Virginity

[RonnyRulz]

It is historical fact (not reasonably debatable) that until relatively recently women were legally considered the "chattel" of their husbands or fathers. Women couldn't vote, women couldn't own property, women didn't get to choose who they married, they couldn't divorce their husbands, in some cases they couldn't even "bring charges" against a man for rape.

These things are not debated, they are accepted as true because of the overwhelming body of evidence in the form of statutes and other laws.

EVERYTHING is debated. Especially history! The more historical evidence, the more heated the debate

I disagree. There are plenty of women throughout history that were above the law (and thus their fathers and husbands) who not only voted, but were national leaders, who not only own property- but owned thousands of families, men and soldiers, who not only divorced their husbands, but took off their heads, and probably a countless number of women who got away with bringing "charges" against a man for rape using a knife in the darkness. There are ways around being unable to bring charges by law against a man for rape.

In a lot of societies, it may be that women weren't allowed to have influence in the law, but that did not mean women never had influence in the law.

I disagree (besides wanting to give you a hard time and get ppl thinking outside the box ) because laws only go so far. Laws can and are easily broken in a multitude of ways. I guarantee there were women, REGULAR women, who controlled their husbands, and thus owned property, voted in politics, etc.

I am not just talking about powerful and influential women either. It may be far less number than it is today, but there were still (in my opinion) many many regular women who had all the power and authority a man did, whether through breaking the law, or through controlling their husbands. Afterall, if you steal your husband's right to vote, your husband's property, your husband's power- then you have it and the man is the one without any power or authority.
Of course, I should've just simplified this by saying one word: "Whipped"

Just because there is evidence of statues and laws proving that legally this happened or that does not in any way prove people actually did follow those laws, that other things didn't happen to go around the laws, etc.
Laws don't prevent people from breaking them. Laws punish people caught breaking them.


I won't debate that today women have more freedom than before in US society, and in the average society of the world, but I will dance around it.
Like I said, all history is debatable to an extent. That's why I disagree! lol, actually I don't think I disagree, I just am trying to give you a hard time.

 

[Tamara224]

EVERYTHING is debated. Especially history! The more historical evidence, the more heated the debate

I won't debate that today women have more freedom than before in US society, and in the average society of the world, but I will dance around it.
Like I said, all history is debatable to an extent. That's why I disagree! lol, actually I don't think I disagree, I just am trying to give you a hard time.

Cute, but just because you claim there is a debate doesn't make it so.

I agree that much of history is debatable. This isn't really one of those cases.

 

[RonnyRulz]

Cute, but just because you claim there is a debate doesn't make it so.

I agree that much of history is debatable. This isn't really one of those cases.

Well just because you say it isn't one of those cases doesn't make it so.
See, I can do that too!
I am going to find an article/website debating this just to prove you wrong!

(or until I get bored and don't care anymore.....LOL)


edit: it's too hard to google this for a quick find, so I'm already bored and don't care anymore.

I still guarantee there are plenty of people who still debate this and that someone can give an argument that it IS one of those cases.
People debate abouy the most ridiculous stuff like conspiracies and the paranormal, and even the most mundane stuff like what life was like in 1200 B.C., or even what happened in the Civil War. I am still sure SOMEONE out there does debate this, as I retain nothing in history is not debatable. But, i really don't care that much, so I won't try and prove myself right.

Wait! I found something...kindof, lol. It's not much, but it does debate how women in the 12th century had more power than women in the 19th century!

EH: What lessons have you learned from studying women's history? Are there any insights that we can use today?

MS: I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have is that women progressively attained more rights and freedom with each century. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I interviewed historical mystery writer, Paul Doherty, for The Historical Novels Review, he pointed out that European women in the 12th century had more rights than their 19th-century counterparts. Until the 15th century, there were female physicians across Europe, many of them highly respected, but by the 17th century, the profession was forbidden to women by law. My heroine, Hannah, trained in the physician's arts by her father, must practice in secret.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VRxqI7OMsxAJ:www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-sharratt-mary.asp+%22women+in+the+12th+century%22+power&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

hey, it doesn't really count, but at least it's something
It at least shows that women weren't always completely unfree like in the 19th century, but they have had more freedom in some times in others. So one could argue perhaps that in other centuries in certain cultures women had equal, or near-equal rights than men.... or something.


ALSO, I do know in history that the poor have never had many rights, and that the right to vote wasn't exclusive only to men, but only to wealthy people. This means that men and women had equal rights in some circumstances, such as if they were both poor. Also, a rich women would no doubt have a load more rights than a poor man. If a rich women claimed rape against a poor man, the poor man would definitely be penalized.

I still disagree, and I think that argument is good enough, and you can't just say "Just because you disagree doesn't make it true." as a rebutal!
There is no doubt in history a rich women would have more rights than a poor man.

If one [horrible] thing society is good at, it's making the difference in wealth more significant than the difference in gender.

 

[RonnyRulz]

okay, done editing

I almost got bored, but then I began thinking more and got inspired by that link. Woot!

 

[Tamara224]

Well just because you say it isn't one of those cases doesn't make it so.
See, I can do that too!
I am going to find an article/website debating this just to prove you wrong!

(or until I get bored and don't care anymore.....LOL)


edit: it's too hard to google this for a quick find, so I'm already bored and don't care anymore.

I still guarantee there are plenty of people who still debate this and that someone can give an argument that it IS one of those cases.

Be careful Ronnie... be sure you're arguing against what I actually said.

I have no doubt there are tangential issues and details that might be debated. What I'm saying is that it can't be reasonably debated that women were treated as property.

People debate abouy the most ridiculous stuff like conspiracies and the paranormal, and even the most mundane stuff like what life was like in 1200 B.C., or even what happened in the Civil War. I am still sure SOMEONE out there does debate this, as I retain nothing in history is not debatable. But, i really don't care that much, so I won't try and prove myself right.

Okay, but remember, I said "reasonably" debated. So, we're talking about different things. Of course anyone can argue with anything, that doesn't make it reasonable or noteworthy or accurate.



But... we're seriously off topic. My apologies to the OP.

 

[RonnyRulz]

Be careful Ronnie... be sure you're arguing against what I actually said.

I have no doubt there are tangential issues and details that might be debated. What I'm saying is that it can't be reasonably debated that women were treated as property.



Okay, but remember, I said "reasonably" debated. So, we're talking about different things. Of course anyone can argue with anything, that doesn't make it reasonable or noteworthy or accurate.



But... we're seriously off topic. My apologies to the OP.

I really don't even remember what I was arguing about...lol.
Darn, lol, you got me there

I still disagree! But.. I know when to cut my losses and jump ship!
Pirate ship that is! Yarrrrgh!

Don't you worry, I'll get you next time!

 

[JonMiller]

There is a lot of variance in history... but it is without question that most of western history (and history period) was male dominated. To an amazing extant. Just because sometimes it was more so or less so... or even there were rare cultures where it wasn't so, doesn't mean that the pattern changed.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

True with the trophy wives . . . for the most part I think women are their own worst enemy if seeking out equality is what they want.

There are internet sites out there where you can seek out a attractive woman to be your girlfriend (I belive in *every* respect) in exchange for a large sum of money per month.

I just had to look and most of these women wanted $2000 to $3000 a month. I don't now about you but where I live, $3000 a month is actually the average income here. Makes me wonder if being some rich guy's girlfriend is their full time job?

Already happens often.. (and has happened, for long periods of time) just not as blatantly.

There are probably social/biological factors here, as men have been generally the providers. Women are much more likely then men to view wealth/etc of potential spouses as important. In fact, men are often turned off by their wife being more successful than them.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

A modern-day USA father might be the exact same as a ruthless monarch father in 1200 BC. The only difference might be instead of cutting off her head, the father can't so he cuts off her family ties, excommunicating her. Or a modern-day loving father might allow his daughter to do whatever and support it, just like a father back in 1200BC who was above the law.

You dont' see the big difference between cuting off her head and cuting off family ties?

Or the fact that throughout much of recorded history, prostitution was really the only career an independent woman could have? Cutting off family ties isnt' such a big deal today, I know lots of people who do it for no other reason then that they just don't want to be bothered to talk to their family anymore. In more ancient times, especially for women, that was a huge deal. Just because of the lack of rights for women.

JM

 

[alfrodull]

One of my friends is doing a term paper on the history of virginity as a commodity. It's a fascinating topic.

So yes, you can make a very strong argument that women, especially virgins, were viewed as a commodity of sorts.

 

[Sketcher]

So yes, you can make a very strong argument that women, especially virgins, were viewed as a commodity of sorts.

True, but it does not mean that it is wrong to want a woman to be a virgin if you are going to marry her, especially if you as a man are waiting yourself. Nor does it mean the virtues of waiting are obsolete.

 

[Tamara224]

True, but it does not mean that it is wrong to want a woman to be a virgin if you are going to marry her, especially if you as a man are waiting yourself. Nor does it mean the virtues of waiting are obsolete.

I don't think anyone meant to imply that. I for one did not.

Just an interesting observation about some men's attitudes and the possible origin. In particular, I was addressing that attitude that something had been "stolen" from him if his wife was not a virgin pre-marriage.

No offense was intended.

 

[alfrodull]

I don't think anyone meant to imply that. I for one did not.

Just an interesting observation about some men's attitudes and the possible origin. In particular, I was addressing that attitude that something had been "stolen" from him if his wife was not a virgin pre-marriage.

No offense was intended.

Yes, I was simply commenting that that attitude existed, not saying it was right or wrong. In fact, under some conditions the monetary/social value of virginity can be an impetus to wait.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't think anyone meant to imply that. I for one did not.

Just an interesting observation about some men's attitudes and the possible origin. In particular, I was addressing that attitude that something had been "stolen" from him if his wife was not a virgin pre-marriage.

No offense was intended.

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.

 

[alfrodull]

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.

Understanding where attitudes originate from has practical applications. It helps you understand what you are using to formulate your own view, and it helps you explain that view for others.

Also, most classic literature and the modern media that stems from it carries some vestige of a "traditional" view of women, even those with sexually-liberated overtones. So this view is by no means dead, or even the majority.

 

[Niels]

Or the fact that throughout much of recorded history, prostitution was really the only career an independent woman could have?

Or teaching, or nursing, or making textiles, or working in factories, or farming etc. That said, history indicates men tended to 'hunt', while women tended to 'gather'. Most women worked hard unless the family was unusually wealthy. As far as I can tell, the only time women didn't work was when they were either too young, too unhealthy or too busy raising children... and some consider that the most difficult and important job of all. I'm not saying that all of those jobs were "equal" in every way... but there were certainly a lot more options than prostitution.

Not long ago, most people lived on farms. On the farm, everybody had work to do unless they were too young or too ill. The wife might milk the cows and churn the butter, while the husband might repair the roof and plow the field, but work was work. Family members were more interdependent than anything else... regardless of gender. With that in mind, it seems a lot of history was written from the perspective of wealthy unattached urban types. It often misses what the daily lives of our ancestors were really like.

Based on records of what my grandmothers, great grandmothers, and great great grandmothers (and their grandmothers et al.) did, they all appear to have worked (if not on the farm, then in the workplace) until they had children. This seems to support my position.

 

[Tamara224]

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 second what alfrodul said as far as practical application.

But as to the claim regarding "secular feminists" and fornication... meh, it depends on who you're listening to.

In fact, some of the most prominent feminists are outraged at the false association of sexual promiscuity and gender equality. Take a look, for example, at the writings of Katherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

It has been the media (more than actual scholarly and active feminists) who have convinced the last few generations of women that sexual promiscuity is a sign of equality.

 

[JonMiller]

Or teaching, or nursing, or making textiles, or working in factories, or farming etc. That said, history indicates men tended to 'hunt', while women tended to 'gather'. Most women worked hard unless the family was unusually wealthy. As far as I can tell, the only time women didn't work was when they were either too young, too unhealthy or too busy raising children... and some consider that the most difficult and important job of all. I'm not saying that all of those jobs were "equal" in every way... but there were certainly a lot more options than prostitution.

Not long ago, most people lived on farms. On the farm, everybody had work to do unless they were too young or too ill. The wife might milk the cows and churn the butter, while the husband might repair the roof and plow the field, but work was work. Family members were more interdependent than anything else... regardless of gender. With that in mind, it seems a lot of history was written from the perspective of wealthy unattached urban types. It often misses what the daily lives of our ancestors were really like.

Based on records of what my grandmothers, great grandmothers, and great great grandmothers (and their grandmothers et al.) did, they all appear to have worked (if not on the farm, then in the workplace) until they had children. This seems to support my position.

Please note my use of the word independent.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

One of my friends is doing a term paper on the history of virginity as a commodity. It's a fascinating topic.

So yes, you can make a very strong argument that women, especially virgins, were viewed as a commodity of sorts.

It has often been the practice for a man to pay the father/family for his wife.

JM

 

[Niels]

Please note my use of the word independent.

JM

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