Monday, April 6, 2009

V-Card

This was a response I wrote for an article at The New Gay:

I think defining virginity in terms of sexual acts is missing the point. To me, I liken “virginity” to “innocence” in that, if you help achieve an orgasm for someone else or vice versa, and it is an experience you have never had before, then you have had sex. Sex is essentially the mutual physical pleasuring of two (or more) people, and having an orgasm with someone else is, at least to me, an intimate act. Once that happens, there’s no going back: your “innocence” (or ignorance, for lack of a better term) in regards to sexual pleasure with another human being is gone and frankly, so is your virginity.

But the entire article illustrates how virginity was essentially thought up and used by religious organizations to enforce guilt and curb sexual behavior. Think about it: the author and his interview subjects work hard to narrowly define virginity. Let’s say for argument that over-the-clothes orgasms would count as sex, which would mean that the author lost his virginity in his early teens. His prose indicates that this would be a negative situation, so he redefines sex as a strictly “no clothing” act.

But why should he even have to do that? Why is there such a negative stigma in losing your virginity at whatever age you experience sexual pleasure with someone else? If we are going to live our lives in a “non-heteronormative way,” then maybe we need to recognize the concept of virginity for what it is:

Controlling the sexual habits of women.

Remember, virginity was never really expected of boys or men in the days of old, but my god, a woman had better be a virgin (or at least appear that way), otherwise there would be hell to pay: the man would be a laughing stock and the woman would be stoned, burned, or hanged, depending on the century we’re in.

Virginity is nothing more than an unattainable moral standard used to make people feel guilty about sex. And frankly, there is too much guilt with being gay as it is (at least for some people). So if we really want to define it ourselves, how about this:

Virginity is when a person does not yet know the wonderful, exciting feeling of pleasuring and be pleasured by someone else.

Being a virgin is not a negative thing, because the person “does not YET know.” Hopeful language there. And when virginity is lost, it’s because of a “wonderful, exciting” experience.

But maybe I ramble……

1 comment:

  1. I'm with you, here. Virginity is also linked to youth...so, in this country, both are fetishized, which is another danger all together. Virginity is a state of the unknown, and in this case (and in my personal opinion) ignorance is definitely not 'bliss' ;D

    ReplyDelete