chimerically

Women's ability to produce children is the greatest resource the human race has. Its one that can't be taken from a woman, so women don't need to fight with other women for this resource. But men...well, men have to compete with other men for access to this resource, and that competition would be horrifically destructive if allowed to rage.

In order not to be destroyed by competition, societies must impose essentially artificial limits on the use of that resource--in particular, a man may only make use of the reproductive capacity of his wife. Essentially, the men are agreeing to split the loot in a particular way to prevent fighting. Loot-splitting in this sense may have been around long enough to work its way into human nature and not just culture.

To prevent the male-male competition from being a problem, it has to be ensured that no man may make use of the reproductive capacity of woman that he has not lawfully received. The demand will always be there, so the way to do this is to impose social rules that control the supply. Any woman who puts out for any but her husband is messing with the assigned division-of-loot via marriage, and that sort of thing must be stopped.

(Now, some amount of prostitution/extra-marital sex is okay, so long as the extra-marital women and the marrying kind are in clearly different sets.)

Does this all make sense in the modern world of birth control and paternity tests? Well, maybe not, but some of this has been embedded into human nature. And too much male-male competion over women is still bad for everyone.

From:

chimerically.livejournal.com

... some of this has been embedded into human nature ...

If by "human nature" you mean societal norms, then I'd generally agree.

From:

If by "human nature" you mean societal norms, then I'd generally agree.

No, by "human nature" I was referring to the piece that isn't cultural. In particular, without external pressure, just about any culture will value most women's chastity. (Not that this is a good thing.) There is, of course, a lot of difference between killing the women who aren't virgins on their wedding night and a culture where the word "slut" has negative connotations.

From:

Wow... while I agree it does make sense the way you put it, I don't understand one thing...

How is it the guys are always yelled at for treating women like objects?

If I think of women.. as.. well.... .. women... I don't agree with your post all that much since it just puts them as either baby making machines or pleasure machines. (I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but with such inanimate descriptions, it's just the message I gleamed from it.)

From:

zestyping.livejournal.com

How is it the guys are always yelled at for treating women like objects?

Unfortunately, many guys frequently do.

I don't agree with your post all that much

I'm confused... the post doesn't express much of an opinion; it just points to other things. What sentiment do you disagree with?

From:

The "Guys treat women like objects" was said tongue-in-cheek.

As for the part I don't agree with...
To prevent the male-male competition from being a problem, it has to be ensured that no man may make use of the reproductive capacity of woman that he has not lawfully received. The demand will always be there, so the way to do this is to impose social rules that control the supply.
I don't really think the whole point of restricting sex to a spouse only is to keep competition down. I think it's religion gone out of control.

Looking back at my post, I didn't really think it out before writing that. (I've been awake for a while...) I hope this explains my viewpoint a little better. And don't get me wrong, I think her post is very well written and is has a lot of truth to it... I just have a different opinion on that aspect.

From:

Perhaps I'm of the belief that religion is largely a social construction, outlining a moral code based on solid social and economic principles. Sanctifying virginity and monogamy, and even the institution of marriage, is a strategic way to introduce stability in intimate relationships - especially those which could possibly lead to developing families.

From a non-religious standpoint, I'm slightly put at ease when I know that somebody I'm interested in dating has had fewer-than-expected sexual partners for the reason of not worrying about how I measure up to the (wo)men in her past. Over time, I've managed to quell this insecurity, but there might be something rather instinctual behind it.

From:

I agree with you there. The morale code of religion is usually very well defined and is pretty constructive in serving as a guideline for young children. It also provides a reason to follow it other than to just be a good person. (I guess damnation and purgatory would be a pretty bad 'time out' to look forward to.)

I also agree with your fewer-than-expected sexual partner statement. Being with someone 'overly' experienced would be uncomfortable I'm sure. There would also be the risk of STD's that I wouldn't find very appealing as well.

From:

corpsefairy.livejournal.com

Wow, I completely disagree with the fewer-than-expected sexual partners thing. I would much rather be with someone who was very experienced than with someone inexperienced; I don't want to have to teach! Experienced people are way more fun.

As for the risk of STDs, there are tests for that, and boundary observations prior to testing. A high number (and what's a high number, anyway? 5? 10? 20? More?) doesn't necessarily mean there's more risk.

From:

I honestly think it's a male/female difference there. Males perfer having someone with little experience, while females want the opposite. And your reason explains it all. Males need to be trained how to please a women. And women can please a man just by looking at them funny.

But as lbchewie said, guys don't like wondering if they're not up to par with their parnters prior sexual partners.

From:

I say that, but the woman to whom I lost my virginity was SIGNIFICANTLY more experienced than I (or probably anyone I may ever meet again). Personally, I love to be taught, but I can see why a number of men like to believe they're the ones in control.

I see one's sexual abilities just like any other skill. It's all taught. Some are more talented than others, but in the end, it's better to keep and open mind and realise that we're all students.

The way I see it: Teach people to be a better lovers, and everyone wins. There are no losers. It's only when people let their egos take the best of them when there's a conflict... and lots of unenjoyable sex ;)

From:

I love learning (And in this case, I love practicing too ;)

However, while it has never happened to me, I'm sure it would be a MAJOR blow to be told, "My last boyfriend was better." (Althought I would assume most women have better tact than that.)

Either way, I'm content to practice all night long.

From:

Wow, I completely disagree with the fewer-than-expected sexual partners thing. I would much rather be with someone who was very experienced than with someone inexperienced; I don't want to have to teach! Experienced people are way more fun.

Well, this approach to sexuality is beginning to prevail again in many circles. However, it goes against most "traditional" conservative values that tend to dominate certain religious and societial practices throughout the generations. It merely goes to show that one's approach to sexuality is a preference. More naturalistic, or "spiritual" interpretations of religion, especially those that believe that one's connection with God/Nature/Life is a highly personal relationship, can allow for one to embrace coitus as yet another beautiful human experience.

I've been tempted to write an entry about how the concept of "whiteness" mixed in with Christianity, sets a society up to be non-sexual as an ideal, but as an unnatural and harmful construct. I took a Theatre of American Cultures course which explored the idea through a number of essays, but never bothered to commit my thoughts to e-Paper. Meh. Conservatives! *digusted*

As for the risk of STDs, there are tests for that, and boundary observations prior to testing. A high number (and what's a high number, anyway? 5? 10? 20? More?) doesn't necessarily mean there's more risk.

Just so long as those practices are observed. While it's certainly possible to be open, honest, and proactive in disclosing one's sexual history, I'm afraid there are a number of those who use sexuality as for vengeance: those who have contracted a fatal STD, or rape victims, or due to other severe self-esteem crises. They simply may not be honest - and it comes down to simply one's ability to trust another.

From:

I don't agree with your post all that much since it just puts them as either baby making machines or pleasure machines. (I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but with such inanimate descriptions, it's just the message I gleamed from it.)

It was intentional, actually. I used such inanimate terminology because I wanted to make sure that no one took me the wrong way. I believe women are people. I certainly haven't lived my life in an effort to make babies asap or to provide pleasure for as many men as possible.

In discussing an issue like this, there's two questions that get conflated. First, how people actually feel, and second, why do people feel that way. I was trying to answer the second question.

Let me explain. If you asked one of the Purity Ball dads if their daughters were just baby-making machines or pleasure machines, they'll say "No, they are people." They'd probably add something about how precious they are, how they are gifts from god, blah blah blah. They wouldn't want to toss them in the ditch if they turned out to be infertile.

But then you have to ask the question of how can a person's virginity be so important? The answer that the purity Dads would give you is nothing like my explanation. They'd talk about purity and morality and blah blah blah. But what is convenient of about those definitions of purity and morality? It what sense does it help human survival to emphasize virginity? That was the question I was trying to answer.

From:

I understand. I guess I haven't been around too many posts that have such an academic feel to them on livejournal. If you look at it in that light, you're post is brilliantly written. One thing I do like is it tends to bring out ideas on WHY it happens instead of the flame war of how stupid x groups is for doing y.

Another reason I was caught up in emotion versus pure concept is the writer in the article does everything he can (from slander to jest) to show the individuals behind the statistics. Your post brings it back to a statistic and makes us wonder where the littler girl went. I guess you do need both sides to stay well informed though.

From:

corpsefairy.livejournal.com

The main benefit to having sex with a virgin is that you can be absolutely sure that any resulting offspring will be yours. That's why virginity has been valued and women's sexuality has been controlled for so long; so that the men can make sure that the children are theirs and no one else's.

On a tangent, in some societies (the Celts, for example, as evidenced by the stories in the Tain), it was accepted for the chieftain or king to have the right to have sex with every bride on her wedding night - before the husband. In this way, it affirmed the symbolic role of the king as the father of his people, by literally making it possible that every firstborn child was in fact his offspring.

From:

The main benefit to having sex with a virgin is that you can be absolutely sure that any resulting offspring will be yours.

But there is also a benefit to making sure that the neighbor's girls are virgins on their wedding night even if you don't marry them.

From:

tokyorose329.livejournal.com

"Women's ability to produce children is the greatest resource the human race has."

What makes you say this? Every organism on the planet has the ability to reproduce itself. I don't see it as the most important resource of human society beyond the most basic need for continuing the species.
In fact, the most important resource the human species has at its disposal is the capacity for reason and conscious thought, the ability to subvert "animal" urges: hunger, discomfort, lust, anger, selfishness--what were codified as "deadly sins" by everyone's favorite tightasses, the Catholics--in favor of "higher" reasoning. After a certain age, you don't beat up your brother just because he got the last cookie because you know your mother's going to go to the store and buy more and you'll get one. You don't start pawing the first attractive woman you see at a party because you've learned to enjoy the courtship process that helps you determine your the suitability of your intended mate (and remember folks, even lizards have courtship!).
Society has placed a lot of checks and balances against succumbing to these potentially destructive forces. Most of them are skewed towards "protecting", which ultimately turns into "repressing" female sexuality. I'd like to believe that it's out of a sense of respect for the obviously enormous power of said sexuality, but I don't think any of these purity-ball dads retain any of that anymore.
This is why matrilineal societies make more sense, in those pre-DNA-test days. It is very easy to muddy the waters about who someone's father is. It is much, much harder to obfuscate who came out of whose womb.
As for being with people who have had lots of partners, women have been dealing with this for years. Be glad s/he's with *you* now, learn a few original tricks to blow those other memories out of the water, and for god's sake keep quiet about it. Very few people get dumped solely on the basis of their sexual performance.

From:

I said: "Women's ability to produce children is the greatest resource the human race has."
You said:
What makes you say this? Every organism on the planet has the ability to reproduce itself. I don't see it as the most important resource of human society beyond the most basic need for continuing the species.

Your second sentence says it all. I didn't mean anything beyond that, but I find that pretty significant. If we don't reproduce, we die out, and any other resources we may or may not have are pretty damn useless. Now, obviously, we need both male and female to do this reproducing thing. However, the female half is clearly the limiting factor, since it takes 9 months in her body, and then an additional 2-4 years of infertility is associated with each child. (In modern society, with formula and an abudance of food, fertility returns much quicker.)

From:

tokyorose329.livejournal.com

Yeah, but any idiot can--and will--make babies. It's hardwired in, and it's such a given that we're going to do it that it doesn't set us apart from any other species. That was my point.

From:

Ah, I see. I never meant to imply that reproducing made us any different than animals. I don't think we are much other than animals, as it happens.

From:

rubrick.livejournal.com

This subthread further cements my respect for folks like Dawkins who are willing to take on the thankless task of trying to communicate this stuff to folks who aren't in their field. Seems like it's always 10% making points, 90% explaining why you didn't mean what you're being accused of.

From:

Also, I don't think the worries about virginity have much at all to do with fear that your partner had other better partners in the past. People talk about that, of course, but it's not a truly logical response. It's just words to justify a gut feeling. The question is, why do people tend to have that gut feeling?

From:

The question is, why do people tend to have that gut feeling?

Those people are fundamentally insecure, and it's just another axis over which to develop an inferiority complex. If it's not sexual performance, it's something else.

From:

Those people are fundamentally insecure, and it's just another axis over which to develop an inferiority complex. If it's not sexual performance, it's something else.

I'm not so sure. If I imagine a conversation that includes a reference to sexual performance, replacing the sexual performance by monetary performance doesn't work as well. Certainly, people can feel inadequate in terms of their wages, but the sexual thing seems weightier. And I can much more readily imagine a guy worried about being good enough in bed than a man worried he's not sensitive enough.

From: