Wanna Know Where The Purity Myth Is? Start With TPM Readers...
There's something about virginity that really gets folks talking (and writing!). I have to say, I'm so thrilled to be reading the incredibly smart posts that have come out of this discussion. What's been just as interesting however, is reading through the comment threads on all of these posts. Some of the responses reveal just how ubiquitous the myth of sexual purity is - and how invested some people are in it and the sexual double standard.
Shooter242, for example, believes that the virgin ideal is in place because of "the simple idea that guys want to marry women they can trust" and that a virgin has "the discipline and foresight to retain something she considers valuable." Shooter actually proves my point - why is it that a woman who has sex is someone not to be trusted? Or that in this day and age, someone can still talk about "retaining" virginity and chastity as "valuable" as if it was a commodity.
Then of course there's how deeply ingrained the virgin/whore dichotomy is. KingElvis writes, that "presented with the stark choice of To be or not to be a skank, I think it's pretty obvious." Because to too many people, those are the only two choices women get. We don't get to have a nuanced or complex sexuality, we get to be sluts or good girls.
But really behind all of this is the fear of change, and men's uncomfortableness with women's sexuality. From Mike7Woodson:
It seems like this anti-purity campaign is about destroying the courting, marriage and mating rituals of the majority in this country. Why? What will you replace it with?
Interesting that Mike would call what I'm writing about an "anti-purity campaign." As if my book aims to spread filth where ever it's read! The argument that mean ole feminists are just trying to ruin the family and the happy status quo has been around for a long time. Arguing against a dangerous double standard that enables discrimination, bad policy, cultural shaming and even violence isn't me trying to ruin your soda-shop-date fun. It's trying to make things better for women. And frankly, if our "mating rituals" are dependent on systematically screwing women over (so to speak) then maybe it is time for them to change.
What I think is important to remember however - outside of all this panic that somehow women with equal sexual rights sans the shaming will somehow reap nationwide destruction - is that the movement behind "purity," those trying to enforce chastity, have a much larger agenda than just making sure that women not have sex. More on that in my next post...
Bingo!
Though I think the cultural norm is that it is MEN who should control the sexual encounter - deciding when, where, and with whom it should be engaged in. (Note: i do NOT agree with the paradigm - merely recognize it).
And the cultural 'taboo' is in a woman exercising power and a measure of control over her own sexual expression and practice - independent of and separate from that of Father or husband or brother.
April 8, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! And what's interesting is no matter what role you fit into, it still leaves room for male control (as Amanda pointed out): If you're a virgin you're in need of protection from all the big bad penises that would sully you, and if you're a whore you're in need of control/punishment.
April 8, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jessica:
Thanks. I have often thought that gay men have a much more objective and honest view of male sexuality than hetero men (who have a hidden agenda in their attempts to explain women and simultaneously get them to agree to slepp with them.)
I have no illusions about male sexuality - and male desires for dominance and control. Hell - you should hear some of the fights I have heard among GAY COUPLES. They make male/female squabbles look like Easter Pageants. And LESBIAN sexual battles can make gay male battles look tame.
In short - I have long held to the belief that chastity pledges and monogamy paradigms are about control FAR MORE than they are about 'protection' or 'love' or 'sexual health' or 'protecting the children' or any of the myriad other rationalizations humans come up with to cover the age-old truth about the species.
We want sex with whoever we want it with - but we want THEM to remain faithful to US and be available on OUR timetable.
At least I believe that attitude is held by a majority of people (and DEFINITELY a majority of MALES) - and has been since we came down from the treetops.
Unromantic, I know - but then truth usually is.
April 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Control is definitely the name of the game. Anti-choice males? Control of women. Anti-choice females? Control of women - convoluted, it's based on the belief that with ready access to abortion, the 'other' woman will have sex with my husband, or boyfriend, in other words available abortion creates promiscuity.
How about this for control. Men use prostitutes because they know their price whereas they don't know the 'price' of other women.
April 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crock. Men learn from the beginning bouts of sexual politics that women are the gate keepers.
What we are arguing is semantics for the most part, and characterizing conservatives as the liberal wing of the Taliban is not helping.
We have virgins, sexually discrete monogamous women, and indiscriminate libertines... which do you want to address? Because quite frankly I don't see much of an issue here. After all, who wants to marry either gender if they are a proven liability in the faithfulness department? Maybe Ms. Amanda, but certainly not a person intent on a long term relationship.
As for virginity, perhaps you should decide whether that's a good goal for underage minors, because if you don't, we have a different set of issues to wrangle over.
April 9, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, shooter, baby. You mean that some woman who had sex with someone before she met you, someone she was in love with at the time, was somehow being unfaithful TO YOU?
I mean, I know you're great, wonderful, mighty and known to all women, but really . . . .
April 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No mom, that's why I made a distinction between monogamous relationships and promiscuity.
April 9, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would even go so far as to delete the phrase, "...someone she was in love with at the time...".
Some of the comments on this thread are positively antediluvian. It's life imitating art - this art, in particular.
April 9, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
when this commenter attaches "faithlessness" to sexuality and apart from every other possible issue of character it could possibly be attached to, such as honor, dignity, integrity, brilliance, courage, humility, nobility, it proves beyond any doubt that this commenter is obsessed with sex and women's adherence to the male-dominated norm.
there is no possible other reason for sex and faithfulness to even be in the same sentence or thought bubble.
but then this commenter is so double-wrapped and twisted and turned inside out within his obsession with male-dominated norms and personal sense of sexuality as being THE determinative criterion, that this commenter is forever lost to rational discussion (ergo, see any other comment this commenter has ever made here on any topic whatsoever).
April 9, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, men who don't see sex as a two-way street learn that. Men who see it as a giving exchange between two willing and inherently equal partners understand that this idea is absurd and symptomatic of a much larger cognitive failure.
April 9, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But even conceding your benighted preferences, Shooter, why is a non-virgin automatically convicted of being non-monogamous?
April 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Valenti: One of my posts finally grabbed some attention. Good for me!
It occurred to me that a man discussing feminism or just women's issues gets the same kind of reception as a Gentile discussing Israel.
There's a sense of "You're a fish outa water buddy! - Go talk musclecars and deer rifles over at beergut.com or something."
The parallels are clear to me, but it kind of boils down to: "you don't know what it's like to be oppressed" meme which morphs into the "When your grandparents are taken to Buchenwald - THEN we'll talk" meme.
Maybe there's something to this. Maybe all discussions about women's rights or issues are appropriately limited to women. Maybe Jews really ARE best equipped to talk Israel.
So instead of intelligently joining in a feminist conversation, let me just make some insider-guy observations that may serve to clarify some things - perhaps womenfolk things I don't know anything about
1. "Promsicuous Men should get the same opprobrium as promsicuous women."
