Why do girls lose their virginity?

Why do girls lose their virginity? What, exactly, is lost?
In her recent radio talk on the age of consent, Mary Beard mentioned what she called “quaint talk” about girls “losing their virginity”, as though the phrase really belongs to another age. And so it does, in a sense. These days, in many societies of the economically developed world, there is no strong expectation or requirement that a female must be a virgin when she marries, if she does. An attractive and personable young woman – and a good many without such attributes – will not fail to land “a good catch” on account of prior sexual experience.
So why does the expression linger on in common parlance? Religious taboos against pre-marital sex no longer have the hold they once did, so that cannot explain it. Nor can the patriarchal requirement that a man must have a sure guarantee, which only marrying a virgin bride can provide, that his children will be his own: women have become such a force in modern life that men can no longer enforce such standards.
Does it, then, have something to do with girl power?  Is there a continuing sense among young women that only by severely restricting their favours can they maintain their allure and force men into bidding highly for them? I do not mean literally a virginity auction, although these are not unknown: one was memorably depicted in the film Pretty Baby, which saw the sale of a 12-year-old’s maidenhead to the highest bidder. Rather than that scenario of a powerless child callously commodified by uncaring men, I am thinking more of heartless women cruelly leading guys on, mercilessly “prick teasing” them in endless competition against each other!
Is this inevitable, this feminine cruelty? Does it start with the winsomeness of the cute little girl, instinctively able to wrap her dad around her little finger, as the saying goes, or indeed any other adoring adult? Is it ordained inescapably in the depths of our evolved psychology that girls will bewitch and tease, but often not deliver?
Or are there cultures in which the girls do not tease, and prioritize gaining sexual pleasure and experience over losing their virginity? Even in our own culture little girls may well be sexually enthusiastic and liberal with their favours until they catch up with how they are supposed to behave.
But what about elsewhere? In traditional Tonga the king used to have the duty – poor man! – of personally “deflowering” every virgin on the island. A possibly dodgy online source tells me King Fatafehi Paulah slept with seven virgins a day and in his reign as many as 37, 800 in all. So presumably the girls there in his day had no expression for “losing” their virginity, or if they did they could not have been referring to loss in the sense of any particular personal shame, as the outcome would have been the same for all.
And there have been a great many other wonderfully exotic cultures in which the girls have been most enthusiastic from an early age, if sailors’ yarns and ethnographers’ notes give a true picture: check out the Lepcha people of Sikkim, for instance, or the experiences of Captain Cook and his crews in the South Seas.
It’s different for boys, of course. Arguably they cannot lose their virginity at all, or at least not at the front, where getting one’s end away is usually thought entirely a matter of gain. One’s rear virginity, by contrast, might be a true loss in a culture where male submission is considered shameful. But men these days do talk about losing their virginity, even when they mean the front, and quite irrespective of whether their partner is a woman or a man. Why? Is it because we are now in a sort of unisex culture? Is the social distinction between male and female gradually being eroded away to nothing? If so, is it a good thing? In the words of the song, there are more questions than answers!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

28 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] the most famous example among many. As for children being sexually off-limits, not a bit of it: the kings of Tonga took upon themselves the “duty” (poor things) of personally deflowering every virgin in the […]

marti

And yet another “interesting book” about “the wonders of psychotherapy”….
Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eGgvIDCbtPQJ:http://www.scribd.com/doc/99865979/Against-Therapy-Emotional-Tyranny-and-the-Myth-of-Psychological-Healing%2Btrauma+myth+site:http://www.scribd.com/doc/&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=d&site=&ct=clnk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99865979/Against-Therapy-Emotional-Tyranny-and-the-Myth-of-Psychological-Healing
“The truth is out” about the so-called “mental-health professionals”. They are more and more being exposed as the frauds they (usually) are.
—————
“The author (The Assault on Truth) takes the position here that all forms of psychotherapy are wrong because the very structure of the therapist-patient relationship negates the freedom and dignity of the person seeking help. Though this study is sometimes shrill and overstated, it is in many ways Masson’s best and most controversial book. Drawing on German-language sources, he presents disturbing new evidence of Jung’s collaboration with the Nazis, then argues persuasively that Jungian therapy shows disdain for the real traumas people experience. The chapter on Freud’s handling of the famous “Dora” (Ida Bauer) case pinpoints how Freud discounted Bauer’s own perceptions of reality. Masson views Carl Rogers as a benevolent despot, and he condemns other therapies as wellGestalt, family, feminist, hypnosis, eclectic. His solution: nonauthoritarian self-help groups in which no money changes hands.”
Source: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Therapy-Emotional-Tyranny-Psychological/dp/0689119291
… and this book is over 20 years in print.
When will we learn?

