Does virginity liberate or confine women?

The bible is not, and should not be, the final word in all discussion. Never mind that it was written by men two thousand (or more) years ago. Bringing up whatever is written in the bible crushes intelligent discourse. It isn't relevant, nor is it particularly insightful.

I don't believe in the Bible, but there is something to be said for abstaining at lease until one is of age to deal with the consequences of pregnancy and to handle an intimate relationship.

Nothing is served for most young girls or young boys to have sex early. They're simply not ready. But neither do I think anything is served by trying to shelter kids from sex. They need to know about it. It needs to not be demonized as dirty. They need to know their urges are natural.

The problem with America is the extremes and the hypocracy. Don't do it but throw this oversexualized culture in a kids face. Stupid, confusing. Harmful.

Nothing in the bible has "only recently begun to be found true by science". Sounds like you are just repeating religious propaganda right there.

Virginity shouldn't be an issue. It is MADE an issue, mostly by the religious folks, but it's not an important thing at all. Staying a virgin until you are married is fine if that's what you want to do, but it adds no value to you as a human being.

yeah like talking bushes and resurrections.

Come on there is nothing wrong with sex even if it is with some one you just met and do not even know there name. Religion has muddied our planet and forced us all into slavery. Forcing people to believe that sex has to equal love is the source of much heart ache in the world. We have really been taking steps even further backwards when it comes to women. Those heroines of the 70's woman's movement must be crying in their beers right now. All of that work for this. Religion is not what will fix us. We need to be humans and stop being so afraid of the others. Jesus never saves us, Science saves us.

No Jesus

Know Peace

No Mohammed

Know Peace

Many people are waiting until their 30's to get married. That is too long to wait for something that is so pleasureable and a gift. There is no point denying a natural human pleasure. You talk about STD's. STD's are a very small minority of the possible diseases someone can pick up through life.

The "fact" is, is that "men" are the ones who relieve a girl from her virginity. Who else is there? Because of all the feminist crap, women are at the lowest ebb in history. Never have I seen a more pathetic group than American women(perhaps global). With their promiscuity, lack of good grooming, tattoos(another story), lack of self esteem, the killing of their children at a pace never seen by mankind, highest percentage of the prison population in known history. And they still want to find sexism where ever the can make it up. Women have always been as sexually active as men(duh). But men have always felt that they had to "act" like they were not virgins or there was something wrong. That is the problem with society. The pressure put on men to not be a virgin is much higher than that to be a virgin is put on women. Even though common sense would tell anyone with a firing synapse that it is and always has been pretty much equal. But I look at young men ( I am the father of 3 boys) and then girls. it is clear to me that feminism has had a very dire impact on our females. What has been traded forperceived equality has done great damage to our precious American girls. And shame on those who have championed what passes itself as a "feminist movement".

djl,

How, exactly, is feminism having a "very dire impact" on young females?

"The fact that men think they have an absolute right to relieve a young girl of her virginity can be a definite problem"

"The "fact" is, is that "men" are the ones who relieve a girl from her virginity."

---------------------------

Sheesh! last time i checked, women are the ones that ALLOW men to relieve them of their virginity.. (and i am just putting that passively :D). A simple "no" would suffice... assumming of course that their no really means NO. otherwise, it would be rape, wouldnt it? and again, the last time i checked, rape is punishable by law...?

The point of this article isn't so much that virginity is a bad thing, but much more so that the emphasis we place on it is.

Virginity has its advantages, it is the only method of birth control and disease prevention that is 100% effective. (other methods have better than 98% effectivness, but if we teach our kids that, surely they will all become whores and jigaloes!)

By refusing to be open-minded and understand that humans are sexual beings by nature, we do our children a great disservice. If I teach my daughter that to be a virgin is to be safe, and she meets a man who is also a virgin, the assumption is he is also safe. But many STD's can be spread by non-sexual contact, (blood transfusions etc.) So have I really protected her? No. I have put at a big disadvantage.

we teach our little girls that the only way they can be a good moral person is if they are virgins, if they are not virgins they are bad, terrible people who have no value as a human being.