I would agree with that in principle. My 'insider' guy knowledge tells me this though: The Don Juan/Wilt Chamberlin type of man is a rare breed. Equating 'many' or most men with the Don Juan mode of behaviour simply gets it wrong. If you gin this into a "societal standard" then it's kind of like building up a straw man who is easily knocked down.
On the other hand, look at how the "Playboy myth" of Hugh Hefner has actually hurt men more. The notion of a 'typical' man as a skirt chaser has ruined lots of lives. The 99% of men who aren't Don Juans are trying to push their square pegs into round holes (...sorry) to live up to a myth that destroys hearth and home. I'm just not equipped (nor would I argue, are 99% of men) to seduce women in pickup bars - even as that model of 'courtship' has become a kind of norm.
2. The 'slut' is a 'construct' that has little correlation with actual promiscuity.
Granted.
But let me re-introduce a villainess from the 19th century - described by the likes of Nietzsche: the 'coquette.' Speaking for myself, I'm much more rankled and annoyed by the manipulative coquette than the vamp. I think this might be an area where Feminism could claim a clear victory for both sexes, in that women no longer need to manipulate 'gatekeeper' men in order to succeed or climb the social ladder or whatever.
3. "Men 'fear' female sexuality and seek to conrol it and tame it."
Can't speak for 'men', but personally, I think the opposite is more true - and this is a Progressive sentiment of mine (I think).
Look at a Russ Meyers titilation movie - or even the more mainstream "Bond Girls" of the 60's. It seems the chief mode of male oppression of women is EXAGERATING feminine desire to the point of absurd parody. In short, "It's the Porn Stupid."
So:
1. The Playboy myth doesn't fit the vast majority of men - yet we're all supposed to develop our pickup 'game.'
2. Both men and women have likely been liberated from the coquettish game - thank Susan B Anthony.
3. Men oppress women more by exagerating their sexual natures than by 'taming' them.
Lastly, I think
April 9, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Iran! I'm for Iran.
Abolish Wall Street. I sincerely despise Wall Street piracy.
Pass EFCA (Union card bill) Congress! I love EFCA.
...but.
I also think people - both men and women are more 'oppressed' by advertisers and pornographers who would manipulate them through their sex drives.
And I'm not sure that abortion can really be said to be a mode of a woman's 'control' over her sexuality. Abortion mutilates women's bodies and makes it much more difficult to conceive. It increases health risks for women as they age.
Promiscuity and abortion are not modes of 'freedom' for women, but represent chains of oppression.
April 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Abortion mutilates women's bodies and makes it much more difficult to conceive. It increases health risks for women as they age."
Stated as fact? I calll bullshit!
April 10, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sets off concern troll detector. I don't know any progressives who oppose EFCA, though I also don't know any who call it "Union card bill". If I were to explain the acronym I'd say "Employee Free Choice Act" or "card check union organization", or maybe link to a more detailed explanation. That aside, the sports team view of politics is particularly conservative, as is projection. Plenty of liberals are pissed at Wall Street fat cats, but none that I know want to abolish Wall Street. They want them, like everyone else, to take responsibility for the community that supports and sustains them, not just themselves. That's what it all boils down to. Wall Street serves a function but it hasn't been serving that function well and it seems to have more than its share of sociopaths. And still more egregious is this "Go Iran!" bit (and that needs a comma). What the hell!? Liberals like Matt Yglesias have been arguing, persuasively in my opinion, that Iran isn't a pack of crazy monsters but a polity with goals and interests. They can be reasoned with and do not seek their own destruction, so we should engage with them diplomatically. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't the liberal, progressive, or Democratic position but just the sane position. The progressive etc. position is that Iran, like everywhere else, is filled with decent people that mean us no harm and simply want to live their lives as they see fit (along with their share of nuts) and that demonizing such people is the monstrous act. That being said, there are also the nuts in Iran to contend with, as here, so simply saying "Go Iran!" is stupid. Moreover, it isn't a liberal position.
I've gone on long enough, but Elvis, you smell like concern troll.
April 10, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
From what you've said, it looks like I'm to the left of you on Wall Street.
Wall Street does not "serve a purpose." Wall Street is a casino - AT BEST and, as we've seen lately, a Pirate Ship full of Bucaneers. Finacialization of the economy has become a new kind of fuedalism. Just ask someone who has paid three times the principal back on a Payday Loan - yet still owes and owes and owes. It's hardly different than indentured servitude. That's not 'serving a purpose' - it's exploiting the weak.
It appears I'm to the left of you on Iran.
I think if Iran has a nuclear weapon there will be a 'balance of power' in the mid-east and peace will reign.
I just gave another donation to "American Rights at Work" - it's a group promoting EFCA. I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
Lastly, I see women's issues through a class lens. I think if you look at the women who are actually being forced into prostitution, being spirited away from eastern europe into far flung brothels - you'll see an underclass being exploited who just happen to be women.
Do a search of some of my other posts if you think I'm making this up on the spot.
April 10, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think this might be an area where Feminism could claim a clear victory for both sexes, in that women no longer need to manipulate 'gatekeeper' men in order to succeed or climb the social ladder or whatever."
No longer *need* to, but that doesn't mean it went away. In fact, it strikes me that this whole book discussion is precisely an exercise in linguistic "coquetry."
ie., the "purity myth" framework as posited here is *technically* a dual edged sword that produces "two kinds of women"--however, despite the quite obvious political and human rights fact that actual human beings forced to embody those "two kinds of women" in extremis are worthy objects of sympathy and political action, only one axis of oppression is really being (relentlessly) pursued by our writers du jour--and not even to any point beyond their own personal pity parties.
And that's too bad, because it is a set of serious issues--both angles-- for women who can be made to feel its impact and why some posters have expressed reluctance to just accept the pro-sex come-on.
The source of which reluctance inexplicably still seems to elude our linguistic coquettes, as if they weren't aware that many people still consider it perfectly "feminist" to be skeptical on this issue--and, thus, of them--irregardless of whatever crud is selling on Amazon these days.
I guess you can conclude that I am, as you commented yourself, likewise skeptical about hyper-sexualization--towards which we've been heading at an excellerated rate at least since Britney of Highly Public Virgin Fame started flashing pubic triangle.
(Another coquette).
April 9, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurred to me that a man discussing feminism or just women's issues gets the same kind of reception as a Gentile discussing Israel.
In both cases, Elvis, it depends on what they say. Feminists don't take your kind of guff from women, either.
April 10, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of rehashed 1970s feminist shtick.
All the social problems you list are true, including rape (also male-male rape in prisons), anti-sex right-wingers, errant Oklahoma pharmacists, etc.
And yet those do not deny the much bigger backdrop of sexuality and gate-keeping in the US and Europe: women control legitimate sex. Perhaps the problem with some women is they haven't learned to feel, use, and exercise this control. Men can come on to women all they want, but society gives women the right to say when it is OK -- and if the man violates this he is guilty of rape, with all the legal and social opprobrium thrown at him. (Not a perfect system, many rapists go free, etc. But I said *legitimate* sex, the main backdrop, not the exceptions.)
But if a woman wants sex, we can pretty much get it any hour we want (without having to pay for it -- a demeaning act for anyone). Female rape of men is very rare (usually involving juveniles).
In the Arabian Gulf, it's a different story -- brutal repression of women occurs there as the norm. And why liberal bloggers haven't picked up on this, instead of leaving it to right-wingnuts, I have yet to figure out.
April 9, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is relevant how?
April 10, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jessica, you may or maynot know but the three commenters you exposed are well known conservatives as defined through their economic, Israel/Palestine or more generally war views. Accepted members of TPM, definitely conservative. It is probably explicable, but I continue to be amazed how political issues as disparate as these are so tightly correlated.
April 8, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing out that anomaly regarding the posters syvanen. It seemed obvious to me as well. Good observation as well as to the correlation of such disparate issues with certain political ideologies.
April 8, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter 242 is "well known" over at Salon.com.
I've been pleaded for an "ignore" feature over there for ages just so I could avoid his trashing up the threads.
April 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exposed? I'm right here. I posted in public. I participated. I wasn't "exposed." I take it as a compliment that she used my comment and question as an example but didn't answer the question.
She doesn't want to answer the question of what she would rather have to replace the status-quo she disdains.
Or, is she not calling for a change from one culture to another?
For example, if a culture harbors a double standard for a positive virtue expectation, what's the solution? Achieve equality by having both genders abandon purity as a myth? Or achieve equality by calling the impurer gender to become purer?
April 9, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since I used the word 'exposed' then let me respond. It is just a general feeling, but you come across as just some kind of old conservative fart. Let it be female sexuality, or economic policy or war or views of biological evolution. You just keep on coming back with one reactionary view after another. I remain amazed at how these positions are correlated.
April 9, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry if you're treated like a joke here, but if the shoe fits...
the reason your comment is ridiculous is obviously beyond your capability of comprehension thus far, but I'll give it a go. Who knows, lightning may strike.
Mike, purity is a MYTH. It NEVER WAS. Women and men have been having multiple partners FOREVER. Purity has NEVER existed. There never has even been a barn that that horse could have escaped from.
So, since it's a myth, there's nothing to either transition from nor to.
Maybe you should get out of your barn more often.
April 9, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that insulting Mike is counter productive and completely uncalled for - he's posted here for many years and whether you agree with him or not doesn't make him ridiculous.
April 9, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I would add that part of the "purity Myth" is that having sex makes one "impure"or "less pure". Pure D crapola.
I have taught my daughters that marrying as a virgin (as taught in Texas sex-ed) is a bad strategy for life happiness. For such an important aspect of a married adult relationship, it is plain stupid NOT to learn about sex and what you like in a sexual relationship.
My analogy: It's like buying shoes. You don't need to be an Imelda Marcos, but you need to try on a few pairs of shoes before you go on a long hike in them.
April 10, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The alternative posed here, "abandon" purity or call for more purity, represents a false dichotomy. Moreover, the alternative to 'controled' sexuality is no mystery, and is an integral part of post-Enlightenment progressive values, namely 'autonomy.'
Mike's alternative works only if you assume sexuality is a dangerous external force that needs to be 'controlled' -- controlled 'legitimately', as one critical poster put it, presumably by women, who are thus held to a standard of 'purity' in their exercise of that control -- or controlled ('illegitimately' by default) by domineering men, or not controlled (thus representing chaos, implicitly) by leaving it to the responsibility of the individuals involved.
In contrast, the genuinely progressive (aka feminist) position is that of autonomy. The choice about how, when and for what reasons to engage with another person sexually is not a matter of 'controlling' some dangerous destructive and chaotic force, but rather a matter of mutual connection, openness, and cooperation up to the individuals involved. Seen this way, the issue of 'purity' simply vanishes: it's a non-category with no referent in our interactions.
April 10, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But really how diverse are those subjects. Conservative social, political, financial and military philosophy mostly boils down to one thing: those with power should keep it and those without should get used to it. And damn what's fair, good or possible. Damn the consequenses altogeather. Ignore reality and invent a new one that justifies the status quo.
And then there is the sexual conotations of power. Remember the George Carlin rant about the Vietnam hawk using terms that were decidedly sexual to describe the war (Pull out? We ain't pullin' out. We're goin' in deep.) There are all those castration and buggery analogies when talking about power.
Keeping women barefoot an' pregnant is just power politics on the home front.
April 9, 2009 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...mostly boils down to one thing.."
I'm sorry but this comment just shows how ignorant and uninformed you are.
There is a great diversity among conservatives, including on social issues and sexuality, and conservatism doesn't equate to Republicans or even libertarians.
You seem to believe that everything always boils down to either "a Mac or a PC", and so you're not all that different from from the crowd perpetuating a dim stereotype that Jessica rallies against.
April 9, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, if there is indeed great diversity of conservative opinion regarding female sexuality, I must admit it has escaped me. I do try to read commentary from all over the political map, and while most true libertarians are somewhere between apathetic and very eager for "uncontrolled" sexuality, I never see that in the conservative quarters.
What am I missing?
April 10, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for Iran!
I'm for a complete overhaul of Wall Street!
I'm against our many wars!
April 9, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A simple look around the world suggests that anti-progressive views on various political issues correlates closely with two things: intense anxiety about sexuality in general, and female sexuality in particular, and a tendency to resolve that anxiety by asserting male control over female sexuality and public/official control over all sexuality.
The great-granddaddy of all Western institutions revealing these trends is the Catholic Church hierarchy, but they are equally evident in contexts as diverse as Singapore and much of the Islamic world.
In short, it's no coincidence that political conservatism is systematically associated with, and probably causally linked to, sexual repressiveness. Claims to the contrary -- which often invoke 'radical feminism' or some similar trope, a telling move -- are simply not credible. An awful lot of what we call 'conservative' seems to be founded on a repressive model of how sexuality should work.
April 10, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The historical view of women as commodities remains very much alive in the sexual double standard in which men can do whatever they like sexually, but women are "sullied" when they are, or appear, sexually active.
April 8, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but this is no longer true. Women and men can do what they like however wise or unwise, and the notion that women cannot is sophism. There is not enough community cohesiveness to shame a woman or a man effectively. Surely no one's at the town center in stocks!
Also, men can't do whatever they like. There are criminal laws; child support laws; cuckolding risks; STDs; responsibility for unborn lives; and many more. Oh, unless the men we're talking about are "liberated." If they're "liberated" they can jerk women around all day long and claim that they're simply using their membership benefits in the sexual revolution revisited with a little help from Big Pharma.
If they land an STD, some media (NPR..?..This is Frrresh Air! Poor roving Mel, no one taught him about contraceptives and now he's got XYZ drug resistant super complex-simplex..) will find ways to portray them as martyrs instead of people acting as willing, reckless disease vectors too lazy to listen during health class. They won't blame truancy for his ignorance..surely it will be a religious group somewhere to blame for preaching an ideal.
Whether there is a social cost to men for impurity depends on what community they live in, if any. I see no attempt to address the complexity of our very diverse society (culturally, religiously, etc.) including the social isolation of segments.
Everything in this so-called feminist "series" is about the politicization of gender and relationships as politicization hasn't already damaged jurisprudence, media, science, academics, religion etc.
April 9, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Tell that to women who are denied birth control by a pharmacist who doesn't think women should be having pre-marital sex. Or the young women who don't have access to emergency contraception because the FDA thinks it will make them slutty. Or the women who watches her rapist get off because the defense argued she "wanted it" and was a whore anyway. You may think that women can do whatever they want, but there are cultural and political punishments in place for women who don't fit into the pure ideal. Blinding yourself to it doesn't make it untrue.
April 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the time when a pharmacist does this, they lose their job.
In most chain pharmacies they have some rules in place wrt birth control dispensing... Basically: If they have it in stock, they have to dispense it.
This doesn't do any good at the time when a girl is denied her BC pills... It's flat out wrong, imo, for a pharmacist to do this.
(I'd really like to comment more, but I just had a bunch of Rx's dropped off and I have to get to work now...)
April 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really don't...also, something I've been hearing about a lot are pharmacists "forgetting" to stock EC to get around the company rules.
April 9, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you... I think it's awful.
One hypothetical to consider:
If a pharmacist TRULY believes that "Suffering is good for the soul"... could they refuse to fill pain medication for a patient?
I'm sure you can come up with other such crazy scenarios.
April 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd favor a waiver, stating that the recipient believes in evolution prior to receiving antibiotics.
April 9, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's a way around it... If you don't have it in stock, you can't dispense it. You don't have to "refuse" anything... you just say you don't have it in stock. That seems fine by me... As an owner of an independent pharmacy I determine what my inventory will be and I can't be required to carry every single product made. I have to choose which meds I will stock.
But chain pharmacies usually have automated ordering systems... and most of them carry a large inventory which includes birth control.
Here's the rub: I have the right to refuse filling any Rx by law. Why? Well, imagine somebody comes into my store and they are yelling at me and calling my staff names... You can bet I'll hand them their Rx back and tell them to go to another store. i.e. I refuse to serve them. I need to have this right to protect my business, my employees, and my customers.
This is abused, however, when pharmacists start shoving their own particular morality down the throats of their patients.
Pharmacists don't diagnose. We don't determine which medicine is needed.... that's what the doctor does. If the doctor writes an Rx for Drug-X, I have no legal way of challenging that... So, if I'm presented with an Rx, I assume the patient needs it... and I won't JUDGE them in any way. I will provide them with what the Dr. wrote for if I'm able.
April 9, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. And even if that were the rule rather than the exception, what am I expected to think about legislation explicitly protecting pharmacists who refuse, on the basis of their religious beliefs?
April 9, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most states don't have those laws... Yet.
April 9, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most states don't have those laws... Yet.
You are right - most states don't, but the list of states that do is getting longer. [pdf]
13 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception. [As of 4/1/09]
April 9, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Good work.
As far as I know, ALL states allow the pharmacist the right to refuse to fill ANY Rx. i.e. A pharmacist doesn't HAVE to fill any Rx. Usually a refusal is based upon a billigerent customer who's causing trouble... or in the case of a "Drug Seeker" (Someone using multiple doctors and pharmacies to obtain lots of narcotics or other scheduled drugs). In KY (and probably most states) it is illegal to have more than one active Rx for the same medication... Otherwise a person would go to their dentist and get Lortab for dental pain, then go to their Family Doctor and get another Lortab Rx for their bad knee, then to the ER and get another Lortab Rx for their sprained shoulder... etc...
So, IF the pharmacist KNOWS about another active Rx for Lortab (in this case), he/she should refuse to fill any new Rx. Futhermore, if the patient hands such an Rx to me, I will write all over it so that if the patient tries to take the Rx to another pharmacy, the next pharmacy will not fill it either.
The point is: There are good reasons for a pharmacist to refuse filling an Rx.
Personal moral conviction is NOT a good reason, IMO.
April 9, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on this. Big time.
But the argument can be made (in MOST) cases that there are other pharmacies in the area, so it's not like you won't get your Rx filled.
There are many exceptions, however... particularly in very rural areas... And this is big problem.
April 9, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although the plural of anecdote is not data...
I grew up in a rural town in one of the reddest states in the nation (hint: they flew the confederate flag over the state house until 2000, and it still has the most prominent place on the state house lawn, though they did take it off the actual dome). The town in which I lived had two pharmacies, one local and one a national chain. Neither of them would dispense contraception. Because of our location, the nearest place to get birth control was the Walmart 45 minutes away. It was enough of a problem that the local mother's group at the church (they met two mornings a week with their kids and two mothers would watch the children while the rest of them got a mental health break) had a quiet deal with the Walmart pharmacist that they'd send one representative a month to pick up prescriptions for all of them, so twenty women didn't have to drive 45 minutes each to get there and back just to get the pill.
April 10, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please, enough.
While no one denies that an accused rapist has never been set free wrongly, just as an accused murderer may have been set free wrongly, what data do you have to support your claim that rapists have been set free because their defense argued that the victims "wanted it"? Is this sort of thing epidemic, or has does it happen only on rare, if unfortunate, occasions?
Or are you just shooting off your mouth in a limp attempt to support a predetermined conclusion?
Here's one for you: how many times has a man been found guilty of rape and been sent to jail even though he was innocent of the crime? Seems to me something like that is evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, no? Society is so driven to find a culprit for the violation of a woman that it allows innocent men to be punished.
April 10, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I beg your pardon?
It's called the "promiscuity defense" in some circles.
She had previously engaged in sex with men outside of the bonds of marriage or perhaps any relationship. That being the case, she must have wanted sex with the accused.
Ergo she was not raped.
You go do the digging.
It's a real issue - go have a look at Cape Fear with DeNiro if you haven't already seen it.
It's been an issue in legislatures and courts for more than 50 years - in many cases, male legislators have neglected to remove promiscuity as a defense.
May 13, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Jessica: I think you are operating entirely in the cultural paradigm on this topic and it may lead you to oversimplify.
Your view, as I understood it, is that the "punishment" for unrestrained female sexual activity is social judgement/shaming, which leads you to demand equal "sexual rights".
If you look at this issue from the point of view of biology and evolution, males and females have different objectives when it comes to sex, because they expend different amounts of energy and resources during sex, during pregnancy and during child rearing. Both males and females developed distinct evolutionary strategies in response to that. Female strategies, for example, allow them to exploit the consequences of biology, which include witholding or granting sex, amount of sex, and so on, in a way to benefits them. In terms of extracting resources from males, young healthy females (as symbolized by virginity) would be far more successful than older females who already had offspring before.
In other words, in addition to "punishment" there is also a "reward", and this has as much to do with the female self-interest as it does with male.
To put it even more bluntly, a female can have a very successful strategy of emphasizing the value of virginity for maximum gain for herself and her offspring.
I also think that this strictly biological equation became the driving force behind cultural norms and was reflected similarly in all major religions.
Your point about equal sexual rights seems to be the issue of cultural identity to me, to the detriment of economic, biological or evolutionary considerations.
I am not judging this view one way or the other, but it seems that you are implying that today's male sexual pattern (frequent sex with multiple partners) is more valuable and therefore more desirable than female.
In my view, this may be so for some women but it may be different for others and it depends on more that just the culture.
And since all women at some point make a decision about having or not having children, they are inevitably forced to take biology into account simply because of the time, energy and cost of a potential decision to be a mother.
So I'm not sure if all women today will be unanimous in their support of equal "sexual rights" - at least not until all other economic conditions become equal. And that cannot come soon enough, in my opinion.
April 8, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was just a matter of time before someone made the evo psych argument, which always boils down to this entirely logical chain:
1) Women are naturally chaste, and largely disinterested in sex.
2) Therefore we need and/or developed strong social stigma to force women to be chaste and disinterested in sex.
It makes perfect sense. All natural urges have to be taught. If you didn't teach babies to shit, they'd never fill their diapers. If you didn't teach them to eat, they'd never put stuff in their mouths to see if it's food. If you didn't teach women to be chaste, they'd hump everything in sight, and that's not "natural".
April 8, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you completely missed my point, and it has nothing to do with the logical chain you attribute to me.
As long as women face economic inequality, they will be exploiting their biology to compensate.
A successful book writer like Jessica has a much stronger position than most other women, so she no longer has a reason to see an economic benefit in being a young healhty virgin.
When you remove economic inequality, virginity will lose much of its value as a bargaining chip and equal "sexual rights" will follow.
April 8, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As long as women face economic inequality, they will be exploiting their biology to compensate."
Well, that much I agree with, anyway.
April 8, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how do we keep Jessica on the straight and narrow, then? But seriously, using evolution to argue that we don't need to do anything about what it produces is just obtuse.
April 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was just a matter of time before someone made the evo psych argument, which always boils down to this entirely logical chain:
1) Women are naturally chaste, and largely disinterested in sex.
2) Therefore we need and/or developed strong social stigma to force women to be chaste and disinterested in sex.
You missed the point entirely.
1) Lalo35adm was not saying that women are naturally less interested in sex, rather than they had more to gain by appearing to be less interested in sex with someone other than a committed partner.
2) Lalo35adm was not saying that we need a stigma to get women to behave "naturally," rather than the natural sexual strategy of males and females will tend to create a stigma as a byproduct.
Men stigmatize promiscuous women not because they want to cause promiscuous women to change their ways, but because they want to marry the monogamous women who, it is assumed, is more likely to remain monogamous throughout their marriage and not stick him with the responsibility of helping to raise another man's child. In other words, men stigmatize promiscuous women as long-term mates not because they want promisuous women to be less promiscuous. They want the promiscuous women to stay promiscous, but don't want to make a commitment to them.
Women stigmatize other women for promiscuity not because they want to make promiscous women be less promiscuous, but because they want to emphasize the undesirable qualities in their rivals. Women who "make a fetish" over virginity (or over having a small number of sexual partners) do so not because they want to avoid sex but rather in order to emphasize their own supposed "purity" (a woman who says that she thinks that promiscuity is bad is subtly suggesting that she is not promiscuous herself) is in order to make themselves more attractive to a male as a long-term mate.
Now there are societal reasons why there might be stigmas against promiscuous sex that are intended to alter behavior. But that is a separate issue from the one that Lalo35adm brought up, and is beyond the scope of this comment.
April 8, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 9, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
wrong again.
Valenti's argument is about the sexual double standard, which you clearly have a stake in seeing not recognized as the reality it is.
promiscuity is when you invade Iraq like the national rapist Bush you adore
April 9, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I do not think she is necessarily favouring the male pattern, merely self-determination, but all too often the discussion is limited to cultural and social aspects only--of which the exertion of control is the most prominent manifestation.
April 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree somewhat with the point about control, because it implies that women have been enslaved for millenia and are simply unable to stand up for themselves.
As Glaivester points out, much more eloquently than I ever could, it takes both males and females to arrive at an equilibrium that benefits both in different ways.
Men do control access to resources, but it's most likely because they don't spend 9 months being pregnant and several years nursing and raising a child. Women compensate lack of access to resources by controlling availability to offspring.
It a zero-sum game where both derive a benefit.
April 8, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your kind words about my comment.
One quibble:
It a zero-sum game where both derive a benefit.
I think you might want to rephrase that, as in a zero-sum game only one side can benefit. Of course, you may be arguing that it is a zero-sum game within each sex, and that within each sex, "slut-shaming" can benefit the "slut-shamers." In which case what you are saying is correct.
One thing that amazes me is how many people believe so strongly that humans came about through evolution, but think equally strongly that somehow evolution has nothing to do with human behavior. An attitude htat is summed up as:
"I thought the whole point of evolution was just to deny God. I didn't think it was actually supposed to tell us anything."
April 8, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes of course, it should have said non-zero-sum.
As for the evolution, I've come to the conclusion that very often we accept things not because we agree with them upon critical assessment but because we use it as a way to demonstrate our rejection of an alternative.
Binary opposition, so to speak...
Some people "believe" in evolution because they don't to look as if they believe in creation, etc.
April 8, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
Evolution is like plate tectonics. It all appears to be sound. Do I believe in it? Well, I wasn't around when either happened, so I don't know. But it's good until empirical science cooks up something else.
In the mean time I don't want to associate with the wingnuts.
April 10, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding me?
April 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
" the movement behind "purity," those trying to enforce chastity, have a much larger agenda than just making sure that women not have sex. More on that in my next post..."
Like generating a critical mass of irretrievably "fallen women" to serve as a veritable army of sex workers in the wake of the depression?
I bet shivers of anticipation run down their spines every time the Dow drops another 50 points.
April 8, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, more like maintaining social and cultural control, much as slavery did. The issue here is the sharing of power among all members of a society which is far closer to our evolutionary beginning than one breadwinner and one brood mare.
April 9, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, you have no idea what "our" so-called "evolutionary beginnings" looked like. If anything, the one thing I recall hearing about our "evolutionary begginings" is that Neanderthal women and children were dumped in mass graves like garbage and adult Neanderthal males were buried in single graves-- with their tools.
I submit that you might want to seek a better myth of origin.
April 9, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
See that on the Discovery channel, smartass? Absence of evidence in neanderthal burials, isn't evidence of absence. They have no idea as to who was bured in those two sites they found (of males buried with grave artifacts) but because of contemporary male preference they assume that all hominid groups think/thought women were garbage. Mass graves are indicative of sudden, overwhelming sickness or disease, they're not indicative of the disdain that men feel for women, unless of course you're viewing it with the same contempt and disdain society has for women today. Groups didn't save up the dead for disposal in a mass grave unless they practiced exsanguination, which again is a cultural construct. One thing they do know about neanderthals is that they nurtured the sick and injured and provided for them because there is ample evidence in the fossil record to prove this.
Your response is so predictable - because they found two burial sites for males, they assume that all neanderthal men were buried with artifacts, therefore all women were thrown in pits because they haven't found any burial sites of women with grave artifacts. This is how pervasive chauvinism is - they can't think of any other explanation other than war, male dominance and sexual control to explain human evolution.
So "with all due respect" we do have a good idea of what early evolution looked like from the fossil record and just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that no one else does either.
April 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first off--and I may be mistaken--I don't believe we are the descendants of Neanderthal, are we? And second, what is your defensible rationale for claiming that Neanderthal females and children were "dumped" in mass graves like "garbage" and not for other, social, reasons?
April 10, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
WARNING: Sperm Speed Zone Ahead
April 8, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Middle Eastern societies from which our religious fixation with this virginity and purity nonsense are derived, the status quo would involve anything from one to a couple hundred wives and concubines. Insisting on purity and virginity before marriage would be a practical measure for guarding against the introduction to the harem of what were then incurable STDs.
April 8, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think this discussion is treating sex and the attitudes around it as purely voluntary, a conscious decision, a free choice. This is a mistake.
Sex and the attitudes surrounding it aren't just cultural fictions, nor the result of the media or society. We are --never forget-- animals. And we have, as a species, a strong self-interest to produce offspring, to secure a reliable mate, and to not be deceived.
For men, chastity of women is a concern simply because they are always uncertain of paternity. The woman is always certain of her maternity. Thus we have the danger of deception for the male, and the resulting paranoia over female faithfulness.
Jessica asks:
Because the woman can get pregnant!
And she could deceive the male into thinking it is his. Imagine she has sex with several men in a short amount of time. She could dupe one of the men into believing it is his child. No one would really know which male was the father. The male risks wasting valuable time and resources raising someone else's child. From an evolutionary point of view, this is a total disaster. A non-virgin or promiscuous male poses no equivalent risk to the female -- hence the apparently total lack of interest in "virgin males" by women.
April 8, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Babies, whether the mother is married or not, should always have their paternity determined by DNA testing.
The biological father should always be required to provide support for the baby, unless the baby is adopted by another person.
There is no reason to rely on marriage or outmoded notions of virginity and purity as the means for establishing paternal responsibility.
April 9, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can obviously make new rules and use technology to reign in the dangerous or problematic aspects of sex.
But I'm disputing the *myth* that our notions of sex are 100% culturally determined, rather than partly based on biology and evolution. While cultural and societal issues are also important, we can't simply ignore the biological part of our selves.
Men and women act the way they do, in large part, because of (different) biological imperatives.
April 9, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biological imperative is the advancement of the species, what you are saying is that the biological imperative is for men to get sex and women to get a provider. If this biological imperative is right, then the evolutionary response would be for women to get as many partners as possible to provide for her.
Biologically, women are sexually "available" all the time, there is no mating period for human beings and both men and women have the same sexual response reward. So if men and women are both sexually available at all times and if they share the same biological reward, then it would seem that the imperative is mutual advancement as a group, not as individuals. Biology didn't change, so it seems that what changed was social, since society is an artificial construct, then so is virginity - biologically, virginity doesn't mean a damned thing.
April 9, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree because women usually get to have one child at a time, twins or more being a distinct minority of cases.
The parental love towards their child doesn't extend to all children in the same way as their own.
And finally, I don't agree that the issue is reducable to simple sexual availability, again because of pregnancy, child birth and significant investment into child-rearing.
April 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactyy, if a father knows it is his own son, there is a strong committment there, unlike towards other people's children. Mothers have 100% certainty, and are therefore strongly committed to their own chidlren.
April 9, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the biological imperative is reducible, that's what makes it an imperative. Secondly, the amount of time dedicated to child rearing is exponential - it increases in societies (and decreases in groups) because there are more opportunities and dangers, the more complex the inter dynamic grows.
In societies of hunter/gatherers such as the Yanamamo, the group is more important than the individual, which is why any member of the group will pull the baby away from the fire and look out for the welfare of the baby. Everyone in the group is entitled to a share of the hunt, including the old and the very young.
You're looking at the transition from group to society existence and making the assumption that that is when evolution kicked in. That however is not true, in our early evolution we existed as nomadic hunter/gatherers, it is only with the relatively modern development of cultivation of crops that groups found themselves with members who were to some degree superfluous to the group dynamic.
It is with the accumulation of goods that groups begin to form artificial constructs.
April 9, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"..time dedicated to child rearing is exponential.." - yes of course, that's why it requires more resources, which a committed partner is more likely to provide.
Nobody argues that virginity is a cultural phenomenon. But culture exists in part to reinforce the rules on distribution of resources that societies developed and it creates a self-reinforcing environment.
If virginity didn't represent value for BOTH males and females, neither would place a premium on it.
In developed countries, where women have better access to resources, less of them are compelled to play along and use virginity as a bargaining chip.
April 9, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It is about resources. Women get food in exchange for babies. As women move become more economically independent, they become untethered to this economy. However, I still feel that these prejudices remain (stigmas, double standards, etc.) because we've likely had them for millennia, and the new values and society is very recent.
April 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think both need babies, so it's a resource/resource exchange in my view.
As for stigmas and dogmas - I agree they exist.
But even today, if you compare Jessica Valenti, an attractive, young, successful writer, - to an attractive young daughter of an illegal immigrant somewhere in California or Florida, and she barely speaks English, never finished high school, works as domestic help - I have a suspicion that the latter would see instantly the economic value she can extract TODAY from a male by using her virginity or sexual purity.
April 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Women get food in exchange for babies."?? Cut to the chase....eat the babies!
Ridiculous. Women, (even savage animal-women of yore), have always been able to feed themselves and offspring.
April 10, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is NO value in virginity except societal and societal constructs are artificial which means that they can be dissasembled as well as assembled. What I believe Valenti is saying and I agree, is that virginity is not a valuable commodity, it isn't necessary societally or biologically, it is a weapon of control, a way of assigning false value to something which isn't in and of itself valuable or invaluable. There is no more "value" to a woman's virginity than there is to a man's - sexuality is only one part of human beings' lives, it is not a determinant in human value.
April 9, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"NO value in virginity except societal"
We agree then.
April 9, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful. The dynamic today is radically different from what it was 20,000 years ago.
These changes alone more than explain why certain social rules are made...
April 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right, Sir.
April 9, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The biological imperative is the advancement of the species"
No, it's not! The imperative is the advancement of my own genes, not the species.
"If this biological imperative is right, then the evolutionary response would be for women to get as many partners as possible to provide for her."
Ah, but men would never agree to be suckers in this way. Your proposal would be good for the woman and her genes (Again, 100% sure of maternity) but bad for the men's genes (less than 100%, and possibly zero). Perhaps the woman can use deceit to this end, but then again, men can try to get her pregnant and then skip town.
"then it would seem that the imperative is mutual advancement as a group, not as individuals."
What you are proposing is called "Group Selection". Most leading evolutionary biologists reject this in favor of individal gene competition driving the species.
You seem to be arguing that evolution should work in a cooperative fashion. I'm just saying it doesn't in humans at least. We are all here today because our selfish, jealous ancestors ensured that their genes continued.
April 9, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but human beings cannot exist outside the group, we are interdependent as a species. The species only survives as long as the group does. What do you think the artificial construct of marriage is? It is a grouping for mutual benefit. It is how we evolved and survived as a species.
Extended kinship systems only occurred with the accumulation and distribution of surplus goods which is a very recent development in our evolution, less than 10,000 years ago. There is not one instance in any species' evolution that I can think of where virginity is a biological necessity for the survival of the species.
The comment, "we're glorified apes" sounds like the argument put forth by the Archbishop of Canterbury in refuting Darwinism. We're not "glorified apes", we're not "descended from apes" and "survival of the fittest" is a complete misunderstanding of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
April 9, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're not "glorified apes", we're not "descended from apes" and "survival of the fittest" is a complete misunderstanding of Darwinism and the theory of evolution."
Humans are apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apeApril 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where does it say we are descended from apes or are "glorified apes"? It doesn't of course, because we are humans, not apes.
April 9, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are descended from the family of Great Apes.
Did you not read the first sentence? Did you not read the entry?
_______________________
"The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.[1]"
_______________________
Pretty clear. Humans are members of the Great Apes...
April 9, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And did you not know that this is disputed and that the fossil record doesn't provide enough evidence to support this conclusion? They just do not know if and when hominids might have split from apes (they might not have and there might not have been a common ancestor) there were many, many hominids, most of them didn't make it past the starting gate, right now they know of only three such species that might have lived contemporaneously with homo sapiens, one of which was neanderthal.
April 9, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound a bit like the global warming denier -- grasping at straws and creating a fake "debate".
The matter is settled: Humans are apes.
We are something like 95% genetically similar to our closest cousins, chimpanzees, also a member of this esteemed family.
Get used to it, fellow primate.
April 9, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even understand what that means. We're a separate species, we're not glorified apes, we're not apes, we're not descended from apes, we're a species of hominid, just as neanderthal we're a species of hominid, apes are a species of hominid and orangutan are a species of hominid. It doesn't matter in the least how much dna we share, it matters what the difference in the dna tells us.
Classification of species is merely that - a means to classify species and group them according to like or similar characteristics.
p.s. If you had read the damned wiki entry you would have noticed that the information in that article is disputed, mainly because there is nothing in the fossil record that supports the classification. Classification is for the most part nothing more than a convenience, a means of grouping and identifying like things. Your comment is one reason why I hate wiki.
April 10, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gimme a break.
April 9, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it's possible that we descended from phytoplankton.
...Ooooh! Or maybe we ARE Plants!!! Or Fungus!!!
Of course we are apes. If this is what you're clinging too, I suggest you let go.
April 9, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we are, are big bags of chemicals, that's what everything on earth is - we share dna with everything on earth, because dna is bacterial in nature. It doesn't matter in the least how much dna we share with other species, it matters what the difference in combinates is.
April 10, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. We all have a clear lineage... It's not like horses were born unto pumpkins. Our lineage has us as apes.
April 10, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really doubt that this virginity myth is an evolutionary mechanism. In fact, it seems that the opposite would be true - not knowing who the father is would more closely bind all members to the group, they ALL have a vested interest in protecting the young.
Virginity is a social/cultural construct, it actually hinders our evolutionary process, there is less allegiance to the group, more focus on the individual and the mating process becomes constrained and less varied allowing for mutations to be passed within a certain group. The more primitive (in our perception) a group is, the more likely result sought after is extension of the kinship system, not "deflowering" a virgin.
April 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. It's important to know who the Father is. Afterall, there are some pretty extreme penalties (genetically speaking) for mating with ones sibling.
If nobody in the group knew who their brother or sister really was, then there'd be serious problems for that group.
In the example you give, it would make sense to make sure you knew exactly who the father is.
April 9, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually, it doesn't matter all that much if the mating partner is a sibling - the chances of mutation remain about the same.
April 9, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got link?
April 9, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... inbreeding doesn't really matter? Try telling that to the Hapsburgs.
April 10, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the male point of view, having only a 50% change or less of being the father, and committing resources and time to raise the child, is an obvious disadvantage.
Why would any male voluntarily engage in that, when havign a monogamous partner would ensure 100%
paternity.
This is borne out in the rarity of polyandry, which tends to exist only in harsh environments for survival purposes, liek the Tibetan steppes.
The "people are 100% social constructs" argument is patently, obviously false. We are glorified apes.
April 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a disadvantage in group dynamics where the welfare of the group is more important than the welfare of the individual. Men couldn't have survived alone any more than women could. If we developed as carnivores then men would have the advantage, if we developed as herbivores then women would have the advantage, instead we developed as omnivores which means that survival was dependent on men and women. For the brain to function it needs a variety of acquired chemicals, both proteins and starches and the entire group has to participate in order for that kind of diet to work.
For some reason, people believe that childbirth is incapacitating for women - it only becomes incapacitating when groups break down and societies are constructed and food distribution becomes dependent on a few rather than the many.
April 9, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's not a disadvantage in group dynamics where the welfare of the group is more important than the welfare of the individual."
But it is certainly a disadvantage to the individual male.
You are expecting the male to possibly have NO offspring because it benefits the group, and then to fork over time and money to raise some other guy's child?
Besides being a bad bargain that men would balk at, sexual selection (evolution) works at the individual gene level. So those altruistic men's altruistic genes would die off.
April 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to think that males of our species can evolve and survive on their own. That isn't true - men could not have survived without women and vice versa. A group is for many things - protection, food, companionship, the transmission of knowledge which means that all group members had equal importance. In primitive burial sites they found humans with healed broken bones, crippling arthritis which would have necessitated care by other members, injuries and all manner of incapacitations which would have required group participation in order to maintain that individual. That's because our most important evolutionary mechanism is the transmission of knowledge through symboling and language. It was biologically advantageous to the group to keep all members functioning.
What you're talking about are artificial and societal constructs, not biological, evolutionary mechanisms. Virginity isn't necessary to our survival, it isn't necessary to any species' survival.
Women didn't need to trick or entice men to stay with the group, they stayed because it ensured survival and was mutually, evolutionarily beneficial. It is only with goods distribution systems changing by societies that it became societally necessary to have one provider and proof of hereditary kinship.
April 9, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absoltuely correct that cooperation is part of human success. But it is not the onkly side of human nature. We also have the ability to deceive and cheat. And humans are fairly adept at detecting cheats, and punishing them. Since so much of our relations depend upon a social bargin where we each compromise for mutual benefit, cheaters are particularly worrisome.
"What you're talking about are artificial and societal constructs, not biological, evolutionary mechanisms. "
I think it is both. Moreover, social constructs grow out of human nature. Marc Hauser, the esteemed Harvard scientist, claims that morality is an inborn trait. If that is the case, society never "civilized" humans. Humans tendency for morality, rules, etc. is expressed in the societies we create.
"Virginity isn't necessary to our survival, it isn't necessary to any species' survival."
True, but chastity, at least during monogamous relationships, is part of a social bargin: The male promises to not abandon the children (good for the children and the woman), meanwhile the woman promises to not have other men's children. If one cheats, the bargin breaks down.
The obsession with "virginity" is, in my view, merely an extension of this value of chastity or faithfulness. A virgin is "doubly" chaste, sort of advertising her faithfulness, so to speak, to her prospective future husband. That's at least the idea.
April 9, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again... you make a coherent point.
You're not saying what should or shouldn't be... you're simply stating what is... and offering a reasonable explanation, imo, as to how it got to be this way.
April 9, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point. Thank you for the clarification.
April 9, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're getting it - you're mixing societal/social/cultural constructs with biological development and claiming that they are one and the same. The evolutionary development took place over millions of years, the societal construct only over the last 10,000 years. That's not even a drop in the bucket, it's barely a molecule in the bucket.
There is no reason to believe that early humans even recognized that paternity could be determined or needed to be determined because human beings were/are not solitary creatures, they were/are group creatures. They existed as a group and ALL members of that group had equal value, they possessed some knowledge, skill or information that the group as a whole needed. There would be no biological reason for women to attract a single male because she was part of the group dynamic.
You're looking at today's civilization (and by that I mean the modern last 10,000 years) and thinking that those are the metrics of human evolution and that isn't the case. Secondly, you seem to think that because humans share a common ancestor with apes, then our evolution is comparable to ape evolution, and obviously the vast and overwhelming differences in our development precludes that as a model. Just because two groups may share common characteristics that doesn't mean they are "the same". Humans are a different species than apes. They MAY (and there is no proof that they have) have had common origins, but ALL living organisms share common origins - bacterial ancestors. We don't know when the split came and we absolutely don't know what that caused that split or what that split meant or means. To claim that we are glorified apes is shallow and virtually meaningless in our evolution.
April 9, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things have changes since those early days of human kind... So... it makes sense that social rules would change too...
April 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, we are apes! Apes are not a species, but a family called Hominidae. And humans are one of them. This is not demeaning, this is a fact. (And why is the word "ape" considered demeaning -- great apes are wonderful creatures!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
About the cultural vs. biological influences, you make some valid points, but I think we just fundamentally disagree. I see more influence from biology, you see more from societal constructs. This has gotten off track into a nature vs. nature type argument. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
April 9, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayep.
You are quite clear.
April 9, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realized ou are probably refering to chimpanzees and gorillas when saying people are not "apes". Just to clarify, "great apes" are a family which includes humans as well as chimpanzees and gorillas. Of course humans are not chimpanzees and didn't descend from them, but from a common ancestor. But we are definitely, asbsolutely a member of the "ape" family.
April 9, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In fact, it seems that the opposite would be true - not knowing who the father is would more closely bind all members to the group, they ALL have a vested interest in protecting the young."
The logical extension of this argument would be that the female can be as promiscuous as she wants to be and that, when impregnated, all the males should have a vested interest in protecting the offspring, despite the fact that there is only a 1/n chance that any given male is the father.
If you have a link to research that supports that sort of a conclusion, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.
April 10, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well stated.
I don't think I've ever read a comment on this particular subject that stated these ideas so clearly.
April 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful and provocative post.
But I think we're on a bigger than gender issues issue here -- we need a liberalism that involves compassionate economics and a "live and let live" point of view towards social issues.
There's no doubt that there's a ton of paternalism and sexism at work in society today. But behind that are the judgments we feel free to levy on other people who are just innocently following their bliss (and following one's bliss is the point of a life only lived once).
In the end, this all comes down to the simplest of solutions: mind your own business, folks.
April 8, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have obviously never read TPM's comments before, girl. Shooter242 is just a right-wing troll. He never makes any sense, so trying to make sense of his comments, or even writing a post about them, is utterly pointless.
April 9, 2009 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hesitate to wade into this discussion, but never mind.
If, for the sake of discussion, we accept that attitudes about sexual conduct differ -- gender to gender, or persuasion to persuasion -- and if we further accept that the chastity-for-women construct is about control (but I cannot emphasize the "if" factor in either theory too strongly) ...then, why is it, precisely, that hetero men cannot maturely turn that urge to control inward, and control themselves? Why do they not either choose to impose the same restrictions on themselves that they want to impose on the opposite sex? Or, grant women the same sexual freedom that they claim for themselves on the basis of "biological imperative"?
These seem such obvious questions to most women; yet, they are the questions that enrage men almost more than any other -- the same men, by the way, who apparently obsess about whether or not their wives/daughters/lovers may be as promiscuous as they themselves are, or might secretly like to be.
TheraP could weigh in on this issue with far more authority than I ever could, but isn't this at least projection?
Yes, or no, isn't this whole chastity issue a bit of antediluvian madness?
It's the twenty-first century. If we have evolved at all as creatures of reason or feeling, isn't it way past time to support "good for the goose/good for the gander" whether in chastity or in sexual freedom? And isn't it certainly way past time to relieve the burden of male fixations, on women, from women in matters of "provocative" dress, etc..?
Just asking -- when will equal really mean equal? Why not start with banning, not the clothing item itself, but the imposition of the burkka, the headscarf, or the long sleeve (why was there such a fuss about Michelle Obama's "exposed" arms?); and maybe even -- gasp -- the tortuous bra?
Let women, and men, of whatever persuasion, choose to restrain, or to free, themselves -- not others.
April 9, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink