I wasn’t aware of this show, but like many reality
TV series, with “Virginity Diaries” you get the feeling even from a description
of the first episode, that the people, situations and results are all
predetermined or edited in such a way that it looks as such without actually
reflecting the full truth of it or they’re just purposely picked to polarize
the issues they’re discussing. The intent appears to be showing viewers the
lives of virgins or people who are thinking about their virginity and whether
to save it before marriage or not. This remains a fairly contentious issue in
culture, surprisingly, what with people up in arms over so many other things,
like abortion or same sex marriage. I suppose if you’re concerned about
marriage in general, then sex before marriage should fall under that umbrella.
The term “fornication” refers to illicit sex done outside the bounds of wedlock
in the Christian tradition. I’m, of course, more secular in my ethics and don’t
care so much about sexual activity as long as it’s consensual (between people
that understand the seriousness of the act and aren’t being taken advantage of)
and responsible (is done in a way that prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancies
and also clarifies if the sex is leisurely or more serious in nature before it
is engaged in). I’m not really the most socially conservative person, contrary
to what you would think from my upbringing in the South. As far as I can
remember, my family and most relatives I’ve interacted with haven’t made public
displays of affection very commonly. They almost implicitly disapprove of it,
particularly when children are around, but not even when there are other adults
around. This might not be just a thing that’s prevalent in the Southeast, but
in older generations. There’s also the argument that it’s an American issue,
since many European countries are far more emotionally open and expressive.
There’s the kiss on the cheek for greetings to start things off, but American
culture seems to regard many displays of affection, even simple ones like a
kiss on the lips between lovers, as taboo in public. Hugs are encouraged many
times, but this is also commonly done with a degree of restraint. Handshakes
are seen as a more basic way to interact and show a sense of connection and
trust without any intimate or close bodily contact. I’m going on a bit of a
tangent, but a lot of this could be pertinent to the larger implications of
what this show is doing. Even if it’s trying to be more open about the
different perspectives on virginity, more conservative virgins might react the
wrong way and think this is stereotyping both sides and saying that the more
restrained are always sexually repressed and the outgoing are more liberated
and normal by comparison. I can assure people that my virginity is by choice
and not because I was told it was morally wrong. I won’t deny that it was an
initial influence, but I choose to remain a virgin because I don’t think I
should just give it up to anyone, and I am also not so disciplined or detached
as some might be to have sex and then not go further with the person. Some may
be able to do this, but I still have a bit of old fashioned ideas on sex, I
suppose. This isn’t to say I find free love, swingers or open relationships
immoral by some secular ethics. It’s more that people shouldn’t stereotype all
virgins in the same way and recognize that virginity can be valid or invalid
depending on the primary justification for maintaining it.
The distinction between mental and physical
virginity and innocence versus temperance are both important. Physical
virginity is a mere temporal state, and even Christian theologians could argue
that the mere presence or lack of a hymen in a woman, for instance, does not
make her more sinful in terms of sexual activity, particularly if she was
raped. In that sense, her virginity is more mental in that she has only known a
very crude form of sex instead of the intimate act it should be. Her soul is
where her purity lies especially, and as Jesus noted, it isn’t what goes into
someone that corrupts them, but what comes out of them. I’m aware of the
crudeness of the analogy here, but the point remains that Christianity does at
least, at its core, focus on internal things as opposed to the external, which
is why it was probably appealing to Gnostics, who viewed the physical as
sinful, which of course, was an exaggeration of the Christian position. Of
course much of modern Christianity has become fixated on the external in the
moralizing position on premarital sex and sexual activity in general,
resembling Gnostics more than their classical counterparts. This is a form of “virginity”
I would see as invalid as opposed to a more figurative virginity maintained
even if one has already committed fornication or the like. To reference King of
the Hill, a TV series set in Texas and referencing religion from time to time,
one could become a “born again virgin” and avoid the stigma associated with a
non virgin marriage. Innocence is fairly distinct from temperance in that the
former is ignorance and the latter is discipline. Anyone can be innocent, but
to have temperance is more valuable in the long run, since it allows you to
resist temptations, whether you think they’re from the devil or just a natural
part of life as relates to human desires. Innocence can also overlap with
naivety and gullibility as well. The innocent are those that are easily taken
advantage of, which also relates back to my discussion of physical and mental
virginity. It is far better to not be a mental virgin if you want to maintain
any sense of physical virginity. Simply knowing of sexual things does not mean
you will be compelled to do them if you understand that self control is
beneficial to others as well as yourself. To be innocent is a potential hazard,
but to be disciplined is to prepare oneself for maturity, both physically and
mentally.
