Deflower Power

…in which Uncle Duke examines virginity.

It seems like I’ve been hearing an awful lot about virgins lately. Although it appears to vary widely from culture to culture, it is obvious that they are highly prized commodities. They are valued resources and the carrots to lead men on. But, to be honest, I’m not sure I understand what the big deal is.

Speaking as someone who’s never had one, I guess I don’t understand the allure. The intrinsic value of “having” a virgin escapes me. There is something to penetrate, I gather---a resistant threshold to cross, some sort of thin membrane. It sounds like kind of a messy deal to me. My guess is that these first encounters are not, as a rule, terribly successful or satisfying. They would be awkward adventures at best, often ending in tears and frustration. My theory is that we’re not talking about some rare, ecstatic sexual event here. It may be life defining, but it is positively not the inherent excitement of the act itself that sets its value. We are talking pure symbolism here.

I recall from my more innocent parochial days that there was some assumption that a bride would be virginal---chaste, pure, virtuous, unviolated. I always thought that was why wedding dresses were all white, and why weddings themselves were so bride-centered. There was that long, all-eyes-upon-the-bride walk down the center isle, the father escorting, with the beneficiary of all that virtue waiting at the end. It was the symbolic passageway between innocence and womanhood.

There was, by the way, an equal and opposite assumption. That was that we, the prospective grooms, would not be chaste, pure or even virtuous. The expectation I recall was that we would be screwed, tattooed and violated up one side and down the other well before our wedding day. We owed it to ourselves. And our brides for that matter. If we were to usher them into conjugal bliss, we’d need extensive experience with terribly loose women. The initiated carried the uninitiated across the threshold. That was The Rule.

The Blessed Virgin was obviously the Patron Saint and Ultimate Role Model for virgins on this side of the World. She gave birth without having to be “violated” by man. She was “visited” by the Holy Spirit. (In sexual discussion, I’ve noticed that euphemisms abound.) I don’t mean to argue with the Divine, but I’ve never understood why this was necessary. Joseph seemed a decent bloke. Why not him? The answer of course was that, given the Church’s simultaneous affection for virginity and Its staunch enthusiasm for procreation, it was the best of both worlds.

On the other side of the World, the Koran apparently holds whole passels of virgins out to holy warriors as rewards for martyrdom in defending the faith. The exact number seems to vary, but it is more than a dozen and less than a gross. It’s a significant number.

For purposes of argument, let’s say that the designated number is 30. Now, my understanding is that virginity is not a renewable resource. It is a one-time condition. So 30 days later (or a Celestial Month, whichever comes first) you are left with 30 non-virgins and an Eternity still looming in front of you. What to do, what to do?

Or perhaps these virgins are redeemable? In the Afterlife, maybe you can recycle your virgins. If that’s the case, however, what’s the value of 30? Or a gross for that matter? Why not just get them one at a time? Or two by two? This lump sum payment is inefficient and makes no sense. How many virgins, after all, does one need all at once? (Whoa! Talk about your existential questions.)

And what of the proffered virgins themselves? Are they being rewarded or punished? Are they formerly human, permanently divine or temporarily hired? It strikes me that they are held in some sort of concubinage. Second-class citizens in life, war booty in the afterlife. I tell you, it’s a raw deal!

And what of female martyrs? Is there some sort of separate-but-equal clause for them? What is their reward? How many boys/men do they get? And are their young men virgins? Is this ever addressed??

Having grown up in a litigious society, I am aware of the importance of detail and fine print in a solid contract. If I were prone to martyrdom (which I am most decidedly not), I would want my deal sealed tight before I jumped off the edge. No vague promises for me. I’ve seen the bait and switch before, thank you very kindly.

Actually this whole thing strikes me as a scam. It has that slightly sleazy, skewed feel of a recruiting ploy. I don’t doubt that the Marines could have reeled me in with that one straight out of high school. But the virgins would have had to be in this lifetime. Even then I understood that chasing an erection around was only something I would get to do/have to do in this lifetime. In the next, I would be much more serene and cerebral. I would exist on an ethereal, spiritual plane, eat manna, hang with angels and contemplate my own perfect self. I would certainly not be mucking about in things carnal, concerning myself with seducing women, virginal or otherwise.

No, this whole thing has a human smell to it. Specifically, it has an adult, male aroma. I do not believe that this is the Voice of God proclaiming His/Her Word. This is not the Hand of the Lord writing on the wall here. I submit that these were secular schemers trying to induce young, gullible, hormone-driven saps to do something stupid that they, the adults, wouldn’t dream of doing. Virgins, my ass! They understood sexual repression and were just lining up18-year-olds to exploit for generations to come for their own benefit.

Understand that I’m not casting aspersions on abstinence or mocking in any way the virginal state here. I think abstinence is a prudent and wise thing. The older I get, the more admirable and intelligent it becomes. It certainly simplifies individual and societal order and sidesteps some very treacherous health concerns. If I had daughters, I would encourage it as a legitimate option. Having sons, I actually intend to advocate the same path. The issue here is not sexual activity. The issue is this mythical and enforced virginal state.

Which by the way is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove. This membrane I mentioned, the hymen, is both amazingly flexible and extremely fragile. Most are long gone before the first sexual partner, and some survive childbirth. Its “intactness” is neither medically demonstrable nor legally provable. So the status of a woman in this regard is a matter of self-declaration. Unless someone claims “knowledge”, in the Biblical sense. (Yet another euphemism.) This, in some cultures, can be a life and death matter.

There is precedent here in the Animal World. Male stallions and Alpha males of all stripes and species zealously and vigorously defend harems of breeding females. However, they don’t care a whit about their sexual history. They don’t have a lot tied up in being first. They are driven solely to enforce the imperative that their seed will determine the future of their species. It may sound egotistical, but it’s really just Nature driven.

But this human virginity battle is not about lineage. This doesn’t have anything to do with procreation or paternity. Virginity, as I see it, is not so much a condition as some idealized version of Woman---meek, submissive, protected. It is the version History is surging to overtake.

So this strikes me as one of those troublesome exclusivity issues. It is a domain thing and is intermingled with property rights and the male ego---a dangerous combination. Ultimately, of course, it's about Power. And when Power begins to ebb, there is conflict. The insecure first become threatened, then illogical and finally dangerous. It is a sad and frightening state of affairs. But I suppose it is the way of things. I suppose it must be so when we are caught in History’s wake.