I'm arriving at a theory that all the madonna-whore dichotomy, etc ideas arose just to rationalize the foolishness of thinking virginity at marriage solved the paternity problem, and to delude men into thinking they *could* predict fidelity by some objective, measurable factor.
Yahtzee!
Posts
9 comments:
Well, if I had realized that you filed mass delusions and BS rationalizations under the heading of "reasonable", I would have shut up long ago.
(Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I'm picked up the "wondered what I was missing" from reading about the Kinsey Report, not erotic lit. :) )
Where do you think Kinsey likely got it from? I wouldn't believe anything Kinsey said unless his study had been replicated.
Actually, I'm reacting far more to the converse of the claim, which would hold that a lack of virginity is predictive of a lack of fidelity. That's idiotic. But if the real concern is ensuring paternity, then that is the real issue, right? To make sure a false child isn't pawned off on them?
It's certainly not idiotic. The problem that keeps coming up here is your refusal to recognize the difference between "X makes Y more likely" and "X makes Y certain." To analogize, I am saying something like "If you select a randomly selected person for me to have a footrace with, I am more likely to win if you select a woman than if you select a man." And you're responding, "But you're saying all men are faster than all women and that's clearly not true because Marion Jones would kick your ass." Marion Jones would kick my ass, but I am not saying that all men are faster than all women. I am also not saying that all women who go to their marriages as virgins won't commit infidelity nor am I saying that all women who don't go to their husbands as virgins will. I am saying that the former group is less likely to commit adultery than the latter group. And thus the converse of the claim is true. A lack of virginity is predictive of a lack of fidelity.
By the way, I freely grant that the fetishization of virginity exaggerates the predictive power. And this is hardly surprising. Even small advantages are coded into our DNA. A giraffe with a neck three inches shorter could eat almost as many leaves as a giraffe with a neck its present size.
In my opinion, the fundamental flaw of feminism is that it ultimately accepts and desires power that was defined by males based upon "mass delusions and BS rationalizations." but that is a whole 'nother string of posts.
Missing here is the idea that men may not be all that confident that they are good at sex, can show a woman a good time, etc., and would prefer - reasonably rationally - that women not know about the delights offered by the competition. dave.s.
The problem that keeps coming up here is your refusal to recognize the difference between "X makes Y more likely" and "X makes Y certain."
Uh, that's not *my* refusal. The fetishization of virginity comes down on the "certain" side of the spectrum (as you noted). That's exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm also arguing against "makes". *Correlation is not causation.* Virginity does not "make" anything more or less likely.
Also illogical---relying on aggregated statistics of correlation across a group to make an individual decision. I'll concede that the hypothetical statistics on virginity and fidelity may support a "more likely" argument, certainly today. But marriage and paternity are INDIVIDUAL issues, and FLG framed them that way.
I will not concede that when an individual man wonders whether to marry a woman, considering her virginity is a good idea. Considering whether she thinks sex outside of marriage is a sin, sure; considering whether she is an honest trustable person, sure; considering whether she has a record of promiscuity, sure; but to think "oh, not a virgin, thus more likely to cheat on me": Straight up nonsense. Virginity may appear to be a proxy for those things, but it is a stupid proxy and an ineffective method of assessing such elements. As I said before, it distracts from the real issues. Not a good decision-making process.
Logical resolution for a young man to make: I will only marry a virgin because I want someone who thinks sex outside of marriage is a sin just like I do.
Illogical resolution: I will only marry a virgin because then she'll never cheat on me.
(I've been repeating myself, which says to me that it's time to let it go, so....unless there's something new.)
Ah, I see what you're getting at. Sure, I agree with that. But you're missing what's going on with this fetishization of virginity. The men who are doing the fetishizing are not making any rational calculation at all. FLG and I are explaining why many men fetishize virginity, but I'm also saying it's largely instinctive (at least on a social level, if not a biological level) in the men who so fetishize. None of them are thinking to themselves, "Ooh, if I have sex with this virgin, she'll never have sex with anybody else." Particularly not the men who are bidding to be the first to have the virginity of this woman auctioning it off. What they are thinking is, "Ooh, virginity, exciting." I believe there is a good reason why this particular fetish is so common, not that anyone is doing any rational thinking and intentionally choosing the fetish. (However, I don't claim it's necessarily biological. The fetish may have originated culturally through a process of rational thinking in an era when it made more sense before birth control.)
Also illogical---relying on aggregated statistics of correlation across a group to make an individual decision. I'll concede that the hypothetical statistics on virginity and fidelity may support a "more likely" argument, certainly today. But marriage and paternity are INDIVIDUAL issues, and FLG framed them that way.
I do take issue with this, somewhat. But then I'm a mathematician. I believe all evidence should be considered when making any decision. This may not be strong evidence in an individual case, but it is evidence.
I think this is where I came in! Dance has adroitly presented the argument I was clumsily trying to make in the first place. (a bit of commentary - FLG, your readers are very diverse and intelligent folk! Much fun!) Happy MLK Jr. Day, everyone!
Post a Comment