Talk:Virginity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] Virginity is not always respected

Virgins were sometimes killed in ritual sacrifice. It is also not respected so much in contemporary American culture. If you are going to put that virginity is respected in the first paragraph you must put that it is also disrespected to maintain NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

Agreed. In most western cultures virginity seems to be considered a flaw among adolescents. Possibly more so for boys than girls (which is most likely related to the traditional moral double standard that young males were expected to be sexually adventurous (within the borders of what would be considered morally acceptible, of course) and young females were supposed to save their defloration for the wedding night and better not take the initiative).
Of course this varies across subcultures, but outside religious conservative groups, (male) adolescents more oftenly brag about their sexual adventures than abstinence. A girl with more than a handful of past sexual partners, on the other hand, may easily run risk of ending up as the bottom of a lot of jokes (apparently on both sides) and be considered to be an "easy" lay.
The whole virgin sacrifice however is hardly disrespectful. Virgins are supposed to make good sacrifices for the same reason many religions favour them: they are sexually "untainted" and thus considered to be "pure" and "innocent". What would make a better offer to keep unwanted demons away or please disgruntled deities than something so incredibly precious (considering virginity is relatively easy to lose -- even passively)? Same thing as with sacrifying infants -- except that a minor or young adult has already survived infancy (something that wasn't as regular in earlier times as it is today), grew up to sexual maturity and yet hasn't put it to any use (there's also your reason for virgin sacrifices being usually female: it's easier to check and someone's more likely to talk about deflorating her than if it were a male -- females didn't usually brag about whom they had sex with).
The article currently doesn't fully meet NPOV criteria by focussing too much on strictly religious or dated cultural (e.g. '50s USA, which WAS strictly religious by comparison) views. Urban mainstream may not be as vocal as certain religious groups, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for possible reasons for the paradox, I guess it has (historically) to do with young males and boys being openly encouraged to act more adult-like and quickly become "real men" and young women and girls being supposed to remain "innocent" and prepare for being a "good" wife (and men traditionally preferring a virgin wive over a sexually experienced one for a variety of reasons ranging from preventing illegitimate fatherhoods (marrying an already pregnant woman) to an obsession with youth and childlike innocence, or mere insecurity (as a sexually unexperienced woman could hardly tell whether you were a good lover or not and thus not know whether there's any better fish in the pond)).
But that would be original research, so I can't add that. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (80.135.213.10)
*nods* Essentially, in ancient times, virginity was a price tag attached to a young woman which allowed her father and/or brothers to demand a higher bride-price to prospective husbands. We've found a more positive way to honor virginity today, but it's still largely rooted in these ancient chauvinistic urges. Kasreyn 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't follow. Why do you think virgin sacrifice indicated a disrespect for virginity? In many ancient cultures, such as the Aztecs, sacrificial victims were considered sacred or consecrated. Virgins were often selected, as in the Viking Age, because they were more "pure" and therefore worthier sacrifices. Being a sacrificial victim was, in some of these cultures, a supreme honor to be hoped for. Rather odd by our standards today, but it doesn't mean virginity was disrespected then. Kasreyn 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of funny, it's OK for boys to be adventurous while it's not OK for girls to be. So, who would the boys have sex with? WindyWoods (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Religions

I know that Hinduism places a certain amount of importance on virginity. I don't know about Buddhism, though. Since the other three major world religions get treatment, we should at least get the other two as well. Kerowyn 09:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is a Buddhist tradition that Siddhartha's mother was a virgin. Siddhartha himself enters her womb, having been in the form of an elephant beforehand. Naturally this tradition suggests virginity has a special and spiritual place within Buddhism. Alastair Haines 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

In what sense is "virgin" 'ungrammatical' when applied to a male? Adambisset 01:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term has historically only meant anything to women. Check out the two scarleteen links in the 'external links' section of the main article. JustADuck 20:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This article's placement seems a little strange to me. I feel it might make a little more sense at virginity instead. Although of course there's nothing in the style guide or naming guide to defend this assertion. -Branddobbe 06:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think virgin would be simpler and more natural for the title of the article. The common noun (or substantive) precedes the abstract noun derived from it, in the same way clarity follows the word clear. The main thing is that virgin and virginity do not really need separate topics (as far as I can see). We can change the title any time if necessary. Currently the redirect ensures that if someone types "virgin", they'll end up at this page anyway. Alastair Haines 15:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgins in some countries

Many Vietnamese virgins are actually now put for sale as wives to countries in the region. These virgins volunteer themselved to be confined in factories with strict quality controls. The hymen has to be inspected by doctors before the virgins are exported. In the middle east, a father was charged for killing his daughter because he thought she was not virgin. Hence virgins are still valued in many Asian cultures. Sagaciousid 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by many Asian cultures? Virginity had been important almost everywhere. The father in the middle east killing his daughter, if its true, could've probably had religious impact as well as cultural. But in many cases religion is a part of culture. Many western countries still practice Christianity, and in this case it is not just a religion, but should also be considered cultural since the number of Christian is immense. I heard that in Spain, there are still "certificate of virginity" proving one's viginity. I know it is still important in many parts of Italy, or at least it would be preferable by many. I wish I had time to research this, but I'll leave it at this for now, even though I have so much more to say.
Whoever you are, you are right. The sexual revolution of the 1960s in Western Society explicitly sought to deconstruct traditional values related to sexual behaviour. It actually failed in some of its more extreme aims, but it did largely succeed in changing Western expectations regarding premarital sexuality dramatically, probably assisted by the introduction of the contraceptive pill. It would seem that the majority of the world, especially poorer countries more dependent on family integrity for survival, only surrender their traditional values as prosperity increases. A strong industrial society allows individuals to negotiate their own security independently of their families. This topic is very much happening all around us. There are many studies, some swayed strongly by ideology. It's fascinating, and important. Alastair Haines 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penile-Vaginal Definition

Couldn't the argument be made that those who do not engage in penile-vaginal intercourse (and have never done so) are thereby virgins, regardless of their proclivities? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual virginity

I have removed:

(It can be questioned, however, why one should regard abstention from such intercourse for one reason [lesbianism or homosexuality] as different from abstention for another or others, and that such individuals may simply never lose their virginity.)

because I could not find substantiation for anyone other than the editor holding this viewpoint. I would be happy, however, to see it readded with appropriate citation. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Group

I added a link to Virgin Group after I was looking for it found this instead and thought that the name Virgin Group would not be a common search for the company Virgin. - Nanook *non member* | 26-8-5005

Check the first line of the article: For other uses, see Virgin (disambiguation). And please check the style/format of your edits. -- Cate 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rape and Virginity

Traditionally, women were not regarded as virgins after a sexual assault, but some feminists disavow this notion.

I recall hearing a Catholic Priest express this same notion, but I've been unable to find anything that suggests the Vatican has an official position on the subject... Anyone know if they do?
I think this can be given as an example of teh importance of some people still gives to virginity. Does it actually matter?. Saying yes or not wouldnt change the reality, what you are changing is a "fictional" virtue. An ecyclopedia should not have moral values else it can collect them. I dotn know if i explain right in English....--85.8.5.131 09:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Catholics would not focus on virginity, but rather on chastity and moral choice. A woman who was raped could still be chaste.Ghosts&empties 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This argument was made by St. Augustine, provided the virgin in question did not give in willingly. --MalcolmGin 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I feel that some of the introductory section content belongs on a disambiguation page (with the disambig line additionally clarifying that this page discusses the sociological and sexual meaning), rather than here. What do you think? Fourohfour 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Technical Virginity" should be given its own article, since it is a concept that stands entirely on its own.-RomeW
I disagree, actually. I doubt we could write much more than a stub on technical virginity, so I think this is the right place for it, but if you think you can write something in-depth, have at it! -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. Maybe there should be a section in this article that describes the interpretations of what "a virgin" is, which can include "technical virginity". I just think "technical virginity" deserves more than just a line, because it is something that's debated, especially when considering virginity pledges.-RomeW 09:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I deleted the section on Islam which was as follows 'Some fundamentalist Muslims believe Hadith number 2,562 in the collection of sayings of Muhammed known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi. This saying is often rendered, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby.".

As far as I could see this paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with virginity, and seemed to be POV (regarding the term 'fundamentalist'). I rewrote the article and now it is about the importance of virginity in the islamic faith. Zbzdhbafr 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved it down there when I found it included in the intro text, but didn't have enough knowledge of Islam to really do much to moderate the tone of it. Your edits look good. Good work! -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

the article states that the white dress is popularly misinterpreted as a symbol of virginity. I believe that historically that is the symbolism in western culture, regardless of the fact that most women are to embarassed to wear a non-white dress at their wedding. Unless someone can find a source for this infobyte i think it should be corrected. Shaggorama 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how you can "misinterpret" a symbol anyway. Since most people today believe that a white dress symbolizes the virginity of a bride (whether they are or not - that doesn't really signify) that is what the symbol means whether it meant that historically or not (and this claim that white is not supposed to represent virginity is unsourced) Hollerama 04:45 10 April, 2007 (UTC)
Blank, Hanne (2007). Virgin: The Untouched History. Bloomsbury USA. ISBN 1596910100.  says that the white dress derives from Queen Victoria's white dress. Previously, dresses were other colors, including yellow, blue, and the really affluent brides used silver. You can find lots of other information that might be relevant to this discussion in the book. I'm not advocating buying it, of course. There should be copies available at this point at your local library. --MalcolmGin 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biochemical virginity? Antibodies?

Woah! Hold on sec. This article states that after having sex you keep antibodies from that person in your bloodstream. I guess that makes sense if the antibodies last a little (a week) but forever? Am I reading this right?

What are they defining as "sex"? Intercourse? Does it have to be un-condomized intercourse? JustADuck 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality notice

what's with the neutrality notice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bloodstream

Heyas, I've removed

In some cultures or beliefs, virginity is defined as "a person's bloodstream that has not been contaminated by another person". (male or female alike)

since I have been unable to verify a source. I'd be happy to see it be reincluded but only with appropriate citation. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this got struck, but I'd like to see a source for that and "biochemical virginity", as that term returns no meaningful non-wikipedia hits on google. Mairi 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Struck because I undid my edits because I had insufficient time to complete them. I've now excised all text regarding biochemical virginity pending source information. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Time

The Mayo Clinic at one time established a psychological documentation on how people felt after their first sexual experience, common difficulties, etc. This was a mainstream publication that was meant for patients. I saw this a long time ago and the data has probably changed enough to necessitate update, but if anyone can find this it could greatly contribute to the article. 64.31.188.26 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin means a woman who was free to chose her own sexual partners

A meaning then debased and used to exert control over woman by organised religons.

Anyone know of some of the origins of this idea? Would like to know more but not sure where to look.

[edit] Disambiguation page

i think there should be a disambiguation page for this article, because the the word "virgin" is likely to be refered to Virgin Group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.26.25 (talk • contribs) .

You're right. There is already a disambiguation page here: Virgin (disambiguation). This article should have a hatnote that points to that article; I'm adding that now. In the future, don't forget that you can do this yourself. =) Powers 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertrand Russell

FYI, "Why I Am Not a Christian" is not a book by Bertrand Russell. It is an essay (though originally a lecture). But the writer may be referring to a book that bears a similiar title("Why I Am Not a Christian : And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects") that includes that essay with others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.45.160.201 (talk • contribs) .

Don't forget if you see an error, you can edit the article yourself. =) Powers 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary Virginity

Check this out, Involuntary Virginity it is not uncommon for people who want to have sex but aren't "getting laid" are suffering from extreme shyness or Social Anxiety disorder.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.249.47 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Notability of Infibulation?

It's a rather grim topic to raise, but I wonder whether it is notable or not to mention the link between cultural perception of virginity and the practise of infibulation. This is a procedure, largely performed in sub-Saharan Africa, in which a female's (typically young girls) labia majora are sewed together, usually in some combination with female or "pharaonic" circumcision and/or clitoridotomy. The purpose of the procedure is both a cultural milestone as well as a method of enforcing female virginity before marriage. Speaking to the subject of virginity, it is notable as a method which has been used to prevent deflowering before marriage. Clearly, in such cultures virginity must be considered highly valuable, or else such customs would never have arisen. Does anyone else think this is worth mention in the article? Cheers, Kasreyn 06:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous traditions of devices and techniques intended to enforce virginity. I believe they all deserve some mention, including infibulation. Al 04:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Chastity Belts are another example. In general, most cultures throughout history have perceived virginity as a commodity - one which has been bought and sold by men, not women. A great many customs have this belief hidden at their origins. The article mentions modern perceptions of virginity, and religious perceptions, but fails to cover information of anthropological and historical worth. The sad truth is that for the majority of human history (and in some cultures, still to this day), a woman's virginity was a commodity, a marketable good, bought, sold, and traded by her father and/or brothers, typically to the highest bidder. Customs such as the dowry had their origins in this practise. The belief in virginity's value itself has its origins in male motivations predating recorded history - males have a strong urge to ensure paternity. This self-interest led to the preference of virgin females over non-virgin females. (Male virginity, of course, has never had any innate significance, though some cultures have given it some.)
The way women have been mistreated throughout history is surely a depressing topic, but I feel on notability grounds that it should be included here. In western cultures today, virginity may be seen as a sign of strength of will, purity, etc., but through the vast majority of human history it has been nothing but a price tag attached to a woman. Kasreyn 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins explained the evolutionary motivations for prefering virgin females rather nicely. The fun part about mankind is that the concept of sexual abstinence eventually became a religious matter and lead to various related acts and concepts like masturbation becoming social taboos. Although female virginity is a topic of its own, the obsession with sexual abstinence at all levels has been rather unisex at various points in history (although there almost always was a moral double-standard by gender, sexual preference or group).
The lengths to which some cultures went to ensure pre-marital sexual abstinence of their offspring is definitely noteworthy, though. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's another purpose for infibulation/FGM that you don't raise, which is that in these cultures that practice it, there's generally an issue of demons invading bodies through any orifice (no, I don't know why head orifi don't count), so the infibulation/FGM that we find so totally abhorrent is partially meant as a protective measure. I know that this doesn't make it seem any better or more valid to us, but that's just a fact of the procedure. The other part of this demons thing is that if a person must be killed or pushed out of society for being what we would call "mad" or "homocidal" or whatever very negative and abhorrent condition they might have, that condition is generally understood as and justified for that person having been possessed by a demon through a wound or other demon-passing opening (as which a non-infibulated vulva counts). It's easy to approach these kinds of issues from a very western-culturally-centric viewpoint, but the fact is, the issue is far more complicated than we generally give it credit for.
When activists go into a country where this sort of thing is practiced and say "this must stop" but don't provide for providing other measures that are seen to be as valid as the one that's being stopped, they arguably cause a lot of harm in their interference.
I'm not saying that FGM/infibulation is completely unrelated to virginity, but I'm saying it's far more complicated, and we should really be careful when we talk about it from a purely Western viewpoint, especially since Wikipedia is a global resource. --MalcolmGin 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read Dawkins on this, and he's quite likely right. My question now is precisewhy what additional material we need to add, and how we might structure it. Any ideas? Al 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on "cultural perceptions of virginity"? An overall paragraph or sub-section could note the similarities between various cultures, and then we could get specific about certain cultures' rituals and customs in other sub-sections. Kasreyn 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religions

This article definitely needs information on how the other world religions view virginity. I'd add it if I could, but I don't know much about it.--Cúchullain t/c 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the church ladies

Latest edit seems not to fit NPOV and the reference link is to Plain Truth Online, not the most neutral of sources. 202.156.6.54 15:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virginity in Judaism

This section could potentially benefit if it were rewritten.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.76.39 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Powers T 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Judaism, I think clarification is needed. The article implies that Judaism is rather lax when it comes to sex before marriage, and that this has been true for its history. However, it is basically common knowledge, thanks to the Christian Gospels, that Jewish law had provisions for the stoning of adulterers, especially the female. In fact, much of Christian law about adultery and virginity comes from texts shared by Christianity and Judaism. The Pentateuch provides many punishments for the taking of virginity, and these often can include the death penalty, especially stoning. Perhaps the law was not often enforced, but it seems to me that the fact that the death penalty was on the books as a punishment for pre-marital sex should disqualify the word "lenient" as a description of Jewish law or practice.


[edit] Virginity in Christianity

I went on and removed the part that said celabicy is encouraged in Christianity, particularly in the book of Matthew. This is false. The Bible, while it writes about a celebate apostle, does not encourage celebacy. It actually says to be fruitful and multiply (of course, within the bonds of marriage) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.5.5 (talk • contribs) .

Sagaciousid 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Put it back up. Please read the following, hoping it will help. I got this from http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm

Premarital Sex and the Bible

Sometimes you will hear people say that the Bible doesn't say anything about premarital sex. Apparently this statement is made by people who haven't read the Bible or, at least, who haven't read it thoroughly. The Bible speaks in clear language directly to the issue in both the Old and New Testaments. Here are the Biblical passages with short comments.

Old Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage

Exodus 22:16-17 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

[If premarital sex occurs, then an Israelite male was to marry the woman he slept with - that is, assuming the father allowed the marriage.]

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

[Premarital sex is viewed as a "disgraceful thing" and "evil."]

Proverbs 5:15-21 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.

[A man's "fountain" should be saved for "the wife of [his] youth." The man is to be a virgin when he takes his wife.]

[In addition to these three Scriptures, there are 32 other verses in the Old Testament speaking about a "virgin" or "virgins." Each of these passages shows that virginity was highly cherished as the standard for God's people.]

New Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage

[When we come to the New Testament we don't have verses explicitly describing the act of premarital sex and its consequences like we do in Exodus or Deuteronomy. It is clear, however, that virginity is still the standard for unmarried Christians and that sex outside the context of marriage is still considered sin.]

1 Corinthians 6:16-18 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

[Sexual intimacy "unites" you with the other person. When this uniting of flesh happens outside of marriage, it is called "sexual immorality." One fleshness is to be limited to the one you marry. This is similar to what we saw in Exodus 22:16-17.]

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. [Notice that to avoid sexual immorality outside of marriage people should marry.]

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust. [If you are struggling with wanting to have sex, get married. Premarital sex isn't an option for dealing with lust. It's either marriage or you are in sexual sin.]

Ephesians 5:31

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

[Paul is quoting from Genesis 2:24 and affirming the Old Testament standard of uniting in flesh only with your spouse. One fleshness is to happen when a man leaves his father and mother and is "united to his wife." Compare with 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.]

1 Thessalonians 4:2-8 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

["Acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable" or you are in sexual immorality. Sexual sin harms others besides those who engage in it. In adultery, the spouse is always wronged. Premarital sex "cheats" the future partner by robbing him or her of the virginity that ought to be brought to marriage.]

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

[Again, it's a pure marriage bed or you are an "adulterer" or "sexually immoral."]

1 Timothy 5:2 Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

[As a Christian man, if you are not married to her, then she is your sister (who you must treat "with absolute purity").]

1 Corinthians 7:7:28,34,36-38

[Note in these verses how virginity is assumed for unmarried women living in Christian homes. This is the same thing as we saw in the Old Testament. Virginity was the standard for God's people.]

2 Corinthians 11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

[Although this passage is talking about Christ and His people, it uses the analogy of a Christian man receiving his bride "as a pure virgin." Virginity was the ideal. Premarital sex was viewed as sexual immorality - just as in the Old Testament.]

The standard in both the Old and New Testament regarding premarital sex is the same. Premarital sex is considered sin and a violation of the uniting of bodies that should happen only in marriage.

It is important to say, however, that many Christians have violated this standard. THIS WAS TRUE OF THOSE IN THE EARLY CHURCH TOO.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Christians were sinners before they came to Christ and Christians are still sinners after they come to Christ. If you have violated God's standards of premarital sex, but are repentant, then accept the FACT that you are washed, made pure, and in a right relationship with your heavenly Father. Seek the miracle of His power filling you to overcome further temptation toward sexual sin.

[edit] Added link to external links

I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, though I've run several Mediawikis on my own. Most of my lack here is not knowing the policies and procedures. To avoid conflict of interest (because I am Hanne Blank's partner), I kept my edit down to adding a link to the FAQ for Hanne Blank's upcoming book on the history of virginity in the External Links. If the link is too Hanne Blank centric, then perhaps it would be better used as a reference for any future edits to the article.

Anyhow, if someone with more experience in the subtleties of POV on Wikipedia could vet and keep or delete the external link, I would love it. I fear I am too close to the subject to be objective, and took lead from the fact that you already have articles from HBlank and HCorinna (a long-time collaborator with HBlank) in External Links. MalcolmGin 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for you not to contribute at this article is if you found it especially traumatic in the face of opposition to various points from other editors. In other words, feel free to contribute. You are likely to be able to provide much better information than most people.
I must get hold of the book some time. Best. Alastair Haines 09:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanne Blank's Virgin: The Untouched History is now out on bookshelves

The reason I mention this is that the book, part history, part medical scholarship is good quality secondary and tertiary source material to correct many of the citation-less assertions made here.

I do think the article goes in a good direction, but the (especially technical) discussion would be well-informed by a good read of the book in question. kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ISBN 1596910100 --MalcolmGin 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caysoism

google shows no hits and I have never heard of this, is it a troll edit? Blue loonie 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now removed, was a "funny" vandalism, ha, ha. --FlammingoHey 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Thats strange!

[edit] etymology of "pussy"

Neither a recent SOED nor a fairly old Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology suggests that the derivation of "pussy" in the sexual-slang sense is any different from the derivation of the feline sense. (And Partridge, in Slang and Unconventional English, interestingly gives "puss" rather than "pussy" as the sexual slang, which I suspect also makes the article's proposed etymology from "pucelle" less likely.) SOED does date "pussy" in the sexual sense back to the late C18, so I've removed the description of it as "modern" slang. Barnabypage 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Somebody REALLY messed up this page. Someone read and correct all of this rubbish! And where has the Sikhism virginity section gone?

[edit] Parthenophilia redirects here

Parthenophilia redirects here fix it

[edit] Male Virginity

This line is untrue: "In males, there is no physically visible indicator of virginity."

Someone needs to incorporate the following in some way that isn't plagerism.

Signs of male virginity, which the tribal examiners claim white doctors either ignore or have simply not learned to interpret, include a “white lacy skin” within the foreskin, a taut and difficult-to-retract foreskin, and the presence of a particular vein that is visible in the penis of virgin but not of sexually experienced males. [...] these and other signs, such as the way in which a young man urinates (urine that sprays is considered a sign of virginity, whereas a coherent stream would be a sign of its loss) [...] http://www.hanneblank.com/main/ex19.html

Sorry, this is pure nonsense. 91.127.245.204 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hymen and rupture

I see a problem here, the article says that the hymen is commonly ruptured during physical activity or when using a tampon. However, the Hymen entry says the exact opposite. The internet is even more confusing. Can somebody with proper knowledge correct this and add citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.75.161 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual Female Virginity

Women who actively engage, exclusively, with other women sexually through their entire lives cannot reasonably called virgins, most would agree. There should be a discussion on how the lesbian culture views virginity. --MQDuck 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I know a lot of people, straight and gay, who would consider a woman who has only been with women sexually to be a virgin. Though I must admit some of them joke about the issue, as in not being too serious in considering that; others seem to believe that, yes, the woman is still a virgin in the technical tense. And like this article notes on, some of them don't really feel that virginity applies to men. Flyer22 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Virginity

"The well known advice columnist Dan Savage frequently ridicules such assertions when made by correspondents to his column and podcast Savage Love. His view, shared by many, is that "having sex", explicitly includes sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse, including oral or anal sex, or mutual masturbation. It therefore follows that once an individual has engaged in such sexual activity, they are no longer a virgin in any meaningful sense."

This seems kind of useless. One man's opinion whould be recorded on one man's article. As it is, I have never heard of Dan Savage, and the phrase "well known" fails to convince me that he isnt just a small town newpapre columnist. Id remove this myself, but I'm too timid. Any other thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.94.18 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article about him indicates, he's a internationally syndicated columnist. The fact that you haven't heard of him doesn't invalidate him as a legitimate source. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In my spare time

The etymology section of this article was so dreadful and misleading it attracted my attention. In sorting that out, using the Oxford Dictionary and some Latin sources we might clear up some confusion.

There seems to be enough unsourced nonsense on this page that I would have thought even quoting a local radio shock-jock would be a step forwards.

I'm not a Wiki-virgin, I've been around the block a few times. In my experience, articles tend to improve with added quotes from reliable, available sources.

If you're not out to prove black is white, feel free to google up some sources, you'll know which are agenda-pushing and which are informative. Search 'em up and whack 'em on the page. Cheers. Alastair Haines 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Don't know who rated this as top importance, bit of a sad view on long-term stable relationships. Alastair Haines 09:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've watched you fix up this article, and I'm pleased that you worked on it, of course. I do feel that this article should be rated as top importance, however. Flyer22 11:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I was a little irritated by the general folk-mythology thingy of "virginity as social construct".
The text suggesting it's just an old-fashioned idea down-plays it to such an unbelievable extent that it suggests the topic actually matters much more to some editors than they would admit to themselves. I don't like readers (especially young or less discerning ones) being confused by text that communicates more about the personal issues of editors than about the subject of articles.
I guess I was just trying to indicate my personal view, that what everyone agrees about is the value of long-term relationships, however relevant or irrelevant sex with a preceding partner may be.
There, now I've said it more plainly.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your encouragement. I intend to do more work on the religious views, because I know good sources on several religions. I know there are good, modern, secular sources in psychology, sociology and history also. Finally, I am sympathetic to the feminist view, but I think it needs to be presented logically and coherently, not assumed as the default, enlightened modern view, which it certainly isn't.
Hope I can live up to my ambitions. Please do the Wiki thing and correct anything you think is wrong. Cheers. Alastair Haines 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this matter further. I get what you mean. And again, I appreciate your fixing up this article (I'm certain that a lot of editors do or will once they see your edits to it). It needed it, and you definitely seem like one of the best editors to do that. Flyer22 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You say the nicest things. I will probably do some more work over the next few days or so. I really need to think out a logical approach to the whole article. For example, do we need a Historic practices section, Laws regarding virginity section. I'm personally curious to know about these things. I also want to find more psychological studies of women's perceptions of virginity and its loss. Although it's gross, I think we have texts describing Meso American religious rituals involving virgin sacrifice. I may have them wrong, but I believe they sacrificed lots of people, not merely virgins. They should be in the Religion section.

Finally, there are some basic ideas that need logical presentation. If a wife discovers her husband has been sleeping with a young intern at work, and he says, "ah! but that was yesterday, I want to sleep with you today." I'm not sure she'd be very impressed. A virgin bride who discovers her fiance had rather a reputation for sleeping around at college might be equally unimpressed by, "but I wasn't married then, I'll be different when we're together." But I'm assuming that men and women are the same in how they feel and express sexual jealousy, but we just don't know the differences in how male and female brains work in this area yet (though I know some studies have been done).

Then there's the inconsistant logic that speculates that sexual experience outside marriage has little psychological effect, while on the other hand, often the same people, argue that "date rape" is a serious crime that needs addressing with major legislative intervention and public spending.

I think for this article to responsibly address the topic, it needs to find good sources that show clearly the connections between sexual jealousy, romantic love, divorce, rape and virginity. Social perception of virginity doesn't exist in glorious isolation. Finding the good sources that discuss this is the trick. ;) Alastair Haines 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Alastair, for that section discussing technical virginity, I like the title "Technical virginity" better than the title "How far is too far?"...mainly because people often use the words "technical virginity" in accordance with that topic. Flyer22 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree! Silly rush of blood to the head from me. Far too colloquial, not encyclopedic and all that. Thanks for being polite. Revert me! :D Alastair Haines 14:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph about German words is loaded with false affirmations

Being German myself, I was rather surprised when I read this paragraph. I wouldn't want to offend anyone, but please abstain from writing about the etymology of another language when it is obvious that the basics aren't mastered. The word "Frauline" (pretended to be "the standard German word for a young woman") doesn't even exist in the German language. Accordingly, the link de:Frauline is broken. There is a German word "Fräulein" (Miss), which is a diminutive of "Frau" (woman, Mrs), but it is definitely NOT the standard German word for a young woman. As a matter of fact, it is (like the English "Miss") used as a title prefix to the name, but not as a stand-alone word (with very rare exceptions that have special meanings). Furthermore, it's not seen as a "title of respect" (sic). To the contrary, it is nowadays considered quite disrespectful by many women (and its use is severely condemned by all feminist organizations). It WAS for some period in history understood as a title of respect due to the fact that it was originally reserved to young women of the aristocracy, but that's the past. As for "Jüngling" which is said to be the male equivalent to "Jungfrau": the commonly understood sense of "Jüngling" is just a boy (very young man, without any connotation concerning the sexual experience, unlike "Jungfrau"), and even that is archaic and very rarely used. The meaning of "Jüngling" as a direct male equivalent to "Jungfrau" does exist (in the dictionary at least) but its usage is close to nil. You'll even rather find the female term applied to a male (possibly in adjectivized form) to denote the lack of intercourse experience than "Jüngling". Sebastian Lammert 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly more expert than I. So, I take it you are saying the 2006 film, Das Fräulein, is an ironic reference to aristocratic young women from some point in history?
Fräulein Ripley of Die Zeit is just old-fashioned?
I presume the bloggers at 'it's this fräulein's world' and 'fräulein anna's weblog' are just being provocative? And their lower case F is not a sign of modern contextualization?
You wouldn't approve of BeoLingus?
And you'd disagree with de:Wiktionary?
Bedeutungen:
  1. ledige junge Frau
  2. veraltet Titel für ein Fräulein[1]
  3. umgangssprachlich scherzhaft Mädchen
What you say sounds rather similar to English. Miss is still a title of respect, although it is certainly discouraged by feminism. Despite that, in English, a significant number of women still choose to use this title, as such it is one of the options available in drop-down menus on electronic forms.
Unfortunately, feminism is not the authority on language use, nor are those who take offense at various usages.
Apart from the missing umlaut, the only error I can see you pointing out is that Fräulein is not the normal word for a young woman. What is?
The point of the text regarding this is mainly that Jungfrau is not the normal word for young woman. Is that incorrect? Alastair Haines 09:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Feminist?...

I noticed there's a link at the beggining of the article to a "feminist criticisms" section which was never created.

Also, it struck me as rather odd that there wasn't a discussion any discussion of how the definition would relate to gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals.

For example, for example, would a bisexual young woman be considered a virgin if she'd "had sex" with women, but "only messed around" with men? Even if the "messing around" that she was doing with the guys was exactly the same sort of activity as she was doing with the women when she was "having sex" with them.... Helvetica 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There actually was a discussion above about lesbian women on this matter, if you can call it a discussion, that started...but didn't really go anywhere... The section above titled Homosexual Female Virginity. And as I stated above, plenty of heterosexual men, for sure, would still call a woman who has only had sex with women a virgin. They would still consider her a virgin if she just "messed around with", such as oral sex, with them as well. Some gay and lesbian individuals even joke about the woman still being a virgin. But a deeper discussion here is needed concerning this matter, of course. Flyer22 06:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, as I look higher on this talk page, another section related to this matter was briefly discussed — the section titled Homosexual virginity.
Most of my gay and lesbian friends have had sex with people of the opposite sex before, some more than others. I haven't come in contact with too many gold-star lesbians and gay men. Flyer22 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have. As a self-avowed bisexual, the gay guys I know often find my heterosexual experiences remarkable... and sometimes even "icky". With fewer L/G people trying to pass as straight, exclusively homosexual activity is becoming more common. And most would snicker at the notion that their lack of het-sex makes them "virgins". - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the issue under Technical virginity. The discussion does need to be organized better. If no one else does it, I'll get to it eventually. I think a possible logical framework could be:
  • Objective virginity -- broad common definition probably penis in vagina, academic definitions of sexual debut.
  • Subjective virginity
  • Self-perception -- psychiatry will have a lot to say about this
  • Social perception
  • literal view -- it's about the hymen, hence popularity of heavy petting w/out intercourse (the "don't spoil me" view)
  • moral view -- it's about sexual activity and attitude, not the hymen
  • Special cases
  • Rape -- problematic for literalists, however, morality is concerned with choosing sex outside marriage
  • Homosexuality
  • Male -- penetrative sex has particular significance
  • Female -- place of orgasm in assessing significance of sexual experience
Personally, I think the rape and homosexuality cases tell us most clearly what people consider significant (or not significant) in various forms of sexual debut.
Also, although I don't expect we'll find a lot of literature about it, I'd be fascinated to know more about date-rape -- where a virgin girl says "yes, no, yes, no, no, no" and ends up giving in and even reaching orgasm. I could imagine being extremely distressed, overwhelmed, guilty and angry all at once, and not knowing how to move forward or who to share it all with. Alastair Haines 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above framework looks like a good way to organize the information, and would definitely be a step forward. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thinly Veiled Attack on Feminists

"Some feminists have claimed that most societies value female virginity more highly than male virginity, but interpret this negatively as sexism against women. History evidences laws and customs that required a man who seduced or raped a virgin to take responsibility for the consequences of his offense by marrying the girl or by paying compensation to her father on her behalf.[6]"

This is the fourth paragraph under "In Culture". The problems I see here are first, the generic "some feminists" tag- which feminists, who said this? Second, the italics on "women" in the first paragraph- the only point I can see to these italics is to imply that feminists are silly and that the virgin status is sexist against men. Third, and this is more of a logic problem that a wiki problem, the second sentence evidences that "a man who seduced or raped a virgin to take responsibility...by marrying the girl or paying compensation to her father" as an apparent counterargument to the apparently outlandish generic "feminist" belief that female emphasis on virginity is sexism against women. Guys, if somebody raped you and the "punishment" was that you had to marry your rapist against your will or get your father paid off (gee, I wonder what would happen if a woman was raped by her father..?), would you consider that sexism against men?

I feel that this entire paragraph should be deleted, but I would like to hear what other people think first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.57.148 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that all of that should be deleted. The mention about how some feminists see the very notion of virginity as a sexist construct because it rarely applies to men (the original wording that was there for that part, or something close to it) should definitely be mentioned. As for all of that you brought up as a whole, I would say that it needs work, of course. Re-wording and sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This article needs some work, especially what is currently entered under Culture. We all seem to be agreed on that. I'm rather suprised at your view that no feminists have ever criticised the high status of female virginity. Perhaps you've read some that praise this? Cite them! It'd be great to hear feminist approval of women choosing to express their sexuality exclusively within marriage, despite men hounding them to do otherwise. I'm sure they exist, I've read some.
The italics are simply a concise way of avoiding stating the usual point of view, that girls are broadly more "protected" than boys. Actually, this is explicitly stated in a lot of feminist writing. They consider it patronizing. I'm sure you are right, the feminist view needs to be presented very carefully, because some argue for more protection, while others argue for less. Fortunately, feminist discussion of virginity is not a big part of the overall literature on virginity. We can note that feminists are divided on the ethical issues (it's hardly core to feminist theory) and move on.
I don't understand your last point. I'm not aware of girls ever being forced to marry their rapist. The punishment for rape is death (for the man) in the Bible, and in many other cultures. I am aware of historical accounts of women who have demanded their rapist marry them, and of this being ignored! But the rape case is extreme, much more commonly young people have become sexually involved and societies have imposed constraints on men who are unwilling to marry under the circumstances. Very frequently women have consented to sex on the basis of a promise of marriage, which is then renegged on. I've read several recent journal articles on this sort of thing, it is still the case today. In fact, female child molestors often claim to have fantasized about marrying the boys they seduce. I seem to recall it is true of the four Canadian school teachers convicted in recent years.
It is true that in many societies girls are married in their early teens, and probably do not assert any particular preference, if a sexual liaison is being pushed to marriage by her father. The extremely bizarre and awful case of father raping daughter is punishable by death in the Bible. All societies condemn incest (obviously not all with a death penalty though).
What do you think, by the way? Is it healthy, safe and rewarding for young women to "experiment" sexually, and for the men to similarly have no obligation towards those they sleep with? Do you have a favourite writer or writers on the subject? I highly recommend Katie Roiphe as an example of a very authentic feminist viewpoint. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


You misunderstand me. I am not saying that no feminists have ever criticized the high status of female virginity, quite the opposite. My main complaint with the passage in question is that it uses a very generic "feminist" tag to make this point. Which feminists, where? I want specific names, especially when the paragraph makes no mention of arguments supporting this belief- the second sentence is entirely an argument against the generic statement of "some feminists" in the first, only the second sentence recieves a citation while the first does not, making it look more credible.
I also don't see how the italics help make the view more concise. This might be a case of having to agree to disagree- when I read that sentence, the italics seem to imply that the idea of valuing female virginity higher than male being sexist against women as absurd. "but interpret this negatively as sexism against women" seems pretty transparent to me. I just do not see how putting women in italics clarifies anything. It looks to me like an editorialization, and I am hard-pressed to see how it adds anything to the article.
The last point, again, you misunderstand me. I am not personally aware of girls ever being forced to marry their rapists either (though I do find it perfectly believable that such a thing has happened). The reason I brought it up is because in the paragraph I dispute, appears the citation: "History evidences laws and customs that required a man who seduced or raped a virgin to take responsibility for the consequences of his offense by marrying the girl or by paying compensation to her father on her behalf". I would like to remind you that this citation comes from the Bible- assuming that whoever put the citation up was citing it correctly.
Again, the issue I am taking on here is implication. This sentence follows the previous one where the italicized "women" appears to denigrate the generic "feminist" position that high female virginity status is bad for women. By starting out with "history evidences", the implication here is that the generic "feminist" are basing their argument on nothing, while "history" has evidence proving the generic feminists wrong. And this is, of course, another error since the passage quoted is not history, but a law of the Bible In any case, the implication is that the above passage is proof that women are at a benefit thanks to the high status of virginity, because the crime of seduction or rape is apparently equally penalized by marriage of the paying of compensation to her father. The passage makes an editorial comment- we have generic feminists with denigrating italics on one hand and history with a citation on the other. Can you honestly write down that this passage has no biases on which one we ought to believe?
I must remind you that what you or I think about what possible benefits, if any, there are to young women experimenting sexually is irrelevant for the sake of this passage. As editors, we should be trying to avoid having any obvious bias in the articles, and what I see in this passage is clear, obvious bias which does not seem to have any purpose except to make the reader think, unqualified, that generic feminists are unreasonable and that history vindicates the position that the high emphasis many societies place on female virginity is always good for women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.15.162 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can completly understand where you are coming from, but the sentence is a plain statement of fact. You have to read between the lines to get what you are saying. Actually, the sentence is absolutely true, plenty of feminists say it, you admitted that yourself. That you think they are contradicting themselves is your own original research not what the article leads you to. Their view is not contradictory, just surprising, and quite clever.
That men traditionally protect women's virginity has been thought by most people to be favouritism towards women throughout history. Feminism has been unique to suggest that men paying for meals, taking out garbage, buying diamond rings etc. etc. is disadvantageous to women and something they should stop accepting, for their own sake.
Now, if you think that is a biased argument against feminists you are wrong on three counts. First, it is not biased, it is just an argument, and a published one (many recent writers have made versions of it). Secondly, if you think it is my personal opinion, you are also wrong. Thirdly, if you think it actually "disproves" feminism you are wrong.
The feminist argument is subtle and good at this point. What they argue is that if women accept favouritism from men they make themselves dependent on that favouritism. Men should not have to do all the work. This is one of the reasons feminism has been so successful. Men have, not surprisingly, been quite happy to accept women taking more of a share in carrying the work-load of society.
The feminist ideas regarding virginity are also popular with men. Instead of having to promise to marry girls, men have enjoyed being able to break up with them, because "virginity doesn't matter any more". It's not up to us to say how good and brilliant this new feminist led intiative is. Nor for us to say how deep and dark all this unholy fornication is. The article cites the religious views in their own space. However, it is our business to report what the views are.
It might be wise to avoid the word sexist, because it is hard to see how forcing men to marry someone who let them have sex with them is favouring men. However, since the word sexist is used with regard to this, we need to give fair representation to those who argue both sides of the coin. Wiki can neither favour one side or the other.
But Wiki cannot be held responsible for conclusions readers form for themselves. An unbiased presentation of communism may attract some readers and repel others, without their being any "criticisms of Communism section". To say "Adolf Hitler was a fascist dictator" sounds biased, but it isn't, it's just a statement of fact. It is the reader who is biased against fascism and dictatorship. ;) Just because you don't think the direction of sexism is ambiguous with regard to valuing virginity doesn't mean everyone thinks that. The solution is to show both points of view and, in due course, if no one else does this, I shall. Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted the passage. Since everyone seems to agree that the paragraph in question needed a rewording at the very least, I am hoping no one will take it upon themselves to restore it.
Bear in mind that I am not suggesting that the passage is wrong or discusses issues that should not be discussed- I deleted it because it discusses them in a brief, inaccurate, slanted way. I think we can all agree that articles are better off with no discussion of certain issues than brief, inaccurate, slanted ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.15.156 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I restored it before reading your comment about having removed it, though I saw you pop on my watchlist as having been the latest person to comment on this talk page. I just don't feel that that entry should be deleted completely. I'd ather one of us change the wording and possbily expand on it. Either change the wording back to what it originally stated, then work on it from there, or change it to something different in wording about the topic, is what I suggest, but not total removal. I mean, it's an interesting part of the topic of virginity and some feminists have indeed criticized the double standard of virginity. I'm going to restore that passage back to what it was originally, as in a few days ago, and then we can work together from there with it. If the source or sources we use for that topic does not say which feminists, then I feel the word "some" is quite adequate enough. I personally never ask "which this or that?" when I see the word "some", rather I know that it means some and obviously it's not specified as to what particular group, especially as it's usually more than one group. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I change that entry back to this wording: Some feminists have claimed that the very notion of virginity is a sexist construct, since it is rarely applied to men, even in societies that prize virginity most highly.[citation needed].
I honestly don't see anything wrong with it worded that way about some feminists concerning this subject, except for the fact that we need a valid citation for it. I don't feel that should be too difficult to come by. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it will be impossible to find such a citation, because virginity is not a notion it is a fact. Hence academic literature (hundreds or thousands of articles) that discuss sexual debut and the age of consent etc. The problem with the sentence, is that it is a way of talking about virginity as if it is all in the mind and it shouldn't be there. If you like, it is a "thinly veiled attack" on valuing virginity. Unfortunately, virginity is simply a brute fact with social and psychological aspects that continue to be discussed in the literature and probably always will be. Additionally, probably a billion people of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist culture or commitment are not likely to go away in the near future.

I doubt that feminist have claimed the notion of virginity to be a sexist construct, but what I do know they claim is that placing different value on male and female viriginity is sexist. That involves two things: one, that people are treated differently on the grounds of sex; two, that the difference is experienced negatively for one of the sexes. Treating people differently on the grounds of sex is not sexism, it is one of the ways to get more women involved in various occupations. Height, weight and fitness requirements in the armed forces are lower for women than for men. That is not considered sexist (partly because it advantages women), but mainly because this is not thought to disadvantage women, nor the men.

Virginity is a tricky discussion, but the feminists who argue for devaluing female virginity argue one of two quite different positions. Basically, both argue that the "double standard" with regard to sexual purity is sexist; however, one group argues that girls should have the same freedom as boys to experiment sexually, the other group argues that boys as well as girls should be encouraged to keep virginity until marriage. The former group are the vast majority, the latter group include almost all the billion or so people still influenced by traditional religious values.

The last point is particularly relevant to another problem with the sentence. It speaks of "societies that value virginity most highly". There are several problems with this sentence, and again they are as subtle as the suggestion that virginity is a notion. The first is that, in fact, marriage and sexual jealousy are cultural universals, hence virginity is valued significantly in all cultures. It is true that some value it more than others, however, the impression the sentence gives is that some cultures have a high value and others have none, or that it is simply unrecognized in some cultures, which is just not the case. By following the word notion by society the whole sentence suggests virginity is a "cultural construction", not a physical and psycho-social reality, treated differently but recognized and significant across all cultures.

There are also some logical problems. Firstly, does the sentence think virginity is something women have or that men have? It must be something women have, because it is not often applied to men. But think again. If it can be applied to men, then it's not something exclusive to women. Or think yet again, if it is something that is a cultural notion and not a reality, then if societies have it for women, then that's all there is to it. If societies apply it to both, then that's all there is to it. If it's not real, but only in the minds of the society, we can't expect them to apply it according to objective reality, it can't be sexist, it just is.

Think about the suggestion that societies that value virginity highly don't value virginity in men. Is that valuing virginity? The word virginity is being used in two different ways five words apart. What the sentence means is: "societies that value virginity in women most highly don't value virginity in men."

Now, that was one heck of a long essay to address one tiny sentence. Unfortunately, it's got to do with how tricky words can be. A normal reader picks up only the following:

  1. feminists aren't happy about virginity
  2. they think it's unfair to women
  3. they think it's a wrong way for people to think
  4. different societies value virginity differently
  5. many societies don't apply virginity to men

Now, bearing in mind we happen to know (3) and (4) are wrong or irrelevant, I suggest we remove them, they can only give feminists a bad name. The sentence is appalling, no self-respecting feminist would write it. However (1), (2) and (5) are all true to some extent, i.e. there are many feminists who dislike the distinction implied by virginity. They discourage Miss in favour of Ms for similar reasons. They don't like the way society categorizes women according to their sexual/marrital relationships, and they like the way they perceive men to be free of such categorization.

There is so much to cover here, that it needs it's own section, not a single sentence. Eventually I will write it if no-one else does. However, in the mean time, I'm afraid I will have to delete the current sentence again. I provided an alternative that covered the facts. It's up to you and others whether you restore that or provide something else, but the current sentence is misleading and inaccurate on several points, subtle though they are. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you state, I do want something added to this article about the feminists view: "(1), (2) and (5) are all true to some extent, i.e. there are many feminists who dislike the distinction implied by virginity." I'll probably just wait for you to type it up. Flyer22 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men can also be virgins...

"A virgin is a young woman characterized by absence of sexual experience"; this statement needs to be changed. A virgin is simply a person who has never engaged in sexual intercourse. There are major NPOV problems with this article. Alison88 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the statement was changed, it used to be modified by the word "historically". Feminists actually get their etymology correct on this issue, the history of usage in English according to OED is explicit about this. The word first only meant virtuous young women, only later did it refer explicitly to sexual integrity. But the point is, it explicity arose as a reference to female referents, and is still used strictly that way in the biological contexts.
The second sentence explains the way the word is broadened in normal usage.
Regarding NPOV, I agree, the virginity in culture section reads very dismissively of virginity, which may represent some recent Western views. It's rather late 20th C US-Euro-centric, but it is hard for English Wiki to get beyond this, of course, and what's the point in complaining, when Wiki allows us to change things. By all means be bold, and start sourcing all the historical and non-English cultural descriptions of the place of virginity, which gives a more accurate overall picture. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just stopping by to say that Alastair is right on about the original and historical meaning of this word. But, of course, he already knows that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Men can certainly be called 'virgins', according to Christianity. The Book of Revelation explicitly mentions the '144,000' men who are prophesied to stand with the 'Lamb' (the new Jewish king) on the Mountain of Tsiyon in Jerusalem (the capital) at the end of the reign of the age of foreign rulers (Roman emperor, etc.). These men are explicitly called 'virgins'.

Revelation 14:1-4 (KJV)
And I looked, a Lamb stood on mount Sion, and with him a hundred [and] forty four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, and the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song, and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women. For they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile. For they are without fault before the throne of God.

The Book of Revelation is written from within a Jewish context that doesnt value 'perpetual virginity'. These 144,000 should probably be understood as something like 13-year-old men, who are perceived as too young to be guilty of crime, albeit in Revelation they are uniquely goodwilled. (They evidence a forerunner of the custom of the right of passage of Bar Mitsva.) In any case, these young men are explicitly called 'virgins' (Greek παρθενοι parthenoi), and the passage is rife with the Hellenistic (Platonic) spiritual ideals associated with virginity. --Haldrik (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, the phrase 'defiled with women' must be understood in context. It is idolatry that defiles, not the women per se! Revelation refers to the custom of sacred prostitution, where all-male 'block parties' (symposiums) customarily invoked their foreign gods, while offering guests the evenings entertainment, including female sex workers. (High-class prostitutes were among the few highly educated women of ancient times.) Some among the early Jesus movements taught 'freedom from the Law' permitted participation in these overtly idolatrous parties, but Revelation opposes them. Revelation 2.14: 'I have a few things against thee, because thou hast them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols and to commit fornication.' This Greek word unhelpfully translated 'to commit fornication' (πορνευσαι porneusai), only means 'to avail prostitution', and specifically, the problem is these prostitutes are part of parties offered up to idols. Anyone who partakes of them partakes of the gods. Anyway, the 144,000 'virgins' were simply too young to participate in these adult parties, so they couldnt be 'defiled' by this idolatry (not by these prostitutes per se).--Haldrik (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] coitarche links here and it is not defined.

please define coitarche in this article since it links here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.28.36 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this request and alerting us to the issue. Coitarche sounds like it uses two Greek words to form a technical term for sexual debut, which is the standard academic way of refering to virginity.
Virginity does not exist, sex does, and when it does it has effects, hence being possible to study, unlike virginity. Virginity is simply a way of speaking about people who do not experience the effects of sexual activity.
Sexual debut is significant for study in broadly two ways. Firstly, it marks the boundary between those unaffected by sexual activity and those affected. Secondly, early sexual history often involves unique psychological issues, as with early history in any activity.
If I find time I will seek references to coitarche and simply place it in parentheses as a synonym after sexual debut (and followed by the best reference). Anyone can do this though, just do some research, hit "edit" and include the references. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misusage of the etymology of the word "virgo"

InsertformulahereI am having serious issue with the retranslation of the etymological definition of the word "virgo" used on this page and its corresponding assumptions. Based on the 1st web link used at the bottom of the page which redirects one to the Online Etymological Dictionary, the definition of the word "virgo" is a "maiden, unwedded girl or woman". This gives no indication of the specific age (it covers all ages maiden/girl - woman), or their respective sexual experience. I feel this is important to note, as there is an understanding in ancient cultures that a "woman unto herself", ie not being possesed by family or husband, was considered a "virgin", and it is believed in many circles that these women were actually in service to goddess worshipping temples, and therefore did not need a husband to care for them.

Even if the group writing this entry disagree with this view, I believe in the service of impartiality and it being a "-pedia" of information, it is important to give ALL the aspects information connected to a subject and let the reader do her/his own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilithgrrl (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lilithgrrl, I'm not quite sure where you have got your information from. In most ancient cultures I have studied, almost the only independent women were widows and prostitutes -- neither were considered virgins, for fairly obvious reasons. In all other cases men were required to work to support and protect their women -- wives, daughters (and slave girls if they were rich).
Some of the most ancient writing we have include laws outlining the duties of men towards their households, and other laws regarding state support of widows. It is true that prostitution, including institutional prostitution like temples and harems, was widely practiced, and these women were provided for by payment from their clients, or by temple or royal revenue.
Your "woman unto herself" sounds like a woman who provides for her own needs. The first named author in recorded history is a woman, a priestess of Inana, of the royal family. She appears to have been something of a maverick. Her financial resources were probably derived from her family, but, whether she earned what she had or was just lucky, she seems to have had sufficient independence to have been able to get away with "bucking the system" in various ways once she had it.
Anyway, the only way we can know what people did in the past is to read the writings that have survived and to inspect the "rubbish" they have left behind -- broken pottery, food scraps, tools, weapons, jewellery and so on. Sometimes we have to guess, sometimes experts make different, contradictory guesses. By and large, though, it seems there are some generalizations we can make about how men and women organized the way they lived together. This is the important thing, the actual way people live. There are interesting questions that come up when we look at the words used to describe the way people live.
Many languages have no word for "a person without sexual experience". It's not that people didn't have sex, or that everyone did so there was no-one without experience. It's just that some communities are either too shy to talk about it, or don't care much about it. Other languages have a word, which only refers to sexually inexperienced women, not to men. Often such words presume the women are young or includes pre-pubescent girls, since historically most women have been sexually active from soon after puberty. Perhaps that's good, perhaps that's bad, who's to say? Whether good or bad, that just seems to have been the way of it, but it involves some of that "experts with different guesses" factor.
There are important differences in the modern western world. Men are no longer required to financially support women for life if they have sex with them. In fact, men can also divorce women any time they like without having to provide a socially acceptable reason. Women are now expected to be independent and support themselves. Statistics suggest women, on average, still become sexually active some time in their teens, but now this frequently does not involve marriage and promises of life long financial support from their husband. Since this is now our society we're talking about, there's a lot of writing about whether this is good or bad. Legally, our society has only been this way for about 30 years or so, so when experts talk about it being good or bad, again we're guessing about future consequences a bit.
It's a very convenient arrangement for men in particular, which is possibly one reason it has been so successful. At the cost of doing 50% of the housework, men can expect their current partners to provide 50% of the household income. That's got to be a good deal, wouldn't you think? Perhaps it's good for women too, you've got money to pay others to look after your children, if you don't feel like doing it yourself. In fact, you should probably only need to pay half of it, because the fathers should be paying the other half. But the bottom line here is that men are never responsible for more than half, whereas in the past they were responsible for 100%.
Bringing this back to the point, all this means there is now confusion about translating words for a virgin into English because, where they exist, they carry associations derived from their cultures. A word for sexually inexperienced typically carries an association of youth, because sex normally starts at an age that seems young to most speakers in most historical and non-western cultures. On the other hand, the word virgin is probably changing in English too, because in a culture where people might typically have several sexual partners over the course of their life, the focus is on the present one of several, rather than the early stage of a lifelong relationship. For most speakers in our aging western society, virginity describes a time long past departed with a person you never see any more and with whom, on average, you probably did not end up having children.
The word virgin in English, is probably most used by teenagers talking about a state they are anticipating leaving as soon as possible, marking a kind of entry into adulthood -- whose made it and who hasn't. There's literature on this (and even some TV documentaries).
So where does this leave us? Well, there are two questions I can think of. What does the word virgin mean in modern English usage -- i.e. what associations does it carry? The other question is what values do historical societies and modern non western ones place on sex, children and life-long marriage and family that makes a word for sexual inexperience a word worth having?
Those questions have answers in lots of books out there. Some of the answers are different in different books. I'd like to know the names of a few books that give each of the different types of answer. I've found a few, and put them in the article. You can do that too. There aren't all that many rules about Wiki. Just "if it came from a book you can't delete it" and "you're not allowed to argue that your books are better than someone else's books if your books disagree with one another -- both should be allowed in the article."
If you have read something you think adds new information to the article, or presents a new point of view, just put it in. Few people (or even teams) ever read everything written on a single subject, so if you see a gap, fill it if you can. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you to the contributor on Catholicism

The Catholic Encyclopedia is excellent on this topic. Augustine and Aquinas are also excellent. The western traditions regarding virginity are very easy to recover with these superb sources. Thanks for pointing us to what ought to have been an obvious place to start. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)