Err, no love, this ain\’t about capitalism

Although it\’s clear from the outcome of the auction that female virginity is eminently more sellable than male virginity, members of both sexes are still being sold. In this sense, the shitty structure of advanced capitalism that we inhabit takes no prisoners, regardless of one\’s gender. Stepanov and Migliorini have both allegedly chosen to sell their virginities on telly, and perhaps I shouldn\’t patronise them by implying that they aren\’t able to make their own choices.

You might be able to note, if you actually checked your beliefs against the real world occasionally, that it\’s capitalism that\’s made virginity pretty much an irrelevance.

A few saddoes aside (and some religious as well) no one in the modern and rich world gives a toss about virginity. For capitalism has brought us the technology where it doesn\’t actually matter.

There was indeed a time, for a rather large part of humanity for a rather large amount of time, when virginity was a precondition to being marriageable. For a woman, those patriarchal feudalist bastards. But penicillin (amusingly, recent research shows that the success in defeating syphilis had much more to do with the sexual revolution than the pill did. The shagging started in the late 50s, not the early to mid 60s) and the pill and safe abortion, all things produced out of the surplus that a capitalist/market society produces, have meant that there just isn\’t the same concern over whether a bird is pregnant by some other man at the start of a relationship.

So virginity is a great deal less prized than it was. Advanced capitalism has largely solved, not caused, the problem you are complaining about.

As the modern woman marches up the aisle in white at the average age of 29 to her on her first trip to the altar, who in buggery expects her to be a virgin? And who would have expected her great grandmother to have been when she did?

Quite.

You ignorant, ignorant, stupid young woman you.

14 thoughts on “Err, no love, this ain\’t about capitalism”

  1. Isn’t selling virginity about the free market, not capitalism?

    And hasn’t virginity been on sale since the dim, distant past.

    Fathers could “sell” their virgin daughters to a desirably, prospective husband from a good family far easier than damaged goods.

    Deflowered daughters had to be hawked round to try and find men who were less fussy, who sometimes had to be paid to take them.

  2. And hasn’t virginity been on sale since the dim, distant past.

    I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but isn’t that the point? It was very important until not that long ago, it is far less important nowadays (at least in the Western world, for those who adopt Western mores.)

  3. “the shitty structure of advanced capitalism”

    A revealing phrase…”capitalism” for her will probably mean “what I’ve neuroticly decided I don’t like”, while the “advanced” is presumably intended to give her attitude a more ‘objective’ and theoretical Marxian gloss.

    Silly cow – semi-educated way beyond the limits of her intelligence…

  4. Yes, I’m wondering how capitalism would be involved in the sale of virginity.

    Private ownership of the means of production and distribution of virgins?

    I suppose if we take capitalism as being about the investment of capital and a return thereon, then one could invest in virgins (paying young girls, or their parents, to remain virgins) in return for a payment from the deflowerer. Perhaps also a bit of investment in training?

    Yes, probably something that certain brothel-keepers have always specialised in, but it sounds the sort of thing that would have been more common in the 18th century than the 21st.

    And it certainly ain’t what she’s complaining about here.

  5. “While female virginity is prized, if not full-on fetishised in most societies, there aren’t many sexually experienced women who fantasise about 25 seconds of awkward passion with a male virgin, though I might be being unfair.”

    Bit sexist, perhaps, but she’s right, which is why you can’t sell the one and you can the other. Film at 11.

  6. So Much for Subtlety

    A few saddoes aside (and some religious as well) no one in the modern and rich world gives a toss about virginity.

    I think from this we can deduce that Tim Worstall has not been dating for a while. Yes, people who obsess over virginity are sad. On the other hand, the number of angry and bitter women in their thirties and forties is non-trivial. Younger girls are actually sweeter.

    I assume this is because after getting screwed over a few times, women get pissed. Which should mean that any sane person puts a premium on women who have not been screwed over a few times. But of course, Western men are so brow-beaten and shamed for expressing any desire or preference of their own at all (as I note Our Host echoes here) that you can’t say that in polite company. If given a choice between a virgin and the exact same women two gang bangs, thirteen failed relations and an unfortunate video on the internet later, I would guess most men would not choose the latter. They just would not be brave enough to say so in public.

  7. Do Guardian writers still bang on about capitalism? I thought they’d have grown out of the class war meme by now.

  8. SMfS: it takes some brass balls to make the comments you’ve made in the Savile threads and then say “the number of angry and bitter women in their thirties and forties is non-trivial. Younger girls are actually sweeter”.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    john b – ” it takes some brass balls to make the comments you’ve made in the Savile threads and then say “the number of angry and bitter women in their thirties and forties is non-trivial. Younger girls are actually sweeter”.”

    I take that as a compliment I suppose. What do you think I said that was so unreasonable?

  10. Hello to all
    In this enigmatical continuously, I disposition you all
    Prize your family and friends

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *