laplace
17-03-2004, 11:50 PM
It's strange to insist on virgin brides when there is no guarantee of matrimonial bliss whether a girl is a virgin or not
STRAIGHT TALK
IF YOU, like me, think that virginity as a virtue in the 21st century is overrated, wait till you get a whiff of this.
The middle-aged mother of a friend's friend was lamenting to her friends last week that her only son was seeing a non-virgin.
'I nearly had a heart attack when he told me he was quite serious about marrying her,' said the English-educated housewife, whom my acquaintances had previously admired for her open-mindedness.
'I'm sure there are other good girls who haven't had sex before.'
If I had been there during her outburst, I would have replied sarcastically: 'Why worry? If he can't find one here, he can always follow the lead of many Singaporean men who travel to Vietnam and China in search of virgin brides.'
When I heard about the incident, my mind travelled back to medieval times, when a woman's chastity was prized above all else and even put to the test on her wedding night.
She would be deemed okay if she stained the bedsheet a deep red because the blood signified that she was pure and undefiled.
If, for whatever reason, she did not bleed, she would be shamed, put away, and in some cultures, stoned to death.
Thankfully, such barbaric practices are unthinkable today, not to mention unreliable, given modern technology.
Hymens which have been broken can be surgically reconstructed these days, allowing prostitutes, rape victims and women who had theirs torn in the course of vigorous sports to be 'restored'.
But my question is: Why should they feel any less whole to begin with?
Doesn't it arise from the fact that, to some extent, society still places a premium on a woman's virginity?
Men, on the other hand, are not similarly strictured.
In fact, in some societies today, the male can still get away with being polygamous and promiscuous, both before and after marriage.
So why the double standard? Shouldn't the insistence on abstinence apply to both genders?
Why should the man stand to gain from the onerous burden imposed upon the woman?
As a Christian, I was brought up to believe that pre-marital sex is a sin. The theological basis is that one's body is the temple of God. Hence, it should not be tainted by any immorality - sexual or otherwise.
Apart from that, there are other practical reasons why sex should wait till two people are joined in matrimony.
From the perspective of health, marriage between two people who have not had sex before means a disease-free relationship.
More importantly, virginity signifies the start of an equal partnership where both parties can learn about sex together, and grow as one in intimate matters.
But, alas, can such ideals survive the times we live in, where teenage sexual experimentation is more the norm than the exception? You could view this either as a loosening of morals or, conversely, a sign of increasing openness. Blame it on the mass media, literature, films and music, if you must, for propagating the notion that having sex is as commonplace as taking a shower.
To borrow from the song: Birds do it, bees do it and even educated fleas do it.
The way I see it, there's nothing to shout about if you've done it before marriage. Neither is there anything to be ashamed of if you haven't.
There's no need to make a big deal out of virginity.
As a wise woman said to me: 'Lose it when you feel the time is right, not before or after. It is precious and special, but it's not the Holy Grail.'
I couldn't have said it better.
So, good luck for those who insist on going on their quest for virgin brides. Just remember, marrying a virgin is no guarantee of matrimonial bliss.
It isn't, it wasn't and it ain't never gonna be.
Any comment?
STRAIGHT TALK
IF YOU, like me, think that virginity as a virtue in the 21st century is overrated, wait till you get a whiff of this.
The middle-aged mother of a friend's friend was lamenting to her friends last week that her only son was seeing a non-virgin.
'I nearly had a heart attack when he told me he was quite serious about marrying her,' said the English-educated housewife, whom my acquaintances had previously admired for her open-mindedness.
'I'm sure there are other good girls who haven't had sex before.'
If I had been there during her outburst, I would have replied sarcastically: 'Why worry? If he can't find one here, he can always follow the lead of many Singaporean men who travel to Vietnam and China in search of virgin brides.'
When I heard about the incident, my mind travelled back to medieval times, when a woman's chastity was prized above all else and even put to the test on her wedding night.
She would be deemed okay if she stained the bedsheet a deep red because the blood signified that she was pure and undefiled.
If, for whatever reason, she did not bleed, she would be shamed, put away, and in some cultures, stoned to death.
Thankfully, such barbaric practices are unthinkable today, not to mention unreliable, given modern technology.
Hymens which have been broken can be surgically reconstructed these days, allowing prostitutes, rape victims and women who had theirs torn in the course of vigorous sports to be 'restored'.
But my question is: Why should they feel any less whole to begin with?
Doesn't it arise from the fact that, to some extent, society still places a premium on a woman's virginity?
Men, on the other hand, are not similarly strictured.
In fact, in some societies today, the male can still get away with being polygamous and promiscuous, both before and after marriage.
So why the double standard? Shouldn't the insistence on abstinence apply to both genders?
Why should the man stand to gain from the onerous burden imposed upon the woman?
As a Christian, I was brought up to believe that pre-marital sex is a sin. The theological basis is that one's body is the temple of God. Hence, it should not be tainted by any immorality - sexual or otherwise.
Apart from that, there are other practical reasons why sex should wait till two people are joined in matrimony.
From the perspective of health, marriage between two people who have not had sex before means a disease-free relationship.
More importantly, virginity signifies the start of an equal partnership where both parties can learn about sex together, and grow as one in intimate matters.
But, alas, can such ideals survive the times we live in, where teenage sexual experimentation is more the norm than the exception? You could view this either as a loosening of morals or, conversely, a sign of increasing openness. Blame it on the mass media, literature, films and music, if you must, for propagating the notion that having sex is as commonplace as taking a shower.
To borrow from the song: Birds do it, bees do it and even educated fleas do it.
The way I see it, there's nothing to shout about if you've done it before marriage. Neither is there anything to be ashamed of if you haven't.
There's no need to make a big deal out of virginity.
As a wise woman said to me: 'Lose it when you feel the time is right, not before or after. It is precious and special, but it's not the Holy Grail.'
I couldn't have said it better.
So, good luck for those who insist on going on their quest for virgin brides. Just remember, marrying a virgin is no guarantee of matrimonial bliss.
It isn't, it wasn't and it ain't never gonna be.
Any comment?