June 6th, 2006


The Virginity Myth

From a literary standpoint, and a logical one, the Judeo-Christian god makes zero sense. After watching the most recent "Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" (on abstinence), the Virginity Myth. "My purity is a gift given by God, and I should take care of it."

WHAT? Listen, the ontology and the innate assumptions that lead to that conclusion involve such a leap- you're making a statement where the only backing can come from inside of your own fucked up little ontology; this little mini-world of pre-rational mythology that you're insulating yourself in.
  1. There is a god- okay, listen, I'll give you that one. But then we've got to tack on that there's a personal, manipulative god that's going to use passive agressive behaviors to get you to behave a certain way, coupled with the unverifiable promise/threat of the afterlife. But let's grant that one. The whole point of this is that god makes no sense.
  2. When we say water is "pure", we mean that it's all H2O, at least in the scientific sense. Generally, we consider water pure if it's clear and potable. When we say that something is "pure" gold, we mean that it is nothing BUT gold. For something to be pure, we are claiming that it has nothing added to it. 100% Pure Fruit Juice. So what does this have to do with sex? Are you being diluted with sex? Does sex make you less human? That's the implication here- that sex is impure, which is wonderfully medieval. But is it realistic? The claim that it impinges your "purity" is based upon these concepts:
    • God wants you to not have sex, unless it has the stamp of approval from your local religious authority.
    • Not doing what God says makes you less pure.
    Here's my problem with that- WHY? I mean, God has some arbitrary laws, like not eating pork, not interacting with women who are menstruating, and stoning adulterers. Why? God is ineffable only gets you so far- it makes no fucking sense. What is the qualitative difference between sex outside of marriage and sex within it? What makes a committed monogamous relationship different from a married relationship? How does that seal of approval change things? Faith can carry you so far, but... WHAT?
  3. Virginity is a gift? Girls- virginity is a thin barrier of tissue that often is removed by tampons or just goes away by itself. Boys- virginity... there is no virginity with boys. That, at least, is the physiology, but not the "spirituality". Which brings us to:
  4. Sex is a spiritual act- this premise carries with it the demands to accept a spiritual essence, which we'll grant because we gave you #1. And then we'll take it from #2 that God cares about what you do, and this then implies that you carry some spiritual scar for making God angry. Are you following me? Because I'm sure not. That's a pretty loose chain of logic, and you could mix a metaphor right through it.
  5. Then we get into the real funky terminology. The idea of "losing one's virginity". Like virginity is a physical object? I can lose my keys. But "losing virginity" is losing a... what? What analog can we draw? Having sex for the first time is an event, an occurence, an action. What you're losing, then, is the ability to do it for the first time again? And the first time is special because you only have one first time? Virginity is inexperience in intercourse.
  6. Let's run with that. "Lack of experience in sexual intercourse is God's gift, and I should take care of my lack of experience in sexual intercourse." There's not many things we like to keep our lack of experience in. I mean, bungee jumping sure has a lot in common with sex. Your pulse races, your heart pounds- and I'm the sort that would find that fun. So I'm eager to ditch my lack of experience, in favor of DOING IT. In fact, the only things I want to remain inexperienced in are things I find unpleasant. For example, war, amputation, car accidents, cancer, and being boiled alive. So sex ends up in a very special category then- it's the only pleasant thing that you want to avoid experiencing- at least until a specific pre-condition is met- approval from an authority. Now, there are some things I really want to do. Pleasant things, like playing laser tag. There are certain preconditions to be met, some of which are out of my control- I prefer a weekend for that. Some are totally in my control- I need money, which means I can't spend it on other things. If I want to play laser tag, I'll take all of the things in my control and line them up so that they're ready for laser tag, and do what I can about the things out of my control- schedule time on the weekend, to ensure I'll get the chance.
  7. The point is, we go out of our way to do pleasant things, and sex is one of those. Which means if marriage is a precondition of sex, and you want to have sex (which is a biological drive- you want to have sex (asexuals are the exception that proves the rule)) then you will do everything you can to meet that precondition, and there is no aspect of marriage that is out of your control. You don't have to wait to Saturday, and you certainly don't have to find "the right person"- which is an entirely different myth that we needn't delve into. Just deal with the fact that there isn't "the right person".
The whole thing freaks me out, especially when our Government is shoving this down children's throats in the form of abstinence only education. By refusing to teach children to use condoms, we're doing all sorts of ontological engineering, like reinforcing the idea that marriage, and sex, is about children. Reproduction. By not teaching children about STD's, we're creating a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to choosing a partner when all of the idiotic preconditions are met. What it really comes from is the Medieval attitude that sex was bad, except we needed to do it to reproduce, which means that God is really fucking with us.