Jezebel published a piece today with the title “Nearly 1% Of Women Claim They Were Virgins When They Gave Birth,” and, because this is Jezebel we’re talking about here, they used this as an opportunity to shame and belittle the women who say that they became pregnant while still virgins. And just so we all understand what author Erin Gloria Ryan means by virgins, she writes that they are women who,
“… were unpenetrated by the peen of a man when they became pregnant.”
She further explains,
“This doesn’t include women who became pregnant via in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination; these are women who gave birth the old fashioned way and were like *shrug! SERIOUSLY GUYS I DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW THIS HAPPENED!”
Then (incorrectly) asserts,
“Getting pregnant without sex is virtually scientifically impossible, yet dozens of women in the study (who were teens when the research began) swear up and down that their babies happened sans man. This is the biological equivalent of claiming that your glass of drinking water spontaneously began boiling itself without the presence of heat. I mean, maybe it’s Unsolved Mysteries-possible, but it’s highly doubtful that 0.8% of all glasses of water boil themselves. Come on.”
Also, just so that we’re really super clear on how Jezebel views these women, the article was posted to their Facebook page with the following header:
Nearly 1% of women insist they were virgins when they gave birth, which means that nearly 1% of women are delusional.
Oh, Jezebel. Jezebel. I know all the cool kids have already said it, but damn. You sure do suck at feminism.
First of all, it is definitely scientifically possible to become pregnant without having penetrative vaginal sex. It’s unlikely to happen, but it’s possible – all you need is for a someone to ejaculate on or in close proximity to the vagina, or else have some other thing with sperm on it – a finger, say, or a sex toy – penetrate the vagina. Yes, these are unlikely ways in which to become pregnant, but they’re not within the same realm as water spontaneously boiling.
Second of all, can we not have this discussion without calling women stupid or crazy or just flat out accuse them of lying?
Third of all, can we please stop talking about virginity as if it is a real, measurable thing?
Virginity is not a thing. Not really. It is a social construct meant to make people, especially women, feel badly about their sexuality and sexual experience. It is a way of policing other people’s bodies and passing judgment on how they use them. It is, at its very core, a way of controlling and subjugating women.
One problem with the idea of virginity is that there’s no hard and fast way of deciding who’s a virgin and who isn’t. Many people would define loss of virginity in a very heteronormative sense – a sexual act where the penis penetrates the vagina. But does that mean, then, that a queer woman who has only ever been with other women is a virgin? Is a gay man, who has only ever had anal sex, a virgin? Most people, when pressed, would agree that no, those folks aren’t really virgins, even if they’ve never had penis-in-vagina-style intercourse. The flip side of this is that many rape victims don’t feel as if they have lost their virginity even if they’ve had penetrative intercourse forced on them. They consider themselves to be virgins because they don’t consider what happened to them to be sex. So taking all of that into consideration, how do we then define virginity?
Some people have said that performing any sexual act constitutes losing one’s virginity, but that seems like much too broad of a definition. Kids start experimenting with sexual play and experimentation at a fairly young age, so does it then follow that anyone who’s kissed someone of the opposite sex or shown them their genitals has de facto lost their virginity? I’m not sure that this idea makes any more sense than saying that virginity can only be lost through one very specific sexual act.
Another problem is that there is literally no way of knowing if someone is a virgin or not. Oh, people will tell you that you can check if a woman’s hymen is broken, but that’s not a reliable indicator at all. A hymen can be broken without any kind of sexual intercourse, through sports or through some kind of injury. Not all women are born with hymens. Not all hymens tear during penetrative sex. And yet we’ve all been sold this idea of torn flesh and blood on sheets as some kind of definite rite of passage for women. This idea – that you can somehow tell if a woman has been sexually active – has contributed to the oppression and subjugation of women for pretty much all of recorded history. It’s given men a way to control women, to make them ashamed of their bodies their sexuality. It’s led to a double standard where it’s fine – even encouraged – for boys to gain sexual experience, but women who are sexually active before marriage or have sex with too many people are considered to be slutty or damaged goods.