marti

Oh, some numbers on losing virginity (or rather, percentage of U.S. females with sexual experience, data beginning at age 15). Around 1 out of 5 females in the U.S. by age 15 have “lost their virginity”.
See tables starting p. 30.
http://pdfcast.org/download/american-sexual-behavior-trends-socio-demographic-differences.pdf

marti

Well, gee… isn’t *everything* slowly getting dated? And then, if the date of publication should determine the validity or importance of the information published, should we disregard Kinsey when he states his discovery, in his “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell R. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin, Philadelphia, Pa: W.B. Saunders: 1948: p. 610):
“[A]bout 60 per cent of the pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities…”?
I would like to comment further about the MHAMic site: what it covers, what it doesn’t cover, the format/presentation/etc. specifically addressing your questions. But I find this post would then far exceed 200 words. Perhaps some other poster – more experienced and knowledgeable than I – can succeed where I have failed. We can only hope…

Gil Hardwick

Well, gee, here again, who is ‘we’, and more to the point, who is ‘Kinsey’? When will ‘we’ learn ‘what’? It’s not that hard, is it?
I have one of the best libraries and collections of papers on human sexuality perhaps in the southern hemisphere, yet to me it really only of anthropological interest. It offers insight not into male sexual behaviour but modern Western literature on male sexual behaviour, as I would compare, say, Chaucer, or the Kama Sutra.
And then, what makes it important, and to whom, for what reason? The great intellectual disruption has only occured within the past 20-30 years. From that point, everything I had considered perfectly ordinary was suddenly questioned and challenged by English and Americans coming here in droves telling us about sex and worse our own sexuality.
From what I can gather none of it stems from any desire to connect with us at a human level but to impose on us their views and opinions, and that derived from books they’d read back home, and laws they’d passed.
[SNIPPED: FAR TOO LONG – T.O’C.]

Gil Hardwick

Tom, sorry, but I do not dismiss anything. I acutely observe a very great deal.
My query and repeated assertion, again, has nothing to do with the ‘data’ or the ‘literature’, but with the alienation of entire national populations deriving their ‘knowledge’, identity, sexual and political orientation from said literature rather their own direct life experience.
How did the West arrive at the point in which a person is no longer able to present themself naked in public as themself, but need instead to don masks and costumes consistent with some literary or theoretical construct?
If I were Kinsey I’d be aghast at the misuse of his research data, not to inform and console but to appropriate, mobilise, and alienate. I know how often people seek to misuse my own work, and how angrily abusive they become when I repudiate them.
When I say to them, ‘get a life’, what I mean is ‘get your own life’. People living their own life is precisely what seems so foreign these days.
I say that because the most spontaneously alive people with whom I have lived and worked over many years are generally illiterate, never knowing Kinsey at all, while those embedded in all that stuff remain disoriented and confused.
Go figure.

marti

MHAMic.org would be good to add to the “Blogroll” – perhaps emphasizing (with asterisks?) that the entry leads to good, simple, clear, factual information about male homosexual attraction to minors.
You may want to put a link to the archive.org copy as well – MHAMic is often subject to DDoS attacks that make it unavailable.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110719212424/http://www.mhamic.org/
Just a suggestion…

Gil Hardwick

Inclined to agree with Willistina. The real issue with this ‘science’ is that like all things rare, analysis of incidence and prevalence suffers chronically from small number error.
There will never be a valid study carried out into so-called ‘paedophilia’ because against the vast background of day-to-day human of sexual activity it’s impossible to determine what part is offensive, and to whom? There is nothing really there to measure.
It is a problem only with police acting corruptly to hound people they don’t like, or imagine ‘society’ doesn’t like, who to do so get dodgy ‘malum prohibitum’ legislation through parliament so they can argue in court their target was caught acting ‘illegally’.
As psychiatry under academic and public pressure is now shying away from sexual diagnostic categories, while there is still political pressure to retain certain legislation, the courts too are increasingly reluctant to hear such charges.
Growth and accessibility of information across the Internet is part of the equation. Higher education standards, police training and professional development of magistrates, and governments not wanting to waste so much taxpayer’s money, is the other part.
In short, probably over 95% of published papers on these issues are now redundant. The exercise is pointless, apart from understanding recent history.

marti

“The truth is out.”
— All humans – even while in the womb! – are “sexual”.
— Young people have engaged in sexual activity with adults since time immemorial.
— Children DO often (attempt to) initiate sexual activity with adults.
— Sex per se causes no harm, at any age. Force/strong coercion/threats does often cause problems (by instilling fear) but the vast majority of people get over it without serious problems and without any “treatment”.
— The reactions of moralists in society – and their cohorts in the so-called “mental-health” industry – DO cause great harm to young people and adults alike.
— The “trauma” is a myth, as is PTSD.
— We are the victims of a moral panic.
The truth is out. Now, how to get past people’s “visceral reactions” in the Judeo-Christian world to the idea of people touching each other sexually (“Ewww… it’s NASTY!”) especially when one of the parties is a minor?
THAT is the real problem…

Gil Hardwick

“How to get past people’s “visceral reactions” in the Judeo-Christian world”?
Simple, don’t have anything to do with them to start with. A man who argues with a fool makes it difficult for passers-by to discern any difference between them.
Go to Asia and learn to be a human being.
Here in our three Australian time zones live 4.2 billion people, 60% of the human population. In the two neighbouring time zones live another 2 billion people, in all some 6 of 7 billion on the planet.
Alternatively sit and wait, they are coming to you already.

willistina556

Marti’s frustration is clear, open, and honest.
And shared by most if not all who know the full-facts from bent-mainstream half-truths, untruths and myths.
We all know that with logic not lies, they lose. And as The Peoples’ Web shreds their B.S., what will remain is not pedo/ephebo emanicapation.
But Adultophile Freedom to choose. Y’all know the mantra, no need to repeat (T-shirts available, and like all-age good sex, one size fits all.)

marti

Too busy. Anyway, it’s all been written before – and by better minds than mine. Sure, I’d provide a “slightly different flavor” to add to the mix, but is that enough? I could read what others have said, and take their ideas (which – perhaps amazingly? – I have already come to know, and long before I knew their writings even existed) and put “the genuine pedophile’s” slant on it. But then most would reject it without a thought. So it would be a waste of time.
Our “problem” must be approached obliquely. A direct approach at this point in time and history is suicidal. I let the non-pedophiles point out the idiotic situations we have created for ourselves for being “monkeys with a little bigger brain”. I then publicize their writings. And when, eventually, this softens up the minds of the “cement-headed straights” enough, then it will be my turn to write. And they will be ready and willing to listen to me.
So in my will, I’ve included instructions to have a typewriter interred with me. And many many reams of paper.
I mean, just in case…

marti

Reading. Researching. Studying. Learning. Giving links to people… so that they can read, research, study, learn…
Because it all happens one-mind-at-a-time.

Gil Hardwick

Just to add too, that Carpenter has badly misplaced her etymology, suggesting that ‘virgin’ derives from L. ‘virago’ rather than the correct ‘virgo’.
‘Virago’, even in today’s usage, refers to a manly, heroic woman (L. ‘vir’ = man = male adult cf Old English ‘mann’ = human being), quite contrary to the notion of a chaste and pious virgin.
In losing such ‘virginity’ what is lost? Childhood religious piety? That’s an issue?
I think this is just another effort at containing and controlling the ‘ideal child’ construct.
Far more typical is the boy legs splayed on the couch after drying himself in the warm living room following his bath, examining himself and asking what’s that bright pink bit under his foreskin when he pulls it back, or a girl anatomically likewise.
I simply disagree with such children being beaten and sent in disgrace to their room, when a simple explanation allows the child to move on with whatever next enters his mind, like what’s for dinner, or do I have to do the washing up again it’s not my turn, or can we watch Lord of the Rings?

Gil Hardwick

Following the line of discussion, it appears increasingly to me that the business has nothing to do with first sex but with residual subscription to high medieval romanticism.
‘Virgin’ is from Latin ‘virgo’ via Old French ‘virgine’, specifically imbued with romantic ideals of religious piety and chastity, locating the notion in the Romanised post-Carolingian West. ‘Hymen’ has the same associations.
By contrast, ‘maiden’ is from Indo-European ‘maghu-‘ via Old English ‘mægden’, without such idealised associations, simply refering to a young woman of marriagable age. In Old English ‘girl’ merely refered to ‘child’ while a ‘boy’ was a churl or servant. The corresponding Greek word is ‘talis’, as distinct from ‘koritsi’ = girl, and ‘agori’ = boy.
Here in Australia, in Tiwi the relevant term is ‘murrukupara’, which means a girl whose breasts are fully developed. It doesn’t mean she is ‘available’, far more likely she’s on the prowl. [Heretic TOC has deleted a further observation here which might well be entirely accurate, but which strikes T. O’C. as too much of a gift to those who love to wag their fingers disapprovingly at alleged “cognitive distortions”. Similar observations will be admitted to these columns when their factual substantiation is clear, as opposed to what can be dismissed derisively as wishful thinking.]
Some of those boys are little different – a society that happily and conspicuously celebrates sex, much to the continuing chagrin of the priests and nuns.

marti

books.google.com/books?id=pXXZn_qSoDoC&pg=PA18

willistina556

No note here of nature’s unknown need for a small stretch of skin so thin it’s often self-torn on bike-saddle, horse-back, or UFO/Unidentified F***ing Object.
Oops, that’s torn it ! Tell that to virgin-blood lust, mindless macho medeval or modern macedonian head-honchos.
Not fergettin’ ye olde traditional membrane-mashing, self-‘dandling ‘ on Daddy’s, Uncle’s, or Gramp’s big bony knee.
While for decades paedo-iatricians have noted tots-to-preteens Cuming in with varied objects self-inserted, stuck in any/all of six orifi-ces.
Mischevious lil boys with small cylindrical objects like crayons, or pens in ears, nostrils, or anus.
And sweet sensual lil lusty gals largely with larger objects in small-tight vagina or anus, or both. Left alone in a warm bubbly-bath, and having wriggled, giggled, gasped n groaned with slippy soap-bar or bubbly ‘Barbie doll’ – well in but not Cuming out.
Pedo-atricians also note small smiling gals Cuming back more than once for more warm sensitive ‘extractions’, while embarrassed parents say, paraphrased, “We just can’t stop her ‘playing’ with herself.”
Same old, young-gals’ groan, ‘There’s never a nice nonce when U need one’.

Gil Hardwick

Just to add here, the most common thing is to be called a bitch, which is a tease, a manipulator. Often when one of the boys tells me he’s having trouble with his girlfriend, he’ll say, she’s being a bitch.
A lot of the 18-25 year-old girls too tell me they prefer hanging around with boys because girls can be really bitchy. The old excuse about having their period is no longer allowed. The other girls will say, “Sort it, bitch,” or “Get over it finally.”
The rule, I think because these days they get a thorough grounding in anatomy, safe sex, and good relationship development, is to avoid sleeping around and especially avoid gossip and hurt.
While boys on the other hand still suffer the various ‘gorky’, ‘nerdie’ labels, a lot of girls will for that reason single them out and ‘educate them’.

Gil Hardwick

Here in post-feminist Western Australia girls routinely ‘lose their virginity’ from age 12-13, and even in the best private schools for their 16th birthday they are given a card with the inscription, “Congratulations, now you are legal.”
It is boys these days who tell me about losing their virginity, at what age, and with what girl. They don’t just tell me, the event is usually announced widely among childhood intimates and peers. I get to know fairly quickly because for a number of now well-known reasons I remain in the loop, and if they don’t see me will call me on their mobile phone to tell me.
I’m not sure boys are more sexually liberated today, certainly not in Australia which has always been tolerant of ‘mateship’, homosexuality, and boys on the lookout for a grown man quite as much as girls. Girls are certainly more active, and thankfully free of the old ‘tart’ or ‘slut’ lables common when I was young.
The Wiki page on adolescent sexuality gives the current prevalence of sexually experienced 15 year-olds in the UK as 34.9% of boys and 39.9% of girls. They give no figure for the US or Australia which may be higher.

28
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top