Jessica- First let me say that I am SO excited about this book. It's a pleasure and almost a relief when a writer comes along and lays out so well something that has been nagging at me but that I've been wholly unable to articulate.

In regard to the "girls gone wild" and "hookup culture" moral panic--I think the source of a lot of it is that people, and Americans in particular, are really only comfortable if there's a big, bright line between the Good Girls and the Bad Girls. The notion that a young woman can move back and forth across the line, or that the line might not even exist at all, is a very uncomfortable idea for a lot of folks.

I notices a particularly egregious example of this in, of all places, the action movie "Taken". The degree to which we were beaten over the head with the female lead's virginity was borderline absurd, and the complete lack of compassion for another character--who was also raped, but was not a virgin--blew me away.

More here: Not Without My Daughter's Hymen

While I think the basic premise of this post is correct - that society tends to make a fetish of female virginity, especially in conservative circles - I would also point out that there seems to be an underlying assumption that the reason for the focus on purity among conservative moralists is purely a desire to control. While that is no doubt the case, at least among some people, I think liberals would do well to acknowledge that a lot of the disapproval of female sexuality has its roots in concern for women as well. Whether it is concern for a girl's "reputation" or more general health concerns, the fact is that most parents who want their daughters to abstain do so because they genuinely believe it is best for the girl. Whether or not you think that concern is misguided, that concern needs to be taken into account when fighting the purity myth.

Conservatives value virginity, because they also value marriage. If you don't care about marriage then it doesn't matter about virginity. But then again this was all before divorce became a social norm.

The result of women wanting to be more promiscuous will be less marriage. Whether that is good or bad is another question. I might point out however, that a similar dismissed social taboo was single motherhood. Now we have some 30% of children born illegitimate and likely to be raised in poverty.

In the end, perhaps you should consider whether you want to be considered by men as family material, or a plaything. Take your pick.

I agree absolutely about the double standards. As a man and the father of a boy, let me add that the flip side of the excessive concern with female virginity and “purity”, is the excessive lack of concern with young men’s sexual behavior. Boys are often infantilized and demeaned by a culture that treats them as sub-human, rutting beasts who are simply incapable of behaving responsibly. A huge and unfair burden is put on girls to control the sexual relationship, while the sexual behavior of boys is neglected. Indeed, rather than get the message that a sexual relationship is something to be guided by two morally capable and autonomous individuals, boys and girls are often given the message that it is the boy’s role in life to storm the citadel and the girl’s role to keep the gate shut. Boys are also exposed to harmful popular myths according to which the consequences of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies will only accrue to the female partner, something that is clearly false.

If a man engages in sexual behavior that is stupid, reckless or immoral, it is assumed (at best) that he should learn from his mistakes and not do it again. Women, on the other hand, are often taught their misstep means something has been irretrievably lost, that they have been permanently “polluted”. This is both crazy, and deeply harmful. And as Jessica suggests, unless we are literally talking about hymens, it’s hard to make any rational sense out of the notion whatsoever.

I would like to demur with part of the following:

I figure it's best to start with the purity myth itself - the lie that virginity and sexuality have some bearing on who young women are and how good they are.

I agree about the purity and virginity components of the myth. But sexuality itself does have some bearing on who young women are, and how good they are, just as it has a bearing on who young men are, and how good they are. Sexual behavior is one important kind of human behavior, and is a proper subject for moral and prudential concern. How one comports oneself sexually is part of what goes into how good a person one is. There are also important prudential concerns to emphasize in educating young people. Unfortunately, the prudential concerns are frequently given short shrift because of the excessive and frequently misguided prevalence of the moral concerns.

I do think there is a problem with “hook-up culture”. Binge sexuality or careless sexuality seems just as much a matter of concern to me as binge eating and binge drinking, or careless eating and careless drinking. This is again something for all sexes and genders to consider, of all orientations. It’s not a matter of preserving female “purity”.

Obviously, the whole abstinence and "saving" one's self for marriage thing is absurd and actually quite damaging in many respects for girls trying to grow up and become real live adult human beings, it is part and parcel of a much, much larger, very dysfunctional approach to sex, sexuality and personal identity that all our young people are being harmed by regardless of sex. And the right isn't the only culprit either.

Of course, girls should not be taught that their value and identity are defined first and foremost by their sexual behavior. On the other hand, there are rampant difficulties with our young people that spring from our society's rotten hypocrisy about all things sexual that are ruining or seriously damaging lots of young kids' lives. It's no wonder in this often seemingly out of control environment that some people try to revert and cocoon themselves in a mythical past where girls "saved" themselves for marriage, etc... It feeds right into the right wing's penchant for skillfully exploiting fear which is their specialty in all areas.

While much of the negative fallout is different for girls than it is for boys, if we don't adress these issues for both sexes, things will never get better.

The sexual double standard comes from the fact that throughout most of human history, the major goal of life was to have a family and to spread your genes. Women could be almost certain that the childthey were raising wa their own, while men could not be.

Therefore, in any society where men played a large role in the family, female monogamy was considered an important characteristic, as a female who was seen to be promiscuous (or to have sex too easily without a commitment such as marriage) was seen as more likely to have a "cuckoo's egg," with her schlubb of a husband working to support another man's baby.

It should be noted that female chastity, or monogamy in marriage, is nowhere near as highly prized in many areas in Africa, and not coincidentally, these are also areas where men do very little in the way of supporting their children.

Whether or not modern technology has changed the dynamics here, the attitudes engedered by this situation live on.

I think people should not be judged by their sexuality...period, regardless of gender. How sexually active or celibate a person is or who they decide to have sex with or any aspect of sexual relations between 2 consenting adults should have no bearing on the determination of their 'worth' as a person...at least imho. That being said I am far from being representative of 'the norm' on the subject and in our society people are unfairly judged, both positively and negatively, on their sexuality.

"conservatives were driving themselves into a frenzy over the HPV vaccine - all because of fears that young women would become promiscuous."

The same thing happened upon the advent of the pill and, again, when condoms came out from behind the counter. Conservatism, if not restrained, quickly becomes a personality disorder and, in extreme cases, a mental illness - that should be apparent to everyone by now.

But the idea that there are no differences between men and women is hogwash - women carry the children that are the future of the species inside their bodies and are, and have been since the caves, those most responsible for the nurture of those children. We are mammals, and our social and legal conventions ought to take that simple fact into account.

That, of course, does not justify enslaving the women, condescending to them or holding them to standards of behavior that ignore the realities of human experience. In any rational world, our mothers would be given whatever assistance they require.

The problems of teen pregnancy, unwanted children, poverty and ignorance are amenable to proximate solutions, but authoritarianism has never served to do anything other than aggravate the problems it purports to address - look how long it has taken New Yorkers to unburden themselves of the Rockefeller anti-recreational drug laws despite well-established reasons to do so.

I've posted this on the other thread, but I will repeat it here. Rather than focus on purely voluntary or cultural reasons, an evolutionary perspective seems the most straight-forward explanation:

Female chastity and virginity have been themes in human society for ages, and for a reason: Men have unlimited sperm to give, and women have limited eggs and limited time (And even worse, pregnancy and nursing can last two years, and raising the children two decades!). They are the finite resource, while men are the disposable one. This explains probably everything you need to know about the sexual "economy".

Add to this the uncertainty over paternity (while maternity is absolutely certain) and you have all the incentives in the world for men to be anxious about female sexuality. Men don't want to waste resources raising other men's children. Men want to pass along their genes to future generations, and must compete with other men to do so (since eggs are finite, and sperm are infinite).

Consider male virginity vs. female virginity: If a man and woman are married, but it turns out that the male was not a virgin, does it matter? He can still create new sperm for his bride. What about if the woman is not a virgin? She might very well be pregnant. If she is pregnant, she will not be able to conceive the groom's child for at least nine months, and longer if nursing. You have a likely two year wait for having the groom's child. Then he still has the burden of raising another man's child for 18 years, with all ther hardship and expense that entails. The woman, however, is raising all of her own children. Thus, we have the perfect scenario for paranoia. This is why female chastity is a concern for the ages. Women might not 'get it', since it is not their fear (and so far, all the authors are women!), but that doesn't mean it has been erased from the minds of men, or at least the reptilian portion.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. But these are the unspoken calculations that the male and female of our species make. I think the discussion thus far has ignored these important, and very stubborn, factors of human nature. It's not simply because people have hangups or backward attitudes that this disparity exists. It's the very real differences in our circumstances.

You might check out this excellent book for more on this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1239148891&sr=11-1

Despite the simultaneously horrible and hilarious image of Saran-wrapped hymens, I really enjoy the premise of the book (not finished yet!).

It's a particularly interesting topic for me because of the way I was raised - born American to two Indian immigrant parents who certainly view American society as overtly promiscuous. On the one hand, the most religious fundamental American (and let's face it, Christian) would probably get along quite well with the most religious fundamental Indian/Hindu on a lot of these issues, but there are still stark cultural differences in the mainstream. I was fortunate enough to never have to suffer through abstinence-only education - and I grew up in central Louisiana! - but I certainly had to deal with the many contradictory messages growing up: from my sex-ed teachers, from my friends, from my parents, from the TV, etc.

What I'm trying to say, in a very roundabout way, is that I struggled with these sorts of issues a lot - and sometimes still do - and I wish I had this sort of book available to me growing up! I'm glad that other girls out there are getting that opportunity now..