Inspecting a woman's hymen to prove her virginity is wrong period! It also is not a reliable indicator of prior intercourse and speaks nothing of alternative sexual acts. Requiring this is not an act of "protecting a daughter's virginity" it is an act of abusive control.
It's 'abusive' because you don't like it. I use the word 'obsessive' instead of 'abusive' because the father, even if it's not in the correct or preferred manner, is just trying to protect his daughter. I don't recommend doing it for the reason that putting your children on such a tight leash(so to speak)often makes them MORE rebellious, but at the same time I'm not going to call someone abusive if he has it checked.
A woman doesn't "give away" her virginity. It is not an object. Sex is an experience and when one chooses to experience sex they are not giving a "thing" to anyone. Regardless of how you may judge others on when they choose to have sex for the first time, it is their choice to make.
Your first time having sex will never happen again. Sex in and of itself is the highest form of physical intimacy you can experience with anyone. I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I have every right to have opinions based on what I see. And what I see is that with the rise of sexual promiscuity, comes a fall in maturity and LACK OF COMMITMENT. If you wanna sleep around, nobody's stopping you.
Purity culture not only damages healthy attitudes towards sex and intimacy, it teaches that one's ultimate value to a future partner is whether or not their genitals have made contact with another's genitals rather than vastly more important factors that determine compatibility and longevity in a committed relationship. Also, purity culture seems to be more concerned with female "purity" than male "purity".
If all sex is to you is 'genitals touching genitals', then I'm not really sure what to tell you. Anyways, like I said purity culture is bad because it demonizes sex. It's good to understand that sex(within appropriate circumstances)and sexual feelings are natural and nothing to be ashamed of, and young adults shouldn't be shamed because of it. Also, I already pointed out that men should/have been held to a higher standard by default. It used to be that if a man slept with a woman, he had to marry her. That's how society used to be.
When did the patriarchy crumble? Do you have a date? Because it is not possible to compare a before and after without a date. Now, I will say that traditional patriarchy is sliding into the background but it has been a long and hard-fought battle to get to this point.
It's been crumbling for a while, and I don't have the time to explain all of the reasons why that is probably a bad thing. Sorry.
Sex sells but I fail to see a connection to a "crumbled patriarchy". Look to to a desire to increase profits for your culprit on this one.
When a society begins accepting anything and everything, it usually falls to ruin shortly after. Most societies have thrived under semi to full patriarchal rule(with the exception of a few well-rounded woman leaders...who were ironically born and raised in a patriarchal society more than likely). Socially accepted sexual promiscuity is a big red flag because it's one huge slippery slope AND it destroys the family unit.
This alone does not tell a story. Relationships are complex. Also it does not describe how many unhappy couples lived out their lives in marriages in the past due to the fact that divorce was not an option (either legally or due to social pressure). If patriarchy was responsible for people staying in miserable marriages, then it is evidence that patriarchy has failed and needs to crumble.
Patriarchal society held men and women to higher standards, and as a result, made them mature more quickly. Mature people have better relationships because they don't just leave whenever things get 'too hard'. Marriage is a lifetime commitment--does 'till death to us part' mean nothing? And no doubt some aspects of patriarchy did not work out perfectly; I understand fully well the problem of unhappy marriages and all the like, but to be fair, there were a lot more problems contributing to that such as pressure to marry right away, expectations from family, pressure into marrying certain people, etc.
While you may find this unappealing, expressing oneself via hair color is just that, an expression. Women choosing not to shave their armpits is their choice. Screaming at people? Context for this needed. Anyway, what does any of this have to do with "crumbling patriarchy"?
The hair color comment was partially a joke, since feminists stereotypically have oddly dyed hair. Shaving their armpits is indeed a choice--but not if they're going to wear short sleeved/sleeveless shirt. At that point, it's more about social awareness and good manners...not that I expect the average person to have either of those these days. Screaming at people? Look up feminist protests, or videos of women yelling at trump supporters sometime LOL.
Is "family friendly" a bad thing now? And what does this have to do with a "crumbling patriarchy"
'Family friendly' is a problem on a site that grew based on being a platform where ANYONE can express their views. Even more so when you make a living off of it and can't even use words like 'death' or 'minor' without risking demonetization. I also really don't want to have to keep explaining how patriarchal societies influence our views and behaviors and how the 'crumbling' is a bad thing, thanks.
Why are you linking sex to happiness? Depression is complex. Loneliness is due to a myriad of possible reasons. A major factor of both of these in the internet age is a lack of in person human contact and relationships.
I never linked sex to happiness in that way. I just pointed out that for ages people wanted sexual freedom and to experiment with relationships. And guess what? We ended up with a 50% divorce rate and people that are always complaining about either failing in relationships or not finding one at all.
Women should be registered for the draft at 18 if we are going to continue to require it if men. Wars are different today then they were in the prior century. Our modern military welcomes women in many crucial roles, and if ever the draft was used in the future, then it stands to reason women would be just as necessary and qualified as men to fill all the needed roles.
That is absolutely stupid, I'm sorry. Who do you think are going to stay back and take care of the children and upkeep everything should the men all be called to war? The elderly?? And I already told you that men are required because they are biologically superior to women in terms of physicality. PLUS it has been the man's job since the beginning of civilization to protect their families and women--and people like you want to turn that on it's head for the sake of 'equality' without even considering the consequences or preparing proper alternatives.
Misogeny is defined as mistrust and/or hatred of women. No, this is absolutely NOT needed!
It was sarcasm.
If a woman desires this and meets the necessary qualifications, then what valid reason remains to exclude her?
If a woman wants to be in the military and she qualifies, that's great--as long as it's not physical combat. You do realize that medics, engineers and pilots exist in the military, right? There are plenty of other jobs for them. But women will NEVER be first choice for physical, ground combat for obvious biological reasons.