I can’t wait to read this book, “The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women.” I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot in recent months; why do we still place some sort of societal premium on virginity? Why is it held up as an idealized goal? Leaving aside religious proscriptions against sex outside of marriage – which I certainly understand (but don’t share) – how is it that we hold virginity in such cultural esteem? I mean, the very word “purity” in this context reveals our unhealthy attitudes toward women’s sexuality. Why is a young woman who chooses to have a safe, personally satisfying sexual relationship outside of marriage deemed “impure?”
More on this later, when I have more time…but I can’t wait to read the book.
2 Responses to “The purity myth”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
one word: Control
I could write you a lengthy explanation, but this entertaining presentation will suffice http://www.notbored.org/reich.html
Adding you to my blogroll
okay, let’s separate out the fixation on “purity” with not having sex outside of marriage. I do see the point about the “purity” because it is quite, quite biblical for younger widows to remarry. So much for purity and the various other arguments about how one party will be traumatized by knowing that the other party has had sex (and could possibly be comparing) with other people. Let’s just chuck that.
I think you can still make a HUGE argument that sex outside of marriage (or some other permanent arrangement that basically IS marriage but without the legal documentation) is not a very good thing. One party or another almost always is hoping for “more” than the other. doesn’t have to be the woman. It can be the man. That person get’s hurt more than they would be if there were not a physical relationship. The one who DOESN”T get hurt, I believe hardens themselves to how much they hurt others, which ultimately devalues sex. This is NOT just a recreational activity with no emotional ramifications.
The societal repercussions are also great. If you get pregnant, you have three options (four if you count marrying the babydaddy) all of which suck to some degree and one of which is wrong in all but a very narrowly transcribed set of medical circumstances. The cost to society from the ripple effect here is enormous. Furthermore, while people DO get diseases from committed spouses, I don’t think you can rebut the argument that on a societal level, the spread of disease would be severely stunted if more people kept their pants on unless and until they are married.
I don’t buy some of the more extremist arguments out there for waiting until marriage but I am not going to toss out a very very viable idea because some of the arguments used to support it are tenuous at best.