Fake virgins. A growing number of Chinese women … are opting for a surgical procedure called “hymen restoration,” which returns the hymen to its condition before it was ruptured. … Many men, including white-collar professionals, say they want to marry a virgin. And increasingly liberated Chinese women have found a way to oblige them. …
What a finely worded load of hogwash that only serves to teach that misogynism is clearly still rampant in contemporary society.
Let me attempt to clarify what you've stated, Veritas... You believe that "women" (please note Veritas broadly generalized to ALL women) are less valuable with sexual experience, because to explore that "perfectly natural " (<- my words) aspect of herself would make her a "hedonist," of lower moral "character," unable to "bond" with her future husband, potentially causing him to seek pornography or other younger "specimens" to bed.
Also, note that the broad category of "men" in Veritas diatribe are allowed these excesses without any judgment whatsoever because even a female "feels like its good because other women found him desirable." Curiously too, note the ultimate power Veritas confers upon women with these implications. Curiouser and curiouser...
I wouldnt waste my time on a clearly, close-minded individual like this self-proclaimed "truth" teller (who I'm sensing is either male or heavily indoctrinated into the patriarchy, though Veritas happened to be a female goddess of truth in antiquity. The irony is certainly not lost on me.), exvept that others read your rhetoric and risk believing it because it 'almost' sounds well thought-out. Frankly, your prosaic logical falacies don't deserve a considerate response, except to PREVENT indoctrination (which you paradoxically accuse of making women think they deserve equal treatment in the world).
In making sweeping generalizations of the entire human population, Veritas, you have proven your lack of true consideration for this (and I suspect many other) topics. Worse yet is how, in your narrow egocentric view, you clearly envision half the population as merely reflections of their testosterone-dominated counterparts, with the sole purpose of pleasing men. If you are a male, then I either pity your wife, or know you don't have one. I am not sure who indoctrinated you with this drivel, but I truly hope you can step out of your opaque little ego-bubble at some point and realize -
ITS NOT ABOUT YOU. WOMEN ARE NOT HERE FOR MEN. NOT ONE IOTA. Regardless of what some heavily edited piece of 2000 year old literature implies with allegories about ribs and apple and snakes, women are independent creatures, who men have been trying to suppress since the days of our switch from hunter-gatherer to an agricultural society, because of our ultimate VALUE to society.
The drive for purity in women has less to do (at least initially) with preference and more to do with men wanting to be sure their offspring were their own. A woman ultimately has all the power, by the nature of her physical ability to bear children. Men can certainly go around sewing their proverbial wild oats, but the only way men knew that baby-daddy was themeselves, was thru sequestering his females somewhere that other men couldn't potentially 'ruin' her and then guarding her with the sword. Then subsequently increasingly objectifying, devaluing and demeaning her in society with the threat of astracism should she not obey him. Its a clever scheme and was historically quite successful (and men project all manipulative behavior on women. Ha!). It's been utterly abusive since the we realized that a woman's life was worth at least that of her potential offspring, so she shouldn't be allowed on battlefields (otherwise where would we get the next generation of soldiers?), whereas a male was expendable. You implied it yourself; he can seed a thousand females. She can only bear one, maybe two offspring a year, but she can be impregnated by any male. Thus, for the sake of certain men's frail egos, women became objects to them, and by virtue of women's physical constraiints and her inability to protect herself well from the highly militant masculine half of the population, she acquiesced.
Mind you, I don't pretend to think this is absolute truth, only the culmination of carefully researched scholarly theses from archeological data, ancient texts, etc. The fact is that men and women are increasingly able to sidestep the constraints of early civilization through education equality and availability in this "zeitgeist," and technologies which allow us to prevent birth or confirm patronage. Women's sexual liberation has little to do with "what men want", but what SHE wants and is safely able to CHOOSE FOR HERSELF, and frankly that is exactly as it should be.
As Mark Twain (whom i see you equate yourself with Mr. Veritas) said, "The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in woman's construction, is this: There shall be no limit put upon your intercourse with the other sex sexually, at any time of life.
"The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in man's construction, is this: During your entire life you shall be under inflexible limits and restrictions, sexually."