Finally, why is virginity so damn important to us? We don’t have nouns for who or what we were before we hit any other life milestones – there’s no term to refer to a person before they can walk or talk or read and write – all of which I would argue are more important achievements than getting laid – and yet it’s the sex that we focus on. Why do we put so much more weight on this one small facet of human life than we do on any of the others? Why are we still making a big deal out of who is a virgin and who isn’t?
This is the discussion that we should be having – not about whether women are lying or delusional about their virginity, but about why we still use this damaging term. We need to talk about why the idea of virginity continues to hold such sway over our cultural consciousness, and why so-called feminist websites a perpetuating the thought that virginity is a tangible, definable thing. Most of all, we need to figure out a better way to talk to kids about their bodies and their sexuality, because the way that we’re doing it now clearly isn’t working.
Even Mary agrees – virginity is bullshit
The Belle Jar 
Religious myths of virgin births have played a huge part in keeping it alive.
Reblogged this on M-air-in..
I love this so much. I wish I could just have everyone read this. Thank you for writing it.
-Kaitlyn 🙂
Reblogged this on Note To Self.
I have Virgin Eyes or is that bedroom eyes?
Reblogged this on Floyd, Times Are Changin and commented:
Good points and very true. I appreciate when men call themselves whores, but I do not like when a woman is called that. It pisses me off, actually.
Excellent piece of serious thought for our society and this requires greater cooperation and support from female fraternity than male. Give a damn if some women or men don’t want to understand
Flip this was such a good read! I fully agree with virginity being a social construct. As a gay man, I did engage in non-penetrative sexual activity (I didn’t consider this the loss of my virginity) until I did engage in penetrative sex. That was my state of mind at the time and it was I considered to be the loss of my virginity. I don’t think I lost anything, I gained an experience.
I agree with Foghorn, I hate it when women are labelled whores when they have sexual experiences. That is some bull. If you are going to go out there and have lots of sex, do it, just be safe about.
Reblogged this on paarsurrey.
I have written a few times about the symbolic value of virginity. It is much deeper than our modern thinking sees it and it has nothing to do with physiology. Here is a quote from a classic essay by John Layard:… though we now think of the word ‘virgin’ as being synonymous with ‘chaste’, this was not the case either with the Greek word parthenos or with the Hebrew almah of which ‘virgin’ is the most usual biblical translation. For the Greek word was used of an unmarried girl whether she was chaste or not, and was in fact also applied to unmarried mothers. The Hebrew word means likewise ‘unmarried’ without reference to premarital chastity. … Thus in this sense the word ‘virgin’ does not mean chastity but the reverse, the pregnancy of nature, free and uncontrolled, corresponding on the human plane to unmarried love…” To me a virgin means a free woman that is not owned by anyone.
I totally agree with you, especially based on that John Layard quote. Can you imagine what the world would be like if a few words in the Bible were translated differently?
Exactly, good point!
Reblogged this on From the Sky Above the Mountains and commented:
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this one!! About time we had a discussion on this one, especially in countries where religion is influencing people’s thinking on virginity!
Excellent piece and I agree with so much of it, I’m moved to comment. I’ve often wondered why people make such a big deal of this one artificial threshold – how many people are willing to do just about anything right up to that last defining step of heteronormative penetrative intercourse, but not that act itself … and it’s like, your hands are all over each other, you’re naked, you’re ‘intimate’ in all but an extremely legalistic and narrow sense -is is the next step really such a big leap? If so, it’s probably mostly due to societal messaging as you say. Now, I think there are lots of good reasons to take sexual choices seriously, and to consider carefully with whom we are comfortable doing what; but some people don’t, and that’s OK, and their decision as an adult, as long as they’re responsible and honest, to a degree, with their partners. Some people might wait longer, others might have different comfort levels than others; that’s OK too. There are a whole lot of things that go into the decision of just what sexual interactions to have with whom that go beyond being a ‘good girl’ or a ‘bad girl’ – body image issues, comfort with your partner, just what kind of messages you’ve received about sex from parents/friends/religious affiliation/school/media (!!!!) … I really don’t think crossing line A but not line B, or being judged for any of it, is particularly fair, nor is it something just inherent in humanity. It’s something we create, as you say.
The exceedingly rare “virgin” – aka non-intra-vaginal-intercourse – conceptions aside, Jezebel shot it’s load for feminism here:
“And there’s a darker element that this study may have overlooked as well — sexual abuse. The average age that the women who claimed to be virgins gave birth was 19.3, as opposed to over 21 for non-self-proclaimed virgins; younger people — men or women — are less economically independent than older people and may rely on preserving the illusion of their “purity” to appease parents. There’s also a possibility that victims of sexual abuse don’t consider their abuse “sex,” and thus consider their virginity “intact.” Victims of abuse may be interested in protecting their abusers, especially if their abusers are older and more powerful.”
…’cause when feminists talk about the established victimhood of women, nothing else matters – including further victimizing women.
As for YOUR final point: virginity, or more precisely, chastity, correlates to fidelity – and that goes for men AND women, HENCE VIGINITY MATTERS; it’s a great predictor of mate fidelity, which is critical to male reproductive success. While you’re worrying about your son’s future sexual morals (your rape post), you might instead teach him that he should be circumspect regarding his decisions to copulate, and with whom. Such cold evaluations of potential sexual partners tend to overcome lust.
“virginity, or more precisely, chastity, correlates to fidelity”
… Um, say what?
I’m not really seeing how a person having sex while single/unattached/free to do so would automatically corrolate to them being unable do refrain from doing the same thing while partnered/having agreed to certain boundaries.
To put it another way: sleeping with someone-not-your-partner (assuming a monogamous relationship) is a betrayal of trust while in a partnered relationship. Sleeping with someone while single is… well, no such thing.
Above link to one of many studies documenting the correlation between pre-marital sex and marriage dissolution.
Causation has yet to be proven definitively due to the possible link between causative factors leading to first sexual experience caught up with the correlation. It may be that non-virginity is a social signal useful for identifying other risk factors for pair-bonding, or it may be that pre-marital sexual promiscuity is a result of many disparate psychological or social conditions for lifelong pair-bonding but is not – of itself – indicative of any social or mental defect contributing to infidelity.
As for your argument that infidelity only counts if fidelity is agreed, I suppose this may be true, however; consider this: given the choice between a potential spouse who demonstrates sexual chastity pending a pair bond versus one that is promiscuous pending a formal agreement, the potential spouse that exhibits restraint without formalization of agreement demonstrates an obvious advantage. [Said plainly: both men and women prefer sexual partners who aren’t f’ing their friends.] We use such signals within other social negotiations where trust is paramount, be those negotiations formal or informal. The applicability of demonstrated behavior attaches to sexuality for the same reason it attaches to other parts of our lives. Ignoring such realities is perilous.
So long as everyone is having safe sex with enthusiastic, age-appropriate consent… Then there really is no issue here. Given those factors, people are welcome to have as much or as little sex as they wish. As stated in the blog post, ‘Virginity is a social construct’.
I feel like what I am about to say is either not said enough, or not landing as well as it should.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Full stop.
End of discussion.
If you truly mean to say that virginity has an impact on mate fidelity (for men and/or women), then I think it’s better to provide reliable, valid, and source credible research that backs up that claim.
I looked at the study you cited in another comment…. First off, the fact that there is only a corollary relationship does not mean there is a causal relationship (see my previous comment).
The study itself, not just the headline and abstract, shows that there are limitations to the study.
“First, the data contain no information about relationship skills or attitudes, values, or beliefs that can be used to distinguish between groups of women defined according to their histories of premarital relationships” (Teachman 2003).
That is pretty vital information, as there needs to be controls so that the only thing being measured is “chasteness/virginity” being a factor to mate-fidelity. How do we know we aren’t seeing the affects of those factors working along, or in conjunction with, virginity as a “factor” in mate-fidelity?
“Although the NSFG contains information tapping attitudes toward marriage and family roles, this information is limited to 1995 and therefore may be as much a consequence of premarital sex, pre-
marital cohabitation, marriage, and divorce as a determinant of these events” (Teachman 2003).
And, they express this limitation as well.
“Second, there is no information pertaining to the premarital relationship histories of husbands (other than information ascertaining whether a husband was married before). Thus, the reported associations between marital disruption and premarital relationships are
specific to the experiences of women (Teachman 2013).”
You specify both men AND women as being affected by sexual experience, yet the study doe not back up your claim.
Also, the longest reported marriage was of 25 years, because they capped off marriages before 1970… and Teachman also included that the results may differ with the inclusion of marriages prior to 1970 (2003).
There are serious limitations to this study (aside from being 10 years old). I don’t think you should use it as a means to boldly state a causal relationship between virginity and mate-fidelity/long-lived marriages.
Oh, thanks, Melissa, for saying that so I didn’t have to.
One more thing, tteclod, re: the idea that “both men and women prefer sexual partners who aren’t f’ing their friends.”
Lots of us (women, men, queers of all flavor) want to be with people who have had plenty of sex in their lives, who know what they want, what excites them, and what gets them off; I consider this information critical to who I will even consider a potential partner.
While I would not get in the way of your choice to make a lifelong commitment with a woman who has had zero sexual experience, assuming she consents, there are plenty of “perilous” indications to the decision.
Melissa,
I have already addressed and discussed the possibility that there is a correlation, and that causation is not clearly established. There are, as I discussed, many factors that may contribute to dissolution of marriages AND to first instance of sexual intercourse AND to instances of pre-marital sex. These factors may in fact be the cause of marriage dissolution, and not the pre-marital sex, of itself. This lack of clear causation, however, does not necessarily break the link between pre-marital sex and increased rates of divorce, nor does my reference to a single piece of research, dated only ten years ago, negate my argument. There is more research, however, my comment is addressed to a blog post lacking scholarly research, written quickly, and based on research readily referenced and available for you to review.
In that context, you are arguing that I must demonstrate, beyond any conceivable refutation, that pre-marital sex generally, and virginity, specifically, has no impact upon sexual relationships that follow, especially heterosexual pair-bonds. You know this to be a specious argument, based on the fallacy that I must prove more than is necessary to prove my simple and plainly stated argument, which is that chastity has a social and psychological value that impacts relationships. Jellybean’s assertions, which follow below (and to deep in the comment thread to address directly) are NOT withstanding such argument. Shocking though it might be among some, pair-bonded / married couples usually have substantially more sexual experience than non-married singles. The difference lies in the number of sexual partners during the course of a lifetime, not the experience that one may acquire, excepting, perhaps, if one insists that some experiences cannot be explored outside a single lifelong relatiosnhip, such as homosexuality for a hetersexual couple.
I also feel obligated to address the time range of the study, for this has direct bearing on the content of the study and upon several assumptions that you, Melissa, apparently overlooked. First among these is the prevalence of no-fault divorce among US state laws beginning with California in 1969 and ending, somewhat surprisingly, with New York State some scant three years ago. Prior to the general availability of no-fault divorce, it is not possible to separate divorce from cause for divorce, e.g.: one cannot say now, with any certainty, that any particular divorce ended for any particular reason since so many are legally dissolved without assigning fault. As a result, one purpose of such a study would be to determine if there are causes AND CORRELATIONS between any particular quality of a marriage or the individuals within it that may be a predictor of divorce. While prior to no-fault divorce there were certainly stories concocted for the consumption of judges that might then be recorded at court, generally one could rely upon legal record to at least establish the cause for dissolution of a marriage. As things now stand in our courts, such data are no longer available and must be constructed post-hoc.
The study, which surveyed much more than correlation between pre-marital sex and marriage dissolution, nevertheless found at least that correlation. Once might also observe a correlation between so-called race (which one must carefully differentiate from the much more biologically significant cladistic lineage – none of us is sufficiently pure for “race” as implied to have meaning) and marriage dissolution, which, upon close inspection and control for other variables such as two-parent households, income, and education levels, begins to vanish. For example, more recent studies you may yourself find and investigate will demonstrate a correlation between female economic insecurity and other negative social factors no longer favors “white” women. You will also find that married white women are exempt from the negatieve social impacts of poor economic conditions. Lacking strict causation, one may only observe correlation. This does not make the correlation vanish, nor disprove the apparent causation. We each as individuals must make decisions in absence of strict evidence of causation; this does not make us fools, merely human beings with imperfect and incomplete data. The notion that irrefutable science (an oxymoron) is necessary to continue discussions is purpose-built to end debate regarding the content of reality in favor of supporting the accepted dogma.
Second, we would all be grossly irresponsible to ignore the difference in both social acceptance and biological risks and consequences of promiscuity.before general availability of oral contraceptives, not available to women before about 1957-1960, and not available to unmarried women in all states until after 1970. A study of pre-marital sex impacts upon marriage prior to 1970 would therefore introduce a host of complications that would be wholly and completely inapplicable to the legal and social framework in which we now live. Pre-marital sex prior to 1970, and certainly before 1960, carried a host of economic and reproductive risks for women AND for men. Any study reaching back before such a date would necessarily need a host of controls to be valid for consideration and application to modern rules. Therefore, your complaint regarding the beginning date for the study lack credibility.
Third, you complain that there is no information in the study regarding men. I suppose my effort to project some egalitarian empathy is misplaced. There are several studies confirming female mate preference does not rely upon the sexual chastity of men. Such studies confirm that women do not value male chastity as men – in other studies and as remarked within Jellybean’s blog – clearly value female chastity. The scientific literature is remarkable for it’s consistent confirmation of female hypergamy and later pair-bonding for cuckoldry. “Alpha #(_)X and beta bucks,” as the PUA community brutally rhymes. Jellybean inadvertantly confirms this: within communities where pair-bonding is unlikely, sexual experience is preferred versus pre-marital sexual caution. I would encourage you, Melissa, to find and review the studies showing the aggregate economic and psychological results for pair-bonded couples.
Fourth, you refer to the author’s circular logic regarding attitudes toward marriage and related notions: “Although the NSFG contains information tapping attitudes toward marriage and family roles, this information is limited to 1995 and therefore may be as much a consequence of premarital sex, pre-marital cohabitation, marriage, and divorce as a determinant of these events.” Stripped of extraneous words for clarity, the sentence is, “…attitudes toward marriage… may be as much a consequence of pre-marity sex [et al]… as a determinate…” Such fallacious logic provides scant cover for actions lacking motivation while simulteneously indicting actions with motive that correlate with marriage dissolution. You wish to blame the motives without blaming the actions taken according to those motives; such thinking is the definition of wishing to have your cake and eat it, too. If only my clients accepted such excuses for missed deadlines!
I’ll end by returning to the content of the original blog post.
“Virginity is not a thing. Not really. It is a social construct meant to make people, especially women, feel badly about their sexuality and sexual experience. It is a way of policing other people’s bodies and passing judgment on how they use them. It is, at its very core, a way of controlling and subjugating women.”
Logical subtleties of philosphy and metaphysics aside, virginity IS A THING [capitalization for emphasis]. We can describe it; its changebility and malleability within our minds and within language does not alter that metaphysical quality. Moreover, and more to the point, as a THING it can be impactful on OTHER THINGS. It can be harmful, or helpful, and – consistent with other bits of philosophy – may be perceived differently by different individuals or groups. For one person, it may be, “a way of… subjugating women,” whereas for me, it is alternately a method of measuring experience, or social competence, or gauging an individual’s time-preference or social values, guessing a religious affiliation, or, as I have discussed at length, estimating an individual’s future sexual fidelity within a marriage.
As with all things, “your mileage may vary,” however; I don’t spend considerable time upon such written discourse except with empathy toward you. I believe you are mistaken regarding the motives of those who value premarital chastity, and encourage you to examine the available data before assuming your conclusion regarding its irrelevance is valid.
Reblogged this on Rachael Potter.
I’ve always believe virginity to be vastly overrated.
Virginity helps prevent STDs, such as AIDS, syphilis, & gonorrhea.
So… it’s only the first time I have sex that I’m at risk for an STI? It’s good to know that afterwords, I’m in the clear. I’m gonna pop this cherry ASAP.
it also hurts–physically. at least, it did for me until I finally lost my virginity a month before I turned 30. I felt an actual ache deep in my belly for the majority of my twenties, and that ache only got worse every single year. masturbation didn’t help.
it’s been two years and I haven’t had sex with anybody since that first time, but I have yet to feel that ache again. the only thing I regret about losing my virginity is NOT DOING IT SOONER.
Reblogged this on FEMBORG.
Jezebel, oh Jezebel.
I found this fascinating for I am one of those women who had a virgin birth. I.E. found myself pregnant after non-penetrative sex. Met others like me. But yawn, so what. At the time, my male obgyn was not surprised either. So much importance attached to such a little piece of membrane…
XO
WWW
Reblogged this on The Anarchist Bee.
“One problem with the idea of virginity is that there’s no hard and fast way of deciding who’s a virgin and who isn’t.”
Still snickering over the double entendre in the word choice here. I don’t know if it was intentional but it brightened my day.
I agree. That had me in a fit of giggles. Though maybe it’s just my immaturity poking through.
Poking through? The comedy just writes itself.
Maturity is overrated, anyway.
I can’t believe I did that! LOL!
Reblogged this on Wildthing Yogi.
Jezebel seems to be an adherent to the extremely popular, hip, trendy school of feminism, also called, “I want equality for me and all my friends as long as those skanky bitches over there don’t get any. I mean, have you SEEN their shoes?”
While virginity may be a social construct, in my view this is precisely the sort of piece that may serve to discredit the current stage of the feminist movement. It is entirely clear what is understood by the term “virginity” in the context of becoming pregnant. The ending sentence on Jezabel is certainly crass and unnecessary. However, wilfully and specifically taking offence to a relatively tiny number of exceptions to meanings is fruitless, and only serves to irritate people who otherwise generally agree. Also, do you suppose anxiety over virginity is limited to women?
As an aside, the reason (again, entirely my own view!) that virginity is still considered a notable milestone is that it’s probably the first part of development which is entirely your decision. You don’t get a choice to learn to walk, to read and write, and grow. Sex is as fundamental an urge as eating but it’s one we, in principle, have control over.
I’ve never heard of Jezebel before, but now I know to avoid it, especially if it doesn’t want to do its research and just shame women. And I never thought of virginity as a social construct before. I’ll have to think about that on the way home tonight. It’s definitely an interesting concept. Thanks.
Very nice satirical post! I thought you were serious for a minute. Lots of psuedodetails and chaff and flares to through off anyone but the truly informed! Kudos!
But… if you meant to be serious….
Well… water will boil without heat…. All you need is the application of sufficient vacuum…. And you may view virginity as a social construct, but others may view virginity differently. The majority of women are born with hymen. Some lose them through sports and others through trauma or placing tampons, etc. Your post, however, appears to be culturally insensitive and dismissive of other people’s opinion, unless they line up precisely with your own. Jezebel has the right to her opinion and you have the right to yours, but while pregnancy may be theoretically possible via inanimate objects, in reality it would be highly statistically unlikely. Sperm don’t survive long enough to swim that far in adverse conditions. One sperm or a hundred won’t do it. Not even in a test tube. Takes thousands. And the woman orgasming helps tremendously, too, not only because the pH changes promote vigor and maintain virility, but the muscular contractions actually help suck semen into the uterus. Another thing is that in stressful situations, people tend to fabricate the truth. Men and women both. Particularly if they think judgment is involved. Happens all the time in medical situations. No one ever tells the cops how much they really drank when they get pulled over drunk. So, while depositing semen at the verge could possibly lead to pregnancy, the likelihood that 1.7% of pregnant women in that study are REALLY virgins… never had penetrative sex…? Jezebel is probably closer to the truth. But… not really writing a long post about it… if you REALLY think its just a social construct and not an anatomical one…. You lend credence and authority to the value of virginity by your pontification. Sort of a “me thinks the lady doth protest too much” meme… if that makes sense….
You are entitled to your opinion and you constructed your argument well enough to deserve a considered response. Well done!
I know this sounds impossible but as a teacher I was asked by a student if she could get pregnant if she and her boy friend fooled around on the beach and he had sperm running on her bathing suit.
Unbelievable…
Reblogged this on Matthew Blogs and commented:
Amazing commentary and argument on the social construct, that is ‘virginity’, and the effect that it’s representation and reception has on females and homosexual individuals.
Great post
Reblogged this on ncliberals.
I loved reading this. Clear, concise and accurate. I would just add one thing: Virginity was – and in a somewhat unconscious way, still is – regarded as a trading commodity. A seal of quality, a guarantee that the woman in question was, in fact, unused, thus an exclusive luxury product to acquire and another way to assert status and power. Hence the ever-so destructive expression damaged goods, as in second-hand products.
Merry Christmas!
Cláudia.
http://booksintights.wordpress.com/
Beautiful, well done. Excellent points all. While I am pretty feminist, this is an aspect that has been escaping me until now. Thank you.
Reblogged this on low and behold and commented:
Reblogged this on generalelokaobi and commented:
!SAY GOODBYE TO Diabetic 100 percent cure! http://bitly.com/1ht6VcN
Reblogged this on One Life .
It doesn’t say 1%. It says “nearly” 1%.
That means 99.9% of all pregnant women were NOT virgins when they gave birth.
And 99.9% is the scientific equation to 100%. So if 99.9% were not virgins that doesn’t leave any that were.
Simple math.
The original study actually says 0.8 percent – so they rounded up to 1%.
Um no. In math, 99.999 with an infinite number of nines is equal to one. 0.1% is still a countable number of people, given that the total was over 1000. Also, it said 0.8%, in which case the actual number is 99.2%.
-double majoring in engineering and mathematics.
Rounded up its 100%.
Too many people still hold to mythical beliefs about sex and sexuality. Virginity ( label) as a social construct has been used to advance abuses of the “weaker sex” especially in patriarchal regimes. In some cultures, it is perfectly acceptable for the male to “sow wild oats”, however the female is expected to be “untouched”. Where it is deemed she has been tainted, her value is reduced.
Reblogged this on FmowLifestyle and commented:
eeh/
Amen!
The Word of God on Sex and Sexuality seems to be a standard to completely avoid these days. What is the matter with the Way the Scripture instructs men and women to behave? God Almighty has written good law for men and women to obey. Men and women are acting like human beings are living like animals these days. (Remember the original definition of Human being is monster, unregenerate man).
http://hebrewofyhwh.wordpress.com/pleading-and-prayer-for-ambassador-of-yhwh/chapter-8-part-a-property-rights-and-sex/
Reblogged this on Mike's blogger.
Alright, sure, Jezebel talked it up and made it much more vivid/flashy and, yes, ignored the social or personal definition of what counted as virginity. I just want to be clear, though, that the original scientific article upon which Jezebel’s article was based did not oppose a cultural definition. In fact, it even clarified that some who reported themselves to be child-bearing virgins understood themselves to be born-again virgins, a very personal definition requiring no consideration of hymens. So, this is more about Jezebel than the science right? I hope so.
Love this- definitely had a lot of shaming done to me by peers etc… For either being a virgin or not being a virgin.
Nice!
Reblogged this on How my heart speaks and commented:
Intriguing article about virginity as a social construct
Very good
Virginity is what gives people, men and women, a sense of virtue. Yeah, it’s a sad story, huh? That people who sleep around too much are considered to be immoral.
And then they bring in the feminists.
To put it bluntly, I wouldn’t agree. Any person, male or female, who has such utter disrespect for themselves to sleep around like an animal is obviously not a virtuous one. That means that person can plunge into anything and anything. And we’ve seen this with our own eyes. I’ve known people who have premarital sex and cheating on their spouses as completely trashy human beings. Their kids hate them because they’ve been ignored and mistreated, and as for the intelligent, non-conformists on the sidelines like myself, I just think those kind of peeps are low. Virginity is holding onto your modesty and value – it might not be biological or mental, but it’s a psychological element. People who are virgins have a higher sense of confidence and self-esteem than people who don’t. Everybody who’s been to high school knows that and can’t deny it’s true.
not true…I’m a virgin and can name plenty of non-virgins who have higher self-esteem and confidence then me. Where do you get that from?
It’s moral conduct. I’m a virgin and I KNOW non-virgins who are simply miserable. They let themselves into everything and anything. It’s like asking whether a wrapped lollipop is better than an unwrapped lollipop which has been thrown around on the ground for ages. The answer lies in moral conduct.
so your general conclusion is that people who have pre-marital sex ( which is a heck of a lot of people) are morally reprehensible people, because the two aspects are correlated in your personal experience with a handful of people who you know? wow, very scientific…i love it when people make generalized and absolutely unquestionable (from their point of view) conclusions from perceived correlations using vague terms and small sample sizes…makes a lot of sense..your comment about high school isn’t true either…a lot of kids have low self-esteem in high school for different reasons that might of nothing to dowith their virgnity or non-virgnity and that’s just common sense..some may be virgins …fyi your not talking about dirty lollipops …your talking about complex human beings who have basic dignity no matter what they do..where’s your moral conduct? from what I can tell from what I’ve read your just one of those people who thinks he’s/she’s holierthan thou because he’s/she’s a virgin in a sea of non-virginity…get over yourself
there are virtuous people in this world who have lifestyles in which they are completely comfortable with having multiple partners…I recently got done a biography of two individuals who were very active social justice and labor activists back at the turn of the century..they had the kind of lifestyle in which they loved each other but also slept with other people..it was mutually consented upon and they led very fulfilling lives and were generally moral and virtuous people and had plenty of self-confidence…a persons sexual habits is not the only judege nor should it even be the primary judge of their virtue..its very easy to generalize about people and about what causes them to do what they do…it is true that some people are addicated to sex because they have some other deficiency in their lives but to presume that everyone out there having pre-marital sex has no self-confidence and is a massively pscyhologically imbalanced person is just wrong .generalizations are not helpful when it comes to figuring out people
Whatever.
sorry for the “get over yourself” comment. i didn’t mean that but you do sound holier-than thou
It’s fine. I understand your point. But the way I think and from my experience in high school as I am still in high school, it tells me otherwise. I cannot base my opinions on thin air or on social standards today. I have to see the psychological outcome. My grandmother is one of the most sleazy women I know, and she not only ruined my mother and uncle’s life, she ruined everything. And she still does. You can say it’s her right to do what she wants, by all means. But please don’t teach me to see it as something good.
It’s not. Period.
Metaphorically speaking, being a virgin is something that makes you stand out in society today – frankly because there are so little of us. I’m the kind of person who is not “holier” than anybody, I just love and enjoy to be different and anti-mainstream, based on my knowledge and experience, and I hate feminism with all my heart. It’s a backward way of portraying women. As a girl I don’t need people like that to extremise my role in society. Being a liberated woman doesn’t constitute showing off your legs or sleeping with anything and everything. It’s having self-respect and not making yourself available for every flirting wuss that comes your way. That’s what makes you human – not animal.
I can. It’s all about self-image. Why is that connected to whether or not you are sexually active?
Because sexuality is perceived in modern times as an animal trait, like eating, sleeping etc. It’s the animal part of us. The one thing that draws us different from animals is that we know limits, and we know moderation, and using our intellect we form bonds. Sex should be treated as a rite of passage, not like a stick of gum you pop in your mouth for the pleasure of it. It’s a very close relationship between two human individuals. It’s something serious and to be valued.
Reblogged this on all about hapoel tel aviv and commented:
Guys please check out my blog if you are intrested in sports
I’m not going to argue most of your points here, but I will answer the question of why virginity is important. Sex is an intensely personal act. It’s two people joining as one. There are all sorts of biochemical reactions going on that don’t happen at any other time. There are psychological states that also occur only when we’re having sex. It’s not like reading a book or viewing a sunset or running a mile. It is a unique human activity. From a spiritual POV, the Bible says a man and a woman become one at the point of sex. Something with that much significance should be viewed as important.
I couldn’t agree more. Sex is important and in no way should be compared to a baby taking its first steps or learning to read and write because it is the joining of two bodies into one. You’re never the same after it.
It’s hard for people to admit that, though, isn’t it? Even when faced with the overwhelming evidence that something fundamental changes inside with that act, they will insist that it’s just scratching an itch … baby’s first step is a good analogy. I used to think it was just something biochemical about my gender that made us attach so strongly with our first sexual partner, but my husband says guys talk about their firsts too. They maybe move on a little more easily, but he’s wondered if perhaps that is cultural indoctrination rather than something “natural”. He notes that the men he knows who were virgins when they married seem to take their marriage vows much more seriously than the guys who have lots of partners before they get married. They’re just so rare in our society that the “experts” think they don’t exist. You have to wonder.
I hear that the mass of an electron is also a “social construct.” Similarly prime factorization is also a “social construct.” Social constructs abound in the craniums of those that have difficulty with reality which, oddly, is also a social construct.