Then suddenly they hit puberty and have all these urges that only "bad" people have. this creates a psychological and self esteem issue. "If I have these bad thoughts, I must be a bad person."

This is why the emphasis we place on virginity is stupid, harmful, and unnecessary.

To those of you here who quote the bible, please remember the Bible was written by MEN. Men who used religion to govern the masses. men who valued virginity not because of disease but because women were their property and who wants a used car when you can have a brand shiny new one.

Oh, and these same men thought the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. How could they possibly be wrong?

Well said Emmett.

sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated

That is pretty funny - and totally unintentional. Dude doesn't know how to get a woman pregnant! :-)

Aside from that, this is fundamentally a biological/evolutionary dynamic. Males want to have exclusive breeding rights to females. Females have a biological vested interest in having children with more than one mate to maximize the diversity of their children. (Particularly if they find some defect in their initial mate.)

In addition, the ability of females to raise their children without help from a male regulates their need for a long-term monogamous relationship. And we see that as humans get closer to the tropics where nature is more productive, there is more polygamy. Conversely, as we get farther north, or into harsh, cold regions, we see more monogamy. And in the highlands of Tibet at 15,000 - 18,000 feet, we see women with multiple husbands because the place is so harsh that it makes sense.

The last factor is disease. There are distant relatives of ours, like chimpanzees, that are incredibly promiscuous. But they pay a price for that in venereal disease. So do we.

John, I"m pretty damn sure you have everything backwards...men want more than one "mate" so they can spread their seed far and wide, females desire ONE mate because they in fact DO need a male to help provide for their children - unless you think a pregnant woman in her 9th month of pregnancy can care for and provide for two small children?!?!

I agree with sadgegoddess, that "The problem with America is the extremes and the hypocracy." The "religious right" and anti-religious left both miss the mark.

Clear, unbiased information is the key to giving our children the tools they need to make good choices for themselves.

Many of us as parents feel compelled to tell our children, either in words or in actions, "I know what's best for you, because I'm older/wiser/more experienced/_________." This attitude undermines our children's ability to trust their own judgment, to take responsibility for their own choices, and accept the resulting consequences as part of THEIR choice. Too many people (adults and children) feel that they are victims of circumstance, rather than participants in the choice/consequence process. We have the ability to shape our children's life path, and all too often this is manifested as controlling their choices with fear/religion/anti-religion/etc.

Don't cripple your child. Support their growth. Recognize that they are only dependant on you for a fraction of their life span, and give them the tools (information) they desperately need to help them live a productive, happy, healthy life.

It's much harder to teach children to make choices based on logic and information, than it is to teach them to make choices based on fear or rebellion against the status quo.

To CJCarlin....the Bible is the final word. As you and everyone else will know one day. It is the Aplha & Omega...Beginning and the End. The Bible also says that every word is GOD breathed. So, maybe you should listen to what the wise folks have to say... instead of making up your own thoughts that dont make sense at all!

To Sunshine, why can't a woman in her 9th month of pregnancy care for and provide for two young children on her own? I worked up until the day I went into labor.

And to acreativebgn, maybe you should realize that not everyone has to live by your standards and quit judging those who don't. You're the one who doesn't make sense! "The Bible also says that every word is GOD breathed." What does that even mean?

John Toradze

Aside from that, this is fundamentally a biological/evolutionary dynamic. Males want to have exclusive breeding rights to females. Females have a biological vested interest in having children with more than one mate to maximize the diversity of their children. (Particularly if they find some defect in their initial mate.)

To that point I add a question:

In the time it takes a woman to mother one child, how many children can a man father?

"The "fact" is, is that "men" are the ones who relieve a girl from her virginity. Who else is there?"

How very heteronormative of you.

I'm not big on this purity thing, but I agree that teenagers (and grade schoolers) are best off just leaving sex until they are older. When I was a teen, I was in a very avante-garde community and watched friends have sex, naked parties all that. And what that did for me was make me want to wait, because I could see that my friends weren't happy from all that. It was fun for a little bit, but after sex they would fight and be nasty, and all the rest of it.

So I waited until I was older. I am sure that if I had been in a different environment where I didn't have that, I would think that having naked body-painting parties at 16-17 was the greatest thing. But it wasn't. It wasn't exactly a bad thing, it was just not what it was cracked up to be. And I wasn't the only kid who felt that way. But I could never admit that or tell my friends what I really thought. It wasn't cool. Sort of like when you are standing around and someone pulls out a joint, and you think, "I'm not really in the mood for that." but you do it because the others are and you want to be part of things.

So I'm not into the heavy morality message because of its superior, holier-than-thou posture. But I support completely creating ways for kids to have good interactions with each other that aren't rushed, don't require passing a joint around or bumping rumps to be an insider kid.

Put another way, the prodigal son (daughter) has as much value as the one who never went off, eh?

I agree that sex can be emotionally powerful for a teenager. However, saying that teenagers shouldn't have sex because they can dabble into it "casually" and thus risk disease, is just like saying that adults shouldn't.

Just because you're over 18, doesn't mean you won't take sex seriously. In fact, loads of 18-25 year olds indulge in sex frequently, and with multiple partners. Some use protection, some don't.

The fact of the matter is that teenagers should be taught about safe sex. If we don't teach them about safe sex, and only promote abstinence, then all those teenagers who will have sex in that classroom, will do it w/o protection, risk disease, and pregnancy. You can't stop a teenager from having sex if that's what they want to do. What you can do, is inform them about the risks and how they can have sex safely.

such a sad comment. it says volumes about the state of the blogger's mind and soul.

That's just crazy, dude. One fallacious statement after another.

DH-356393,

Care to back up that opinion with any evidence?

amc-1046776's comment wasn't particularly insightful (as it really just summarized several points made in the article) but at least had substance - i.e., asserting that society's focus on virginity only furthured the notion that young women are judged based on their sexuality.

Your comment just said, well, nothing.

Our culture is a free culture... obsession with virginity is only in people's mind that have no pride in themselves...

my friend's girlfriend wasnt a virgin when he met her, and yet he adores her...?

a lady have have been in a relationship or two. she might have worked as a whore for some years.. yet if she still retains her pride and diginity, and if she has a delightful personality, she'll be VERY attractive to men..!

someone smirks at me for being short.. what the heck! isnt he too tall? and if i get picked on that im too tall, that would make them too short, wouldnt it..?

Dude, society is US. its what we make it... or what we let it make us...! in other words, its us, not society.

If i have a car, and choose to ride a bicycle, too bad if other people think little of me, im the one burning the calories, looking good, feeling awesome, staying drug-free and keeping heart attack locked up in a closet, lol, not them... if i want to go swimming when my friends want to go drinking, who says i cant change friends???

Women can be what they like. Proudly. virgins, or otherwise...! if you dont like that, sue them. individually... :D

otherwise, dont jump to conclusions. and if you do, keep them to yourself!

To Mya-1047644

My god if I had 100 men like you I could rule the world!

Absolutely brilliant. and that is not sarcasm. I agree with you 110%

the last two sentences in particular.

Carla -

Interesting that you asked DH-356393 to back up her "opinion". I disagree that the comment by amc-1046776 had substance. You pointed out that it "really just summarized several points made in the article", but that does not give it substance. It merely reiterates someone else's opinions. The article itself is particularly lacking in anything to back up the broad statements about "society", and what "society" believes or does or thinks or acts. I would ask that the author back up her opinions. Mya-1047644 has it right that "society is US"; collectively individuals make up our society. But that "society" doesn't have a conscience, or speak on behalf of us all, or on behalf of any of us, necessarily. Many groups push their own particular agenda, sometimes intolerant of others' agendas; but that doesn't mean that any of them must change because some other group doesn't agree. If you don't agree with someone, or some group, feel free not to associate with them. But you don't have the right to tell them they must change.

