Revirginizing?!! No. To say that its OK to revirginize is tantamount to saying that you value virginity highly. It gives lie to the idea that virginity is a neutral state. It says that it really matters whether you are a virgin or not. This tolerance business really can go too far.

I'm not advocating for tolerance of the abstinence-only movement. I'm just hoping to start a conversation about whether we should be judging women who wish they hadn't had sex, and choose to identify as people who haven't.

And to clarify, I wasn't talking about actual, physical "revirginization" surgeries. I'm talking about the idea of virginity as part of a person's sexual identity. I think it really does matter to some individuals whether they think of themselves as virgins. Of course, I'm definitely not saying it should "really matter" to the rest of us whether someone is a virgin (or celibate) or not.

I lost my virginity last Thursday after twenty years of "purity". During my teenage years, I was constantly made to feel inadequate for not being sexually active, but I wasn't sexually inactive because I thought virginity was the only righteous existence for an unmarried woman -- it was because, by common standards, I am "unattractive". For one reason or another, I was not comfortable sharing my sexuality with someone else while in high school. Even within my own feminist circles, I was made to feel like a "prude" and/or "spinster" because I represented a stereotypical image of a feminist (see: overweight, brown-haired, very "uppity" about women's rights). Though I define myself as a hardcore feminist, I have always been uncomfortable with the idea that in order to be sexually liberated, I had to be willing to have sex on a frequent basis. Of course, this stigma is probably just one of those little things we've picked up along the way in retaliation to patriarchy's demands over our sexuality. However, one grievance I would like to address, at this moment, is what I see to be a double standard in the word of third-wave feminism. Being faced with this argument towards women who enjoy abstinence, it has been said it is only okay for a woman to feel inclined to do such a thing if she is not pressured. What about women who feel pressured to have sex, or act "slutty"? So many times I run into discussions about feminism vs. pornography, with most feminists on the side of pornography. Being a lifelong "unattractive" female, I have suffered the sexual neglect that is society's punishment for an unappealing woman, and you cannot tell me that those standards are not re-enforced by the aesthetic stimulation provided by the sex industry, despite what is known as "alt-porn". How many women are sexually pressured to act a certain way by the sex industry compared to women who come by those sexual mannerisms "naturally"? Are they really come by "naturally", or are they pressured to acquire them, and then enjoy the benefits they procure so well that they see fit to adhere to said mannerisms? It seems that we are very ready to advocate one thing and turn down another, even though they are both one thing in sheep's clothing: a sociological device to control a woman's sexuality for the benefit of men disguised as something beneficial and trendy.

I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21, during my second semester of senior year at college. I was both socially awkward and very picky about men (though I was not waiting for marriage - just a guy who wouldn't rip my heart into little pieces ... I'm clinically depressed, and at the time didn't think potentially exposing myself to a bad breakup was a good idea). However, I felt like I was a bad feminist just because I was a virgin. I found it both amusing and disturbing that being a good (hetero) feminist was seemingly dependent on cock.

Certainly if you're a Virgin Of A Certain Age (that is, over the age of 18), it is assumed that you're both religious and waiting for marriage, and that was not an assumption I was comfortable with people making about me.

During the week before my graduation (by then I'd had sex with three different men), I had a one-night stand with the captain of the soccer team. Word got around, and some not-nice things were said about me. I didn't care. I guess being a VOACA allowed me to discover that it's far worse to be a virgin than to be promiscuous. If I had lost it while I was in high school, I don't think I would have been in a position to draw that conclusion.

This article gave me comfort that I wasn't the only non-religious and dirty-minded virgin over the age of 18. But I still felt very much inadequate, and, like I said, like I had no business calling myself a feminist.

*here here*! I also experienced the 'feminist inadequacy' that flowed from *still* being a virgin post-high school and even now, I sometimes feel troubled by the preminum placed on sexual 'liberation' by some feminists.

The problem clearly hinges on combating the virgin/whore dichotomy: that as feminists we are forced to contend with a culture that insists on purity at the same time that it positions women as sexual objects. Yet a feminism that cannot refrain from mocking virgins, whether they be religiously-motivated or not, is, somewhat paradoxically, actually reinforicng the patriarchal culture that insists that women should always be sexually available to men. In their excessive valorisation of sexual experience some feminists can end up making virgins feel personally complicit with conservative notions of purity, when the real reason could just be that, hey, they simply haven't found anyone they want to have sex with yet.

And that 'want' is the key. Feminism has always championed choice and should continue to do so. But in our haste to celebrate sex, we should be wary of encouraging the idea that the only conscientious feminist is a sexually-active one. Saying that doesn't mean that we shouldn't rail against abstinance-only sex ed & other repressive manifestations of the religious Right (in which I would include re-virginization, which is really only a highly dubious term for celibacy), but that we should aim to make it safe for women to truly choose, to negotiate their sexuality on their own terms, whatever they may be.

I don't care if someone wants to be a virgin or not (though I think, in general, it's not the best of ideas to "wait" until marriage), but I *do* have a huge problem with the Virgin movement.

To date, I have never heard a single "pro-Virgin" speaker or piece of literature indicate that a non-Virgin is a worthwhile person. Instead, the propoganda continues that girls who have had sex are dirty, used, filthy rags who no "good" man would ever touch. Calling on us to be "tolerant" of a movement that says we're worse than dirt is ridiculous. If they are going to treat us as untouchables, then to hell with them.

And I have never, as a feminist, felt pressured to have sex to confirm my beliefs. The whole point of becoming a feminist was to do what *I* wanted in my life and to say "up yours" to anyone who felt differently. So how could I feel pressured by being a feminist? It wouldn't make sense to me. But that is just my mindset.

By the way, I have a guy friend who will only date virgins. In all other respects, he's cool but his sex value system is totally screwed up. He honestly is made ill by the idea that "anouther guy's dick has been in there". I tried to explain that menstrual blood has been there, too - and not just boy juice - but he just got pale and changed the subject. :)

Not to do much shameless self-promoting...but I deal with this issue in a recent Guardian article I wrote.

I think if you want to be a virgin, that's great. But if it's because you think you're dirty or less valuable or bad otherwise...that's a problem.

I think we have to be very careful to keep in mind the history of the "revirginization movement." Re-virginization has its roots in Christian based religious organizations. I only know the history of two of these organizations--Catholics and Born Again Christians. The Catholic tradition based part of its movement in the notion that women who are unclean. Women who were mentruating are unclean, women who had babies are unclean (and if you had a female baby you were more unclean then if you had a male baby), and of course women who had sex were unclean as well. This notion of women being unclean is comes from Leviticus. Part of it was “And the LORD spake unto Mosses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days, she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.� (Leviticus, 12; 1-5) Prior to Vatican II, women used wait the requisite time after childbirth and then go to confession again before being able to enter a Church. More or less it was a type of Church santified "re-virginization" Since you were only to have sex with the intent to "multiply," when you went to confession you were re-virginized by the priest.
In more recent times, the Born Again Christian Movement encouraged "re-virginization." This was part of their youth group movements in the 1990s. The main concern was the re-virginization was directed at the "girls" only. Even within the Born Again Community it was the young girls responsiblity to be chaste, vocal, and publically virginal.
My ultimate concern is that "re-virginization" doesn't function as a freeing category as some of the earlier posters hope but rather as one that is meant to tell women have somehow strayed and become sexual that their is still time to protect their purity.

I'd mind the Virgin movement a lot less if they focused on the boys as much as they do the girls.

Really, I know it's easier to beat the pulpit over crushed hymens than the problematic is-it-new-or-isn't-it penis, but these Christian girls are sleeping with SOMEONE and it probably is more likely the pastor's son than some guy named "Slick".

I lost my virginity when I was 22. I had waited that long because I wanted to share that kind of intimacy with someone I really cared for, who truly understood me and in a situation of mutual respect. I wasn't raised in a religious family and in my country (as in most Northern European countries), very little emphasis is placed on virginity. Besides, I've always been very comfortable with sexuality. But I never admitted to being a virgin after the age of 18, when sex was brought up in the conversation, I would just skip the subject so I wouldn't have to say I was still a virgin. However, it had nothing to do with feminism whatsoever. It's just that our society views virgins as prudes and I didn't want people to view me in that light or to think I subscribed to the absurd notion of "waiting for prince charming so we could get married and live happily ever after". In Europe, we are very puzzled by those "abstinence programs". Anyone bringing up that kind of ideas here would be ridiculed, and rightly so. How can abstinence be defined as a "sex-ed" program? It's pretty obvious that not having sex protects you from both pregnancies AND sexually-transmitted diseases, but it's akind to saying not eating protects you from food poisoning. Sure you won't get salmonella but it's not a very good idea in the long run, is it? Just saying you shouldn't have sex before marriage doesn't qualify as sex education in my book. And what is it about this marriage thing anyway? Some people make it sound like it's going to protect you from STDs. Sure, why develop an AIDS vaccine when we have marriage? And most of all, this purity thing really gets on my nerves, because it very clearly implies that anyone who doesn't conform to this way of life is "impure". I think it's quite frightening to adhere to that sort of notion in the 21st century.

The archaic stud/slut attitude may be the norm in conservative circles, but the alternative - or perhaps just the younger - crowd seems no more forgiving at the other end of the spectrum. Loving sex seems to be an absolute rule, so long as it doesn't violate monogamy and masturbation goes discussed (replaced by extolling the fun of giving head).

I was a virgin for four or five years more than most of my friends, and the pressure to "get laid" despite my relaxed "it'll happen when I want it to" attitude was stifling.

It's not virginity nor rampant sex that can be wrong or right, it's the reasons why.

“I'm just hoping to start a conversation about whether we should be judging women who wish they hadn't had sex, and choose to identify as people who haven't.� – Ann

These people are either delusional or lying.

I think identifying as a virgin after one has had consensual sex does implicitly condemn sexually active women: "virgin"=pure; non-virin=sullied. That IS a problem because it reinforces the idea that it is ok to exert social control of individual women's sexual behavior. However. If a woman who has been raped or abused or in other ways physically denied control over losing her virginity, I believe it is her every right to identify as virgin until she has consensual sex.
Still, the whole virginity or loss thereof as a focal point of devleopment seems patently absurd to me. I have friends who are literally pushing-40-year-old virgins and friends who were having consensual sex at 16, 15, 13. We're all functional adults with healthy social lives. The idea that it is some pivotal point in one's life is pure propoganda.

"The idea that it is some pivotal point in one's life is pure propoganda." - kgsavoie

Exactly.

I agree that society shouldn't consider the loss of virginity "a focal point of devleopment," but it's undeniable that it IS an extremely important event to some women. And not necessarily because they've "lost their purity"-- they might consider it a milestone for any number of personal reasons.

As we (rightfully) criticize the modesty/abstinence movement, I'm simply advocating that we take care not to shame or exclude feminist women who aren't sexually active. In my mind, that's quite different than putting virginity on a pedestal or declaring it a pivotal moment in every woman's life. Rather, for me, this is about respecting individual sexual choices.

If supporting formerly sexually active women's choices to identify as virgins reinforces the idea that "virgin=pure and non-virgin=sullied," does supporting biological women's choices to live/identify as men reinforce the idea that female=bad and male=good?

Ann I agree with you 100% but why not celebate instead of virgin?

As for the transgender analogy I guess not because it goes both ways (men becoming women and vice versa). That said my problem with male to female trans sexuals is based on my not understanding why a man would choose to come over to the 'weak' side. It is such a struggle to be taken seriously as a woman than as a man so why make things hard for yourself?

I'd love for this question to be answered for me, but then I am aware that like blac(k)ademics post on race it isn't the responsibility of transgendered women to 'teach' me.

True, "celibate" is probably a much better word choice.

[stepping into the hornet's nest...] Such an interesting question, and I did mean to address that from your earlier comment, but forgot. I think transpeople, whether mtf or ftm, necessarily represent that certain feelings/actions/characteristics are the province of one gender or another...which of course reinforces gender essenetialism. That's not to say they view one gender as superior to the other (which seems to be opposite of what "re-virgins" imply) but that gender is a binary and self-limiting concept. I personally disagree with that implicit view, but a philosophical difference is not a political statement: I fully support the rights of transpeople to determine their own gender and make whatever psychological and physical adjustments necessary to bring their gender and psyches into harmony.
I do think there is a HUGE difference between "choosing" to identify as a virgin knowing that you are not, and feeling that you are in a body of the wrong gender. I want to be clear that I personally am not of trans experience, so I admit to having a necessarily limited perspective on this and welcome feedback and different perspectives on the matter.

>>>I do think there is a HUGE difference between "choosing" to identify as a virgin knowing that you are not, and feeling that you are in a body of the wrong gender.

That's a great point.

I don't really think that the transgender example is a very good one. I mean, the Virgin movement is based around the idea that the sexual encounter was a "mistake", a "sin", or just generally a bad thing. There's very much a feeling that "I wish I was a virgin, but unfortunately I'm not, but I'm going to say I am anyway."

To me, that's a regret over a choice - the choice to have sex.

With transgendered people, they never chose to be born in the 'wrong' body. They feel, or so I'm told, that they SHOULD have been female but that they were erroneously born male (or vice versa).

In which case, when undergoing gender reassignment, they aren't trying to erase their choices - they're exercising the right to make a choice. Whereas these revirginizing surjeries where they sew in a new hymen is about undoing a choice you made - basically pretending that the past never happened. I'm not sure that's a healthy thing.

I've also know way too many girls who are proud to be "virgins" yet they've seen more penises than I have - and have done more than just looking, if you catch my drift. The cultural emphasis that there needs to be a hymen present on the wedding night just confuses me to no end.

And I'm not at all sure it's healthy to place that much emphasis on our sexuality.

Since I've been spending far too much time looking at dictionaries and thinking about definitions today, I'm going to completely skip the topic of social sexual norms entirely, and skip straight to what bothers me about "revirginizing": it's an oxymoron, basically a self-deceit, or when disclosed to a potential lover, deceit of that potential lover.

Virgins are people, who for whatever reason, healthy or not, logical or not, don't have any personal experience with intercourse (and if we don't go the entire technical virgin route, don't have any personal sexual experience at all).

Sex is a powerful experience. I flatly disbelieve anyone who tells me that having had sex, whether it was a good experience or bad, had no effect on his or her perceptions. You can't make that just go away by wishing it were so. You can't become an inexperienced kid again simply by trying to remember what you were like (and honestly, the thought of wanting to scares and horrifies me a little).

If you've had that experience, live up to it. Acknowledge it. Learn as much as you can from it. Move on. Nobody ever said you can't learn more, or learn differently. But don't try to pretend that you're the same person you were before you had that experience, even if you're only pretending to yourself.

I don't think it's healthy, no matter what your peers think about your status, no matter what the status is of a hymen -- an archaic and inaccurate test of virginity in any case, in a world where women get to engage in more physical activity than walking to the market.

>>There's very much a feeling that "I wish I was a virgin, but unfortunately I'm not, but I'm going to say I am anyway."

>>To me, that's a regret over a choice - the choice to have sex.

>>With transgendered people, they never chose to be born in the 'wrong' body.

Well put, EJ. I think you articulated what I was trying (and not quite managing) to get at when I said there was a "huge difference".

The only place I think claiming "virgin" as an identity (despite the historical facts) is when you have been forcibly deprived of choice in "losing" it. (Aside: I hate the implication in this phrase, as if virginity is a precious something that can be lost if not guarded properly.) Claiming identity as a virgin then becomes a reclamation of your body and the choices you voluntarily make with it.

kgsavoie:

I can agree with that last paragraph, actually, though I would still hope that doing so doesn't lead to deception of one's partner in the matter.

I actually have a bit of insight into that matter - I "lost" my virginity to a boyfriend who raped me.

I have to admit that I was very upset by said loss of virginity, but in retrospect the rean I was upset was because I felt that I had nothing to "offer" a future husband. Having been raised in a very conservative atmosphere, being a virgin on my wedding night was important for me, but not for any reason I can now recall. It wasn't that the relationship would be more deep and private; it certainly wasn't that the sex would be better (in fact, I had been assured by peers that it most certainly would NOT be).

Most of all, I can just remember afterwards thinking "what will my husband think of me?" Several years later when I met my current boyfriend, he was deeply bemused by my assumption that he would even WANT a virgin. He gently explained that he didn't care about my past sexual experience and that he was privately glad that he wouldn't be "that guy who was my first and it hurt really bad". Even though I haven't been in a conservative mindset for years, it was still a mild (but pleasant) shock.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, a lot of "new Virgins" are more concerned about being a Virgin for someone else - their parents, their husband - than they are for themselves. When my virginity was "lost" without my consent, I wanted it "back" but not for myself. I had been told that it was something worthwhile that I was meant to save for my husband. For myself, I didn't care if the hymen was there or not - but I wasn't thinking "for myself".

when I was a child I was sexually abused by my older brother. The church I belong to didn't consider this a loss of virginity nor does it consider any rape, incest, or molestation a loss of virginity. So it never occurred to me that society might not consider me a virgin because of some stupid event over which I held no control. I still consider myself a virgin and honestly (and I would think understandably) I'm not really all that interested in sex. Maybe someday in the future if I find somebody I can trust and who doesn't scare the hell out of me I might actually have VOLUNTARY sex (this sounds like never . . . ) But hey,though I'm a virgin, can't I still be a feminist? I promise I'll be oh so good.

Hey, new poster here. I've long read Feministing for news, but never commented before.

My basic thoughts on the issue have been stated earlier in this thread: someone who is a virgin or celibate - either by choice, circumstance, or some combination there of – should be supported and never scorned by feminists (or anyone else), as long as said virgin/celibate person does not look down on women/people who enjoy being sexually active.

However, I feel I should address something kgsavoie said because they asked for feedback. I took issue with this:

“I think transpeople, whether mtf or ftm, necessarily represent that certain feelings/actions/characteristics are the province of one gender or another...which of course reinforces gender essenetialism. That's not to say they view one gender as superior to the other (which seems to be opposite of what "re-virgins" imply) but that gender is a binary and self-limiting concept.�

That's just not true. Many transpeople – including myself – do any number of things that violate and challenge the binary gender system: some identify as multiple genders, some as no gender, some are sissy transmen, some are butch transwomen, some modify their bodies in gendered ways while continuing to identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, and so on. I'd be willing to bet a hell of a lot that a much higher percentage of transpeople than non-transpeople reject the gender binary. Piny of Feministe addressed this better than I can on this post: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/05/05/trans-responses-to-feminist-myths/ . Thank you for acknowledging your limited knowledge of trans issues and experiences, kgsavoie, and please do read more of the posts on Feministe (and elsewhere) for a greater perspective on such issues.

Thanks for the link, solvent. I am reading and thinking...not everything said I agree with, but then, shining a new light on something always creates different shadows. More information is better. I'm not here to debate people's personal experiences, to be sure!

I don't think I have anything new to add to this debate, (I have a real problem not with virginity per se, but with the refusal to examine the assumptions and power-politics that inform the fetishization of female virginity). I'm only posting because I've been chatting on this blog with you, EJ, for a little while now, and I wanted to say that I'm so sorry to read that you were raped. I mean, not that you need my sympathies or anything...yours is such a familiar name that I would have felt wrong just ignoring your post. I hope that's OK.

Thank you, EG. It's good to have friends online. I kind of wish I hadn't posted that now - I seem to have killed the topic!

I'm just glad that I have a little bit of personal experience in this area. I know it sounds crazy to say that, but when a friend of mine was raped a few years after I was, I was able to be there for her, partly because of my experience and I'm actually really grateful for that.

But it *does* explain why I'm such a bitch in the Rape threads (hereafter known as the "just because she's too drunk to walk doesn't make it rape" argument!) :D

Thank you again.

Well, you were right in that thread, and I was conflating some very different experiences and confusing myself (i.e. wrong)!

buy wow gold
cheap wow power leveling
my wow gold
cheapest wow power leveling
BUY wow gold
cheap wow power leveling
CHEAP rs gold
good wow power leveling
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
CHEAPEST wow gold