Still a virgin?

[katautumn]

Why 'punish' a rape victim for something they didn't choose to do? Victims of crimes shouldn't have to feel ashamed or 'dirty' for something violently forced upon them.

Why is the absence of virginity a punishment to begin with? I think if the rape victim feels punished simply because she cannot technically call herself a virgin, then we need to examine why that term is so important to begin with. The act of rape, itself, is what makes women feel dirty or ashamed. If someone is made to feel dirty or ashamed for not being a virgin, whether the initial act was consentual or not, then we need to think about why we treat sex with such social disdain in the first place. Why should a non-virgin woman be considered tainted or damaged or used, regardless of whether or not her first time was by force or completely agreed upon?

 

[Niels]

Why is the absence of virginity a punishment to begin with? I think if the rape victim feels punished simply because she cannot technically call herself a virgin, then we need to examine why that term is so important to begin with. The act of rape, itself, is what makes women feel dirty or ashamed. If someone is made to feel dirty or ashamed for not being a virgin, whether the initial act was consentual or not, then we need to think about why we treat sex with such social disdain in the first place. Why should a non-virgin woman be considered tainted or damaged or used, regardless of whether or not her first time was by force or completely agreed upon?

Ask the woman that was raped why it's so important.

Personally, I don't think of non-virgin women as tainted or damaged. I see them as people that have made a conscious decision to be sexually active. The situation is different when sexual activity is violently imposed upon someone. People at least deserve the dignity of choosing their own path in life. The way I see it, the decision is vastly more important than the circumstance.



Let me draw an analogy, albeit an imperfect one, to help clarify my point:

Imagine you are a prisoner of war, and you're being tortured. In the process of trying to get the information they're after, your tormentors have tried to break your will by making you denounce your cause. Have you truly denounced your cause? Of course not.

This is quite different than freely giving said information to friends.

 

[Ginny]

I believe you are still a virgin..

Rape is not a choice. It is something forced upon you. Do not let anyone to allow you to think otherwise. Sex is intended to be freely given. If it is forced upon you and there is no choice in the matter, how can it be sex?

I believe it is all in the eye of the beholder and can change with circumstance. Say you are about to get married and have never had sex with another man except when you were raped. You still decided to wait until you got married and you never gave yourself freely to another man. In the eyes of God, you are a virgin. Christian victims, you are still a virgin to Him. You would not be lying.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Then why even bother with a concept like virginity? When a rape victim is not 'technically' a virgin, and someone that practices oral sex, anal sex is 'technically' a virgin, the word becomes utterly meaningless in anything other than a narrow clinical sense.

Exactly. Why bother having such a term, if one can decide that one is a virgin again simply because one really, really wants to be? (Incidentally, I don't believe that those who practice the other things you mentioned are virgins, either.)

If someone attacks me and cuts off my hand, believing that I am not an amputee would not make it so. Neither would saying that I still have a hand "spiritually."

I am not trying to sound heartless or unsympathetic. To be raped is to be violated in the worst possible way, and few things make me angrier. But saying that an act of rape cannot take away one's virginity is saying that rape is not really sex*. From there, it's a short step to saying that the rape didn't really happen. That is an unhealthy and escapist attitude. In order to conquer something, one must face it.


*Yes, I realize that rape is an act of violence and not necessarily sexually motivated. But it's still a sexual act.

 

[UberLutheran]

...I'd be most likely to say, "Does it matter?"

Is she a woman? Yes.

Was she wronged? Yes.

Was it her fault she was wronged? No.

Was she the victim of a crime of violence which had to do with sex? Yes.

Was it her fault she was victimized? No.

Does that woman have the right to be treated with dignity and respect? Yes.

Does that woman have the right to confront her attacker in a court of law? Yes. (And hopefully, her attacker will go to prison for a long, long time!)

Is that woman still a child of God, beloved by God? Yes, yes, yes.

Frankly, I could care less about "is she/isn't she a virgin" but I absolutely do care if that woman is receiving the emotional support she needs!

 

[TheMissus]

The biggest problem with saying she would not be a virgin is the awkward explanations that would follow.

"Are you a virgin?" would have to be answered no, by the logic that a rape victim is no longer a virgin. The woman would then be forced to choose whether to explain that she was raped, which is not something rape survivors like to do with most people, or let the asker believe erroneously that she gave it up willingly and judge her accordingly. And before anyone replies with "well, they shouldn't judge her", be realistic. People can and do judge anyone who has had sex outside marriage.

Obviously, her doctor should know about the assault, but as far as everyone else is concerned, her virginity has not been breached. To insist otherwise is, IMO, incredibly insensitive.

 

[Lokisdottir]

The biggest problem with saying she would not be a virgin is the awkward explanations that would follow.

"Are you a virgin?" would have to be answered no, by the logic that a rape victim is no longer a virgin. The woman would then be forced to choose whether to explain that she was raped, which is not something rape survivors like to do with most people, or let the asker believe erroneously that she gave it up willingly and judge her accordingly. And before anyone replies with "well, they shouldn't judge her", be realistic. People can and do judge anyone who has had sex outside marriage.

Obviously, her doctor should know about the assault, but as far as everyone else is concerned, her virginity has not been breached. To insist otherwise is, IMO, incredibly insensitive.

Since when is it anybody's business to know whether she's a virgin or not?

It seems to me that if someone is important enough to know that our hypothetical rape victim is not a virgin, he or she is important enough to know the whole story. Or should be.

 

[TheMissus]

You've never come across nosy people who want to know the status of your virginity? I certainly have.

 

[Lokisdottir]

You've never come across nosy people who want to know the status of your virginity? I certainly have.

Oh, of course I have. I tell them the truth: that it's none of their damn business.

If they push the issue, or insist that my reluctance to give a proper answer means that I've obviously "done it," I repeat that it's none of their damn business, and then stop talking to them if I'm able. I don't need people like that in my life.

 

[Brennin]

Oh, of course I have. I tell them the truth: that it's none of their damn business.

If they push the issue, or insist that my reluctance to give a proper answer means that I've obviously "done it," I repeat that it's none of their damn business, and then stop talking to them if I'm able. I don't need people like that in my life.

Right you are.

 

[Niels]

I am not trying to sound heartless or unsympathetic. To be raped is to be violated in the worst possible way, and few things make me angrier. But saying that an act of rape cannot take away one's virginity is saying that rape is not really sex*. From there, it's a short step to saying that the rape didn't really happen. That is an unhealthy and escapist attitude. In order to conquer something, one must face it.

*Yes, I realize that rape is an act of violence and not necessarily sexually motivated. But it's still a sexual act.

How is saying "rape cannot take away one's virginity" a short step from saying rape didn't really happen? I'd think it would be the other way around. By equating rape to consensual sex, it makes the act of rape sound like someone just had sex with their boyfriend (or girlfriend).

I'm not saying that you (or anybody else here) believes rape is a good thing. Rather, I think rape is too hideous to compare to mutual sexual behavior. People want sex. People don't want to be raped. To my mind, the idea that a rape victim is no longer a virgin subtly implies that the victim wanted to be raped.

 

[Lokisdottir]

How is saying "rape cannot take away one's virginity" a short step from saying rape didn't really happen? I'd think it would be the other way around. By equating rape to consensual sex, it makes the act of rape sound like someone just had sex with their boyfriend (or girlfriend).

Calling rape a sexual act is not equating it to consensual sex.

Saying "rape cannot take away one's virginity" is a way of denying that rape has lasting--sometimes permanent--damaging effects. We consider virginity a precious commodity (for reasons I've never quite understood), and so the easiest way to deny the impact is to deny that this "commodity" has been taken away, never to return.

To deny the effects of the rape is to deny the stone-cold reality of the rape itself. Instead, we need to face it, and conquer it. Only then can we move past it.

I'm not saying that you (or anybody else here) believes rape is a good thing. Rather, I think rape is too hideous to compare to mutual sexual behavior.

I, on the other hand, believe rape is too hideous to call it anything except what it is. If we say that rape is not sex, then we reduce it to being "merely" a bodily attack. Being attacked and harmed is bad, but there's a special kind of horror, a whole different level of violation, in using sex to attack somebody.

To my mind, the idea that a rape victim is no longer a virgin subtly implies that the victim wanted to be raped.

What?

 

[Niels]

What?

While I may be mistaken, most people view sex as a voluntary activity. As such, virginity is something that's lost by personal choice.

If having sex and/or abstaining from sex is a choice, and someone believes that they have lost their virginity to the rapist, then they may wrongly feel personally responsible for the crime. While a virgin being raped is no less horrific than a non-virgin being raped, at least the non-virgin doesn't have to deal with the subtle implication that they wanted it. The focus should be on recovery, not on the loss of some kind of status.

To affirm that they are still a virgin, because they did not choose to engage in sexual acts, may give them some comfort. After all, they are not at fault for what happened to them, the criminal is.



I fully understand the technical definition of 'virgin'. However, technical virginity and technical non-virginity both seem to avoid the real issue. The choice to consciously engage in sexual activity.

Anyway, I get the feeling we're pushing the same buttons on opposite sides of the issue. I don't think either of us are trying to downplay the horror of the crime.

 

[the_box_of_giggles]

Yes they are still virgins. There is more to virginity then just physical, theres an emotonal and mental part to. You don't give up the mental part quite as easliy as the physical.

 

[sparklecat]

While I may be mistaken, most people view sex as a voluntary activity.

I think the very definition of rape as forced sex would say otherwise.



Regarding the OP, no, someone raped is not still a virgin. So what? It's nothing the person had any say in, therefore there's no reason one should feel in any way culpable or ashamed. That's not saying the person won't feel that way, but recognizing that it really wasn't their fault, that the label of virgin isn't meaningful in their case (except in a medical sense), and that anyone who judges them negatively for this isn't really worth listening to might help some.

 

[belladonic-haze]

In your opinion, is a rape victim still a virgin? Even though her hymen was broken, etc.

First I wanted to say, I am not a victim but survivor. I survived the most henious of crimes towards a living being and fought hard to stand up for myself again after being humiliated in the worst possible way. And believe the road of a rape survivor to struggle through life never ends. The pain and fear will stay....even if you know how to cope with this.

And as an answer to your question:
Probably not anatomically.....but mentally and spiritually I say yes....

But then again, I am bias being a rape and sexual abuse survivor.

 

[Mling]

While a virgin being raped is no less horrific than a non-virgin being raped, at least the non-virgin doesn't have to deal with the subtle implication that they wanted it

Well, the non-virgin often has to deal with the very blunt accusation. That's one of the main reasons that people don't report date-rapes: because people often accuse date-rape survivors of encouraging the attack or being a tease. "Why did you come to his house if you didn't want to have sex?" "You've slept with him before, haven't you, what made this time so different?"

The worst targets of this are prostitutes, "Why are you even calling it rape? You've spread your legs for strangers before. Do you really mean that just because he was holding a knife to your throat and hissing death threats at you, the idea of having sex with one more stranger was so horrible you had to be forced?"

 

[belladonic-haze]

Well, the non-virgin often has to deal with the very blunt accusation. That's one of the main reasons that people don't report date-rapes: because people often accuse date-rape survivors of encouraging the attack or being a tease. "Why did you come to his house if you didn't want to have sex?" "You've slept with him before, haven't you, what made this time so different?"

The worst targets of this are prostitutes, "Why are you even calling it rape? You've spread your legs for strangers before. Do you really mean that just because he was holding a knife to your throat and hissing death threats at you, the idea of having sex with one more stranger was so horrible you had to be forced?"

Not to mention the excuse rapists use about the way how their prey was dressed .......

"Rape is the only crime where the victim becomes the accused." I cannot remember who said that...I have to look it up.

So, you are right, sadly enough. But even if a woman sleeps with a 1000 men...No means No and therefor it is rape and it is a horrific for a virgin as a none virgin....

Also married women get raped by their husbands, or friends or.... In most cases the rapist is known by the victim...who becomes a survivor because she survived hell.....

Even if she is not a virgin, she looses everything during the attack...