A common reasoning for saving oneself before
marriage is based on a religious morality, which, as I’ve argued many times, is
fine and well to believe in, but does not demand the same respect as trying to
give a more concrete and practical explanation for why you think casual sex is
not conducive to marriage; not to mention it isn’t based in reality to begin
with or even a pertinent one if the beliefs are even metaphysically true as
relates to the existence of God or an afterlife. I’ll talk about cohabitation
in my own perspective, but for now we’ll make a presumption that this virgin
doesn’t even agree with initially celibate shared living before marriage. The
position of celibacy and abstinence hinges on the idea that your marriage will
lack intimacy if you have already bared your “soul” to people in prior conjugal
acts. The basis for this is linked to the claim of humanity’s innate, or at
least inborn. sin nature, which compels them to not follow God’s commandments
and whatnot. There could be a point made that virginity is beneficial to
society in that it keeps marriages at least more secure in not having adultery
exposed and families broken up by that terrible betrayal of trust between two
people. But the virginity advocated in this position seems fairly extreme and
suppressed in its views of sex. It
believes sex can only be done properly, and more importantly, morally, in
marriage. Not between two people who are committed to each other and haven’t
been bonded together by any Christian marriage ceremony, maybe not even any
religious or civil marriage ceremony or license, not between people who have
divorced and remarried someone else (because that’s technically adultery
according to Jesus in most cases, except infidelity or disbelief of a spouse),
and definitely not between two people of the same sex (because according to
this stance, they can’t get married to begin with). I would hope virginity is not confused with
innocence, which is far more psychological in nature than virginity, which can
be so, but can be maintained even while knowing of “carnal” pleasures and such.
Consummating one’s marriage and/or relationship is a big step, to be fair, but
to think that the consummation has to be done with no prior experience, even
just of the abstract, is ridiculous even by Christian standards, I’d imagine.
One can know about how sex is done and commonly learn about it in middle
school. But this doesn’t mean the adolescent should go out and have sex merely
because they understand the theoretical and technical aspects of it. The applied
and concrete manifestations of the conjugal act are far more wide reaching in
their influence on a person’s life and should be considered with some foresight
in mind and introspection about oneself. All in all, the idea of maintaining
physical purity for marriage is fine if we’re talking preventing STDs or such,
but it shouldn’t neglect that we are physical beings with physical senses and
desires. Understanding them is important, even if we also do not impulsively
act upon them. That much I can find
agreement with Christians and more socially conservative people in general.
My own position isn’t exactly on the opposite end of
the spectrum, which probably stands on the line of free love, open love or
something to that effect. It can be done right, but there seem to be bad
examples, particularly with those that flaunt the practice instead of simply
behaving in a civil manner towards those who might disagree with them if they
figured it out in another way besides someone throwing it in a person’s face,
which doesn’t send the right message to begin with. I personally am a virgin
and would at least prefer to remain that way until I meet someone I feel I have
a deep connection with. Sleeping with just anyone does at least seem to me
wasteful of yourself, which is one of only a few points that I might agree with
the more reserved on sexual matters. This isn’t to say that I want to be a virgin
before marriage, at least physically so. I would probably have sex before
marriage in a cohabitating set up with my partner. But we’d have to decide this
ahead of time and also determine whether we are really ready for the
responsibility involved with it. Probably a great many people aren’t virgins
when they marry, either because it’s a shotgun wedding or people just generally
have sex to experience it and get some practice before their honeymoon as it
were. I don’t have stats on this, but I would imagine the true physical and
mental virgins getting married are fairly small compared to mere physical or
mere mental virgins getting married, either of which is preferable to complete
innocence to something that is not a bogeyman to avoid, but at least accept, if
not outright embrace tentatively. It’s one thing to become addicted to sex,
which is missing the point of sex’s uniqueness as an act of intimacy and unity.
But if I merely experience sex with someone as an experiment, it can lessen the
significance of it, so the connection should be deeper than that from the
start. That would be my principle: don’t jump headlong into sex, but don’t be
averse to it before marriage as if that is the ultimate determinant of commitment
between people, when it’s communication and trust overall that does that.
Sex is viewed by people in many ways and valued to a
greater degree or less. Some people may have no real interest in sex to begin
with and thus this article really wouldn’t apply to them. Some people might
have a problem with pornography or promiscuity and this would apply to them as
much as the person who has both never had sex and doesn’t want to until they’re
married. And then there are people who take sex too casually and need a bit of
a reality check. A middle ground, like
many other things, is ideal, though many people may be more disposed or amiable
to at least some imbalance either towards too much or too little restraint. If you
do save yourself, at least save yourself physically, if only because of the
risk of casual sex causing you to contract STDs. But you shouldn’t resist or
repress sexual thoughts and desires, since they’re part of you, even if you are
also expected to control them as well. This is, I think, a fair compromise. On the
one hand, you satisfy those who want people to be as pure as they can before
marriage and you also give recognition to people who consider sex an integral
part of the human condition. There can be some variability here, such as having
sex before marriage or in lieu of marriage for cohabitation and/or common law
marriage as well as having sex but encouraging protection, especially if the
sex is more leisurely in nature. But the understanding that sex should be
handled with care, but not kid gloves, should remain in some sense. Even open
relationships should have boundaries and free love should have restrictions as
well depending on which you choose. Sex is beautiful, but as good as it is, any
good thing should be done in moderation, however you practice it: free love
with mental discipline, polyamorous love with communication and monogamous love
with acceptance of sex as a part of it, but not the whole of it. Until next
time, Namaste and aloha.