Languishing, you are right that if you don't agree with a particular person, or a group of peopel that you don't have to associate with that group. And nobody has the right to tell anyone that they have to change. However, some individuals and groups are so radical and extremist it is they that are trying to tell everyone else how they should live. It is this intollerance of difference that is the real problem. Some groups just cannot tolerate anyone different than themselves, so they establish these religions, clubs, organizations to try to convince everyone that they should be just like them, and if they don't they are bad people and only bad things will happen to them. They use scare tactics to make individuals feel that this is the only way to be. And when a person has thoughts or actions that differ from what these "groups" say is right, then they feel like they are bad people.

If others cannot tell those groups (religions) to change, then what gives them the right to tell everyone else that they must! Some of these "groups" are so large that you can't always just ignore them. I say live and let live. If everyone else was less worried about what their neighbor was doing wrong, and focused more on what they could be improving on themselves our society would be much more peaceful!

Languishing,

I stand by my assertion that the original comment was substantial if not insightful. By 'substantial,' I mean that the comment had some sort of meaningful content. Meaningful content was lacking in DH's comment, which merely stated that the original comment was "crazy." The original comment had substance worthy of a place in a debate, whereas DH's comment was empty, and had no place in thoughtful discourse.

You suggest that the article lacks backing evidence for the assertions made by the author, and you ask that the author back up her opinions. (I assume you refer to the author of the book, and not to the author of the article.) To this, I point out that this is an article about a book, and should be viewed as an abstract of the book. In fact, I do say that the whole point of an article such as this is to pique readers' curiousity and interest them in buying the book should they care to read the author's justification for her opinions.

Lastly, you also state in your comment that "...you don't have the right to tell them they must change." Was this directed at me? I don't suppose it was, as I did not tell any person or group that they must change. Next time, start a new paragraph to be more clear. =)

Viginity has always helped women leverage their femininity for greater favor and monetary gain. Men are willing to pay more for assurances against paternity fraud. The fact that sluts want to redefine virginity as a rebirth is a tribute to the value of that old code.

I don't agree with you. I think the author was just using her experience in HS to explain why this idea of virginity can be hurtfull to young women.

There are MANY things in this world harmful to young women, and frankly virginity is the least of our problems.

This sounds like a personal problem blown out of proportion. I do not feel defined by that particular choice nor do i label others for THEIR choice. She apparently believes people label rape victims and others. personally I do NOT appreciate that assumption!

She feels one about all this and that's fine but dont expect others to do as you do simply to feel justified. its wrong and THATS harmful.

Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. -Eleanor Roosevelt

Thats life. mind your own issues and let everyone make their own choice.

she seems to find herself - with a guilty conscience - in decent society where no one cares for her knowing her background...

i'd say she'd be more comfortable/at ease in a whore house... (if you'll excuse my saying so.. i merely mean to illustrate a point unambigously..)

Please at least have the courage to own your remarks. 'i merely mean to illustrate a point unambiguously' indeed. You stooped to personal insult then try to distance yourself from it. That is hypocrisy, something a lot of people seem to be practicing lately. Oh, look at your bible. If you'll read very closely, Christ used one and only one insult in His entire life. 'Hypocrite'.

Mya, Thank you for your comment! I believe you proved the authors point! There was only one sexual incident on the authors part revealed in this article, and you are calling her a whore! This is the EXACT point she was trying to make. Good for you for giving us an example of what an intollerant individual would think of such a thing. I'll be sure to use your comment as an example to my daughter as to how not to behave!

Chuck_454 - wrote "I agree that the same standard should apply to both boys and girls. "
Yet another extension of one-size-fits-all from the gender-neutralized crowd. The day men are able to gestate a baby is the day your standard should be applied.

while im not a nympho, i think sex is delightful...

yet i dont see myself being continuously harmed, as you suggest... ^_^

and i'd rather think my friends value me for my intelligence, my mind, as well as for my personality, lol, as does my boss... most certainly, i find looking gorgeous and being female an added advantage men lack.. :D

But Mya, you're still caught in the cycle. Your self-confidence comes from being pretty. What happens when you're 70 and saggy? Will you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to look young, all the while proclaiming that you're not caught up in our society's treatment of women?

The first step in breaking the cycle lies in being honest with yourself.

