it is criminal offence if done without the consent of the mother, and the usual reason given is the risk of violence (economic or physical) against women.

  15. So matriarchal societies are distinguished by a sod roof with a hole in it rather than a chimney, Newmonia? That seems to be telling us something.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.