Talk:Virginity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Virginity is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
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.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Virginity is not always respected 2 Other Religions 3 Grammar 4 Virgins in some countries 5 Penile-Vaginal Definition 6 Homosexual virginity 7 Virgin Group 8 Rape and Virginity 9 Disambiguation 10 Islam 11 Marriage 12 Biochemical virginity? Antibodies? 13 Neutrality notice 14 Bloodstream 15 First Time 16 Virgin means a woman who was free to chose her own sexual partners 17 Disambiguation page 18 Bertrand Russell 19 Involuntary Virginity 20 Notability of Infibulation? 21 Religions 22 Revenge of the church ladies 23 Vitginity in Judaism 24 Virginity in Christianity 25 Added link to external links 26 Hanne Blank's Virgin: The Untouched History is now out on bookshelves

[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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[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)

[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)

[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.

[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)

[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)

[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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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] Vitginity 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)

[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) .

[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)

[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.

ISBN 1596910100 --MalcolmGin 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)