Let me start out by saying that I honestly don't get the concept. I have a slut-shaming friend (who, ironically, falls into her own definition of the word, even if you make allowances as far as 'have as much sex as you want but don't deliberately set out to bed someone else's committed partner')who, for years, introduced herself and another of her friends as "she's the whore, I'm the virgin". Why? I don't know. The only difference was that she still had a hymen. Other than that, they were pretty much equal in terms of sexual experience or "fooling around".
I've seen other posts where interpretations of the word 'virgin' have been bandied about. Some say you can still call yourself a virgin if you've done everything short of PIV, while others point out that this is a bit heterocentric and means all lesbians must still be virgins. Personally, I find this a bit pointless and, well, silly. I'm sure I just stepped on somebody's personal beliefs, and if so I apologize, but I don't see any reasoning -outside of countries where it can get you killed- that a woman should have to call herself a virgin on the wedding night when she's already given and received orgasms and done everything short of vaginal intercourse. That's my personal definition of the word: virginity is gone the first time you allow someone else to take an active part in getting you off.
If a heterosexual woman is sexually active, why, other than to avoid pregnancy or that she just doesn't find it enjoyable, should she have to refrain from full-on penetration? Don't get me wrong, I understand completely if it's an issue of trust. I have plenty of issues with that, myself, and I'm a huge chicken when it comes to any sort of pain, so, I repeat, I understand completely if someone wants to wait for 'Mr. Right's' penis to break her hymen.
Will I wait until my wedding night? I don't know right now. To be honest, I don't much care for the idea of penetration, married or not. Ideally for me, the man I lose my virginity to -whatever non-penetrative form that takes- would be one I trust enough to say to him "look, honey, you may as well know that your genitals aren't getting inside mine any time soon after this, possibly not even after we're married unless I change my mind about being pregnant." I don't like having to worry that just because we've exchanged rings and vows I'm expected to do something that makes me thoroughly uncomfortable. But women who enjoy PIV, who have no issues with even the slightest bit of pain or simple discomfort, why, if they don't want to wait, is it so important to everyone that their husbands can say they were first in?
I really, really, hope that one day women can lose the need to say "Oh, I'm still a virgin", when what they really mean is "I still have a hymen."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Technical" virginity.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16080
Gah, that should say..."and means all lesbians and gay men must still be virgins
You make some good points, though I think the underlying point (which I agree with) is that the whole idea of virginity is crazy in the first place! By your definition, I "lost my virginity" last year, even though I first had PIV sex five years ago and had it many times until I came out (to myself) as a lesbian. Culturally, the word "virgin" wouldn't make much sense if this were true. So I think the word itself is pretty much meaningless, though imbued with cultural significance. On the other hand, your definition is a good one for something. I hesitate to say sex, too, because I've had fulfilling sexual experiences without orgasm, and not everyone can have an orgasm, for any number of reasons including, for example, physical disability. Interesting thing to consider.
On the other hand, your definition is a good one for something. I hesitate to say sex, too, because I've had fulfilling sexual experiences without orgasm, and not everyone can have an orgasm, for any number of reasons including, for example, physical disability.
You're right. It probably would have been better stated as "the first time you allow someone to touch you sexually" or "the first time you allow someone else access to your sex organs" (in a non-medical sense, of course).
And, yes, that was basically my point. I was reacting more to the idea that you can have another persons genitals in your hands, mouth, even ass or vice-versa, and still somehow see yourself as better or more pure than someone else because you're keeping that little membrane intact until marriage.
Virginity is to guarantee that your firstborn son really is yours. I won't have a title or estates to pass on so I really don't give a shit.
Oh, I know the original idea behind female chastity made perfect sense from that standpoint; you didn't want to accidentally will all your possessions to the neighbor's son. In my opinion, contraception rendered the need to worry about that obsolete.
Uh, I dont think it was contraception but changing attitudes about women and particularly changing laws regarding property ownership. It wasnt about property but ownership of woman. If property could be transferred via women then that wouldntve been an issue.
DNA testing rendered that obsolete. If you're on birthcontrol and get pregnant but you had sex with two different men during ovulation NOBODY knows who's sperm helped create that embryo until a DNA test confirms its.
I think the best way I can argue your point is by using some definitions of "US Citizen" I have seen over the years and heard in debates. I have seen US Citizen argued by some and (US Laws) as being some born to a parent or parents who are citizens of the US or born on US Soil despite parents not being citizens. I've seen people who said you're not an American citizen (and some think this should be law) until you have served the US military right out of high school. I've seen others talk about taking tests before being allows to be a citizen. Others say you are not a citizen unless you vote everytime.
What I am trying to get at, the definition and what it includes or does not include varies person to person. The definition you hold to your morals and beliefs with should only be used to measure yourself and not others. If I consider myself a virgin until PIV, that's my decision and I shouldn't use it as a way to be proud or make others feel inferior.
The definition you hold to your morals and beliefs with should only be used to measure yourself and not others. If I consider myself a virgin until PIV, that's my decision and I shouldn't use it as a way to be proud or make others feel inferior.
Oh, I do agree, believe it or not, that it's a very personal thing and you should apply your own definition to it. If you want to say you're a virgin until PIV, that's fine and dandy. It's the need some women, who are otherwise enjoying perfectly normal sex lives, have to hold onto that last little barrier of "purity" so they can be better than the woman who didn't, that I'd like to see ended. I have no problem with personal definitions of virginity, even those I completely disagree with, just the driving force behind some of them.
Citizenship is legally defined (born in the USA, born to US citizen parents, or naturalized via a legal process as a US citizen) and very very important. What nation you are a citizen of affects your rights throughout the world.
As far as I know, there is no legal definition of virginity, nor any need for one.
"I understand completely if someone wants to wait for 'Mr. Right's' penis to break her hymen."
Many, many women who have never had PIV sex do not have intact hymens. Everyone's hymen is already at least partially broken by the time they reach puberty, otherwise menstruation would not be possible. I've had plenty of PIV sex and I never had any knowledge of my hymen breaking. I'm sure it happened, but it must have been long before I started having intercourse. My closest female friends also did not experience their hymen breaking the first time they had PIV sex. The state of one's hymen really says very little about one's sexual history. Just sayin
My closest female friends also did not experience their hymen breaking the first time they had PIV sex.
The friend I mentioned said that she thinks her actually broke the second time she had PIV sex, since that was when she bled.
In the interest of not rambling on and on, I edited and dropped many sidenotes that I couldn't quite manage to fit in, hence my first comment on here being a correction from myself. Unfortunately, I did forget when writing that there are other ways for the hymen to be broken. What I was trying to get at with that statement, is the idea that if there's something you want, that might hurt for any reason, I can understand wanting to wait for someone you trust to make it as painless as possible.
I totally understood (and agree with) your point about trust. I was just irked by how you repeatedly equated lack of PIV sex with still having a hymen. Equating these two is problematic, because the state of one's hymen is a highly inaccurate marker of a woman's sexual history (hymens frequently break prior to intercourse, or sometimes stretch during intercourse and don't break at all). Yet people are still using the hymen as a method of monitoring and policing women's sexual choices. And this can even extend into non-sexual choices as well (i.e. women deciding not to use tampons or choosing to refuse gynecological exams lest their hymen break).
I guess this is just a sore spot with me, but I really enjoyed your post as a whole!
I like your definition of sex---getting someone off.
On the other hand though, I think it's ok for someone to consider themself still a virgin if they haven't done a certain sexual act no matter if that act is PIV, annal or whatever.
Actually, I'd say it's becoming less popular for guys wanting virgins to marry. I tell guys I'm a virgin and they think I'm some sort of freak.
It has been changed for quite some time now.
Most guys know that the first time isn't particularly fun. While we'd probably all like to claim that we were instantly amazingly talented at every aspect of intercourse, the reality is quite a bit different.
The 'first time' in the perception of a large portion of people I've found (20-25) it doesn't come across as "hey baby you'll be my first" as much as "hey baby, lets take the next six months to work through any sexual hangups, problems, or issues which are likely to arise". Which is perhaps a more realistic assessment of the situation, and something that everyone has had to go through to some extent.
More than a few people have experienced a more frustrating predicament of someone who has never explored their own body and has absolutely no idea of what they want out of the encounter, but still expects everything to occur flawlessly.
"hey baby, lets take the next six months to work through any sexual hangups, problems, or issues which are likely to arise"."
I can understand people who are just looking for a one stand---but regardless, doesn't the above happen with relationships in general?? Don't you have to get to know each other anyway??
I mean, geez, I know my body probably more than most, but how would a guy know that if he just writes me off?
personally I counted myself as no longer a virgin the first time a person who I was sexually attracted to had contact with my genitals. That is what I think determines virginity, not a hymen. My hymen had been broken years before I first had intercourse because I had impaled myself on a fishing pole when I was a toddler. So if we go with the when your hymen breaks definition then I lost my virginity to a fishing pole when I was three. However, I would still have labeled myself a virgin after that experience. I can guarantee that most women had very little hymen left by the time they first had intercourse. I think that the first time a person other than yourself has access to your genitals in a way not relating to medical necessity, you are no longer a virgin. It bugs me because my best friend and her boyfriend are not having PIV because he is still a "virgin" and he wants to wait until he is married, yet they have oral, and give each other hand jobs. So I don't think that he is a virgin anyways and it makes no sense to me why "everything but" is always okay. Kind of find it really hypocritical to be quite honest
What standing do you have to judge his decision about what he's ready to do sexually? It bugs you? What does it have to do with you?
I think its because it revolves around a superficial way of diagnosing what determines 'loss of virginity.'
To whose detriment? and having what to do with Rebekah?
That damn patriarchist, choosing not to have PIV sex at this time. Just whose penis does he think it is?
"I had impaled myself on a fishing pole when I was a toddler. "
!
I had a friend when I was in middle school who had the same thing happen when she was messing with a broomstick, except it happened in class.
I think the hype around PIV is so annoying. I have an acquaintance who does everything (well, except anal penetration...?) except PIV and writes vapid and repetitive myspace/xanga/facebook rants about how immature/stupid/superficial "sexually active" people are for having sex. (she also thinks people who have STDs should be forced to have a special tattoo/mark near their genitals, for the record)
Anyway, back to ranting about PIV. I can't speak for every female-bodied person, but the key for me with PIV was the fact that my boytoy and I didn't and don't look on it as the pinnacle of teh seckz. I was very "small" when we started being sexually active, and lots of clitoral stimulation and handjobs helped me open up (literally, lol) and us bond as a couple.
Basically, don't be afraid of it! Of course, you never have to do PIV if you don't want to - but don't let fear rule your decisions (in anything!). Also, neither I nor my boyfriend orgasm from PIV, oddly enough we kind of reverse it from the usual thing: PIV is part of foreplay and we actually cum from oral and manual fun.
On virginity in general - I try not to think in those terms, personally. There's so much cultural (and for me, personal) baggage attached to "virgin" that I can't use the term in a useful way, it has too many connotations. As does anything "other than" virgin.
I pretty much believe we need to abolish the concept, because it is inaccurate, misogynist, and highly subjective in most of it's manifestations and serves no real purpose (because there is no technical definition) except for weeding out the good girls from the sluts and the whores. Bah.
/rant
I think the hype around PIV is so annoying. I have an acquaintance who does everything (well, except anal penetration...?) except PIV and writes vapid and repetitive myspace/xanga/facebook rants about how immature/stupid/superficial "sexually active" people are for having sex. (she also thinks people who have STDs should be forced to have a special tattoo/mark near their genitals, for the record)
This kind of person is exactly what I was talking about.
Basically, don't be afraid of it! Of course, you never have to do PIV if you don't want to - but don't let fear rule your decisions (in anything!).
I don't know if you were addressing me with this or not, but given the content of the original post I assumed you were. There is, yes, a little bit of a fear aspect, but there's also the knowledge from, to put it delicately, solo experimentation, that tells me it does absolutely nothing for me.
HOwever in all fairness, I think virgin has to be qualified according to your sexual preference:
IE a lesbian virgin has not experienced intercourse with a woman
a heterosexual virgin has not experienced intercourse with a member of the opposite sex
a gay virgin has not experienced intercourse with a man
pretty much the gist of it.
But at the end of the day, sexual contact is sexual contact and the *purity* of the word virgin is lost on any one who's experienced willfull sexual contact.
How about people who've been raped? I don't see anything about how rape and virginity are supposed to be dealt with. I've come to loathe the word. It's absolutely not helpful in any way.
I think pluralist stated some other good reasons to mark this term as having outlived its usefulness and being generally inadequate as an adjective for sexual history.
I had a girlfriend once who was bothered by the fact that she wasn't a virgin because she'd been raped. I didn't think rape had anything to do with virginity because it wasn't sex, but in her view rape extinguished virginity and this was a problem.
How about people who've been raped? I don't see anything about how rape and virginity are supposed to be dealt with.
I addressed that briefly with this sentence:
virginity is gone the first time you allow someone else to take an active part in getting you off.
The key word there is "allow". As I said to MASHBengal, I have no problem with anyone's personal definition of virginity, so I believe that a person can consider themselves a virgin until their first consensual experience.
A related anecdote:
I was telling one of my Jehovah's Witness aunts about The Purtiy Myth and asked her whether females engaging in lesbian sex are still considered virgins. She said yes, ultimately, but it was clear she had not thought about it in great detail. She digressed after that, so I don't have much to add to that story...but it was interesting.