virgin?

The following rant is in response to this and this. Take a look at them before reading to have some idea of where I'm coming from.

A couple weeks ago I was looking for cliques for my site. I stumbled upon one called Virgins (see first link above). The first page looked nice, and I was impressed with what I thought was the premise. I automatically assumed that it was a clique for people who wait to have sex out of self-respect and patience to find the right person. I looked through the site a bit, and on the About page I was vindicated.

"A virgin is not just someone who has *never* had sex -- a virgin can be someone who was raped, someone who has had sex in the past but is now committed to abstinence, someone who is determined never to let another person 'conquer' them in an abusive sexual manner -- 'virgin' can mean many things. If you consider yourself a virgin, then I encourage you to join this clique."

Good shared goal, and well worded too. However, on the Requirements page, I found this:

"1) You must either be a virgin physically (this includes rape victims) or be practising abstinence with the intent of not having sex (intercourse or oral) until you are married (if you marry)."

I, being the well-spoken, articulate being I am, reacted accordingly. "WTF?" Where'd all this marriage stuff come in? What if the applicant is gay? And why the attempt to define de-virginizing sexual activity? What happened to letting in "someone who is determined never to let another person 'conquer' them in an abusive sexual manner," huh?

I am the epitome of that last statement, and you just shut me out. However, I could get in anyway. Know why? Because I'm a virgin. I'm not proud of still having a hymen, perse. But I am proud of not letting people push me into doing things I don't want to do. I am proud of standing up for myself and looking out for my own well-being. I am proud of living the way I damn well choose, disregarding others who might look down on me for it.

At that point in my thinking, I decided I didn't need something as trivial as a website clique to feel validated. But as I was moving my mouse to close the page, I noticed the anti letter. It starts as follows:

"You site distresses me on several levels. First of all its completely absurd to consider your sexuality or virginity as a prize you give away! How 1950's is that?"

My question is when did the clique owner ever state that it WAS a prize? Some of her banners read 'I will not be your prize.' This, as I interpret it, means "I'm not just gonna be another notch on your belt. I think myself to be worth much more than that. I'm not just something you use up and throw away, I am a human being. If you don't intend to love me, admire me, listen to me and respect me, you sure as hell aren't getting anywhere close to the nookie jar." But maybe the clique owner did mean for virginity to be viewed as a prize. What, I ask you, is wrong with that?

prize - n 1 : something offered or striven for in competition or in contests of chance; 2 : something exceptionally desirable

People compete for the attention of other people. Some of them compete by trying to push their competitors away, and some compete by proving themselves worthy of attention. This is called DATING. By proving that they are worth your time, they are awarded with more time in your presence. If they fail, you stop seeing them. And as far as the 'contests of chance' part of the definition, this could be applied as well. Sometimes people just react badly to each other, though under different circumstances they might have reacted to each other splendidly. The context of the defintion is that of a game, but our socializations can be reduced to such, under close inspection.

And I'm still trying to figure out the 1950's sentence. Girls still got pregnant before marriage in the 50's. Now if you meant the 1950's in America, then I can sort of understand the comparison. But as I said, premarital sex still happened. What we know of the 50's in the States is mostly from TV - and all of that was idealized for the time. People back then did the same things we do now. They just didn't talk about it.

"I don't know how old you are or how old the girls who visit your site are but I would much rather see positive views of sexuality (and responsibility) rather than a site dedicated to a clique of virgins who think that their sexuality is a prize to be given away or held close to the vest."

Not having sex until you find someone that loves you sounds pretty positive to me. Just my opinion. And there's the 'prize' issue again. But in response to sexuality being "held close to the vest," why not? It's a very personal thing. If you care to share it with everyone, that's your bag, baby, and that's equally valid. Not everyone is given the chance to have sex with lots of people, or would want to.

"It is NOT a prize, it is a human biological need."

'It' is a biological need? What is this 'it' you're referring to here? If she means sex, I have a question. How are all those monks and nuns still alive? For that matter, how am I? I have never had sex and I'm still okay. I've been fine for 19 years without sex, and I can honestly say I believe I could live without it until death. Whether I would want to or not is another question. Sex, as in the action of intercourse, is NOT a human biological need. I think what happened here is that the letter writer confused sex with sexuality. Sex is intercourse. Sex is part of sexuality. Part of it, not all. If sex was merely a human biological need, then there would be no porn industry. And no sex scenes in movies. We'd all be so used to it that it would no longer be a point of fascination. But sex is part of human sexuality, which includes not only the urge to do it, but the reasons we want it, how we feel about it emotionally, what we look for in a partner, our sexual boundaries, likes, dislikes and our very own sexual persona. Added to this is the fact that there are many other ways to be sexual than just to have sex. Ever made love to someone with your eyes? From across the room? It can be done. Sexuality is much more about one's brain than one's body.

"Your site sets women and girls back to outmoded ideals and stereotypes that are dangerous. No sex before marriage? Virgins protecting their virginity? What's next, women should stay home and take care of babies and not work? Or have to wear severe foundation garments and dresses and not participate in sports?"

Being proud of being a virgin is dangerous? Or is being a virgin itself dangerous? I think if you've followed my statements above, I have pointed out that being proud of one's virginity can be a good thing. Conversely, so could pride in not being a virgin. It's all about standing up for yourself and doing whatever you feel is best for you. And if you meant being a virgin was physically dangerous, riddle me this: if you don't have sex, what are your chances of getting any venereal diseases? Very slim, unless you share a needle or something equally bizarre. Concerning everything after the sentence about danger, I humbly request that the writer quit putting words in someone else's mouth. The Virgin clique chick never said that or anything similar, so don't imply that she did.

"I whole-heartedly suggest that all of you virgins visit riotgrrl.com and meet some grrls with positive views of sexuality and womanhood.

Nikki Douglas riotgrrl.com"

Shameless plug? Yes. But I don't care about that. Here's what gets me:

"...meet some grrls with positive views of sexuality and womanhood."

Sexuality is not one size fits all. It can only be defined very broadly, because there is a very wide range of what is considered 'healthy' behavior. Sure, riotgrrl chicks may have a positive view of sexuality, but that doesn't in any way invalidate the people in Virgin.

In closing, I'd like to point out that the reason I had a problem with Virgin and the letter against it is because both of them tried to set static boundaries for issues that have none. If you think you're well-adjusted, way to go. But please don't think that your sexuality is the only kind that's correct.