This:
Virginity, by definition, is simply the state of a person who has not engaged in sexual intercourse. But we all know that there are many more implications to it than that, especially for women. Most traditional societies, cultures and religions place a high value on a woman’s virginity aka her chastity. So much so that it is tightly bound to her worth and her perceived self-worth.
With this archaic notion of “value” placed on a woman’s virginity comes the belief that exclusive rights to her womb should be saved for the highest bidder; that it is a commodity to be bought (in most cases by her husband) and sold (usually by her father). And if she gives it away or, God forbid, it is taken from her, she loses value as a woman and as a human being
Because we all know a young lady’s self worth is improved by sleeping around at random?
The argument above, penned by Alexandra Gekas writing at “The Frisky,” illustrates the marriage of feminist and Marxist thought. Why can’t a woman choose not to commodify herself? Is it somehow different if she doesn’t want the free dinner and drinks beforehand?
The cause of this angst on parade? An Olympian speaking out about the challenges she faces maintaining her virginity.
I guess Lolo is just too counter-cultural to make the Wheaties box. Patrick Archibold comments:
But it makes some people very angry when you speak like this. Not because of some silly notion of “exclusive rights to the womb” nonsense. It makes people angry when someone ascribes such value to something they themselves gave away without any thought. They don’t want to think about what they threw away.
If you gave away a Babe Ruth signed baseball because you didn’t think it had any value, you certainly wouldn’t like it if someone kept talking about how priceless it was would’ya?
True enough.
Filed under: Culture, Feminism, Liberal angst | 6 Comments »