 The problem is that woman (and men) are allowing themselves to be defined by their sexuality at all.  The author, herself, said she was hurt that the boy she had sex with, thought little of her as a person.  If she had waited until she knew how he really felt about her, she may have saved herself the pain.

AMC and others have said society's obsession with virginity is hurting girls.  Are you kidding??  Our society is so much more obsessed with having sex than not having it.  Don't you think that the obsession with all things sexual is hurting girls...and boys.  It would be great if instead of putting so much emphasis on either having or not having sex, we taught our kids to be obsessed with civility, caring for one another, and not judging.  My kids want families and committed relationships, not because it will keep them out of hell but because they have seen that people they know who are in those relationships tend to be happy.   I don't know where the rest of you live but among my daughter's friends she doesn't call her sexually active friends whores and they don't judge her for being a virgin.  They all seem a lot more mature than many giving their opinion on this thread.   

"while im not a nympho, i think sex is delightful..."

The fact that you felt the need to qualify your statement to set you apart from the myth of the "sex-crazed woman" speaks much about the kind of crap our society shoves on women.

If we like sex (too much, though who decides it's too much) we're "nymphomaniacs"; if we don't like sex (just enough?) we're prudes/frigid.

Placing value on virginity or "sexual purity" is just another constraint meant to keep women (more so than men--how many purity balls and mother-son pledges and dances to we have for boys, how many insults do we have for men who sleep around that cut the same way as "slut" or "whore") on a tether.

The fact that you felt you had to qualify your comment with "I'm not a nympo" speaks loads about the crap our society shovels on women for their sexuality.

If we like sex too much (though who deems "too much," I don't know) we're "nymphos"; if we don't like it (enough?) we're frigid/prudes.

Placing such value on virginity or this concept of "sexual purity" only serves to keep women (more so than men; how many purity balls do we have for boys?; how many mother-son pledges to wait?) on a tether.

Woman's virtue, it's said, is man's greatest invention.

Women--people--need to be judged and valued for what they do and what they think.

Not by some arbitrary purity scale handed down by a culture steeped in myth and misogyny.

Women--people--need to be judged and valued for what they do and what they think.

EXACTLY...

Women--people--need to be judged and valued for what they do and what they think.

EXACTLY...

Kind of creepy to think that a woman should be valued for what's between her legs. American Taliban, indeed.

I guess, according to Bill, the raped 25 year old Iraqi war widower is down on her luck, eh? And yeah, now that I think about it, Ew... it does sound like fantasy... thank you for bringing that up (sarcasm) Now I gotta find some happy place to go to to get rid of that thought.....

Super creepy, indeed. "[S]odomized as bad as you can possibly make it"? What, forceful sodomy alone isn't bad enough? It has to be particularly violent and brutal forceful sodomy for this girl to get the 'privilege' of not carrying her attacker's child??

Yuck, yuck, yuck.

And of course, rape is only really, really horrible if the victim is a religious virgin. Apparently in this guy's world, if you're not religious or not a virgin and you are brutalized like this... well, too bad for you.

And people wonder why I have no patience for these religious nuts.

Just because it never happened to you, or your friends to be judged doesn't mean it doesn't happen to millions of women around the world. The author may not have touched on the effects of declaring sex a no-strings-attached activity, but she was in no way wrong when she said women's real morality and intelligence should be placed at a far higher level than their virgin worth.

You have no idea what this kind of thinking does to families and girls everywhere. It IS a big deal to the people who have had to live with it, and you are lucky to never have had to live through it.

Its wonderful your family chooses to teach compassion, honesty, and courage, etc. Unfortunately in many homes this isn't the case and I personally don't see how you can be teaching compassion in your household. To label any person with a derogatory name such as the "sluts in your high school" does not show any compassion for your fellow human.

Just because these values were taught to both genders in your family does not mean they are taught in all families. Although compassion certainly doesn't seem to have stuck, if you can honestly judge someone for sleeping around in highschool. Even though the author did not touch on the consequences of society viewing sex as a free and no-consequence activity, what she said about putting women's true morality and intelligence far above their virgin worth is very important, and something that is not done enough.

You are lucky to have had the pleasure of disregarding such sluts. But until this touches your life personally, you have no idea what you are talking about. Who is anyone to judge a person by their choices in love? Women are worth FAR more than their virginity. And as someone commented before you can easily be a slut while still having your hymen attached.

"Who is anyone to judge a person by their choices in love?"

Example, somebody sleeps with numerous people in past year... whether it be love or not.

Such a person may be said to:

1. Show poor judgement (potential exposure to disease)
2. Show obsession with the ephermal, that is, short term gains, rather than long term gains. I.E. Short sitedness...
3. Selfish.. Does not want to commit to a long term relationship, which many may seek with him or her, and is not considerate of the feelings of those who may have wanted such a relationship.
4. Place what "feels right" over what "is right". The concept of "is right" is related to what holds to be sufficient to some system of belief (religion or philosophy) that probably has evolved over a few thousand years.
5. Not wise, a fool. (Related to #4)
6. Not be marriage material. After all, if he or she is primarily interested in short term gains for herself, what's to keep him or her from skipping town before or after the your kid has been birthed, or gone to school, or ...

I'm not in complete agreement with all points here, but I do believe this is a decent sumary of multiple viewpoints or arguments considering the question. Love choices do matter, and I do think most of these statements would be valid complaints.

"Who is anyone to judge a person by their choices in love?"

Example, somebody sleeps with numerous people in past year... whether it be love or not.

Such a person may be said to:

1. Show poor judgement (potential exposure to disease)
2. Show obsession with the ephermal, that is, short term gains, rather than long term gains. I.E. Short sitedness...
3. Selfish.. Does not want to commit to a long term relationship, which many may seek with him or her, and is not considerate of the feelings of those who may have wanted such a relationship.
4. Place what "feels right" over what "is right". The concept of "is right" is related to what holds to be sufficient to some system of belief (religion or philosophy) that probably has evolved over a few thousand years.
5. Not wise, a fool. (Related to #4)
6. Not be marriage material. After all, if he or she is primarily interested in short term gains for herself, what's to keep him or her from skipping town before or after the your kid has been birthed, or gone to school, or ...

I'm not in complete agreement with all points here, but I do believe this is a decent sumary of multiple viewpoints or arguments considering the question. Love choices do matter, and I do think most of these statements would be valid complaints.

(BTW, the html editing thing here is rediculous. I have a numbered list, and it's not numbered??)

This, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy. It's also the reason I stray from religious fanatics. They are all talk and no walk.

I guess your parents failed when they taught you compassion, eh?

wrote:

"Morality taught to the young men and women in my family included virginity, honesty, COMPASSION, honesty, courage, etc"

"This author just has an emotional hangup over being a slut in high school and having some kind of messed up childhood, including a probably really screwed-up relationship with her parents. Boo-hoo."

@ O-1047191

"Who is anyone to judge a person by their choices in love?"

---------------------------

i probably must have missed the part where the author said that... if i can remenber anything from the article, the author talks about prolific wanton sexual activities to satisfy her feminine desires (before you say a word, im female too...).

not being taught compassion is not a reason not to learn it... Jeez...! nowadays, we learn WHAT WE WANT TO from anywhere... there's information all around us!

Did you take into account bill gates parents didnt teach him how to be a business magnate? nor did they teach him how to run a corporation.. kiyosaki's dad ddint teach him how to invest... on the contrary, his dad taught him the opposite...

a woman is only a slut if she sees herself that way... if she doesnt, then she's not.. if she does work as a slut out of necessity to pay her way through college, she wouldnt be writing a book saying all women should be sluts...!

the way i see it is, the author is arguing that she enjoys being a slut because it satisfies her erotic desires, only, she would like to do it to the applause of people around her??

I dont think she mentioned anywhere she was raped as a freshman in highschool... so i'll assume it was out of her own free will... FRESHMAN IN HIGHSCHOOL? how old would she have been???!! I'd rather be raised in an equivalent of TexasIndependent's family (which i was) than to be in her shoes... nor would i in my wildest imaginations encourage my daughter to embark on the sex journey at such an early age in life...! Someone else? i'd shut up and walk by... until they started writing books girls like my daughter could read...!

@ J. Rome.

I guess your parents failed when they taught you compassion, eh?

----------------------------------

Really...! are you any better than TexasIndependent? fancy mocking him, lol..

Obviously, your parents didnt teach YOU about compassion. compassion, like respect, goes to those that deserve / earn it... it is Texasindependent's choice to choose who he would be compassionate to... not yours to decide for him! ^_^

I see you use words easily.. negative words.. good for you! :D

@ JFC-1047326

Such a person may be said to:

Show poor judgement (potential exposure to disease)
Show obsession with the ephermal, that is, short term gains, rather than long term gains. I.E. Short sitedness...
Selfish.. Does not want to commit to a long term relationship, which many may seek with him or her, and is not considerate of the feelings of those who may have wanted such a relationship.
Place what "feels right" over what "is right". The concept of "is right" is related to what holds to be sufficient to some system of belief (religion or philosophy) that probably has evolved over a few thousand years.
Not wise, a fool. (Related to #4)
Not be marriage material. After all, if he or she is primarily interested in short term gains for herself, what's to keep him or her from skipping town before or after the your kid has been birthed, or gone to school, or ...

----------------------------------

Or probably has HIV and is trying to spread it around as generously and as much as she can... :D

Boy did you miss the point of this article!!!! Women and girls should not have to hang their identity on their virginity or lack thereof. Some girls or women are ready sooner than others to engage in sexual activity. Placing blame or guilt on a woman/girl is only a male dominated society's way of trying to control her sexuality. Sure there's a place for "saving" ones self but not because it's the moral thing to do but rather it's the personal thing to do. I made the decison to wait until I was 19 to engage in intercourse because I wasn't ready any sooner. I had no hang ups about purity, or saving myself or any of that other crap that people want to label us with. I enjoyed sex immensely and I got married when I felt like it on my own terms and with a man I was sexually compatable with (by the way...that's very important). I have raised my daughter to believe in herself and follow her instincts. I have counseled her to not be pressured one way or the other on matters of sexual activity and I believe that when the time is right for her, she will have all the knowledge and resources she needs to make a guilt free decision.

Texas Independent, you really need to grow up and get a life! Go out into the real world honey and open your eyes! Not everyone has to be like you to be a good person! Your statement is completely contradictory. You say that you were taught compassion and courage, and yet your statement is anything but compassionate, "including a screwed up relationship with her parent. Boo-hoo." Along with calling the author and other girls in your school names. Name calling is the first indicator of an unintelligent person. You can't use logic and reason to argue with because you know nothing about either, so you resort to name calling. And as for courage, you're not even courageous enough to use your real name. You illustrated the authors point to a tee by your comments however, so thank you for that!

Thank you for just proving the author's point. She did not say she slept around just that she lost her virginity to her boyfried as a freshman. Yet, you and other posters have labeled her as a "slut". The vitriol of your response to her choices and relationships proves her point. We should not be labeling women on whether they are virgins or not. We should see their value in their character. Would we label her boyfriend as a slut for the same incident? Funny how that seems to be missing. Sexuality is not a bad thing. How and when we deal with sex should be taught in schools and homes and not just from a religous standpoint.

I took a semester in college on human sexuality and it was the most interesting and intelligent classes I had. I believe it should be taught at age appropriate levels to beginning around puberty. It should address all aspects not just the mechanics. Provide students with an intellectual course and treat them with respect and maturity. Kids today are very aware and intelligent and with age appropriate discussions, many kids would make the right decision. Labels for both genders would begin to fade away and we could respect each other.

If our overly religious society actually undemonized sex (like it should be), this wouldn't even be an issue. If teenagers were taught responsibly about sex by teaching them about their bodies, contraception, and the need to avoid STDs without any archaic judgements, we wouldn't have this problem.

Why does our society feel the need to make a woman into a thing, and why do women buy into this garbage?

People should be sterilized at birth and only allowed to breed after scoring high enough on an IQ test.

How could you breed if you've been sterilzed?