"...That is the law of God, as revealed in her make. What becomes of this high privilege? Does she live in the free enjoyment of it? No. Nowhere in the whole world. She is robbed of it everywhere.
"Who does this? Man. Man's statutes-if the Bible IS the Word of God.
"Now you have a sample of man's "reasoning powers," as he calls them. He observes certain facts. For instance, that in all his life he never sees the day that he can satisfy one woman; also, that no woman ever sees the day that she can't overwork, and defeat, and put out of commission any ten masculine plants that can be put to bed to her..."--From "Letters from the Earth," 'Letter VIII, ' by Mark Twain, 1941, Harper & Row, Publishers, pg 40-1
And THAT is the reason men are so determined to constrain women, in my humble opinion. I think men are just jealous. ;-p
you are thinking of it wrong. a woman's virginity is worth a man's life ... he will work to support her for all of his days. a woman that tosses something that valuable away for a 5 minute romp isn't very bright, economically, lol.
It explains men's nature. There is no sane man, given everything else being equal, that would prefer a woman who is not a virgin to a woman who is a virgin. The less sexual history you have, the much better. It has nothing to do with high-earning men or stealing resources, it has to do with lack of preserving the gift of your sexuality for your husband. It has to do with a lack of sexual restraint which is reflection on her character. It has to do with being frivolous about the essence of her being. It has to do with pursuing hedonistic ephemeral pleasures at the cost of virtue. It is a reflection on who she is as a person. The more men a woman sleeps with, the less able she will be able to be a loving and devoted wife, less able to bond with passion with her husband. She loses this ability the more its abused. Each sexual liaison affects her totality. Men are unconsciously aware of these facts. It is not a choice men make, it is intrinsic to their nature. Women do not have this preference for men so they cannot understand it. They prize other things in men which can be as equally difficult to achieve. Maintaining sexual restraint is not easy for either sex but it is something that a woman is admired for.
Men are deluding themselves if they think this is irrelevant. It is pure indoctrination by the zeitgeist. Read about sexual liberation and political control. Sex is the most powerful drive in humans and there is a reason every society made measures to order this. It is essential for the functioning of families and civilizations. Why would a man want to stay married to the same aging woman, when he can chase young tail around town? Especially given the absence of any religious sense in the person, he will be more attracted to the young nymphs that present themselves alluringly. Love and sex are compartmentalized in the male, he can be in complete love with his wife but desire sex with others. There are men who may have been indoctrinated by the feminist ideology that has pervaded almost all channels but it is in man's nature to value sexual purity in a woman highly. Double standard exists because of nature, it is wishful thinking and highly deluded to think it is a social construct. Men have a high preference for sexual variety and would likely sleep with most woman on a college campus if given the opportunity. There are excited by sexual novelty and would love sleeping with any woman that is physically attractive. Men's lust is nondiscriminatory, it has no particular target. He is able to find a large demographic seductive.
Why do you think there is an endless amount of pornography created? Don't you think there is already enough material existing? Do you think men watch the same woman twice? Not many, men are ready for a new specimen that can excite him. Men's sexuality is varied and depraved, he does not want a woman who has been used in a similar fashion by others. Woman's sexuality is directed at specific target that she has emotional connection toward. This is natural to a woman unless she has something aberrant in her nature. A woman in a relationship is not aroused by parades of men on the beach and wanting to screw each one of them. Woman are better able to control their sexual instinct and this was the role civilization had bequeathed to them in order to maintain moral order. Look up the Coolidge Effect for further insight.
A woman leading a normal life may not be a normal life except in the highly decadent and declining West. The culture is advanced technologically but is basically regressing in every other aspect. Collective knowledge has increased but individual intellect is almost none, most people are more ignorant than a brick. All they know is what they see on pop culture and the mass media. Or one or two highly specialized areas of interest that give no insight into human nature and understanding of the world. How many serious books do people around you read, not the mass market fiction and trash novels but serious thinkers and philosophers from all times and places? A good rule would be if its popular its most likely because it satisfies the simple intellectual needs of the masses. Entertainment that programs their thoughts by bypassing their reason and going straight to their emotions. All people want are bread and circuses and to distract themselves into oblivion. So whoever is in charge of the current culture control their minds and thus everything else. Political Correctness in the modern west has tried to keep unpleasant truths hidden for the sake of preventing any discomfort but this does not change facts. Men and women have different sexual natures and prize different things in the opposite sex. And just because the culture tries to make it acceptable does not mean you can change human nature. Men in all cultures and places have highly prized sexual purity in women, it is intrinsic to their nature. A whore sleeping around to steal resources at least has a purpose, otherwise its just a whore for personal choice which is worse in my opinion. Men would much rather have a woman who is able to bond with him completely instead of memories and imprints of past lovers who have not found her worth of more then sexual congress.
Wow - just WOW - since when is a woman who has had a life a "used woman"? There is a line - and it's not that fine, really - between a human being who happens to be a woman leading a normal life, with relationships and the learning experiences, good and bad, that come along with that, and a "loose woman" or "whore" who "sleeps around" to "steal resources" from "high-earning/ high-value men". Can we please acknowledge that this second group is only a SUBSET of women in the world? People do not neatly split into the two groups: "woman whose goal is to trap high-earning male" and "male who wants pretty, virgin woman to own and produce children with". This is a reductionist model that ultimately fails because it throws too much data away.
Only a desperate or utterly foolish man would want to marry a used woman. Men prize virginity and would only want a woman with sexual history to use her as well. Why should he be the fool to take her in when others have gotten it without investing anything. There is nothing a man prizes higher then this is in his wife. I suppose given the trashy american culture, men might have to settle for a used woman with maybe minimal history. It will still cause damage later in the marriage if he reflects on it and will make him much more likely to cheat. Women project their feelings when they think that men don't care about your sexual history. Women don't care about a man's sexual history, in fact it might benefit him because she feels like its good because other women found him desirable.
For men, beauty without virtue is like a flower without scent. I remember reading the famous German psychiatrist Richard Von Krafft-Ebing, the founder of modern sexuality, in his book Psychopathia Sexualis, stating that "only the most depraved of men of men don't value chastity in their wives." Innocence, purity, holiness, virtue, modesty, humility, and loyalty are the most prized traits in a woman. Women might view men's virginity especially at a later age as suspect because she feels it is because of lack of opportunity while men view virginity as the best gift a woman can give her husband because she has preserved it for him and him alone.
A man who wants to sleep with a woman or wants her as a girlfriend will act like this is all BS and its not a problem at all because he wants her as his sexual toy which he can discard once he is done and leave it to a desperate loser to marry. He will give his dedication and loyalty only to the woman who has virtue and preserved it for him. Sleeping around changes a woman's character much more then it does a man's. For men sex can be purely physical, he can think the woman is a piece of trash but as long as she is hot it will incite his desire to ravish her. But he knows that this is all she is good for, and maybe also as eye candy, but definitely not to be your companion through life and the mother of your children.
All these sociologists and feminists simply don't get nothing. Men and women are one species. Men have dominated women in as much as women have dominated men. All these demonisation of man and distortion of history are fabricated fictions to cause discord and conflict so that the government can create more laws to intrude in people's privacy! There is no double standards when it come to sex. Virginity/purity in men is worthless - 'WORTHLESS'!!! Let a man sell his virginity online and he might get a few minority of gay men and perhaps one 50yrs/o lady. Let a girl sell hers and the price will skyrocket to the heavens especially if she's from a race where virginity is even a rarer attribute - e.g. caucasian! How much more proof do we need that Women themselves DO NOT VALUE PURITY IN MEN? A man has utilitarian value only, it stands to reason that a virginal man not only doesn't provide more pleasure, but in fact provides less pleasure to a woman, and he provides even lesser if he happens to be a teenage boy (for biological reasons)!!!While feminists and sociologists always blame men or religio-patriarchal-society for indoctrination of the so-called male-obssession with female virginity they fail to see the actual logic behind it. Thus whilst these Western academics experts spend their lifetimes criticising the male ego, meanwhile the yet-to-be-discovered 'female ego' gets down to all kinds of mischiefs? After living a life of depravity she gets herself surgically fixed and she cries "fairytale or nothing!". And sometimes convert to a religion such as reborn christianity to increase her bargaining power even more by becoming a 'born-again virgin'! All the while these idiots social scientists saw nothing coming because they were busy focussing on double standards, patriarchal oppresion and demonising the male ego!
" Some sociologists and others have criticized the virginity obsession as emblematic of a male-dominated society in which women are viewed as sex objects..."And of course the woman - the real fraud here - forces a man to 'menopause' himself for her by having only the amount of children she would have goes uncriticised. The real culprit here uses trickry to reinforce her bargaining power to not only enforce menopause on him but also monogamy on him.As every sensible person who hasn't been indoctrinated by our feminist political correctness would know, all a young woman needs to have sex is to sit in a bar. The moment a man approaches her and starts speaking to her, she won the war already. She doesn't need to be humourous, doesn't need to own anything except her own fine self, and she doesn't even need to even speak English for that matter. All she needs to decide is whether she wants to give him her tel number, let him kiss her or let him take her home. She can't go wrong she won the battle already! A little restrain goes a long way! A man unlike a woman doesn't have the choice of restrain, if he doesn't restrain himself it's called rape! And unlike a woman, a man cannot sell his body to the opposite sex, he has to work hard to achieve his social status; all for what? To pay for a self-centered woman and self-centered children for the next 20yrs of his life - the equivalent of physical castration!?!?!I say if he's to menopause himself and to castrate himself in a monogamous marriage he's entirely justified to settle for no less than a family oriented woman who would yield and raise family-minded children! If a woman enjoys herself so much when she had much bargaining power, without thinking about her future husband and children, she can't expect a man to menopause and castrate himself for the sake of wife and children for her sake once her market value starts to dwindle!
I'm happy about the analogy about the janitor, cause a woman these days can and would divorce the janitor and her ground would be 'deception'. It wont even be a divorce, it would be an 'annulment'! Can a man get an annulment because his wife deceived him about her virginity? Of course not! His case would be dismissed at once. He would probably be declared a sexist by matriarchal society and loss his job! This kind of double standards are never seen by sociologists and academics of course!
"Additionally, women being able to support themselves has pluses and minuses. On the plus side, more freedom of choice. On the minus side, men have to do more to be impressive/worthy, their income alone is not enough."
Wrong. Men nowadays must do less. In the past, they had to prove they had financial means to provide for her and that were willing to stick around. That was all long courtships were about. Nowadays, you just need to look cool and fun, and women will give in (unless they are looking for a sucker to marry because they are older and eager to settle, but then they are more "forgiving", not less, because of less options). As a previous social-awkward nerd, discovering that (Western) women will value me more the less I do for them has been a mindset shift.
So, yes, in traditional societies, female virginity is a steep requirement, but then as a man you face steep requirements as well, albeit different ones. It's not like you can hook up with virgins while still in school, you know.
daedalus2u - Re: "I think the focus on the value of virginity is a mechanism to control women. "
I don't think that's correct.
I think in the past (or in some current cultures), when men did on the whole control women more than they do today, there was also more focus on a women's virginity being valuable. And men (probably fathers most of all) might try to control women to keep them virgins. But that's caring about virginity (in women, often not so much in men), and having and imposing control to try to preserve it, not so much valuing it or trying to preserve it, and thus gaining control.
Its not mostly a mechanism for achieving control, but rather a focus for that control when and where it exists.
Your analogy does not include the intentional lie part.
The analogy would be more correct if you had clearly expressed that not-wearing-braces-as-a-child is very important for you, if she understood it, and then she would swear to you that she never had any. Extra points if she would pay doctor to create fake evidence.
Perhaps in that situation you could see some serious dishonesty being involved.
Speaking as a science-fiction fan, I'm fascinated by this assertion of psychic powers (you just know what men who prefer virgins are thinking) and I'd be even more fascinated it came with actual evidence.
Back to virginity! Slumlord seems to have found a study that specifically looks at divorce rates and controls for education:http://socialpathology.blog...
The results don't seem that different from the Heritage Foundation study so much derided above: even one partner before her husband and a woman is much more likely to divorce.
Value Of Virginity
What a finely worded load of hogwash that only serves to teach that misogynism is clearly still rampant in contemporary society.
Let me attempt to clarify what you've stated, Veritas... You believe that "women" (please note Veritas broadly generalized to ALL women) are less valuable with sexual experience, because to explore that "perfectly natural " (<- my words) aspect of herself would make her a "hedonist," of lower moral "character," unable to "bond" with her future husband, potentially causing him to seek pornography or other younger "specimens" to bed.
Also, note that the broad category of "men" in Veritas diatribe are allowed these excesses without any judgment whatsoever because even a female "feels like its good because other women found him desirable." Curiously too, note the ultimate power Veritas confers upon women with these implications. Curiouser and curiouser...
I wouldnt waste my time on a clearly, close-minded individual like this self-proclaimed "truth" teller (who I'm sensing is either male or heavily indoctrinated into the patriarchy, though Veritas happened to be a female goddess of truth in antiquity. The irony is certainly not lost on me.), exvept that others read your rhetoric and risk believing it because it 'almost' sounds well thought-out. Frankly, your prosaic logical falacies don't deserve a considerate response, except to PREVENT indoctrination (which you paradoxically accuse of making women think they deserve equal treatment in the world).
In making sweeping generalizations of the entire human population, Veritas, you have proven your lack of true consideration for this (and I suspect many other) topics. Worse yet is how, in your narrow egocentric view, you clearly envision half the population as merely reflections of their testosterone-dominated counterparts, with the sole purpose of pleasing men. If you are a male, then I either pity your wife, or know you don't have one. I am not sure who indoctrinated you with this drivel, but I truly hope you can step out of your opaque little ego-bubble at some point and realize -
ITS NOT ABOUT YOU. WOMEN ARE NOT HERE FOR MEN. NOT ONE IOTA. Regardless of what some heavily edited piece of 2000 year old literature implies with allegories about ribs and apple and snakes, women are independent creatures, who men have been trying to suppress since the days of our switch from hunter-gatherer to an agricultural society, because of our ultimate VALUE to society.
The drive for purity in women has less to do (at least initially) with preference and more to do with men wanting to be sure their offspring were their own. A woman ultimately has all the power, by the nature of her physical ability to bear children. Men can certainly go around sewing their proverbial wild oats, but the only way men knew that baby-daddy was themeselves, was thru sequestering his females somewhere that other men couldn't potentially 'ruin' her and then guarding her with the sword. Then subsequently increasingly objectifying, devaluing and demeaning her in society with the threat of astracism should she not obey him. Its a clever scheme and was historically quite successful (and men project all manipulative behavior on women. Ha!). It's been utterly abusive since the we realized that a woman's life was worth at least that of her potential offspring, so she shouldn't be allowed on battlefields (otherwise where would we get the next generation of soldiers?), whereas a male was expendable. You implied it yourself; he can seed a thousand females. She can only bear one, maybe two offspring a year, but she can be impregnated by any male. Thus, for the sake of certain men's frail egos, women became objects to them, and by virtue of women's physical constraiints and her inability to protect herself well from the highly militant masculine half of the population, she acquiesced.
Mind you, I don't pretend to think this is absolute truth, only the culmination of carefully researched scholarly theses from archeological data, ancient texts, etc. The fact is that men and women are increasingly able to sidestep the constraints of early civilization through education equality and availability in this "zeitgeist," and technologies which allow us to prevent birth or confirm patronage. Women's sexual liberation has little to do with "what men want", but what SHE wants and is safely able to CHOOSE FOR HERSELF, and frankly that is exactly as it should be.
As Mark Twain (whom i see you equate yourself with Mr. Veritas) said, "The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in woman's construction, is this: There shall be no limit put upon your intercourse with the other sex sexually, at any time of life.
"The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in man's construction, is this: During your entire life you shall be under inflexible limits and restrictions, sexually."
"...That is the law of God, as revealed in her make. What becomes of this high privilege? Does she live in the free enjoyment of it? No. Nowhere in the whole world. She is robbed of it everywhere.
"Who does this? Man. Man's statutes-if the Bible IS the Word of God.
"Now you have a sample of man's "reasoning powers," as he calls them. He observes certain facts. For instance, that in all his life he never sees the day that he can satisfy one woman; also, that no woman ever sees the day that she can't overwork, and defeat, and put out of commission any ten masculine plants that can be put to bed to her..."--From "Letters from the Earth," 'Letter VIII, ' by Mark Twain, 1941, Harper & Row, Publishers, pg 40-1
And THAT is the reason men are so determined to constrain women, in my humble opinion. I think men are just jealous. ;-p
where did he get the power to have a preference for his own mate? do you even hear yourself? and spoken like a true cuckold.
you are thinking of it wrong. a woman's virginity is worth a man's life ... he will work to support her for all of his days. a woman that tosses something that valuable away for a 5 minute romp isn't very bright, economically, lol.
well stated and true.
It explains men's nature. There is no sane man, given everything else being equal, that would prefer a woman who is not a virgin to a woman who is a virgin. The less sexual history you have, the much better. It has nothing to do with high-earning men or stealing resources, it has to do with lack of preserving the gift of your sexuality for your husband. It has to do with a lack of sexual restraint which is reflection on her character. It has to do with being frivolous about the essence of her being. It has to do with pursuing hedonistic ephemeral pleasures at the cost of virtue. It is a reflection on who she is as a person. The more men a woman sleeps with, the less able she will be able to be a loving and devoted wife, less able to bond with passion with her husband. She loses this ability the more its abused. Each sexual liaison affects her totality. Men are unconsciously aware of these facts. It is not a choice men make, it is intrinsic to their nature. Women do not have this preference for men so they cannot understand it. They prize other things in men which can be as equally difficult to achieve. Maintaining sexual restraint is not easy for either sex but it is something that a woman is admired for.
Men are deluding themselves if they think this is irrelevant. It is pure indoctrination by the zeitgeist. Read about sexual liberation and political control. Sex is the most powerful drive in humans and there is a reason every society made measures to order this. It is essential for the functioning of families and civilizations. Why would a man want to stay married to the same aging woman, when he can chase young tail around town? Especially given the absence of any religious sense in the person, he will be more attracted to the young nymphs that present themselves alluringly. Love and sex are compartmentalized in the male, he can be in complete love with his wife but desire sex with others. There are men who may have been indoctrinated by the feminist ideology that has pervaded almost all channels but it is in man's nature to value sexual purity in a woman highly. Double standard exists because of nature, it is wishful thinking and highly deluded to think it is a social construct. Men have a high preference for sexual variety and would likely sleep with most woman on a college campus if given the opportunity. There are excited by sexual novelty and would love sleeping with any woman that is physically attractive. Men's lust is nondiscriminatory, it has no particular target. He is able to find a large demographic seductive.
Why do you think there is an endless amount of pornography created? Don't you think there is already enough material existing? Do you think men watch the same woman twice? Not many, men are ready for a new specimen that can excite him. Men's sexuality is varied and depraved, he does not want a woman who has been used in a similar fashion by others. Woman's sexuality is directed at specific target that she has emotional connection toward. This is natural to a woman unless she has something aberrant in her nature. A woman in a relationship is not aroused by parades of men on the beach and wanting to screw each one of them. Woman are better able to control their sexual instinct and this was the role civilization had bequeathed to them in order to maintain moral order. Look up the Coolidge Effect for further insight.
A woman leading a normal life may not be a normal life except in the highly decadent and declining West. The culture is advanced technologically but is basically regressing in every other aspect. Collective knowledge has increased but individual intellect is almost none, most people are more ignorant than a brick. All they know is what they see on pop culture and the mass media. Or one or two highly specialized areas of interest that give no insight into human nature and understanding of the world. How many serious books do people around you read, not the mass market fiction and trash novels but serious thinkers and philosophers from all times and places? A good rule would be if its popular its most likely because it satisfies the simple intellectual needs of the masses. Entertainment that programs their thoughts by bypassing their reason and going straight to their emotions. All people want are bread and circuses and to distract themselves into oblivion. So whoever is in charge of the current culture control their minds and thus everything else. Political Correctness in the modern west has tried to keep unpleasant truths hidden for the sake of preventing any discomfort but this does not change facts. Men and women have different sexual natures and prize different things in the opposite sex. And just because the culture tries to make it acceptable does not mean you can change human nature. Men in all cultures and places have highly prized sexual purity in women, it is intrinsic to their nature. A whore sleeping around to steal resources at least has a purpose, otherwise its just a whore for personal choice which is worse in my opinion. Men would much rather have a woman who is able to bond with him completely instead of memories and imprints of past lovers who have not found her worth of more then sexual congress.
Wow - just WOW - since when is a woman who has had a life a "used woman"? There is a line - and it's not that fine, really - between a human being who happens to be a woman leading a normal life, with relationships and the learning experiences, good and bad, that come along with that, and a "loose woman" or "whore" who "sleeps around" to "steal resources" from "high-earning/ high-value men". Can we please acknowledge that this second group is only a SUBSET of women in the world? People do not neatly split into the two groups: "woman whose goal is to trap high-earning male" and "male who wants pretty, virgin woman to own and produce children with". This is a reductionist model that ultimately fails because it throws too much data away.
Only a desperate or utterly foolish man would want to marry a used woman. Men prize virginity and would only want a woman with sexual history to use her as well. Why should he be the fool to take her in when others have gotten it without investing anything. There is nothing a man prizes higher then this is in his wife. I suppose given the trashy american culture, men might have to settle for a used woman with maybe minimal history. It will still cause damage later in the marriage if he reflects on it and will make him much more likely to cheat. Women project their feelings when they think that men don't care about your sexual history. Women don't care about a man's sexual history, in fact it might benefit him because she feels like its good because other women found him desirable.
For men, beauty without virtue is like a flower without scent. I remember reading the famous German psychiatrist Richard Von Krafft-Ebing, the founder of modern sexuality, in his book Psychopathia Sexualis, stating that "only the most depraved of men of men don't value chastity in their wives." Innocence, purity, holiness, virtue, modesty, humility, and loyalty are the most prized traits in a woman. Women might view men's virginity especially at a later age as suspect because she feels it is because of lack of opportunity while men view virginity as the best gift a woman can give her husband because she has preserved it for him and him alone.
A man who wants to sleep with a woman or wants her as a girlfriend will act like this is all BS and its not a problem at all because he wants her as his sexual toy which he can discard once he is done and leave it to a desperate loser to marry. He will give his dedication and loyalty only to the woman who has virtue and preserved it for him. Sleeping around changes a woman's character much more then it does a man's. For men sex can be purely physical, he can think the woman is a piece of trash but as long as she is hot it will incite his desire to ravish her. But he knows that this is all she is good for, and maybe also as eye candy, but definitely not to be your companion through life and the mother of your children.
I cannot believe this comparison isn't a joke. It's absolutely laughable.
All these sociologists and feminists simply don't get nothing. Men and women are one species. Men have dominated women in as much as women have dominated men. All these demonisation of man and distortion of history are fabricated fictions to cause discord and conflict so that the government can create more laws to intrude in people's privacy! There is no double standards when it come to sex. Virginity/purity in men is worthless - 'WORTHLESS'!!! Let a man sell his virginity online and he might get a few minority of gay men and perhaps one 50yrs/o lady. Let a girl sell hers and the price will skyrocket to the heavens especially if she's from a race where virginity is even a rarer attribute - e.g. caucasian! How much more proof do we need that Women themselves DO NOT VALUE PURITY IN MEN? A man has utilitarian value only, it stands to reason that a virginal man not only doesn't provide more pleasure, but in fact provides less pleasure to a woman, and he provides even lesser if he happens to be a teenage boy (for biological reasons)!!!While feminists and sociologists always blame men or religio-patriarchal-society for indoctrination of the so-called male-obssession with female virginity they fail to see the actual logic behind it. Thus whilst these Western academics experts spend their lifetimes criticising the male ego, meanwhile the yet-to-be-discovered 'female ego' gets down to all kinds of mischiefs? After living a life of depravity she gets herself surgically fixed and she cries "fairytale or nothing!". And sometimes convert to a religion such as reborn christianity to increase her bargaining power even more by becoming a 'born-again virgin'! All the while these idiots social scientists saw nothing coming because they were busy focussing on double standards, patriarchal oppresion and demonising the male ego!
" Some sociologists and others have criticized the virginity obsession as emblematic of a male-dominated society in which women are viewed as sex objects..."And of course the woman - the real fraud here - forces a man to 'menopause' himself for her by having only the amount of children she would have goes uncriticised. The real culprit here uses trickry to reinforce her bargaining power to not only enforce menopause on him but also monogamy on him.As every sensible person who hasn't been indoctrinated by our feminist political correctness would know, all a young woman needs to have sex is to sit in a bar. The moment a man approaches her and starts speaking to her, she won the war already. She doesn't need to be humourous, doesn't need to own anything except her own fine self, and she doesn't even need to even speak English for that matter. All she needs to decide is whether she wants to give him her tel number, let him kiss her or let him take her home. She can't go wrong she won the battle already! A little restrain goes a long way! A man unlike a woman doesn't have the choice of restrain, if he doesn't restrain himself it's called rape! And unlike a woman, a man cannot sell his body to the opposite sex, he has to work hard to achieve his social status; all for what? To pay for a self-centered woman and self-centered children for the next 20yrs of his life - the equivalent of physical castration!?!?!I say if he's to menopause himself and to castrate himself in a monogamous marriage he's entirely justified to settle for no less than a family oriented woman who would yield and raise family-minded children! If a woman enjoys herself so much when she had much bargaining power, without thinking about her future husband and children, she can't expect a man to menopause and castrate himself for the sake of wife and children for her sake once her market value starts to dwindle!
I'm happy about the analogy about the janitor, cause a woman these days can and would divorce the janitor and her ground would be 'deception'. It wont even be a divorce, it would be an 'annulment'! Can a man get an annulment because his wife deceived him about her virginity? Of course not! His case would be dismissed at once. He would probably be declared a sexist by matriarchal society and loss his job! This kind of double standards are never seen by sociologists and academics of course!
being virgin is a big respect of you're life ever!!!!!!!!
"Additionally, women being able to support themselves has pluses and minuses. On the plus side, more freedom of choice. On the minus side, men have to do more to be impressive/worthy, their income alone is not enough."
Wrong. Men nowadays must do less. In the past, they had to prove they had financial means to provide for her and that were willing to stick around. That was all long courtships were about. Nowadays, you just need to look cool and fun, and women will give in (unless they are looking for a sucker to marry because they are older and eager to settle, but then they are more "forgiving", not less, because of less options). As a previous social-awkward nerd, discovering that (Western) women will value me more the less I do for them has been a mindset shift.
So, yes, in traditional societies, female virginity is a steep requirement, but then as a man you face steep requirements as well, albeit different ones. It's not like you can hook up with virgins while still in school, you know.
daedalus2u - Re: "I think the focus on the value of virginity is a mechanism to control women. "
I don't think that's correct.
I think in the past (or in some current cultures), when men did on the whole control women more than they do today, there was also more focus on a women's virginity being valuable. And men (probably fathers most of all) might try to control women to keep them virgins. But that's caring about virginity (in women, often not so much in men), and having and imposing control to try to preserve it, not so much valuing it or trying to preserve it, and thus gaining control.
Its not mostly a mechanism for achieving control, but rather a focus for that control when and where it exists.
Your analogy does not include the intentional lie part.
The analogy would be more correct if you had clearly expressed that not-wearing-braces-as-a-child is very important for you, if she understood it, and then she would swear to you that she never had any. Extra points if she would pay doctor to create fake evidence.
Perhaps in that situation you could see some serious dishonesty being involved.
Speaking as a science-fiction fan, I'm fascinated by this assertion of psychic powers (you just know what men who prefer virgins are thinking) and I'd be even more fascinated it came with actual evidence.
Interesting, and quite believable.
Back to virginity! Slumlord seems to have found a study that specifically looks at divorce rates and controls for education:http://socialpathology.blog...
The results don't seem that different from the Heritage Foundation study so much derided above: even one partner before her husband and a woman is much more likely to divorce.