Virginity

[JonMiller]

If you want to split hairs, then please note that prostitutes require patrons.

How does that in any way make many of them be less independent?

It is true that there has often been pimps, but not always.

JM

 

[Tamara224]

If you want to split hairs, then please note that prostitutes require patrons.

How does that in any way make many of them be less independent?

It is true that there has often been pimps, but not always.

JM

I think he meant "johns". Still, the same holds true, just because the women have customers, doesn't mean they are not independent. If that were the case, no one would ever be independent (neither male nor female).

 

[Niels]

How does that in any way make many of them be less independent?

It is true that there has often been pimps, but not always.

JM

It just shows that they are interdependent like everybody else. You (and Tamara) seem to think prostitution signifies independent women, whereas other occupations do not.

Tell me... why is a prostitute is a better example of an 'independent woman' than a teacher, a nurse, a librarian etc.? Women have held legitimate jobs like this as far back as history can be traced. I'm not saying that they were always treated fairly, or that they couldn't or didn't achieve other things, but they could find work without selling their bodies.

 

[alfrodull]

It just shows that they are interdependent like everybody else. You (and Tamara) seem to think prostitution signifies independent women, whereas other occupations do not.

Tell me... why is a prostitute is a better example of an 'independent woman' than a teacher, a nurse, a librarian etc.? Women have held legitimate jobs like this as far back as history can be traced. I'm not saying that they were always treated fairly, or that they couldn't or didn't achieve other things, but they could find decent work.

In various historical periods, they COULDN'T be teachers or nurses or librarians. (That's how convents became prevalent, BTW.) In some cultures, they couldn't work outside the home period.

 

[JonMiller]

Tell me... why is a prostitute is a better example of an 'independent woman' than a teacher, a nurse, a librarian etc.? Women have held legitimate jobs like this as far back as history can be traced. I'm not saying that they were always treated fairly, or that they couldn't or didn't achieve other things, but they could find work without selling their bodies.

Very new occupations.

JM

 

[Niels]

In various historical periods, they COULDN'T be teachers or nurses or librarians. (That's how convents became prevalent, BTW.)

If that's why convents became prevalent, I'd like to know why monastaries caught on.

Feel free to substitute medicine woman, shaman, storyteller, and instructor of children for those jobs I mentioned. (I only mention this in case you missed my inclusion of the word 'like'.)

In some cultures, they couldn't work outside the home period.

In some cultures, they eat people. Your point is?

Very new occupations.

In name and refinement, maybe. In fact, they are ancient occupations.





Edit: Nobody has answered my quesiton. Why do they think prostitution is more indicative of an independent woman than other occupations?

 

[JonMiller]

Edit: Nobody has answered my quesiton. Why do they think prostitution is more indicative of an independent woman than other occupations?[/COLOR]

Because in other occupations they were dependent on their husbands, fathers, and brothers. On the other hand, they could leave to be a prostitute (about the only result of leaving in many cultures).

JM

 

[lunalinda]

I think this thread would be more telling, if people would say whether or not they actually are a virgin before casting their opinions ... I'm thinking the results would be quite interesting.

I forgot to mention this part in my initial post, but yes, I am a virgin by choice. Even if religion had nothing to do it, I still don't see myself being sexual until I'm married, mostly because of the obvious. I don't want to end up pregnant. I don't want to give myself so totally to a man without knowing if he'll truly commit to me. I don't want to end up emotionally torn if he decides to leave. I don't want to make whatever man I marry to wonder if I've had better sex than with him. That's all stuff that's unrelated to religion. That's just what I don't want to get involved in.

But this makes me wonder, too... Are women generally more forgiving in this area than men are? I've seen a couple guys in this thread suggest that they would feel like something was "stolen" from them if their future wife was not a virgin. I gotta wonder how much of that is a gender issue. How many women would feel that something was stolen from them? Ok, I'll stop now before I go into a rant about females as property and other feminist stuff.

I think women are more forgiving, but that's probably because it's expected that men are powerless to resist sex. Now it's more an issue of how long they managed to stay in the race before giving in. The longer they wait, the better. But finding a virgin male is quite rare because of their intense nature to procreate, plant their seed, whatever. It's expected that a man's gonna want sex, but it's the women who are the ones who must "permit" it. Hence, it's more forgiveable for a man than it is for a woman since she's the one that has to consent more often than not. Of course, this is just my theory. *shrug*

 

[Annova]

I forgot to mention this part in my initial post, but yes, I am a virgin by choice. Even if religion had nothing to do it, I still don't see myself being sexual until I'm married, mostly because of the obvious. I don't want to end up pregnant. I don't want to give myself so totally to a man without knowing if he'll truly commit to me. I don't want to end up emotionally torn if he decides to leave. I don't want to make whatever man I marry to wonder if I've had better sex than with him. That's all stuff that's unrelated to religion. That's just what I don't want to get involved in.

With that comment is it same to assume the guy has to be virgin too? I can't find your comment on it so I'm asking.

 

[lunalinda]

With that comment is it same to assume the guy has to be virgin too? I can't find your comment on it so I'm asking.

I think my post is on like page 8 or 9 or something. Anyway, in the post I said it would be nice if he was a virgin, but realistically speaking, I can't and won't demand it. And that I hope he can at the very least be understanding and patient with whatever doubt I have with myself about not being as good as his past sexual conquests. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't offer that very thing to my future husband. I don't want him to be like how I'd feel if he wasn't a virgin, regardless of whether or not he's a virgin.

 

[bithiah2]

How important is it that your spouse is a virgin when you get married? Do you think that you could "deal" with it if that had made a mistake in the past and weren't...or would you feel like you had been "cheated" out of something with that person?

it doesn't matter if i'm not the first...as long as i am the last.

bithiah2

 

[Niels]

Because in other occupations they were dependent on their husbands, fathers, and brothers. On the other hand, they could leave to be a prostitute (about the only result of leaving in many cultures).

JM

History is not all about the patriarchal hegemony's repression of women. Were there bad times for women? Yes, but there were also bad times for everybody else. Often, men couldn't choose what happened to themselves either. They were born into a class or occupation, and they were forced to stay there. Certainly, some women (and men) did become prostitutes... much like they do today. Also, some cultures were worse than others. Some still are. I don't dispute that. However, it was not consistently their only option. To say otherwise smacks of a "women didn't work or have any sort of power in society until they saw Mary Tyler Moore on TV" mentality. That kind of thinking is misguided at best.

But back to the topic of work... how is being a seamstress or a maid (to pick a couple of other random occupations that was fairly common in the past), dependent on her husband, father, or brothers? While it seems people had to be more interdependent in those days, women could make a legitimate living long before they had the right to vote.

Why do I believe that a prostitute is not independent? Her body is basically owned by her johns. In my opinion, that signifies less independence than a woman who doesn't work, yet chooses what happens to her body. The fact that women could find legitimate work throughout much of history, and that women were also found in ruling class positions such as Queen, Pharaoh, noble lady and so on... even without husbands tells me that the prostitute shouldn't be considered the apotheosis of the historical independent woman. Especially considering the abusive situations and diseases that she was exposed to.

From Rosie the Riveter, to Athena, and long before that, images of powerful women have permeated cultures. Just as there were gods, there were also goddesses. Just as there were heroes, there were also heroines. Sometimes I hear people say that women were considered property back then, and virginity was a commodity etc. From what I've gathered, people in those cultures didn't share our contemporary concept of property, and virginity was considered a virtue. If they even had property, they probably didn't think along the lines of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property" as John Locke envisioned it.





Now back to the main topic...

The virginity of women (which should imply the virginity of men by default) went a long way toward preventing the spread of sexual illnesses.

 

[glamourdollxoxo]

I'm not a virgin and I made the stupid mistake of losign at 17 when I thougt I was in love and all that jazz. Prior to that I never really was exposed to the word of Jesus Christ and it wasn't until that I came to college that I found God and I've repented and now am waiting for my husband. What I did was in my past and if my future husband can't look past my past mistakes than he isn't someone who I would want to marry because nobody is perfect.

 

[JonMiller]

The virginity of women (which should imply the virginity of men by default, unless you're slow on the uptake) went a long way to prevent things like this from happening:

Actually, in many of the cultures men were encouraged to go to prostittutes.

JM

 

[alfrodull]

How were prostitutes more independent? Take London during the Enlightenment, the home of Lockean thought, as an example. A prostitute could be independent in the sense that she had an income off of which she could live on her own and make her own business decisions. Sure, a woman could get other "respectable" jobs, but a respectable employer would only hire her if she was a respectable woman...which meant she either lived with her family or husband, who legally owned all her property and any income she brought in. There were domestic servants that lived in the household they were serving, but, again, you had to meet certain social standards do be hired and had next to no freedom once you were. And in those instances, if you got married, you were often let go by your employer.

 

[Niels]

Actually, in many of the cultures men were encouraged to go to prostittutes.

JM

In some cultures and subcultures, men were (and still are) encouraged to visit prostitutes. However, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that most parents have historically wanted their sons to visit prostitutes.

It seems to me that prostitution thrived most where there simply weren't any other options... like the wild west during the gold rush. Lots of men, plus few if any women, you get the picture. Even then, a brothel was considered a 'house of ill repute'. Man generally frequent prostitutes because of personal weakness, not because their culture recommends it.

How were prostitutes more independent? Take London during the Enlightenment, the home of Lockean thought, as an example. A prostitute could be independent in the sense that she had an income off of which she could live on her own and make her own business decisions. Sure, a woman could get other "respectable" jobs, but a respectable employer would only hire her if she was a respectable woman...which meant she either lived with her family or husband, who legally owned all her property and any income she brought in. There were domestic servants that lived in the household they were serving, but, again, you had to meet certain social standards do be hired and had next to no freedom once you were. And in those instances, if you got married, you were often let go by your employer.

Do you think prostitution would have made her more respectable? If you're scorned by even the poorest of the poor, how independent can you truly be? If anything, it would have made her more marginalized. Yes there were courtesans, women who were essentially royal prostitutes. They could even thrive in that tiny social bubble if they were well educated etc. However, most people simply could not relate to those who lived lavish royal lifestyles (a negligible portion of the population). Besides, the ways of the city didn't always overflow into the lives of the townsfolk. An older single woman would have more influence and clout with her neighbors if she made textiles (quite literally a spinster!) than if she offered her body to the highest bidder.

Anyway, if women lost their jobs when they got married, I suspect it's because children followed. Birth control wasn't as effective as it is today.

 

[overit]

None taken, but I don't see what the exploration of this topic's point is if it doesn't have practical applications. The most common ones seen today in the face of that are the secular feminist claims that they can and should fornicate and cheat all they want.

I think the cheating part is a stretch....and I know secular feminists.

 

[Tamara224]

Do you think prostitution would have made her more respectable?

No one ever claimed prostition made a woman respectable. Respectable and independent are two entirely different things.

If you're scorned by even the poorest of the poor, how independent can you truly be?

Independence is not based on who does or doesn't like you. It is based on whether you alone have the right and ability to make decisions for yourself. If the woman had the right and ability to choose when to work, where to go, what to do, and the right to own the profits derived from the business, without the necessity of getting permission or acquiescence from her husband or father, then she is independent. None of that has anything to do with whether she is scorned by some people.

If anything, it would have made her more marginalized.

Marginalization also has nothing to do with independence.

Yes there were courtesans, women who were essentially royal prostitutes. They could even thrive in that tiny social bubble if they were well educated etc. However, most people simply could not relate to those who lived lavish royal lifestyles (a negligible portion of the population).

Courtesans were/are not independent women. They are slaves.

Besides, the ways of the city didn't always overflow into the lives of the townsfolk. An older single woman would have more influence and clout with her neighbors if she made textiles (quite literally a spinster!) than if she offered her body to the highest bidder.

Influence and clout have nothing to do with independence.

Anyway, if women lost their jobs when they got married, I suspect it's because children followed. Birth control wasn't as effective as it is today.

Completely irrelevant. The point is that respectable women were respectable because they followed the accepted social norms which often allowed them much less freedom and independence. There were certain jobs that women did: governess, teacher, maids, etc, that could only be done by single women. If they got married, they lost their job - not because they got pregnant shortly thereafter but because it was not considered acceptable (and possibly was not legal) for a married woman to work outside the home. That's not true in every single case. Nevertheless, it was true much of the time.

 

[Balugon]

i dont really care. I know it will cause some uneasiness about me wondering how she is satisfied with me compared to how her last partner satisfied her, but as long as she is affirming and the relationship goes alright, other than that, i dont think its a huge issue.

I might decide to request her to get tested for STD's before i decide to ask her to marry me, for safety reasons and to know what im getting into (and yes, if she has something serious, it might turn me away from marrying her, possibly).

As far as if she had kids, that to me is a huge hurdle, because atm, i dont want to have kids, and i dont want to deal with them in the relationship. The only reason i would marry a girl who had a kid already is if i knew without a doubt that God wanted me to be with her, and/or her personality was so awesome it took care of the drawbacks of the child being there.

 

[BoazB]

Sad explanation I had heard about one-night-stands is that he hopes it is her first time, and she hopes it is his last time...

The horror pics of STDs I think is a very real factor... somtimes it isn't even the faithfulness of your partner at stake, but the lack of faithfulness of her ex...