I read an article today in the Daily Tar Heel (The University of North Carolina’s college newspaper) titled Virgins not alone at UNC. The article talked about hook-up culture on college campuses, and how it is often exaggerated and overblown.
The survey, started in fall of 2008 and concluded in February 2009, also found that approximately 38 percent of students at UNC have never had sex.
So, 38 percent of UNC students are virgins. I have no problem with that fact, but it sounded pretty high to me. It turns out that the study only had an 11.5% response rate, which makes me wonder what type of people actually contributed to that data. I bet the 11.5% of people who respond to the survey are not the ones who are hooking up. Regardless of the methodology of the survey, I am not opposed to people remaining virgins until they are married, or until they are out of college. I DO have a problem with is some of the reasons stated in the article for why people decide not to have sex:
“I’m not embarrassed by my decision to be a virgin,” Eskridge said. “When you have sex with someone, you’re giving a big part of yourself to them.”
Giving away a big part of yourself to your partner? I don’t think that ones worth or value is dependant on if you have or have not had sex, and you having sex doesn't mean that you give anything up. Hooking up and having sex in college does not damage anyone, as long as it is done safely and responsibly. Jessica Valenti talks a lot about this in her book The Purity Myth, which I encourage everyone to read if you have not done so already. She argues that there is nothing wrong, immoral, evil, or dirty about having pre-marital sex, as long as protection is used and there is active consent from both people.
This brings me to my second problem with this article. It focused solely on virginity, and not at all on safe sex. With over a decade of abstinence-only sex education in North Carolina, there are many students at UNC who don’t have all the facts they need about sex, birth control, and STI’s. UNC students are full of myths and rumors about sex. I’ve heard people say things like having sex standing up can prevent pregnancy, or taking a shot of Clorox can cure HIV. Things like “We had sex so I could prove that I loved my partner, but we didn’t use a condom”, or “He cheated on me so I had sex with him so he would love me.” These myths are all created from misinformation and outright lies that students hear in high school, but they exist among many college students as well. In North Caroline high schools, teens hear things like condoms fail 40% of the time, or that if you have premarital sex you will get an STD and die.
Zero universities in North Carolina rank within the top 15 on Trojan's list of sexually healthy colleges, and UNC ranks number 27.
While there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with being a virgin in college, one is not a bad person if they have sex. While there is nothing wrong with telling teens to remain virgins, it needs to be accompanied with life saving information about how people can protect themselves. This information is critically important in high school, in college, and even at age 30.
Virgins may not be alone at UNC, but unfortunately students who are having unsafe sex are all not alone either.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why Stay A Virgin?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16477
I knew quite a few virgins in college--and a few people who gained the experience during college as well (but I'm from Michigan). So, if the number of virgins is higher than you imagine, I wouldn't be surprised.
In fact, I'm still a virgin! LOL
College is such a transitory experience that if you are a person who values a strong relationship before sex, I'd say it's hard to develop that relationship in college.
I'd definitely agree about it being hard to develop strong relationships in college before having sex--I go to a very competitive school, and long-term relationships seem to be limited to the handful of couples that met during freshman orientation and became subsequently inseparable. Many of my good friends are virgins.
On the other hand, having sex for the first time in a serious relationship can come with a lot of baggage, too. The first time I had sex was during a drunken hookup--no strings attached, exactly the way I wanted it to be. When I finally started dating someone I cared about, there wasn't any pressure on either of us to make it "special."
I disagree. Most of my friends from college are in strong relationships with someone from college. it wasn't that hard. Now, we weren't that much of the hook up crowd, but still. it's hard to develop strong relationships in college? only or a very given version of college.
For your friends it wasn't difficult, but I agree that for many people it can be very difficult to find a strong romantic relationship in college.
And for a given value of "person". I have major social anxiety that I wasn't able to address in high school, because I was a minor and my parents brushed it off as being unimportant. So right now, in university, this is my earliest possible chance to start dealing with it. When I turned 18, I couldn't even talk to a classmate without having a panic attack after. I'm 20 now, and I can usually handle light casual conversation and more in-depth conversation in structured environments (like talking about homework). Compared to other people I talk with, this is some damn good progress -- I know of 40 year-olds who aren't as "well adjusted" as me. There aren't enough people with SA to account for everyone who has difficulty with relationships, but SA is far from the only factor that makes it hard to find partners. If you have pretty much any mental disorder, you are that "weird guy" or "weird girl". Some people have past traumas that make it hard for them to trust others. I hear people with physical disabilities struggle just to have society recognize that they're sexual beings -- a lot of people will automatically and unconsciously "rule out" a person in a wheelchair. (The list probably goes on for several miles so I'll stop there.) It's hard to seriously start dealing with stuff like this when you still have your parents breathing down your neck, especially if they are unsupportive. I'm happy for your friends and everything, but I don't think it's an experience you can universalize. For some of us, it really is "that hard".
That's why I started a sex talk radio show on my conservative college campus (Southern Methodist University in Dallas). I get calls all the time about the most simple, common sense sexual information. Being in Texas, I understand that not everyone was as curious to consume every bit about sex and sexuality as I was growing up.
I think you are right to take issue with the comment about giving up a part of yourself when you have sex. But I can understand why someone would make a comment like that. The pendulum was swung so that now being a virgin is often something to ridicule and make fun of. I myself have been present when friends have made all kinds of harsh, judging statements about another person being a virgin. I think that has made virgins feel very defensive, and statements about "giving a part of yourself" are an example of how virgins feel they have to justify their choices.
That is also why this article likely did not cover safe sex. I didn't read the article, but it sounds like it was aimed at assuring virgins that they did not have to feel as if they were sociological freaks for not yet having sex, not aimed advocating saving yourself for marriage or whatnot.
I just think it is really unfortunate that in our efforts to destigmatize (premarital) sex, we've gone so far as to now stigmatize NOT having sex. I wish society would find the happy medium and stop giving a shit about other people's sexual choices.
I agree with you on this (about how virgins might be defensive), for example - I haven't had a lot of sexual partners - though I lost my virginity at 17 - I have had other women act like I'm a disease because I can count the number of partners I've had on one hand. They made me feel like I was undesireable or something but the reality is that I have never been turned on by the idea of hooking up with some random guy I didn't know. And I just don't see having a lot of partners as some kind of great accomplishment (or a reflection of ones worth in society) nor do I think being selective is an accomplishment (I think both are just preferences) but these girls were making it seem like hooking up with a lot of guys was... I didn't like the way that made me feel - almost like they were shaming me for my decisions not to hook up with every guy who wanted me. Or either that - they were implying that only a few guys wanted me... which looking back, I think that annoyed me because they were expecting me to decide my self-worth by how much men desire me - rather than deciding my own self-worth for myself.
I agree. It goes both ways: some people will look down on you for being undesirable/a prude if you hook up with what they consider not enough people; others will deride you for being a slut/easy/promiscuous if you've hooked up with what they think is too many. Neither are acceptable things. Obviously.
While there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with being a virgin in college..."
Really? Because this entire post sounds like there's something wrong with that choice, especially when you write things like this, "What I DO have a problem with is some of the reasons stated in the article for why people decide not to have sex."
Really? People need to check their reasons for having or not having sex with you first? Wow, that's awfully pro-choice of you.
When the reasons are caused by the obsession with and fetishization of purity, the reasons are absolutely up for criticism.
There's a difference between, "I don't want to have sex yet / I haven't found someone I want to sleep with yet / I'm not ready" and "My self worth will plummet if I have sex."
If you were just viewing this article in a vacuum, I can see that the idea of sex involving giving a huge piece of yourself doesn't seem too nefarious, but that idea is so deeply embedded in the purity-mongering, abstinence-only world that it really can't be taken at face value.
Bottom line is - you don't give something away when you have sex. You don't lose any part of yourself, you don't become lesser, you don't shrink down to something smaller than you were before. But purity-mongerers push this idea on young women and it causes damage in the grand scheme of things.
So, its ok to judge the reasons women have abortions now, Alixana? Is that really the path you want to go down? Maybe they're poor, or young, or single...or maybe they're promisicuous, or selfish, or callous...Sound familiar? Or, wait, my personal favorite, the Left has caused a, "Culture of Death."
Its entirely hypocritical of us as feminists to judge individual women's decisions about their individual bodies in the same way that Christian Conservatives judge us. In essence this suggests a metaphorical rape, where a woman's decisions for remaining a virgin are insufficient, and we think she needs to have sex...for her own good.
Who the fuck brought up abortions? I find it really odd hearing you argue this on a website owned by the author of The Purity Myth, especially since there are posts on the front page on a nearly weekly basis that decry the effects that the purity obsession has on people.
And "metaphorical rape" is such a fail of a phrase, I can't believe you actually said that on a fucking feminist website.
The operative phrase is "pro choice". When we criticize a woman's decision to remain a virgin, we also invite criticism of her decision to have an abortion. This is the flip side of the Jerry Falwell coin. A woman is free to make up her own mind about these matters and no one has the right to judge them.
Its one thing to criticize a culture which demeans women, and quite another to criticize an individual woman who's chosen virginity for herself.
No, "pro choice" is a political label for people who don't believe the government should ban abortions. Pre-marital sex is not something that we risk losing the legal right to. Can we stay on track here?
And I'm not sure how anyone here is NOT criticizing the culture. The culture in this case is manifesting itself through the mouths of the people interviewed for this article (one is even a dude! we're criticizing something a guy said!). It's evidence this culture exists. The interviewed people didn't come up with these catch phrases out of thin air!
Furthermore, no one's made any criticism of the people themselves. No one is calling them prudes. No one is saying they're making the wrong decision. But their decisions are not being made freely, not if they're buying into the idea that having sex takes something away from you.
But who is criticizing people for remaining virgins? The only thing being criticized in this post is a culture that says having sex makes you somehow "less than."
I thni if SHE feels that by having sex she is giving a part of herself (which is very true if a part of her *self* is her identity as a virgin) then THATS HOW IT IS. If a woman had sex because she felt sex was PURELY physical with no emotional attachment then who is ANYONE in the world to tell her otherwise? We can't force people to feel the way we do about things especially about sex, especially about their decisions and reasons on choosing to engage in consexual sex or not to engage in sex at all.
If soeone said they had sex because today was Tuesday NOBODY would say that's a stupid reason but if she said she was a virgin because today is Tuesday and not Wednesday there would be an issue with that. We have to start respecting one another's choices. Especially choices as personal as deciding whether or not to engage in sex. Nobody's vagina is up for grabs or criticism.
Nobody's vagina is up for grabs or criticism.
That is beautiful. Also, it appears to be the first time that anyone has ever said that on the internet (at least according to Google).
really? yay!!! :) Thanks
Well, while I am not a virgin I do regret my limited casual sexual experiences because I did feel like I lost a "piece of myself". Now, I don't think I lost self worth (or that I am a dirty cookie or lollipop like some absence only classes would like me to believe) and I did read Jessica's book, but I have discovered that for me personally I don't seem capable of casual sex. No matter how I try to frame it in my head I become at least slightly emotionally attached and sex for me always holds some kind of greater significance and then when nothing comes of the relationship (and actually in one case it was because I did not want the guy as a boyfriend) I still feel like I lost a little piece of something. Plus, sex for me is more special if I only have it with people I am in a loving committed relationship with. Because of this I made a personal choice not to have sex with anyone who I am not in a secure loving relationship with. I get all kinds of backlash about this and called old fashioned by people and I hate that because I think of myself as a progressive type of person. I guess what I am trying to say is that teaching kids that decide to have sex that they will be losing a piece of themselves is wrong, (because, of course, they don't literally lose a piece of themselves and many women can have casual sex and feel empowered by it or simply have fun) but if someone gives that as a personal reason for not having sex then I don't think they should be judged for it.
sorry, meant abstinence not absence.
saying that you lose a piece of yourself when you have sex doesn't mean you have trouble with the decision that you made. But for some of us sex is truly an emotional thing (and that goes for both men and women) and later breaking up with the person who you have shared yourself so intimately with, can make you feel like you have left a piece of yourself with them, because emotionally speaking you have. There is nothing wrong with that statement and nobody has to justify their decisions for choosing to wait any more than they should have to explain their choices for not waiting. Same coin different side.
People can choose to remain virgins for any reason they'd like, and shouldn't feel judged by anyone.
However, when people's reasons involve belief that their moral worth is inextricably tied to their sexuality, we need to look at the messages society is sending about sex.
I think for a lot of these people they see sex as emotional commitment etc.
So, for them, that's a huge part of themselves, so to speak.
I mean, can we ever strike a happy medium? Is that even possible?
Can we value sex as an emotional investment without demonizing people who don't?
So, for them, that's a huge part of themselves, so to speak.
Except that's not what the abstinence-only crowd is referring to when they use language about "giving" parts of yourself - this language comes from somewhere. The phrase "giving a big part of myself" springs right from the purity culture.
"I don't want to make the emotional commitment to someone else right now" is a completely different sentiment, one that isn't being pushed with a big helping of shame.
Criticisms of purity aren't about denying that sex sometimes involves emotional ties; hell, abstinence-only education is dangerous because it cuts out the opportunity to talk about the non-physical aspects of sex, including the emotional bits. The "happy medium" you're looking for would be a result of taking shame out of the equation.
You know, I read the article again, and it's the very Christian guy who is all, "it will be giving a part of myself" whereas the girl in the article, is the one who says "there will be a lot of emotions involved."
Yeah, I think we need to find better language than "giving and taking" to describe sex.
But I feel like we will always be making value decisions when sex is involved....and others will be judging those decisions because the decision is value-based.
We certainly shouldn't demonize anyone. We need to look at the value our culture puts on sex. There is a difference between choosing to wait for an emotional commitment to have sex because one has independently reached the conclusion that that's what's best for him/her and being made to feel that s/he is giving anything up (control of one's body, worth as a human being, purity) by having sex.
I only meant to emphasize "made to feel."
"Can we value sex as an emotional investment without demonizing people who don't?"
I think so, yeah. We just have to recognize that sex means different things to different people, and that the difference between valuing sex as an emotional commitment and sex as fun (or however you'd like to put it, idk) is essentially the same as the difference between liking red and blue. Morally, it doesn't matter. Other people having casual sex isn't an attack on my choice not to, and my choice isn't an attack on them. The problems only crop up when we start getting all judgy-pants about who's having sex and who isn't.
People who remain virgins because they "don't want to give so much of themselves away" are, in effect, judging those who do not remain virgins, and it's okay to be defensive of that judgment from them and to call them on their patriarchal bullshit. While the end product (their virginity) of their own judgment on others might not be something I think is good or bad in a neutral context, I can see the path that took them there as something not healthy or not beneficial within our society.
For example, I don't think it's a good or a bad thing if a woman decides to take her husband's name after marriage. I think it's a negative thing if she does it unthinkingly, only because of tradition, or if she sees herself as moving from belonging to her father to belonging to her husband. On the other hand, I think it's a positive thing if she knowingly analyzes herself and her feelings about her name and wants to do it to create a partnership with her husband or to distance herself from her old life for well-thought out reasons.
Being a virgin isn't terrible. In fact, a lot of times it's a good thing. But if the reason some people remain virgins is because they see unmarried non-virgins as morally corrupt, dirty, un-spiritual, and/or slutty (which is judgmental to others), I have a problem with it.
Its important to note that these people aren't being criticized for pushing virginity on others (in fact it seems they're the one's being antagonized). So why do we have the right to criticize their decisions about virginity, any more than we would their decision to have an abortion? Or a tatoo? Or a nose ring?
Moreover, they're entitled to their own view of sex & intimacy. Its the same as how we talk about gender identity. If they say they identify as a female, they're a female. Likewise, if sex is an intimate giving of one's self to another for them, its an intimate giving one's self to another...for them. Feminism is as much about respecting people's individual choices as much as it is about anything...When they start shoving down our throats, then we'll have the right to complain.
But where do these ideas come from? These ideas don't just spring into our minds. Our feelings about what sex means to us comes from the society we live in. If society is saying, "Sex is shameful, sex takes away from you and makes you less whole," then people are going to make decisions about sex based on fear and shame and guilt. How is that ever a good thing?
Even after you've lost your virginity, you still have to keep making decisions about who to sleep with or whether to sleep with anyone at all. Where do you ever learn the honest tools to make those decisions if all you know is that each time you have sex, you lose a part of yourself and become lesser? How is that not acting out of fear?
And if someone thinks sex would make THEM less worthy, I find it really impossible to believe that they're using a different standard of judgment for the people around them.
Alixana, everyone comes from someplace. I have yet to meet the 18yo devoid of socialization, education, and parenting, good or bad. So, you're right as far as that goes.
But is the answer to shame them for their choices, or repudiate their choices, and their individual rationales? The dividing line has to be, it can only be, when they try to push their choices on others, to slut shame as its called.
Are French & Turkish women who choose to wear veils or niqabs wrong for doing so? What about Orthodox Jewish women who shave their heads? Or nuns who wear habits? Or women who have abortions because they don't believe life begins at conception? In each case we respect womens' rights to determine their own views...and protest only when they force it on others. A feminist state without choice is every bit as patronizing as a patriarchal state.
for me sex is a HUGE emotional commitment, and I could never see myself having a one night stand or hooking up with random guys, (not saying that there is anything wrong with it, its just not the way that I choose to participate in sex) and I do not think that premarital sex is shameful or harmful or dirty, or anything else like that. I do not spread the idea that it is either, I just happen to prefer a monogamous sexually fulfilling relationship to random drunk hook-ups. That's all there is to it. Nobody should have to justify the decisions on their sexual choices to you or to anyone else. Telling someone that they have no right to say that the reason they are not having sex is because they don't want to give a piece of themselves away (and yes when sex is an emotional experience for you you do give away a piece of yourself) is wrong. Just as wrong in fact as someone telling you that you can't have random one night stands and that that is bad
The part of the post that made it "[sound] like there's something wrong with that choice" was the part where TeenadvocateDan said there *wasn't* anything wrong with the choice, only with "some of the reasons stated"? That doesn't seem very logical. The reasons some people publicly state for being abstinent are up for debate, because they're not just personal reasons, but cast judgment on other people's decisions. If you say you don't want to have sex because you'd be "giving away a big part of yourself," that implies women who do have sex are also giving away parts of themselves to their sex partners, and they don't even care. It falsely implies you're a better person with more self-respect.
I stand by what I said, but the important part that you are missing is the sex education these people receive in high school. That is the root of the problem. These people are making choices about their sex life based on misinformation and manipulation they were subject too in high school in abstinence-only education.
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions however, its great to see people read and think about what I write :)
Everyone involved in this study needs to have a talk with a statistics professor about self-selection bias.
I can see not wanting someone preaching to you that you should wait and then tell you that you should believe you are giving up part of yourself, blah, blah blah. Yeah that is out of line.
But when you go out and ask someone personal questions and then their reasons, and they trust you enough to be honest and open and then you have a problem with it. Yes, you are out of line.
They are pushing nothing on you. They were keeping their personal crap to themselves. You solicited them. So no way is criticizing them okay. Everyone has a right to think what they want even if you don't like it. If you don't want to know what they think, stop asking them.
College students are adults anyway. Let's just respect people's rights to make up their own minds and not judge.
I think the OP was merely relating what was written in the school newspaper.
I never felt like a bad person when I was a virgin, but I did feel as though there was something wrong with me. In short, I felt a sense of deep shame, so the first time the opportunity presented itself, I took it. In The Bell Jar Sylvia Plath talks about that sharp dividing line between those who had lost it and those who had not. This phenomenon motivated her character of Esther Greenwood to make a conscious decision to engage in pre-marital sex. That is precisely how I felt as well.
It wasn't so much, "let's get this out of the way" to the degree that it was more "I feel left out." For someone like me who had always felt very much out of step and out of synch with my peers, virginity was something I was willing to shed as quickly as I could.
It's a choice. I thought that was clear. Regardless of they're reasoning, if these people are making the conscious,clear-headed choice to not have sex, well, good for them. Who are we to convince them otherwise?
Argh. I couldn't agree more. I never understood this value that some people place on virginity, either as a person keeping it or someone who only wants to be with someone who is a virgin. Being a virgin does not make you special in anyway. Nor does it make you damaged. There's nothing inherently good or bad about being a virgin.
So exactly as stated, if you don't have sex because you haven't found the right person, aren't ready, etc. that's totally cool. But don't not have sex simply because you think it makes you a better person or that it's wrong to have sex.
I know when I was a virgin sex seemed like such a big deal. Now that I'm married and experienced, the whole thing seems rather silly. It isn't really that big of a deal, and your first time will NEVER be as special as you think it will be. In fact the first is generally always disappointing. Because you build it up, and then when it happens, it's like, that's it? That's what this is all about? And only then do you realize how silly it was to worry about your virginity status in the first place.
The first time for some people actually WAS very special. Can we not take our personal experiences and claim them to be universal truths for everyone?
Thanks Phenicks, you wrote exactly what was on my mind.
My first time was special, very special, and in many ways it set the template for what sex could be like for me. I waited until I was 22 and when it happened it was because I was emotionally ready. I picked the person, the place and the time.
I didn't feel I gave something up, rather I felt that I shared something really important and it meant a lot to me that my partner recognised that. (Maybe that's what Eskridge meant when he/she spoke about "giving up"?)
Having said that, I know that isn't so for many other people. Ultimately it's a personal choice and one which involves more than a single reason.
I find it both hard to believe and extremely disheartening that there are people in this thread - on a feminist website - who feel that it is appropriate or acceptable to question a woman's decision concerning bodily autonomy.
If someone chooses to remain a virgin because they feel that losing their virginity is immoral or will make them less of a person, that is still their right! We can absolutely critique the culture that results in this mindset, we can absolutely question the patriarchal or religious mindset that results in these decisions, but we cannot police the decisions themselves. We do not have the right to invalidate women's choices regarding their bodies just because we disagree with their reasons.
Who is questioning the decision? No one is saying these people (and they're not all women) should be having sex. But I disagree with anything they've heard or learned that will leave them feeling less than they currently are if they do have sex.
"Who is questioning the decision?"
Just up thread, Honeybee says "But don't not have sex simply because..." That seems to me to be pretty clearly questioning these people's decision.
Further, a lot of what you discuss in this thread seems to basically state that the underlying reason that some people choose to remain virgins is not valid. While you don't specifically say that that makes their individual decisions invalid, it does read that way.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding. I just don't see how you can say "the reasons for making this decision are wrong" without implying that the decision itself is wrong.
Further, a lot of what you discuss in this thread seems to basically state that the underlying reason that some people choose to remain virgins is not valid.
Not "not valid" - just that the information they receive due to our society's hard-on (no pun intended) for purity and absintence is coercive. This idea about purity = whole, sex = losing things comes from somewhere, we breathe it in like we breathe in ideas about gender roles. If you're making decisions about sex based on the fear of losing something or the fear of being less than you currently are, which is what ab-only teaches, that just sucks. Why would we want anyone operating out of fear or shame?
If people didn't freak out about teen/college sexuality, if they were honest and talked in a non-judgmental manner about the different reasons people do or don't have sex and how each individual might make these decisions for themselves, the number of people who expressed reasons for abstaining that involved phrases like the ones in the OP would drop dramatically. And maybe it wouldn't change their final decision at all. Maybe the numbers cited in the OP wouldn't change one bit. It wouldn't matter to me either way, as long as they're making that decision without any guilt or ideas about sex making them good or bad people.
I haven't read a single comment here that has questioned individual women's decisions to remain virgins. Whether or not individuals are having sex is really none of my business. However, when a substantial portion of society only sees value in women remaining virgins until marriage, I think it's detrimental to both individuals and society at large.
Therefore, some of us are criticizing a culture which fetishizes virginity and are dismayed that so many people seem to be buying into that culture. We're not criticizing people who don't have sex.
Earlier you say But if the reason some people remain virgins is because they see unmarried non-virgins as morally corrupt, dirty, un-spiritual, and/or slutty (which is judgmental to others), I have a problem with it.
Again, I may be misunderstanding, but this does sound like questioning individual women's decisions if those decisions are rooted in a value system with which you disagree.
I'm questioning a society that has consistently framed morality around (mostly women's) sexuality. I have a problem with individuals' rationalization for prizing virginity. I couldn't care less if those spouting that "morality = virginity" have had sex or not because it's the rhetoric that is harmful, IMO, not whether or not individuals have had sex.
I'm questioning the culture behind the decisions.
I state again. The problem isn't with VIRGINITY. The problem is with being shamed into virginity.
no but by questioning the reasons a person chooses to stay a virgin you have officially just told them as a collective that they are wrong simply because you say they are. Multiple people on here are questioning the bodily autonomy of women, telling them that they do not have the right to say that the decision that they have made is on the basis of an emotional involvement in sex. But God forbid anyone should want to actually have an emotional connection with their sexual partners because that too is just a tool of the patriarchy right? Cause that's what you are making yourself sound like.
I find the hostility towards this very frustrating. It's something I encounter often here and it's annoying every time. Yes, I'm a virgin by choice. I have my own personal reasons, reasons I don't expect everyone else to care about. I don't think people who have sex are amoral, impure, filthy, or whatever, but I'm really tired of constantly being told that because I'm a virgin by choice I'm a victim of the patriarchy and I don't understand what society makes me think about my body.
"People who remain virgins because they "don't want to give so much of themselves away" are, in effect, judging those who do not remain virgins, and it's okay to be defensive of that judgment from them and to call them on their patriarchal bullshit."
Really, so the fact that I have a personal reason that applies to me and whoever I'm not having sex with means that I judge everyone who has sex? Really? Part of my reason for remaining a virgin is, in essence, that. It's putting too much of myself out there for my personal comfort level. Yes, it's based out of a general dislike of touch and some anxiety issues based on touch, but I hardly think my opinion on why *I* am remaining a virgin means that everyone who doesn't agree is amoral and horrible for engaging in sex. It's not an issue or a concern for some people - which absolutely does not make me better than them on some cosmic scale of "purity", it just makes us different. The sexuality of other people is none of my concern, unless they're doing it in front of or to me.
I'm tired of being told that my personal views on what I do with my body means I judge and despise what everyone else does with theirs.
I understand and agree that our culture's attitude towards fetishizing virginity is a major problem and can contribute to these opinions in an uninformed population, but criticizing the reason people give for their decision still criticizes the decision. What, I can only decide to stay a virgin if my personal reasons for this personal decision are ones that the majority of feminists approve of?
"I understand and agree that our culture's attitude towards fetishizing virginity is a major problem and can contribute to these opinions in an uninformed population, but criticizing the reason people give for their decision still criticizes the decision"
I hope that the people criticizing your decision are the minority, and that most people's aim is to evaluate the cultural mores that you reference in the first half of this sentence.
I thought I was clear when I said that well-thought out personal reasons for anything is a positive thing.
In the OP, the quote was, When you have sex with someone, you’re giving a big part of yourself to them, NOT, "When I have sex, I'm giving a big part of myself to them." One is a personal decision, one is prescriptive. I'd also appreciate other people not making assumptions about my decisions to have sex or not.
Yes! THANK YOU. Any non-virgins that honestly think another person's decision not to have sex (for whatever reason) is an implied judgment on everyone who does have sex needs to take a good hard look at themselves. Guess what? Most people, virgins or not, don't care about your sex life! Get over yourself!
And, I find this somewhat ironic considering the condescention those types of people show virgins, as if THEY are the ones that are insecure in themselves.
Okay guys, we're not saying ITS BAD TO BE A VIRGIN. We're saying ITS BAD TO THINK you're a BETTER PERSON because you're a virgin because teh seks is DIRTY!!!!
Does that make more sense?
Haha. Actually, you know what? There's nothing wrong for having contempt for those morons with no self-control, who go out and waste 8 hours every night trying to get laid.
A shot of Clorox? Wtf, why are those people so stupid?
And more importantly, why are THOSE people the ones having sex without a condom and probably reproducing as a result?
They aren't stupid, but have never been told. Beleuve it or not, many people walking around today have NEVER HAD any sort of real sex ed. I was one of them and so was every girl at my high school. It was an catholic all-girls school and we were never told jack about sex. Honestly, most of us would have believed this stuff because we had no way of checking the facts. Where were we going to get this information? Our parents weren't talking. Neither were are teachers. The school library didn't have books about sex/birth control. The school restricted internet searches related to sex. We were ignorant. But that doesn't mean we were/are stupid. Not all of us are privileged enough to grow up in places where information about sex is presented freely. Check your privilege please.
Ha, I was homeschooled, so I didn't even have any peer information; my level of no sex education education beats yours. Lol.
Anyways: even without the Christian fundamentalist science textbooks we had giving any mention of STIs or anything (and while I was too lazy to use the human anatomy textbook we had, the entire section of the reproductive system had been torn out, to give you an even better idea), I never would have believed that bleach shots would have done anything except damage your mouth, throat, and stomach.
Ok, so back to the question: "Why Stay A Virgin?"
I did it so I wouldn't risk getting a girl pregnant, or risking STDs/STIs back in the panic days of HIV. My plan was to have sex with women I was going to marry.
Sounds like me....
I totally get that choice. I realize now that the title of my post implies that I staying a virgin might be bad, or that there is no reason to stay a virgin. This is not what I meant to get at, the title was not sarcastic, and I have completely understand the choice not to have sex.
thank you for clarifying that. However, your comments about someone saying that when you have sex you give a part of yourself away makes it sound like you really do believe there is something wrong with being a virgin. Lots of people refrain from having sex for many reasons-including this one- and no one has the right to criticize them for that decision
I went to Davidson College which is right outside Charlotte, NC. At the beginning of freshman year we were all required to attend a sex lecture. Originally from CT, I rolled my eyes, having gone to these classes/talks as long as I could remember. My sex ed lasted years and I never had questions or felt I didn’t know enough, thanks to my school system growing up. It’s no wonder I went to this talk annoyed. They talked about how to put on a condom, WHAT a condom was and whether masturbation was “wrong”. I sat in the back all huffy. Until one girl, my year, asked what masturbation was. Another asked to look at the condom because she’d never seen one before.
And that’s when it clicked. In the South, especially at Davidson, I was the minority in the “I know how sex works” category. And I’m really happy you posted this because I felt like a huge bitch after that class, thinking everyone else instinctively knew what I did after years of sex education. I also want to give some serious props to Davidson. Annoying as those classes were to take at the old age of 18, I think they helped a ton of people in the knowledge department. My question is: why the hell is this still a problem?
Giving away a big part of yourself to your partner?
"Giving away was not in the quote. The speaker just said "giving", and I think that is significant. Giving/giving away are not the same concept. I can give a part of myself to someone without giving it away. And that is exactly how I feel about sex, which is why I may have had a reaction to what you wrote.
Hooking up can hurt people. That doesn't mean no one should do it, but I think it's disingenuous to say it doesn't hurt if it's done safely and responsibly. You can safely and responsibly be in a relationship, and when it ends, it still hurts. That doesn't negate its value or mean that no one should do it.
I really didn't feel like the speakers said that there was anything wrong with being a non-virgin. The one quoted just said that it was giving a big part of yourself to someone, for which we have no context to really know what was meant.
I am allowed to want to remain a virgin for any damn reason I please. I do not have the right to judge others for their reasons for remaining virgins or not. If my views that sex is dirty and wrong extend to other people and I judge them, then my treatment of others is the problem, not my views on sex.
I do not feel that sex is dirty or wrong. I do feel that it is important to me. I don't care what people tell me about it being "no big deal," for them, it is for me. You don't know my circumstances nor how I deal with sexuality, and when I am ready for sex (which may be years out or even never), it will be a big deal. It will matter.
"When you have sex with someone, you’re giving a big part of yourself to them."
The OP and many of the commentators here are absolutely condemning people’s personal choices to be a virgin. The feministing crowd are enlightened whereas the anonymous quotee is merely deluded, despite there being nothing offensive about what she actually said.
Oh yeah, sure maybe she should have said “I”, because the people tearing her down never use “you” to refer to themselves.
Right, the simple phrasing of intimacy as “giving (of) yourself” indicates the woman is knowingly or unknowingly complicit in sexism. She couldn’t possibly feel like having sex is a level of intimacy that she’s not comfortable sharing with someone outside of a serious relationship.
I am 19 and still virgin. I've had the opportunity, but I wish to wait because sex is something I only want to do with someone I trust fully.
Other people are free to do as they wish, but I have made my choice.
It is not because I value virginity above everything else, I don't want to have sex with people I don't know well even after I'm no longer a virgin.
Being a woman of color in Maine, I've had men and women who only wanted to sleep with me because of the color of my skin. Maybe you see why I'm wary.
I wouldn't be surprised if that 38% statistic concerning virgins was actually kinda close to representing reality. A survey concerning drug & alcohol use and sexual activity was conducted at UC Davis and the percentage of students who had never had sex was around the same. I think it would help college students realize that not only is not everyone having sex, but a huge portion are virgins. Pressure to have sex is incredibly high in college.
This whole chain of comments is like a reading comprehension trainwreck.
No one is saying these people should or shouldn't be having sex, or that they're good or bad for not having it, except for the very culture we're critiquing!
No one is saying that sex doesn't involve emotional connections. I don't even know where the defense that "but sex can be emotional for me" came from. Of course it can be, for fuck's sake! But turning that fact into fear to stop people from having sex is manipulative and smarmy and that's exactly what our society does. And therein lies the complaint about ab-only education and the purity fetish. And like I said above, ab-only education PREVENTS discussion about how to tell if you're emotionally ready for sex. It PREVENTS discussion about how to deal with not just with physical risks like STDs, but emotional ones such as all the feelings sex has the potential to bring.
But hey, this is feminism, we just choose our choices without being critical of the cultural forces shaping them, right? We don't bother critiquing the patriarchy at all because we just choose what we want with full agency all the time. I mean, that's why we're all here on this website, right?
The thing about this thread is that its in the context of the OP's issues with virgins. The OP doesn't take any great lengths to connect this to the Virginity Fetish, or to interview people & see how it connects to the broader cultural context. So instead of coming off like the broad cultural swipe perhaps you had in mind, the OP comes across as simply taking a jab at virgins.
Just like every other post I've ever seen at this site about Purity Balls & what not, had the OP tried that different tact, s/he probably would've found resounding agreement. By focusing on individual decisions the OP comes across as demeaning those individual choices, whether they're religiously, personally, or culturally derived. This may not have been their intent, but that's how their argument comes across.
Reading comprehension trainwreck?
I think that as a general rule for polite discourse, and certainly for feminist discourse, we should assume that if people find our words to be offensive, insulting or infantilizing, our first thought shouldn't be to accuse them of lack of comprehension.
Look, I see what you're trying to get across. Now. But the fact of the matter is that many people on this thread have viewed the OP as questioning women's right to make their own decisions. Several posters have come across as either explicitly (Honeybee) or implicitly (you) invalidating women's personal choices.
I'm not saying that's what you, the OP, or the other posters mean. I'm saying that's how some of this sounds to some of the people who are reading. Saying "durr, reading comprehension fail" doesn't further this discussion and, frankly, is really insulting.
I think the mishap here is that those of us who disgaree with you don't see the shaming in that post. She was asked a personal question and ansered with a honest yet personal response. How does everyone's vagina become at the mercy of her judgement when asked about HER virginity?
There are women who say they had sex because they are not ashamed of their bodies-thats a direct implication that women who dont have sex ARE ashamed of their bodies by your logic. And after awhile the whole thing turns into a big senseless headache of criticizing people simply because they dont do what you do.
Holly hell, batman. The aggression level on this thread is ridiculous. I agree with alixana about "reading comprehension trainwreck." -.-
Here's the thing, that is still nagging me about the whole Purity Movement vs. Freedom of Choice... it still doesn't solve the question of how to really, truly, evaluate whether someone is ready to have sex or not. And I don't mean just "for the first time" either. (Yeah, I read Jessica's book too.)
Yes, I agree, the ab-only education and purity movement has certainly shut down the communication on sex. (Or maybe just, kept it firmly closed this whole time?) Our whole vocabulary around sex is twisted. Words and phrases like "scoring", "giving up", "putting out", "screwing", "losing one's virginity"--
What the hell IS this virginity crap that we speak about losing? It's not an object that we can point to. It's not a biological or physical state that we can achieve, or lose, at all. You can't take a test for it. It's purpose in our language at all is as a symbol between those that are, and those that are not, sexually active, but the very word itself in our culture is value-based. I much, much prefer the term "becoming sexually active", because that at least denotes the fact that it is an action (whether consciously chosen or not, it is an action), and not only that, also allows for the concept of "no longer being sexually active" as well, also as a choice of action. Unlike the concept of virginity, which is this strange state of being that has no physical or provable existance.
The entire vocabulary is value, and power based. Hell, our entire cultural mating dance is based around power! Wherein one person, presumably the female, plays the part of acquiescing, to the dominant and active participant, presumably the male. Our cultural dialogue is woefully absent of the conversation of intent, of acknowledging and embracing mutual desire. The general process of most teens as they first become sexually active is to sort of fumble along, using the basic formula of "going until she says stop", and "not saying no" is the que to keep moving forward. It's only later on, usually, as adults tha we learn to state our intentions... I know that was certainly my experience, but plenty of us never learn to do even that. I am less inclined to believe that "hooking up" is even the right term to define our culture, and more inclined towards something like "the 'it just happened' culture."
I do not believe there is anything wrong with waiting to become sexually active until one feels that they are ready to handle the responsibilities of this 'job.' But I think neither the 'liberal' "freedom of choice" camp, nor the ab-only purity movement camp, have actually been able to define just how one goes about figuring that out. Or even, what the "responsibilities" of this 'job' even are.
At the very least, the purity movement has more clealy defined ideals (not that I agree with them): the determination of when you are maure enough to become sexually active is whether you are marred or not, and/or, the responsibilities include being ready to get married and have children.
Because, let's be honest, if the "responsibilities" of being a sexual active adult means: being able to clearly articulate your desires for, and types of, sexual activity to your current or prospective partner; being committed to clearly determining expressed and enthusiastic interest in engaging in sexual activity from one's current or prospective partner before engaging in sexual activity; to be able to approach a prospective partner to ask about methods of birth control, preventing STD transmission and other possible "important" sex-related health topics prior to engaging in sexual activity of any kind; to be able to state your expectations regarding emotional-attachment and exclusiveness prior to engaging in sexual activity of any kind; and to be able to discuss newly pertinent sexually-related information as it becomes available at any given time....
Then most currently sexually active "adults," and even plenty of married couples in America, would fail this test. Let alone individuals attempting to navigate the terrain of sexual activity for the first time in their lives--whether they are 13, 17, 20, or 35, in high school, college, as a single person, as a partner in a committed relationship, or on a wedding night.
I am not sure if I even agree with the list I made in the previous comment, as a list of requirements a person must be able to do before first becoming sexually active... Most (all?) aspects of sex are learned-- the language and attitudes surrounding it, the specific acts it involves and the values attributed to them (is oral sex less emotionally "involved" than penatrative intercourse? Is 'fingering' even sex? Is penatrative intercourse only penis-to-vagina, or does it include anal sex? If it includes anal sex, does that mean anal sex between two men does or does not count as 'meaningful' on this scale of valued-sexual-acts??), and the ability to handle it all, as well as one's own persnal tastes and desires, and how to mix them with someone else to produce a mutually satisfactory experience... All requires a very important word: experience. Maybe it's not always experience just doing, there's a level of experience in talking about these things that is also important... But at a certain point, it is hard to concretely say what things you will or will not like, how you will or will not feel emotionally about certain things, without having experienced them first hand. Any experienced kinkster or polyamorous person will tell you this, and I think the mainstream culture surrounding sex has a lot to learn from both of these subcultures (that it ostensibly tries to ignore more often than not..)
Ariel I have to disagree. I was raised in the gay community, and lived the poly lifestyle, but I learned the most about my sexuality from being chaste.
When the only choices we have are abstinence-only puritanical vs. sex-positive anything goes for you education, we all lose. Abstinence and chastity are as different as Starvation and a balanced diet.
Chastity, like a balanced diet, when practiced correctly, is free of shame. It is an 'apprenticeship in self-mastery'. It allows the person to journey into themselves, by themselves and learn the depth of their hunger for the other, without using the other. It cultivates a sensitivity to one's sensual needs which is unsurpassed, raising the level of discussion from 'is fingering sex?', to 'is my viewing your body sex...and when is it consensual?'. It gives a person the power and skill to control conception without pharmaceuticals, and the self-knowledge to negotiate any and all sexual relationships - which is every relationship. It does this equally for male, female and intersexed persons, levelling the playing field. Chastity (which is entirely different from abstinence-only education) is rarely practiced, and sorely needed.
Like thetroubleisme, I am a woman of colour, I think she and I both see what is wrong here. The problem with this discussiion is that is distracts from the ethic of exploitation which is at the heart of shaming concepts of virginity AND transactional individualistic sex. If that's a judgement...then fine it's a judgement, but imo it's a very good one.
Thank you for getting it. I'm kinky and queer and I know what I like and don't like, but I didn't need to have sex to figure that out.
I'm going to wait and I don't feel I should be told I'm just giving in for making a personal choice. I'm not waiting for marriage, but I'd like any sex I had, not just the first time, to be with someone I care about and trust.
mltmlt, I apologize for using the word "any", in my statement then. Most of the kinksters I know or communicate with on a regular basis tend towards the "experience is knowledge" trend, but I should not have used that to make a broad statement for all.
Although, I would argue that the practice of chastity, as you describe it, is still about gaining 'experience', at least for what I was trying to get at.
But I think, as much we was drastically need more dialogue that acknowledges intent and pursues consent (and proudly affirms the individual choice).. I also think as we talk about sex and relationships, especially for newer folk (of any age), we should include language that allows for mistakes, and fumbles, without making such mistakes into earth-shattering catasrophies. I know, I know, in a Post-AIDS-era world, that may be extremely difficult. But we all make mistakes, with sex, even within long-term relationships, and with relationships themselves..
I think it curious, that the student quoted in the original post stated that, “When you have sex with someone, you’re giving a big part of yourself to them.” But do you not also "give a big part of yourself" to someone when you fall for them? When you tell them that you love them for the first time? Sex is not the only place to be vulnerable.. But that also tends to get lost in the limited dialogue we currently have.
Ariel Morgan, we agree and this is very telling.
Chastity is the 'regulation of the sexual appetite'. It is something practiced on an individual level. It is partially defined as not entering into romantic (not merely sexual) relationships until it is in a safe and appropriate place. This is why you see concepts like 'custody of the eyes' in Christian contexts...it is about fully understanding what drives you sexually and only engaging romantically and sexually with people who understand and accept and commit to supporting both those and other needs of the person.
On the reverse it means only entering into a relationship with someone you can fully commit to supporting. Purity in this sense is not purity of the person...but purity of intention and committment and not comprimising needs or values of anyone person involved. There is no trading...but complete self-giving (or at least an attempt at complete self-giving) in every regard.
This is something that is difficult to understand on a culture which is consumeristic and capitalistic. It is determined to exploit whatever little is available in each person right here, right now. Sexual confidence is almost parallel with consumer confidence - and any need to preserve, save or wait is seen as disempowering, questionable and oppressive.
Oh, I'm so sick of being told that I've been brainwashed by society because I believe that sex is an emotional act and I DON'T want to sleep with someone I'm not in love with.
I look at sex just as objectively as anyone else, but because some abstinence-only educator also believes--due to ENTIRELY different reasons--that sex should not be a casual act, I, too, must be a victim of the patriarchy and this slut-shaming obsession with purity. Right.
Conversations like these are the reason I'm currently disgusted with the feminist blogosphere.
I was ashamed of being a virgin when I got to college. I felt like there was something wrong with me and that I was horribly, hopelessly behind my peers socially. I felt like I was stuck in childhood while everyone else around me was an adult.
I had an easy out for the "Why are you a virgin? That surprises me," comments - I'd gone to an all-girls high school and hadn't had any opportunities to have sex. People seemed to buy that and left me alone sans interrogation or boggle-eyed reactions.
If I hadn't had that as an excuse, I imagine I would have been even more uncomfortable and come up with one of the pat, rehearsed, (marginally) socially acceptable reasons for being a virgin - and all of those reasons revolve around a conception of sex as a deep, emotionally fraught experience.
It's quite possible the virgins in that study are just parroting the lines present in our culture - it's not acceptable to admit you've never had an opportunity - that makes you a nerd, lame, loser. It's not acceptable to say you're not ready - what are you, a little kid? Uptight? A prude? It is sometimes OK to cite religious reasons, but only if no one around you is critical of religious reasons to avoid premarital sex. Anyone who is will think you're a tool of organized religion.
It is, however, acceptable to say you feel like sex is a gift to a partner, that you'd be leaving part of yourself behind, etc. Those are the reasons you are allowed to use without getting judged. Those are the reasons the UNC students used - who wants to be viewed as a social weirdo? I'm sure some of the virgins who answered the study actually aren't opposed to no-strings sex or casual hookups, but they aren't allowed to say that in our culture.
Anyone who thinks virgins don't get a heaping pile of shame isn't thinking.
This. This. If I gave an honest answer, it'd be "No one has wanted to have sex with me." Needless to say, this is not exactly acceptable in conversation. It's even less acceptable to tell to a strange reporter, and magnitudes less acceptable to risk getting printed in a paper circulated to tens of thousands of people. (And you better believe it would. Reporters and editors love quotes like that.)
Also re: Trojan's list of 'sexually healthy' schools - it's interesting that they don't include small liberal arts colleges. I gather that if Wesleyan, Oberlin, Evergreen State, Grinnell, and other similar places were included, they'd rank way at the top. It seems like Trojan thinks only big party schools have students who are interested in sex and sexual health issues.
I feel like virginity for females is not shameful at the college I attend. I could see males getting razzed and ostracized about it depending on their social group.
What I have to say is that the media already sends out so many loaded ideas about non-virgin women. Now while I admit that there are things out there that show women being sexually aggressive but where I live in the Midwest those are viewed more as Science Fiction (aka acceptable for how someone could act in California. lol) not a plausible way for a "Midwestern farmer's daughter" to be.
A well known elected offical (I'd have to hunt the actual name and story down) who was pro-life made a statement along the lines that abortion would only be considered in his mind if it was a "virgin who was violently raped" but not a sexually active woman who was violently raped!?
And don't get me going on the culture of horror movies- "The Virgin" lives because she is not evil so she is too good to die. Or maybe because the non-vigins needed to die anyway? Laughable.
What I'm trying to say is this article is not bad on one hand if they are really trying to show that these people are being treated poorly on campus for their sexual choices, what I don't understand is the need to give specific reasons for why they chose to stay a virgin. I have seen similar articles stating something that would be along the lines of "Mary, a sophomore, said that religious beliefs is the reason why she maintains her virginity" or "Rob, a senior sites not finding a person he feels comfortable with to lose his virginity."
The fact that they used individual references with loaded words that reinforces the stigma of "Sexual active people are broken, immoral, and self-abusive". That same man's reference could have either been excluded from specific reference or couldn't the deduction be made that she didn't feel comfortable with having the idea of having sex yet?
The media just needs to be more sensitive to the ideas they reinforce to their readers. In trying to give a voice to a group who wants to know their picked on, they have reinforced a negative connotation to another group of people.
If you're a virgin, I'm glad you made the choice that you feel is best for you.
If you are sexually active, I'm glad you made the choice that is best for you.
Ultimately, if a real life horror movie scenario unfolded, I think that it would be a stealthy, strong, smart woman who survives. Whether she has her "V-card" or not. :)
I cannot for the life of me understand why people who have chosen not to have sex are taking discomfort with the "When you have sex with someone, you’re giving a big part of yourself to them" line.
I understand it sucks to be judged for your virginity, and expected to explain yourself. It's bullshit. But frankly it is exactly the same as someone who chooses to have casual sex. Pretty much, unless you have had sex within a specific number of times depending who you're talking to, all within monogamous relationships, people will think it's OK to demand an explanation and judge you.
No, I don't have a problem with someone choosing to wait to have sex - or choosing to never have sex! If it's a well considered decision that makes you happy I don't care what that decision is, it's great!
BUT. I can and will take umbrage at the assertion that sex is giving part of yourself away. What?
If what they're trying to say is that sex is very intense and intimate and the first time, especially if you're young, has huge potential to fuck with your head, so they're more comfortable waiting until they trust someone utterly to have sex - hellz yeah I'm down with that! But there is no way to say you give part of yourself away without there being an innate value judgement.
And yes, it makes me sad and scared for anyone who believes sex will take something away from them. That part of you is given away... what, does that mean in loving sex the part of you given away is given back twofold by their caring? That's a rather huge expectation.
Due to my strong disassociation between sex and love it's taken me a long time to really understand that it is so interwoven for some people. That hard-won understanding has given me an appreciation for it I think a lot of people don't bother to seek the other way around.
It is your choice. I only want men and women to make choices that make them happy and share that happiness with others rather than tearing them down. Your choice is your own. But please, please do not place your self-worth in your sexuality? Please?
Whilst I'm sure the study had some bias in terms of who elected to respond, 11% is a pretty good turn out, and the response bias factor is ubiquitous, even in feminist research that tells us stuff we agree with. It's good to take issue with the methodological flaws, but we must remember to apply that kind of critical thinking to our own research.
University was ten years ago for me, on another continent, but lots of people were not having PIV sex, although few of them were willing to admit it. I think that the quotes they've pulled out typify one segment of the group saying they're not had sex/in the past 12 months. There's also the 'Don't fancy anyone/still in love with my ex/ asexual/ my body is ugly/ still working through trauma experiences/ maybe I'm gay/ worried about chlamydia' groups.
Many people who are vocal about abstinence position themselves as rebels against an aggressively sexualising culture (not unlike some feminists). I don't mind whether they see sex as a spiritual activity, or something with a different kind of meaning, so long as they don't start telling others what they ought to do. Either way, I'm glad that there are alternate realities presented to the idea that 'everyone is doing it, all the time, apart from you.'
Sorry, I hate it when people use insider terms. PIV = penis in vagina.
i'm young (18) and have been trying to figure out if in fact I am a feminist and I've come to the conclusion that NO I AM NOT !
Raising little boys as little girls?
Raising children to become homosexuals?
Demanding men respect you but showing no respect to feminist male posters?
Insisting that men are more privelaged than women?
Alligning marriage to slavery?
Anti masculinity?
I've only read a few articles and these things have come through very strongly on the articles I read. My concious has a problem with this 'community'. To my own amazement I am an anti-feminist, maybe I'll offer to cook dad dinner tonight as I'm overwhelmed by guilt for even becoming a member to this site.
Congratulations, but how is this even relevant to the post again? I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is so diminished that you cannot glean more from these posts than a narrow-minded reaction to widely complex topics, but that is neither here nor there since you are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not, however, entitled to wield them as a tool to derail conversations. I'm sorry you found nothing you considered to be of value here, don't forget your hat on the way out, and in the future, please remind your conscience to leave in a quiet and less disruptive fashion. Thank you.
Sorry, but offering to cook dinner for your dad one night isn't going to cut it if you really want to be a good anti-feminist. Make sure you cook every meal for him that he eats at home until you get married in which case you will cook every meal for your husband and clean up after him every day. This won't interfere with your job, because of course as a good anti-feminist you won't have one. You will have a lot of children though, because surely you know as an anti-feminist that besides taking care of your man and looking pretty all the time that is your sole purpose in life. Actually, to be a true self-respecting anti-feminist you should not accept rights won for you by feminists either, should you? To be on the safe side you had better throw away your jeans/pants, vow to never vote, never use any type of female contraception and consider yourself property owned by your father first and then your husband. Oh, and forget a college education-you won't be needing that either in your life as an anti-feminist.
You can't "raise someone to be a homosexual," any more more than you can raise them to be straight, so you definitely didn't read anything like that on this site. But if you have a problem with the idea of someone growing up to be homosexual (and horrors, being accepted by their family and peers), anti-feminist or not, you are an ignorant bigot, so good riddance.
My question is....if that's the list of things that upset her....why on earth did she ever think she was a feminist to begin with?
Thought process:
"Lets see here-
I don't agree with transexuals.
I don't agree with homosexuals.
I don't believe in women having an opinion.
I don't believe in egalitarianism.
I support outdated marriage gender roles.
I don't believe that men are suppressed by the pressure to be "macho".
Hmmm....let see....maybe I'm a feminist!?"
WTF!? lol
This debate would be so much more useful if we stopped talking about this false dichotomy of either "drunken, random hook-ups" or "virginity".
I think that's both unimaginative (there are SO many, many ways that human beings engage in sex), unpoetic and frankly it smells a little of slut shaming to me. Is that all the choice we afford each other here? Loving-committed-monogamous sex (clearly the option we're supposed to prefer here) or "random, drunken, hook-ups?" (clearly the option that's not so desireable). Excuse me, but I think for a lot of us there is nothing RANDOM about who we sleep with! It's a CHOICE, based on my own pleasure, agency and competence, and I'd like that to be respected.
Personally my sex life has never conformed exclusively to either of those two categories.
I personally don't care one iota about other people's virginity - it's an intensely personal choice, and it's one that for women through the ages has not been allowed to be personal. Society has always wanted to have a say about our purity and how we should feel about it.
The current discussion we're having I think is a symptom of that - we're trying to hash out the good and the bad reasons, as we each see them, to have sex and to not have sex, and it gets so messy, because it's both personal and it's not - we're ALL different, we're ALL subject to socialization and we're ALL saturated in our cultures. And obviously those cultures are all different.
Personally I grew up with almost no concept of "virginity" - when I was young in Scandinavia, sex was framed for me as a right and a responsibility that was *mine* alone to access and to exert, and that is my background. Emotionally I still feel it's a bit weird to think that whether or not you have engaged in a certain activity (albeit a mighty important one) somehow determines what and who you *are*.
I can't think of any other issue where we categorize people, well, mostly women, so sharply by those who have done it, and those who haven't, except for having kids - motherhood is another hot-button issue.
I identified as a "virgin" before I had sex, and it never occurred to me to call myself something different after I had sex. Before I had sex I was ME, a girl who was considering having sex at some point with my boyfriend I cared for, and I was excited about that possibility, and after we had sex, I was simply still ME, a girl with a boyfriend I cared for, who had sex with him, and had to make decisions about birth control etc. My identity remained intact, and while the experience changed me - coming into my sexuality and exploring definitely made my life richer and more complex and opened my eyes to a lot of things, emotionally and socially and politically, I would have been hard-pressed then to name any essential *difference* between me and my childhood girlfriend who hadn't slept with anybody. To our eyes at the time, she didn't have some sort of "Virgin Identifying Thingy" that set her apart. She was just ... her. And her choices were her own, as were mine.
Later on, I became a woman who had sex in a variety of settings - sometimes in committed relationships, sometimes with people I knew more casually, sometimes I was drunk, mostly I was not, sometimes I was exhilarated about my sexual experiences, sometimes they left me a bit disappointed but always I learned from them. Just as I learned from ... my work experiences, traveling, going to college, having a sick parent etc.
Now, that is my personal experience, and I put it out there to make myself and others aware of my bias, where I am coming from.
Everybody is different, so people will will feel like having sex in a variety of different ways - exclusively within a marriage, exclusively within committed relationships, exclusively in swinger clubs, on beds strewn with rose petals, in idyllic glades in the forest, at the back seat at the drive in, on the couch next to the take-out Chinese and your netflix and the diapers.
It makes sense that it's ALL DIFFERENT WHAT MAKES US TICK. And that that is inherently a good thing in itself - I'm not here to police anybody's sexual choices.
I AM here, however, to participate in the discussion about why we think that WHAT we chose to do in our sex lives makes us into a different KIND of person.
And that discussion is fair game.
If you have a preference, I will never raise an eyebrow. If you justify your preference (which is not needed, since it's your preference to begin with) by contrasting it falsely with something that's obviously bad, or by stating that it conveys on you certain immutable characteristics, then yes, I will comment on that.
I hope someone will call me out too, if I were to say that the fact that I had sex and am having sex indicated I was a particularly fantastic kind of person. I'm still me. I also happen not to like pickles and love dogs. Big whoop, both for you guys and for me, right?
We rightly smack down on people saying "Lesbians who have lesbians sex are so-and-so" and "gay men who have gay men are obviously so-and-so" and "women who have sex are clearly the kind who give too much away", AND of course, "virgins are like this and like that".
It'll be a great day when we, as a society, and as a movement, stop saying things about people who have, or have not, certain kinds of sex.
Because then we might be able to talk about the poetry of our (sex) lives, the complexity and the pleasure, as well as the politics of it.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the fact that the article focuses on virgins. There really is a lot of shame attached to being a virgin; I've heard people talk about virgins like they're naïve little prudes who expect that sex will be phenomenal the first time they have it, are likely to mistake sex for love, think sex is dirty or disgusting and are too unattractive for anyone to want to bother with anyway. I think it's a good thing to remind people that being a virgin isn't a shameful thing. The fact that sexual experience isn't a shameful thing either shouldn't have to enter into the picture. You don't have to talk about safe sex when you're trying to reassure virgins that they're not freaks.
And by the way, even if people do feel that they're giving a big part of themselves to their partner or their sense of self-worth will plummet if they have pre-marital sex, that's a matter of their own feelings and they'll have to deal with it, and until they start telling you that it should be your opinion too, it's not up to you to condemn them. Not even the person with the reason that most screams "BRAINWASHED BY THE PATRIARCHY!!!" deserves censure for their decision to remain a virgin. Being sex-positive is all very well, but not everyone is able to embrace that mentality. I'm all for encouraging people to examine their reasons and explore alternatives, but actually taking issue with people's reasons for thinking as they do when their reasons are none of your business just isn't cool.
I'm 20 years old and a proud virgin for similar reasons to that quote you included. Although I don't believe sex is only for married couples, for me personally it's not something I want to experience with someone I don't trust and like at least a little bit. I'm not shy about letting people know that I'm a virgin, but I definitely feel embarrassed sometimes when all my friends are talking and joking about the great sex they've had and all I can contribute is stuff I've read in books. A group of us played a stupid game once, and I was voted most likely to be a nun. Fab. But there's no way I'm going to go out and screw a random person simply because I'm sometimes uncomfortable with being a virgin. We all need to be told it's OK to not have sex if that's a choice we've made by ourselves and for ourselves, not because of any fear factor from false health facts or religions.
Oops, that should read "I NEVER identified as a "virgin" before I had sex". Sorry - crucial difference.